I am a veteran (Survivor?) of a 34-year career in Criminal Corrections. As such I have observed the investigations of many crimes (ie Including sexual assaults) AND both judicial-trials and administrative-hearings which determined guilt/innocence or, in the alternative, responsibility.
The best investigators were those police officers who were specially trained to perform such investigations (ie With "due regard" to the emotions of the persons claiming such assaults). A part of that excellence was based on those officers being neutral investigators-of-fact and NOT subjected to those biased by ideologies.
The best determiners of guilt OR innocence were such, judicial or administrative, hearings as were, likewise, conducted by neutral judges OR (As I was) neutral hearing-examiners. In all such actions, the necessary acid, test was subjecting ALL witnesses to "Cross Examination".
Without such cross-examination any hearings degenerate to the tyrannical level of "Accusation Equals Guilt" as was the rule under Hitler and Stalin AND is the standard in such places as North Korea and too many universities.
ALLOWING THE PRESENT SYSTEM TO CONTINUE IS TO ALLOW "SOME STUDENTS TO BE 'MORE EQUAL' THAN OTHER STUDENTS" IN THE MODEL DESCRIBED IN 1984.
Sexual assaults on such campuses, would best be dealt with in the same manner for such claimed crimes off-campus. This would move towards "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment