OT: The News Thread

[Wayward DP]

and, do we accept that universities are allowed to be some sort of morality police? is that not what the criminal justice system is for?

 

[Wayward DP]

If they think he's a safety risk to have on campus, I have no qualms with them banning him as long as it's a policy and not a pick your own adventure type situation.

It's 2018, not being able to be on campus doesn't stop you from taking online university courses.

He absolutely has a right to access education. He doesn't have the right to do it in person and have others be forced to interact with him though.

what is the safety risk? the only realistic risk I can see is to him...

and I disagree about the others be forced to interact with him part. I'm forced to interact with people I don't want to daily... it's kind of life.

 

[leafman101]

Well schools are allowed to discipline students for violations of their code of conduct. If a student can be suspended/expelled for cheating why shouldn't they for sexual assault.

A few years ago there was that York rapist. That guy shouldn't be allowed back on campus.

Don't really know the facts here, but it doesn't sound good.

 

[MindzEye]

and, do we accept that universities are allowed to be some sort of morality police? is that not what the criminal justice system is for?

Universities absolutely should be considering safety of their students in their admissions practices though. As long as their policy is well thought out (there's a significant difference between ending up drunk with your dick out and diddling a kid for example but both will land you on the registry) and applied evenly, I have no qualms with it.

Discrimination against your actions if they're severe enough isn't really a discrimination I give a shit about fighting. The issue is obviously where to put the line. I'm pretty comfy with that being over the line.

 

[MindzEye]

what is the safety risk? the only realistic risk I can see is to him...

C'mon....this is borderline predatory behaviour from this guy. To say that he's not a risk to young women on campus is a bit naive.

and I disagree about the others be forced to interact with him part. I'm forced to interact with people I don't want to daily... it's kind of life.

Sure, but you're not paying to be forced to interact with them. You're paid to interact with them. You can choose to not interact with them. The other students have no choice but to interact with him if he's in their classes, work groups, extra curricular groups, etc.

 

[Wayward DP]

Well schools are allowed to discipline students for violations of their code of conduct. If a student can be suspended/expelled for cheating why shouldn't they for sexual assault.

A few years ago there was that York rapist. That guy shouldn't be allowed back on campus.

Don't really know the facts here, but it doesn't sound good.

there was no sexual assault.

 

[Wayward DP]

C'mon....this is borderline predatory behaviour from this guy. To say that he's not a risk to young women on campus is a bit naive.



Sure, but you're not paying to be forced to interact with them. You're paid to interact with them. You can choose to not interact with them. The other students have no choice but to interact with him if he's in their classes, work groups, extra curricular groups, etc.

I will concede that he may be considered a risk. But I also have faith that the punishment and treatment he has already been subject to will act as a deterrent. And, of course, the reason his name is put on the sex offender registry is so that people are aware that people like him are around. And, to be honest, I personally would not consider him a risk - his life is already pretty ****ed up, I would imagine he would keep his head down. But it is not black or white.

Let's keep in mind there was no assault here. What he did is gross, disgusting, and a host of other unpleasant adjectives. But he was an 18 year old who did something really dumb (more than just dumb - criminal). It's not like he is any kind of serial sexual predator. That's not to say he won't be, or absolve him of blame, but just to point out it is an isolated (as far as I am aware) incident, involving an 18 year old boy exercising poor judgment.

As for the second part of your argument, I feel as though this is a statement someone in the snowflake generation would make (which I find ironic, because usually you're not a snowflake at all). I don't think paying for university means that you have any sort of right to limit your interactions with people you do not like, find repulsive, etc. Or, phrased differently, I do not see on what grounds any sort of 'right not to interact with undesirables' is founded.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

and, do we accept that universities are allowed to be some sort of morality police? is that not what the criminal justice system is for?

oh we crossed that Rubicon years ago.

 

[MindzEye]

I will concede that he may be considered a risk. But I also have faith that the punishment and treatment he has already been subject to will act as a deterrent. And, of course, the reason his name is put on the sex offender registry is so that people are aware that people like him are around. And, to be honest, I personally would not consider him a risk - his life is already pretty ****ed up, I would imagine he would keep his head down. But it is not black or white.

From the Uni's standpoint, it's not worth the risk imo.

Let's keep in mind there was no assault here.

Yeah there is. A 13 yr old can't consent to that type of relationship, that is absolutely assault.

