E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, September 5, 2014

Sexual assault, due process and civil liberties

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Indiana University's efforts to do more to protect the victims of sexual assault and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice are praiseworthy. But in this effort, IU must be careful to not victimize innocent people.

The Obama regime has been pushing universities to embrace a clearly illegal "preponderance of the evidence" standard in university disciplinary procedures regarding sexual assault. The traditional standard abandoned by the Obama regime is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See this statement from Cornell University's law school on the importance of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

  • The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments "[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." "The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error."

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14efrag7_user.html

Sexual assault is terrible, but the fact of the matter is that false reports do happen. The two most obvious examples are Tawana Brawley and Crystal Gail Mangum, but we saw this locally when a 19-year-old IU student fabricated a kidnapping and "rape" in March of 2007. According to the March 30, 2007 Herald-Times, she recanted her story and admitted that she "engaged in consensual sex with a man at a local motel."

What if she had not recanted her story and an innocent man had been criminally prosecuted for a crime that never happened? What if the falsely accused man was another student subjected to university discipline for a crime that never happened?

It does no good to anyone to abandon due process in the interest of protecting victims, and as a state institution Indiana University is not permitted to use the illegal "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Indiana University has a moral and legal obligation to disobey the Obama regime's clearly illegal mandate. The mark of a true patriot is to stand against the Obama regime's efforts to take away students' rights under the Constitution.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.


At September 5, 2014 at 7:29 AM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"See this statement from Cornell University's law school on the importance of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard."

And again, while I entirely support that *interpretation* from the learned professors, the phrase under contention still appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, where the Founders could have easily inserted it. Equally pertinent is the fact that investigations staged by university staff, student counsels, etc., are not courts of law.

At September 5, 2014 at 8:05 PM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

Michael, it is absurd to argue the Constitution does not demand a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The Constitution requires due process, and BARD is the essence of due process.

Universities that are state institutions (like IU) are prohibited from using the preponderance of the evidence standard. That is why there are civil rights lawsuits against the POTE standard right now, and why many state universities have been smacked down by the courts for violating constitutional rights of students on other matters.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that BARD is required by the Due Process clause. That is the law of the land.

You are being willfully blind here.