Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Brian, let's just lay out some facts here:
1) DIB's #1 concern, the crux of his argument, is that colleges are punishing accused rapists too harshly
What DIB is concerned about matters to me and my desire that schools be required to report sexual assaults to the authorities and that the cops be required to arrest/investigate based on those reports approximately not at all.
What the schools can/ought do
in addition to that isn't part of my argument. I happen to fine with schools having codes of conduct that go beyond the law. I happen to be fine with schools punishing/expelling students based on a standard of preponderance of the evidence rather than a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote:
2) In service of this goal he has formulated a hazily defined proposal using what at this point can only be described as a buzzword: "mandated reporting"
Again, since you are too dense to remember, I don't care what DIB's said or did. What he says, thinks and does has nothing to do with my argument.
Mandated reporting just means that you have to report what you know to the cops. You also, in most cases, can't rely on plugging your ears and shouting "lalalalalala" avoid knowing what you ought know.
When I was a therapist, I had to tell the authorities if I had reason to believe and why I believed that child abuse/neglect had occurred, statutory rape had occurred, elder abuse had occurred. I also had to warn (by going to the authorities) if I had reason to believe that someone was in danger and why I believed so. That is all that mandated reporting is. It isn't complicated.
Quote:
3) You, a man who is admittedly not well informed on this matter, have for some reason reflexively decided that DIB's proposal has merit and you've begun fabricating a version of reality where it does have merit. (this nonsensical "pressing charges" thing, a generalized belief that you're trying to solve a problem that other people are resisting, etc.)
Wat?!? I've supported widening who falls under mandated reporting laws and what sort of things are required to be reported for quite a long time. That DIB happens to be bringing it up is irrelevant to me.
Quote:
4) AFAIK nobody else really agrees with you and DIB.
It is a tough subject (and if your characterization of his views of Title IX is accurate, I don't agree with him on that part). I imagine that everyone already has at least some vague ideas on the value of privileged communication (communication is confidential and the professional isn't allowed to say boo to the authorities without the express consent of the person). Chezlaw and Trolly mentioned this concern explicitly.
P.R. also made excellent points as to how victims aren't served well by the authorities. That needs fixed as well.
In the case of sexual assault, given that rapists are an ongoing threat, I think the duty to protect is more important than any duty to maintain confidentiality. I also think that the victims are better off if the crimes against them are taken seriously
Quote:
Are there any conclusions you can draw from this? People like to whine about me doing too much soulreading, but Brian, why do you think nobody but you has signed on to DIBsy Grand Scheme to Protect and/or Punish date rapists?
I'm entirely unsure why you think that I am signing on with DIB. Given that I found his non-answers to be highly annoying and gave my own actual proposal where he didn't and have absolutely no interest in protecting rapists, it is really hard to imagine how you got from a to b.