What he did is gross, disgusting, and a host of other unpleasant adjectives. But he was an 18 year old who did something really dumb (more than just dumb - criminal). It's not like he is any kind of serial sexual predator. That's not to say he won't be, or absolve him of blame, but just to point out it is an isolated (as far as I am aware) incident, involving an 18 year old boy exercising poor judgment.

Poor judgement that gives us a window into who he is. He pursued a physical relationship with a 13 yr old girl, obtained naked pictures and then used those to threaten her to keep their relationship a secret. That's predatory, and he was pretty clearly grooming her (whether he understands the process or not) for intercourse (which they didn't have).

As for the second part of your argument, I feel as though this is a statement someone in the snowflake generation would make (which I find ironic, because usually you're not a snowflake at all). I don't think paying for university means that you have any sort of right to limit your interactions with people you do not like, find repulsive, etc

.

How about criminally dangerous? This isn't about not liking him (which would be very snowflakey, absolutely), this is about accepting the reality about his actions and not wanting to be around someone who committed that type of crime this recently. Is he rehabilitated? Who the **** knows.

Or, phrased differently, I do not see on what grounds any sort of 'right not to interact with undesirables' is founded.

I think you're heavily underplaying the severity of his actions and what they suggest he's capable of in the future here. He's not just undesirable, he's potentially dangerous and predatory. If a University believes that their is a legitimate safety risk to having him on campus, they should absolutely have the ability to bar him from campus. As mentioned earlier, it barely even limits his educational options in 2018. You're not denying him education, you're denying him social access to the other students enrolled in your school, which is pretty even handed here imo.

 

[Wayward DP]

Yeah there is. A 13 yr old can't consent to that type of relationship, that is absolutely assault.

He was not convicted of assault or sexual assault... only sexual interference with a minor.

Not that sexual interference with a minor should be looked at lightly or brushed off as meaningless, but it is not in the same realm of sexual assault. And, while still grossly inappropriate, he was 18 at the time, not 30.

Poor judgement that gives us a window into who he is. He pursued a physical relationship with a 13 yr old girl, obtained naked pictures and then used those to threaten her to keep their relationship a secret. That's predatory, and he was pretty clearly grooming her (whether he understands the process or not) for intercourse (which they didn't have).

I don't know the exact facts, although I think your summary is likely pretty accurate. And I don't disagree with any of this. What he did is in no way okay. I just don't see the leap between that and banning him from campus.

How about criminally dangerous? This isn't about not liking him (which would be very snowflakey, absolutely), this is about accepting the reality about his actions and not wanting to be around someone who committed that type of crime this recently. Is he rehabilitated? Who the **** knows.

I would argue the risk for recidivism on campus is extremely low.

I think you're heavily underplaying the severity of his actions and what they suggest he's capable of in the future here. He's not just undesirable, he's potentially dangerous and predatory. If a University believes that their is a legitimate safety risk to having him on campus, they should absolutely have the ability to bar him from campus. As mentioned earlier, it barely even limits his educational options in 2018. You're not denying him education, you're denying him social access to the other students enrolled in your school, which is pretty even handed here imo.

If appropriate accommodations were made to ensure his education was not impacted, this is a potential compromise solution. I just do not see the safety risk. Sexual crimes like this rarely occur in the public realm, it's the kind of stuff that happens behind closed doors. When you're in a class with 400 other students, what kind of risk does he pose to them? Aside from being a creep...

And I think it is exactly because of what his actions suggest he is capable of in the future that he should be allowed to continue his education. We don't want to create an underclass of sexual predators that live on the fringes of society; he deserves a chance to show that this was a one off horrendous error in judgment and not indicative of the type of adult he will be.


I guess I just feel that by excessively punishing people like him, we make it that much more likely that they will never be functional and contributing members of society.

But we also have very different assessments of the risks of having him on campus.

I get that what he did is morally reprehensible. I just worry we're transitioning into a society where 'second chances' are not a thing, and a single misstep or action can follow you for the rest of your life. And I'm not sure where is appropriate to draw the line...

 

[LeafGm]

If there's one thing I'm perfectly OK with our society not giving "second chances" for, I think it'd be sexually preying on children.

 

[zeke]

yeah it's really the one exception.

 

[MindzEye]

He was not convicted of assault or sexual assault... only sexual interference with a minor.

Not that sexual interference with a minor should be looked at lightly or brushed off as meaningless, but it is not in the same realm of sexual assault. And, while still grossly inappropriate, he was 18 at the time, not 30.

