Punish them even if they aren't found guilty!

I think the KGB tried this for a few decades....

Deposition from D'Anniballe released

By ANNA UHLS Colorado Daily Staff
In a deposition released Monday from Dr. Janine D'Anniballe as part of a federal discrimination lawsuit brought against CU, the sexual assault victim's advocate said she believes there should be consequences based on allegations of sexual assault, even if the allegations cannot be proven in a court of law.

"I think the consequences need to be based obviously on information, an investigation," said D'Anniballe, director of Moving to End Sexual Assault (MESA), a Boulder non-profit organization. "When I hear 'proven,' I hear proven in a court of law. I think there's another standard of proof."

When asked by CU Attorney Kay J. Rice in the May 4, 2004 deposition what the standard of proof should for consequences for the football players and recruits accused of assault by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, D'Anniballe replied that in the university system, the student Office of Judicial Affairs does not have to have the same standard of proof that a court does. She said that Judicial Affairs should follow the university's investigation process.

Through subsequent questions, Rice made the point that D'Anniballe was not an expert on Judicial Affairs proceedings at the university, or knowledgeable about what punishments were handed down to students and football players involved in an off-campus recruiting party on Dec. 7, 2001. The party is at the center of the Title IX lawsuits filed by Lisa Simpson, Anne Gilmore and Monique Gillaspie, three former CU students who claim the hostile atmosphere at CU led to sexual assaults against them by CU football players and/or recruits in connection with the party.

Rice then followed up by asking, "So without being aware of that, you would not be in a position to criticize whether the consequences were lenient or not, would you?"

D'Anniballe replied that based on her attendance at the meetings of CU's Independent Investigative Commission (IIC), "It was pretty obvious that the players themselves thought that the consequences were lenient."

A good portion of CU's questioning of D'Anniballe focused on whether or not campus women have a responsibility to protect themselves from assault, particularly assault occurring in the context of binge drinking.

D'Anniballe replied that in "the big scheme of things" that it was not important for women to take steps in reducing their risk, such as not becoming overly intoxicated when they are with strangers.

"I think that alcohol does not cause sexual assault," said D'Anniballe. "So if you want to take one variable out of the mix, it might be helpful, but I don't think... that's going to prevent sex assault from happening, necessarily."

D'Anniballe refused to say women should take steps to limit their alcohol consumption due to fear of sexual assault, until the last question.

"Do you think if women avoid becoming intoxicated when they're with men then well, that helps reduce the risk of sexual assault?" asked Rice.

"Maybe slightly," replied D'Anniballe.

D'Anniballe agreed that alcohol had some correlation with sexual assault when she gave an example about how a robber would most likely attack a person who is intoxicated rather than a sober person.

"So I think that sexual perpetrators use alcohol as a way to make victims vulnerable and a way to make committing the crime easier," said D'Anniballe.

She later said she thought that sexual assaults were more prevalent at universities than in a city without one.

D'Anniballe testified that she had concerns about how the university's approach to the lawsuits has affected women.

"I think what concerns me is when I hear of actions that at least I perceive as intimidating women, (actions) certainly not supporting them, it feels like it creates a hostile environment for women to be able to come forward with their story," said D'Anniballe.

She also expressed concerns about how the football program handled the recruiting scandal that arose from the lawsuits.

"Well, I recall during one of the (IIC) panel meetings that some players reported that they were - they received kind of slaps on the wrists for being involved in certain things, and that they were relieved that they weren't punished more severely," said D'Anniballe.

Attorneys questioned her about that fact that although Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan has historically aggressively pursued prosecutions of sexual assault offenders, she has not seen any cases since Keenan's 2000 election in which she found there to be sufficient evidence to charge a CU football player with rape.

"I guess I would agree that she didn't feel like she could ethically prove that case to a jury," said D'Anniballe.

[Aerich]

Well, it's true that many sexual offenders escape punishment for lack of evidence or because they have a good (or evil, depending on the way you look at it) lawyer. But it's also true that people are innocent until proven guilty, and it must remain that way, especially if there is doubt that someone actually committed a high-stigma crime such as sexual assault.

In any case, I'd say it's not quite true that there are NO consequences for allegations of sexual assault. The key is that the allegation MUST be brought; if a woman says nothing and makes no official complaint, then "officially" nothing happened.

I recall a nasty incident involving a buddy of mine. He was shunned for about a year (in high school) by the majority of students because the rumour got around that he had been convicted of sexual assault. What *actually* happened was that he was convicted of common assault. A couple of punks (2 years younger than him) tried to hold him up downtown for his wallet, and he smashed both of them into a wall. They complained to mommy, who called the police on the big bully. Anyway, point is that people knew he had got into trouble and the sexual assault rumour got around; he was not supposed to talk about the incident, so he couldn't even defend himself. He actually suffered a fair bit from the stigma of a "sexual assault allegation", even though there wasn't one.

Sexual assault is one of the nastiest areas of criminal law, mostly because it's usually one woman's word against one man's word on the issue of consent. Both sides engage in character assassination. Because the victim (assuming it happened) is usually the Crown's major witness, she has to go up before the court, relive the whole experience verbally and in public, and be ruthlessly cross-examined. Anyone could make mis-statements in such an atmosphere, and quite often it results in acquittal. Just the embarrassment of reporting and the stressful experience of testifying is enough to put many women off from levelling complaints.

We need to make some changes, but I'm not sure what to do. On the one hand, we need to protect people who are wrongfully accused, OTOH, we need to make reporting sexual assault and carrying through with trials less of an ordeal.

I know of people who lost their jobs because of the accusation when in all probability there was nothing to them....in some circles the mere appearence of impropriety will get you axed.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: I know of people who lost their jobs because of the accusation when in all probability there was nothing to them....in some circles the mere appearence of impropriety will get you axed.

Reminds me a bit of "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party"