Just because a law says you have to do something doesn’t make it due process.
So your entire argument is that I am misusing a word, because I am using it in the context of how it is commonly understood vs the legal definition? Yeah, great argument.
How are they being silenced? Because anytime you make something harder, more embarrassing, or riskier, people won’t do it. This is also not hard to understand.
I understand that. I don’t understand why you believe it is significantly harder or more embarrassing to have one more person (lawyer) in the room and to answer their questions, in addition to already having to tell the story to strangers appointed by the school anyway. It’s nearly insignificant difference compared to how much damage false allegations do.
PS: If you want to pointlessly focus on word lawyering.
Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Suppose, for example, state law gives students a right to a public education, but doesn’t say anything about discipline. Before the state could take that right away from a student, by expelling her for misbehavior, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”
Ah, okay. I’m sorry that I assumed you meant the word that you said and couldn’t read your mind. I’ll keep working on that telepathy, and you keep working on being accurate. One day we’ll understand each other.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”. Explain to me how these victims could appeal an unfair judgment made by biased administration.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
So your alternative is, let’s not even try to have a court with evidence, let’s just have one kangoroo decide whose life gets ruined based on their prejudices.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”.
How is that not the current situation already? Also, since when this does not work the other way as well, not wanting to be known as “university that protects rapists”?
So your entire argument is that I am misusing a word, because I am using it in the context of how it is commonly understood vs the legal definition? Yeah, great argument.
I understand that. I don’t understand why you believe it is significantly harder or more embarrassing to have one more person (lawyer) in the room and to answer their questions, in addition to already having to tell the story to strangers appointed by the school anyway. It’s nearly insignificant difference compared to how much damage false allegations do.
PS: If you want to pointlessly focus on word lawyering.
But I was never trying to talk about legal definition but the common sense right not to be punished by government law/regulation without reason.
Ah, okay. I’m sorry that I assumed you meant the word that you said and couldn’t read your mind. I’ll keep working on that telepathy, and you keep working on being accurate. One day we’ll understand each other.
Now if what you want is fairness, explain to me how the administration on these panels can be unbiased when their salaries and jobs rely on the fact that they’re not known as the “rape university”. Explain to me how these victims could appeal an unfair judgment made by biased administration.
Our legal process is filled with ways to make sure you get a fair trial, and even then not everyone does. This kangaroo court they’re setting up does not have any of those provisions and will not be fair. All it does is dissuade people from reporting.
So your alternative is, let’s not even try to have a court with evidence, let’s just have one kangoroo decide whose life gets ruined based on their prejudices.
How is that not the current situation already? Also, since when this does not work the other way as well, not wanting to be known as “university that protects rapists”?