46 Comments

How about a new federal program to prevent bogus campus rape allegations, such as the Duke Rape Hoax?

I heard that on the radio and it sounded fishy. 20% of college women are either assaulted or have experienced an attempted assault? Sounds dangerous.

Yes, very reminiscent of the whitle-blowing circles on college campuses that remind us a woman is beaten every 15 seconds, the SuperBowl violence against women hoax, never seems to end…

And the media, willing as always, swallows it all…

The hallmark of “statistics” like this is the vagueness of the terms they use. Is “sexual assault” the same as the legal definition of rape? Or is it defined so broadly that it includes things like an unwanted kiss, a repulsed advance, an unappreciated leer, and a crude comment? At a level of 20%, I suspect it’s the latter.

As a college freshman 10 years ago, I was told that any form of sexual contact when one or both of the parties was intoxicated constituted sexual assault, and that this was the moral equivalent to forcible rape. You can find a whole lot of victims if you define it that broadly.

Wow. Who knew that a college campus could be more dangerous than federal prison for getting sexually assaulted.

article in NYT today on prison rape: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/opinion/07thu2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=prison%20rape&st=cse

Wow. Obama lying through his teeth to increase Federal Power.

Who would have ever guessed this possible?

They need to establish a firm definition for “Sexual Assault” and then redo their statistics. On some campuses women are being taught that if a man they don’t like, turns his head to look at them, they have been sexually assaulted. As far as government statistics are concerned, all you have to do is to look at how the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration compiles statistics on drunk driving to realize how much bullshit is involved.

Look, we have a terrible history of understating the problem of sexual abuse. Terrible, awful history. If we overstate it for a while – which I assume is possible because the 1/5th sounds high – we still will not have leveled the playing field.

Same for, as Jim Collins just points out, drunk driving statistics. And I wonder what exactly the point is on that comment. Is this a Obama administration problem? Are you saying the Bush administration was playing this straight? Or is there a vast right and left wing conspiracy against drunk drivers that are creating laws that are unfair to drunk drivers? (And, if so, what are the unjust laws?)

Finally, Jim, specifically what college campuses are teaching this “if a man looks at them” definition of sexual assault? What is the source of your information?

“..we still will not have leveled the playing field.”
What does that mean Ron?
Bad data, backed up by opposite yet still bad data is not good data.
As long as we all agree that the currently quoted data is wrong, and you seem to agree that it is, then we should not act upon such hysterical and contrived ‘data’.
If you want rational people to act on facts, give them honest facts.
If you want people to act on knee jerk visceral response, just skip the falsified data, and get right to the emotional pleading without the lies.

These projections often come from the Koss study published in Ms.
magazine in 1987. The problem is the underlying assertion has been under some harsh scrutiny:

University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss developed a
different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking
female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had
experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method
produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

According to other social scientists, Koss’s study had serious flaws.
Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of
California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has
pointed out.

But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further-though it seems
inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her – 42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

Lets try this:

1. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2007 National Crime
Victimization Survey, in 2007, there were 248,300 victims of rape,
attempted rape, or sexual assault in 2007.

2. Lets multiply this number tenfold for underreporting to 2,480,300.

3. The U.S. population was 302 Million in 2007.

4. Half are women.

5. That would suggest 2.4M out of 151M or 1.6% of women were subject to rape or attempted rape in calendar year 2007. Thus, over four years – 6.4%

Rape is, of course, a very serious crime.

But I’ve seen some redefinitions of rape for college campuses that would put include, for example, any instance where one of the participants (i.e., the woman) was drunk, even if she consented. The rationale being that if she was drunk, she’s not able to make a fully-informed consent, so it’s rape.

Look, we have a terrible history of understating the problem of sexual abuse. Terrible, awful history. If we overstate it for a while – which I assume is possible because the 1/5th sounds high – we still will not have leveled the playing field.

So Ron, if we let three guilty people go free, how many innocent people should we convict to level the playing field?

The rationale being that if she was drunk, she’s not able to make a fully-formed consent, so it’s rape.
This is not the first time I’ve heard this fractured logic, and it begs a few questions? What happens if he’s drunk as well? (There are a lot of men who say they don’t have the courage to put the hard word on a woman unless they’ve got some booze under their belts.) What happens if he’s drunker than her, or she’s sober? Is she a rapist?
If a woman drives a car under the influence of alcohol, she is guilty of a crime. How come she is capable of making an informed decision about driving under such circumstances, but not about having sex?