You're being just a touch pedantic here. The language for sexual interference and sexual assault read pretty similarity. Here's an explanation guide for the criminal code's portion on sexual interference:

Section 151 is a more specific version of sexual assault simpliciter as found in section 271 of the Criminal Code. The two charges are often paired together duplicitously, enabling a conviction in the event that the Crown is unable to prove that the complainant is under the age of 16. This offence requires that the accused have knowledge of the age of the complainant, recognizing that it is possible that the complainant could have consented in fact, yet lack the capacity to do so at law.

It's not of lesser severity, simply more specific. It is for all intents and purposes, sexual assault.

I don't know the exact facts, although I think your summary is likely pretty accurate. And I don't disagree with any of this. What he did is in no way okay. I just don't see the leap between that and banning him from campus.

His actions were predatory. You can be banned from all sorts of places in society after a predatory act (Roy Moore was banned from a mall, for example). He has no intrinsic right to be on campus. We can argue that he has the right to an education, but that is completely different in 2018 than being allowed physically on campus.

I would argue the risk for recidivism on campus is extremely low.

Based on what exactly? First time sexual offenders have about a 19% recidivism rate. That he wouldn't do it on campus (working from the incomplete thought that generates that assumption, just to be a bro about this...) doesn't remove the real possibility that campus could just become his hunting ground where he identified a target. He doesn't have to re offend on campus to be a threat to those who he only comes across on campus.

If appropriate accommodations were made to ensure his education was not impacted, this is a potential compromise solution.

There are no "appropriate accommodations" necessary. Get an online degree.

I just do not see the safety risk. Sexual crimes like this rarely occur in the public realm, it's the kind of stuff that happens behind closed doors. When you're in a class with 400 other students, what kind of risk does he pose to them? Aside from being a creep...

You have a very narrow view of what constitutes a safety here. I really think your core failing in this matter is a refusal to view his actions as predatory. He's not a threat in class, he's a threat after a night time class on an empty campus, or after he identifies a young woman he wants to be involved with and corners her when no one else is around, are stalks her to find about more about her, etc. He's already shown a willingness and strategic awareness to commit sexual crimes and coerce to try to cover them up, we're not talking about a large leap here to go from that to stalking and worse.

And I think it is exactly because of what his actions suggest he is capable of in the future that he should be allowed to continue his education. We don't want to create an underclass of sexual predators that live on the fringes of society; he deserves a chance to show that this was a one off horrendous error in judgment and not indicative of the type of adult he will be.

You really haven't shown that this in anyway impedes his ability to get an education. It's not the 50's anymore man. I agree that he deserves an opportunity to prove that he's capable of continuing his education, but I don't believe that opportunity should supersede the rights to safety that the young women on campus should have. Especially when you can do both rather easily.

I guess I just feel that by excessively punishing people like him, we make it that much more likely that they will never be functional and contributing members of society.

This is hardly excessive.

But we also have very different assessments of the risks of having him on campus.

Agreed. I think your completely missing the evidence on sex crime recidivism, and missing the signals in his behaviour that led to him being charged that suggest sexual predation. He identified a victim, initiated a physical relationship with a child, showed violent tendencies with said child (slapping and choking), pressured her into sending nude pictures (which she said at trial she did in hopes he would leave her alone) and then used those to threaten her to stay silent about it. I'm kind of shocked that you don't see how potentially dangerous someone willing to do that is.

I get that what he did is morally reprehensible. I just worry we're transitioning into a society where 'second chances' are not a thing, and a single misstep or action can follow you for the rest of your life. And I'm not sure where is appropriate to draw the line...

There are a number of things you can do in life that make certain types of second chances harder to get. Commit theft and try to get a job that requires being bondable. Commit fraud and try to open up bank accounts or get different types of insurance. Declare bankruptcy and try to get credit. All of the above require a pile of proof that you've rehabilitated your behaviours before you're allowed back in their little clubs. Why should be the bar for a second chance be lower here? Especially when, as I've noted before, he can pursue his education online without their being a safety risk to himself or others.

 

[worm]

I will concede that he may be considered a risk. But I also have faith that the punishment and treatment he has already been subject to will act as a deterrent. And, of course, the reason his name is put on the sex offender registry is so that people are aware that people like him are around. And, to be honest, I personally would not consider him a risk - his life is already pretty ****ed up, I would imagine he would keep his head down. But it is not black or white.

Let's keep in mind there was no assault here. What he did is gross, disgusting, and a host of other unpleasant adjectives. But he was an 18 year old who did something really dumb (more than just dumb - criminal). It's not like he is any kind of serial sexual predator. That's not to say he won't be, or absolve him of blame, but just to point out it is an isolated (as far as I am aware) incident, involving an 18 year old boy exercising poor judgment.

