|Friday, September 5, 2014|
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."
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.
Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.
, 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.
, 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.
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
- All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.
Thank you for your cooperation.