Or is there a vast right and left wing conspiracy against drunk drivers that are creating laws that are unfair to drunk drivers? (And, if so, what are the unjust laws?)

Well, we could start with laws that allow being charged with driving or operating a motor vehicle while impaired if you are in the front seat with the keys (even the passenger side) and the engine is not running, and or the car is not moving.

We can move onto laws that hold sellers and bars accountable for the actions of their patrons.

We can continue onto laws that allow a lesser charge for people who kill others while drunk because of the notion they were drunk and didn’t know what they were doing.

While there is no “vast right or left wing conspiracy,” there is a concerted effort by groups such as MADD to lobby for such ridiculous laws.

“sexual assault” is now defined so broadly that I’m not surprised at these numbers.
If you define it as a woman being looked at by a man at a time she doesn’t like to be looked at (which is essentially included in the current definition) there’s probably not a woman who’s not been “assaulted”.

And of course all these poor creatures who’ve been victimised without knowing it must all be protected and compensated by placing ever more restrictions on men, and providing women with ever more perks, starting with “affirmative action” to ensure they can work in an environment with no men (after all, if women are to be hired over men in all cases, eventually no man will hold a job).

Malcolm, you destroyed the argument that having sex with a drunk woman is automatically rape. Sure, you set up a straw man to do it. But I’ll still give you full credit.

Richard Nieporent, let’s compare apples to apples here. We are talking about statistics, not convictions. Another straw man got defeated here.

Gitacarver, again, I don’t think many people are arguing that if you are found on the side of the road and you are drunk out of your mind, you should not be charged as a matter of law. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.)

Gasman, I hear ya. My point is just that we rely constantly on bad data. I don’t think we say, let’s follow that data even if it is bad. I’m just saying I’m not as worried about the margin for error because we are not treating the problem seriously enough even when we conflate the problem statistically. I’m not saying, “The data is bad, let’s pretend it is not because the ends justifies the means.”

Richard Nieporent, let’s compare apples to apples here. We are talking about statistics, not convictions. Another straw man got defeated here.

No Ron, what I was talking about is your (lack of) logic. You said that it is perfectly okay to “overstate” the problem of sexual abuse, because in the past we had a “terrible history of understating the problem of sexual abuse.” I just wanted to know that if you really believe that it is okay to lie to make up for a previous wrong, would it also be okay to use that same logic in another area. In other words, I was just pointing out how ridiculous your comment was.

How many straw man can we make here? It is incredible. The operating facts are we all seem to think these stats are inflated. (None of us know this; we are just guessing.) Who on earth said anything about them being lies? Before we start accusing people of lying should we know who we are talking about? That has to be prerequisite.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Ron.

Bob

Ron,

I don’t always agree with you but do appreciate your polite and persistent discourse. It adds value to our collective discussion.

Thanks Jason. That’s why I hang out at Overlawyered a little bit. I like the writing on the blog, the discussion, and flushing out more where we disagree… and agree. It is important to remember that 99% of us have 99% of the same goals but just strong disagreement as to how to get there.

Gitacarver, again, I don’t think many people are arguing that if you are found on the side of the road and you are drunk out of your mind, you should not be charged as a matter of law. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.)

So let me get this straight. You are saying that ridiculous law is valid because people are charged under that same law?

That’s simply circular logic.

In other words, you’re wrong.

No. That is not even close to what that says.

To be more direct, Gitarcarver, on a blog of people that are like minded as you on many issues, I think you are the only one who is going to stand up and say as matter of law, if you are found on the side of the road and you are drunk out of your mind, you should not be charged.

Again, if you can find someone who agrees with you, they should speak up now.

No. That is not even close to what that says.

I’m sorry, I guessed I misunderstood your point of “as a matter of law.”

You really believe that if a person is behind the wheel or in the front seat of a non-moving car while intoxicated that they should be charged with operating that vehicle while intoxicated?

A friend of mine had it happen to him. He was at home, had a little too much to drink, and went to get something from his car. He opened the car, sat in the passenger side, and fell asleep. A cop drove by, saw the guy in the driveway, in the front seat and woke him up. Smelling alcohol, he did a sobriety test that my friend failed.

They charged him with driving under the influence.

If you think that is fair and right, we aren’t of the same mind. It is akin to charging a chef with a assault with a deadly weapon because he has a knife in his hand to cut tomatoes.

Bear in mind, nobody’s talking about “convictions” here. Basically, we’re talking about studies that define sexual assault a certain way, then poll women on college campuses to ask if they’ve been sexually assaulted.