As for the second part of your argument, I feel as though this is a statement someone in the snowflake generation would make (which I find ironic, because usually you're not a snowflake at all). I don't think paying for university means that you have any sort of right to limit your interactions with people you do not like, find repulsive, etc. Or, phrased differently, I do not see on what grounds any sort of 'right not to interact with undesirables' is founded.

I guess I see this from both sides.

Side A
A lot of times criminals graduate (pun intended) from smaller crimes to larger crimes so I could see the safety risk at a university. I can see how females would be worried about attending with this person.

Side B
There is no better place for this person than a university. Feminist and liberal thinkers will either change his mind or be a great additional punishment. Plus he can get an education and hopefully become a useful person in society.

I think if it was up to me I would pick Side B because I think it somewhat contains him to a campus where everybody knows as opposed to him lingering around playgrounds and junior highs all over Calgary. Of course I would expect him to be monitored closely by the university and if there is even a hint of suspicious activity just get rid of him.

 

[worm]

He was not convicted of assault or sexual assault... only sexual interference with a minor.

Not that sexual interference with a minor should be looked at lightly or brushed off as meaningless, but it is not in the same realm of sexual assault. And, while still grossly inappropriate, he was 18 at the time, not 30.

One day he will narrowly miss out on a senate seat.

 

[Wayward DP]

You're being just a touch pedantic here. The language for sexual interference and sexual assault read pretty similarity. Here's an explanation guide for the criminal code's portion on sexual interference: It's not of lesser severity, simply more specific. It is for all intents and purposes, sexual assault.

I read the criminal code provision re: sexual interference. You are correct. I should have done more thorough research, I based things off what I read in the news.

His actions were predatory. You can be banned from all sorts of places in society after a predatory act (Roy Moore was banned from a mall, for example). He has no intrinsic right to be on campus. We can argue that he has the right to an education, but that is completely different in 2018 than being allowed physically on campus.

Based on what exactly? First time sexual offenders have about a 19% recidivism rate. That he wouldn't do it on campus (working from the incomplete thought that generates that assumption, just to be a bro about this...) doesn't remove the real possibility that campus could just become his hunting ground where he identified a target. He doesn't have to re offend on campus to be a threat to those who he only comes across on campus.

There are no "appropriate accommodations" necessary. Get an online degree.

You have a very narrow view of what constitutes a safety here. I really think your core failing in this matter is a refusal to view his actions as predatory. He's not a threat in class, he's a threat after a night time class on an empty campus, or after he identifies a young woman he wants to be involved with and corners her when no one else is around, are stalks her to find about more about her, etc. He's already shown a willingness and strategic awareness to commit sexual crimes and coerce to try to cover them up, we're not talking about a large leap here to go from that to stalking and worse.

You really haven't shown that this in anyway impedes his ability to get an education. It's not the 50's anymore man. I agree that he deserves an opportunity to prove that he's capable of continuing his education, but I don't believe that opportunity should supersede the rights to safety that the young women on campus should have. Especially when you can do both rather easily.

Agreed. I think your completely missing the evidence on sex crime recidivism, and missing the signals in his behaviour that led to him being charged that suggest sexual predation. He identified a victim, initiated a physical relationship with a child, showed violent tendencies with said child (slapping and choking), pressured her into sending nude pictures (which she said at trial she did in hopes he would leave her alone) and then used those to threaten her to stay silent about it. I'm kind of shocked that you don't see how potentially dangerous someone willing to do that is.

There are a number of things you can do in life that make certain types of second chances harder to get. Commit theft and try to get a job that requires being bondable. Commit fraud and try to open up bank accounts or get different types of insurance. Declare bankruptcy and try to get credit. All of the above require a pile of proof that you've rehabilitated your behaviours before you're allowed back in their little clubs. Why should be the bar for a second chance be lower here? Especially when, as I've noted before, he can pursue his education online without their being a safety risk to himself or others.

A couple final(ish) thoughts. I will admit I was not aware of the allegations of choking and slapping. Obviously it is incumbent on me to make myself fully aware of all the facts before coming to an opinion (I had a hard time finding any actual reporting on what the allegations were beyond disseminating the photos).

But, acknowledging that, and even accepting his behaviour was predatory, I would respond with the following...

I think a key point that divides us are whether we believe or accept that because he has committed this crime once, there is something inherently wrong with him, he is a threat, he is likely to be a predator, etc. Or, alternatively, he was a teenager who had a horrific lapse in judgment (or probably more appropriately lapses) but after a criminal conviction realizes what he did was inappropriate and learned his lesson. And obviously, neither of us can know which one it is.

