08-12-2011, 12:03 PM
"Stanford University recently lowered its evidence standard from beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard used in criminal cases) to preponderance of the evidence right in the middle of a students sexual assault case. He was found guilty of violating Stanfords Princeton-like rule about drinking and sex. The verdict was unsurprising considering that Stanfords training for student jurors included advice that acting persuasive and logical is a sign of an abuser, and that everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a mans claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence.
Stacking the deck like this would never pass muster in a real court; imagine how unfair it is when the jury only needs to be 50.01% certain someone is guilty."
Ummmm. It was a TRAINING exercise. Or, was it? Who could tell whether this was an ACTUAL case for sexual assault or some mock exercise?  I don't know for what or for what reason, but that's all the more justification for KICKING AUTHOR'S ASS for not providing vital context. I can't imagine you, garvin, accepting this from a journalist if you were the editor and he submitted it for publication. But it works as advocacy, running with a limp along with the herd of anecdotes the author tries to run past the reader.
Read it again, folks. What does this have to do with the ACTUAL conditions or safety of students on campus? What does it have to do with Stanford's actual policies on sexual assault? And what would Stanford be doing "trying" a case of sexual assualt? Daily Caller doesn't say. Why mess up the theme of the article with facts?
Stacking the deck like this would never pass muster in a real court; imagine how unfair it is when the jury only needs to be 50.01% certain someone is guilty."
Ummmm. It was a TRAINING exercise. Or, was it? Who could tell whether this was an ACTUAL case for sexual assault or some mock exercise?  I don't know for what or for what reason, but that's all the more justification for KICKING AUTHOR'S ASS for not providing vital context. I can't imagine you, garvin, accepting this from a journalist if you were the editor and he submitted it for publication. But it works as advocacy, running with a limp along with the herd of anecdotes the author tries to run past the reader.
Read it again, folks. What does this have to do with the ACTUAL conditions or safety of students on campus? What does it have to do with Stanford's actual policies on sexual assault? And what would Stanford be doing "trying" a case of sexual assualt? Daily Caller doesn't say. Why mess up the theme of the article with facts?