What would be a useful statistic is what percentage of woman on college campuses have been the complainant in a criminal case where the defendant has been convicted of sexual assault.

The actual number of women sexually assaulted on campus would be somewhere between the two extremes.

The actual percentage of women

Under those facts, you friend should not have been charged. And I don’t think that is drunk driving under any state in this country. Said differently, I think your friend is lying. Really, what are the odds that this is what happened? I’m not saying it is not possible. It is incredibly unlikely because it would have to happen in the first place – it sounds made up on its face – and the police would have to come in the guy’s driveway (why did they stop in the first place for a guy in his driveway?). Charlie Sheen is far more likely to be the new spokesman for NOW.

But let’s defy all logic and assume this happened to your friend and he got convicted of drunk driving. You are right, this would be incredibly unfair.

I’m too lazy to look it up, but I vaguely recall a previous Overlawyered article about people being arrested for DUI because they were drunk, the bars were closing, and they chose to sleep it off in their car instead of actually trying to drive drunk. There were other cases mentioned where someone was drunk in a car with the car keys but arguably showed no intent to drive.
Not saying I agree or disagree with those cases – just that I’m willing to give gitarcarver the benefit of the doubt since it’s not the first time I’ve heard of that kind of thing happening.

And I don’t think that is drunk driving under any state in this country.

Really? It is in Florida. It is in Maryland.

If you don’t believe me, look up the laws instead of saying what you “believe.”

And from Benji’s post above:
Four years for sleeping drunk in parked car

http://overlawyered.com/2010/01/four-years-for-sleeping-drunk-in-parked-car/

Said differently, I think your friend is lying.

I was there when this happened, Ron. You aren’t saying that my friend is lying, you are saying that I am lying. I don’t appreciate your characterization when you are wrong on the facts.

I refer you back to your own post in which you wrote:
Before we start accusing people of lying should we know who we are talking about? That has to be prerequisite.

Please take your own advice.

Okay, wait a second. Can you provide any proof at all of this? You were there? You friend falls asleep in his own car while walking out to his car and you were there at the time? Were you worried that someone who was drunk out of the mind to the point where they would fall asleep in their car in the middle of a ministerial task would drive away in the car? If not, why not?

I think the overwhelming weight of the evidence would lead a person to conclude that your friend is not telling the truth. Can I see a police report? Was he convicted? Was it appealed? Is there an appellate opinion? Tell us more.

Keep in mind the poor victim in that Overlawyered post you cite is not your poster boy. This is a habitual drunk driver. I think he is lying, too, frankly.

Gitacarver, what I said was that I think it is more probable than not that your friend is lying. It does not mean that I think you are lying about anything.

The larger issue is not a he said/she said about your friend. The larger issue is that the OVERWHELMING number of people in a car who are alone in a car drunk were at one point driving while intoxicated. OVERWHELMING. And if you have keys near you and you are so drunk that you can’t even take a quick trip to the car, you are putting all of us in jeopardy by getting in your car with your keys. Because if you are that drunk, how far of a stretch is it to start driving? You are too drunk to say conscious but you definitely would not get in the car and start driving or walk out in the middle of the road? Please.

Okay, guys, I have to get back to work at some point here. This is the biggest commenting on a blog day of my life.

You were there?

Yes Ron, I WAS THERE. That is why your statement that the “friend is lying” is actually saying that *I* am lying.

The larger issue is that the OVERWHELMING number of people in a car who are alone in a car drunk were at one point driving while intoxicated.

Proof please.

And if you have keys near you and you are so drunk that you can’t even take a quick trip to the car, you are putting all of us in jeopardy by getting in your car with your keys.

And having knives in the house puts people at risk as well.

Please.

Please yourself. We have already shown that your statement that laws of people are not getting busted for being behind a wheel and drunk not arrested is false. Let’s not stray too far away from that.

Secondly, you place a huge emphasis on what could happen rather than what does happen. In essence, you are saying the likelihood of something happening is the same as the event actually happening.

There is no logic to that statement at all.

Okay, again, this blog is slanted politically your way. I want someone to stand up for you and disagree with the idea that the OVERHWELMING majority of people are found drunk in cars by themselves were at one point intoxicated.

I understand you think that we should not make laws on what did happen as opposed to what could happen. You say probabilities don’t matter; actions and deeds do. You are entitled to that opinion. You really are. But in the last 5,000 or so years – heck, human history – I’m not aware of any government of any kind that has ever made laws only on what did happen as opposed to what may happen.

I’m not aware of any government of any kind that has ever made laws only on what did happen as opposed to what may happen.

Guy drinks a little too much, gets in car to sleep it off or to get something from car and is arrested for driving under the influence. The car has not moved. The engine never turned over.

There is your law. It is a bad law that you said didn’t exist. I gave you a source that shows it exists in many states and yet you still insist that no such law exists.

Gitarcarver, with all due respect, you just put in italics a fact with which no one disagrees. No one. Every system of law is based on what happens and what could happen. You said this was a bad thing. Do you still think that? That no laws should involve probabilities of what may happen?

Show me exactly what the law is you think exists. Show me the law. All you gave given me is a jury convicting in a serial drunk driver and a crazy story about your friend in Florida. Could there be some state that has a different law? Sure. That is why I said, “I think…” Go back and read the post. Someone is taking all of this down.

I asked you a lot of questions about your friend and you have not given me any answers. Why? And what exactly is the law in Florida?

you just put in italics a fact with which no one disagrees.

Actually, I can’t think of anyone that would agree with you.

That no laws should involve probabilities of what may happen?

That is correct. Please explain why a person should be arrested and accused of an act they did not commit. Please explain why a person should be arrested and accused of a crime they “may” commit.

That is what you are arguing for and no one – no 0ne – believes it.

All you gave given me is a jury convicting in a serial drunk driver

And what did they convict him of? Sitting in a non working car while intoxicated. The story proves the contention that these laws exist, but you want to put your head in the sand and say they don’t. The article even says that most states have laws on the books like that but you don’t believe anything that contradicts your view of the world.

Show me the law.

No. Do your own research. It is not my job or responsibility to cure your ignorance and lack of comprehension. It is there on the books. I looked at it yesterday. If you are too lazy to read it, that is on you.

I asked you a lot of questions about your friend and you have not given me any answers. Why?

Because your questions are not germane to the issue. It is just a way of you throwing stuff out there to obfuscate the central issue. What is important is that the guy was arrested, in his driveway for falling asleep in a car while intoxicated and charged with driving while under the influence. That is all that matters. If you can’t see that, once again, I can’t help you.

While I am not going to research it to get citations, I have seen several stories over the years where people who were drunk sitting in cars with the engine off were convicted of drunk driving. I believe in one case, his sober friend had the keys, and he was driving off to get someone else to drive the drunk home. Still convicted.

There are many laws that can punish you for something you plan on doing but haven’t done yet. Attempted murder or conspiracy to murder are cases where ‘may’ murder someone in the future but haven’t done so yet.
The difference, I think, is that for those offenses there needs to be convincing proof that you intend to do the deed. These DUI apparently assume the intent is there so long as you’re drunk and in a car – which seems reasonable but ignores people that want to sleep it off in their cars. That’s probably not a very large group, but I’m concerned because it’s a group that’s trying to not drive drunk and is punished for it. They might then decide the best alternative is to try and drive anyway, forcing them into endangering everyone else on the road.

Benji,

There are many laws that can punish you for something you plan on doing but haven’t done yet.

If you plan a murder, you are not convicted of a murder. Sitting in the front seat of a car is not the same as driving the car.

Look at it this way….. assume that after washing your car, you decide to polish it. You open the door and turn on the radio. Your four year old gets in the car and pretends to be driving.

Does anyone here think that the 4 year old should be arrested for driving under age? Not having a license? Not having proof of insurance?

Sitting in a car is not the same as driving it.

Right, Gitarcarver. It is in the books. Them law books. Over there. And my friend’s story is germane to the argument but I can’t tell you any of the details. Okay, I’m done.

Assume instead that someone with a 0.23 BAC is sitting in the driver’s seat of a car with an open beer. He is fumbling with his keys near the ignition but isn’t coordinated enough, so he has not yet started the car. If a police officer sees this, can he do nothing until the drunk man starts moving in a 1.5-ton hunk of metal? What about if the ignition is on but the car is still in park?

At some point sitting in a car become sitting in a car with intent to drive it. The law isn’t perfect but it exists for a valid reason. Its main flaw is assuming that anyone drunk sitting in a car plans to drive it imminently. That isn’t true – but some people sitting drunk in a car probably are planning on driving it and it’d be nice for the rest of us if they didn’t get to that point.

The intent of my post was that you can use statistics to prove or disprove anything that you want. All you have to do is to broaden the definition enough to obtain the desired result. My information on the campus definition comes from my neice’s literature from her Freshman orientation. I won’t mention which college because she is still a student there and I have used my name on this post. As far as my bringing up “drunk driving” is concerned, all you have to do is to look at the the way that MADD spins the NHTSA’s statistics. NHTSA does NOT track drunk driving incidents. They track “alcohol related” incidents. Under their definition of “alcohol related” if an intoxicated person, steps off the curb, in front of my vehicle and I have no chance to avoid him, it is listed as an alcohol related incident. If I am a completely sober designated driver, but my passengers have been drinking, and I hit a deer, it is considered “alcohol related”. I’m friends with several police officers and they have told me that it is standard policy to check the “alcohol related” box on their accident report forms. The purpose behind this is so that they can show a problem in order to obtain grant money for DUI checkpoints. These grants come from the State, NHTSA and MADD. It is literally “cop welfare”. They man these checkpoints with part-time officers, auxilliary officers and retirees. MADD uses NHTSA statistics to give the impression that drunk driving is a much larger problem than it actually is.

So what do we do with that nugget? Do we not longer use statistics? Are they without meaning?

So you are representing that a college wrote down somewhere in printed literature that if a man looks at you like he thinks you are attractive, that is sexual assault? I’ll take your word for it but you are saying you actually saw this with your own eyes? Is anyone aware of any report of this anywhere?

Of course MADD spins statistics. They are a trade organization. Cato does it too as does every trial lawyer group. Every interest group spins statistics. Both the ones you like and the ones you hate.

I’m sure what you say has happened somewhere. Sure. But I’ll also bet you police have let lots of people walk who they should have charged. Who does not know someone who the police have not let walk on what should have been a DWI charge? How do those stats balance out because there is some level of garbage in, garbage out? I have no idea.

Right, Gitarcarver. It is in the books. Them law books. Over there.

Well, at least you admit that you know where it is.

And my friend’s story is germane to the argument but I can’t tell you any of the details. Okay, I’m done.

Please tell me how the so called “details” you think you are missing are relevant? Because you think they are?

You are done simply because you cannot and will not address the facts and issues.

Ron,
Nobody walked away who should have been charged. That has no bearing on what I am saying. The point that I am trying to make is that statistics are reliable only when there is a clearly defined definition of their scope. My other point is that DUI statistics are artificially inflated and the problem is not as wide spread as certain people want you to think. I am pretty sure that the same thing is true about the title of this post. Note that the information used here comes from surveys and not criminal charges or prosecutions. If the women polled believe that the definition of sexual assault is the same definition as provided to my niece, then they may believe that they have been sexually assaulted, even if the incident does not result in criminal charges.

By the way Ron, my favorite DUI charge, was one that I was called as a witness for the Defense. It took place in Butler, Pennsylvania in 1991. A man from out of state obtained permission to park his Winnebago in the parking lot of a bar overnight. He then proceeds to drink several beers and then retires to his bunk in the Winnebago. At about 3 AM he awakened by a knock on his door, by a police officer. When the officer smells his breath he is promptly charged with DUI. The local magistrate offers to reduce the charge to public drunkeness, but the man has a job that requires a security clearance, so he goes to court. It costs him $1500 to get the charge thrown out. I had been talking to him at the bar and gave him my name and phone number, because I was interested in a job that his company had open. I was called as a witness to verify that he had asked the bar owner for permission to remain overnight, proving that he had no intent to drive.

You didn’t answer my follow questions about what your niece actually received.

Jim, you think the statistics are flawed. Most statistics are. I gave you reasons why they could also be skewed in the opposite direction. But, ultimately, I’d rather be relying on flawed statistics than anecdotal stories involving unnamed schools and 20 year old stories. Because at least statistics try to give you a full picture. They may fail but they try. War stories don’t even try.

(How was he talking to the “local magistrate” before he made a plea also escapes me. And the officer “smelled his breath” and then gave him a DUI. I would think a little more would have been done. )

But, yes, in a free society people will sometimes be changed with crimes they did not commit. Of course, it happens more often in a unfree society. People are wrongfully accused (and convicted and put to death, actually) for murder. But let’s not pull that crime out of the ole law books that Gitacarver knows so well. (Hey, Git, you won’t tell me where the law is. Can you tell me what form your found it in? What type of “book” did you find it in?)

By the way, I’m not suggesting your unverified stories don’t give any insight. But I think the probative value of statistics and facts we can actually demonstrate is much higher. Statistics are collected and methodology is revealed. And you can take shots at that methodology as you have done. But how do I take shots at a what your think your niece received as literature? I’d like you to call your niece and verify that the school gave her that definition in literature as you said. I’ll bet she tells you right there that you got it wrong.