I guess for me, going to prison and being listed as a sex offender for 10 years is sufficient punishment. I feel comfortable with that being the totality of his debt to society. Commit the crime, do your time, and hopefully learn your lesson. I understand U of C wanting to protect its students, I just think a blanket ban is too far. Limit him to attending classes? Sure.

And yes, not all second chances are created equal or accessible to all types of miscreants. But I still don't think banning him from campus is proportionate in this circumstances. You yourself said that recidivism is only 19%, or 1 in 5. I think preventing him from attending university makes it more likely he becomes the 1 than the other 4.





Slightly moving the goalposts a little... I think there would be a general consensus around classifying sexual offenders as 'the worst of the worst'. But to what extent does it become appropriate to shun them from society? I mean this in a broader context, not just a university. Things like keeping pedos away from kids and playgrounds I absolutely agree with. But how far does that go? At what point have we taken away too many rights from sex offenders?

And I ask this out of intellectual curiosity more than anything. I hope that my position here is not conflated with supporting or condoning his actions. But where is the line and at what point to we shift from punishing predators and sexual offenders to empowering them to hopefully become normal, functioning, non-criminal members of society...

 

[UWHabs]

I read the criminal code provision re: sexual interference. You are correct. I should have done more thorough research, I based things off what I read in the news.



A couple final(ish) thoughts. I will admit I was not aware of the allegations of choking and slapping. Obviously it is incumbent on me to make myself fully aware of all the facts before coming to an opinion (I had a hard time finding any actual reporting on what the allegations were beyond disseminating the photos).

But, acknowledging that, and even accepting his behaviour was predatory, I would respond with the following...

I think a key point that divides us are whether we believe or accept that because he has committed this crime once, there is something inherently wrong with him, he is a threat, he is likely to be a predator, etc. Or, alternatively, he was a teenager who had a horrific lapse in judgment (or probably more appropriately lapses) but after a criminal conviction realizes what he did was inappropriate and learned his lesson. And obviously, neither of us can know which one it is.

I guess for me, going to prison and being listed as a sex offender for 10 years is sufficient punishment. I feel comfortable with that being the totality of his debt to society. Commit the crime, do your time, and hopefully learn your lesson. I understand U of C wanting to protect its students, I just think a blanket ban is too far. Limit him to attending classes? Sure.

And yes, not all second chances are created equal or accessible to all types of miscreants. But I still don't think banning him from campus is proportionate in this circumstances. You yourself said that recidivism is only 19%, or 1 in 5. I think preventing him from attending university makes it more likely he becomes the 1 than the other 4.





Slightly moving the goalposts a little... I think there would be a general consensus around classifying sexual offenders as 'the worst of the worst'. But to what extent does it become appropriate to shun them from society? I mean this in a broader context, not just a university. Things like keeping pedos away from kids and playgrounds I absolutely agree with. But how far does that go? At what point have we taken away too many rights from sex offenders?

And I ask this out of intellectual curiosity more than anything. I hope that my position here is not conflated with supporting or condoning his actions. But where is the line and at what point to we shift from punishing predators and sexual offenders to empowering them to hopefully become normal, functioning, non-criminal members of society...

I guess the main point to argue is what exactly should "list as a sex offender" entail as punishment? I mean, if you can be listed as one without any true "penalty", why even have the list, other than as a quick reference in case some other crime occurs near where you are? Obviously he still had the jail time, so it's not like he got off scot-free, but what else should be part of the punishment?

So it really comes down to whether you feel that "banning from campus" is essentially an appropriate penalty for being a sex offender, if that's essentially the argument that the school would make for banning him. To me, I think that's fair. While it's not like there are "vulnerable minors" in universities, it's close enough to the line that I don't have a problem if you feel he shouldn't be allowed there. I do think it's fine if he wants to pursue his education online, but I don't think it's unreasonable to still feel that being banned from campus is part of the punishment that he "agreed" to as part of the sentence.

 

[MindzEye]

I think a key point that divides us are whether we believe or accept that because he has committed this crime once, there is something inherently wrong with him, he is a threat, he is likely to be a predator, etc. Or, alternatively, he was a teenager who had a horrific lapse in judgment (or probably more appropriately lapses) but after a criminal conviction realizes what he did was inappropriate and learned his lesson. And obviously, neither of us can know which one it is.

Not that he definitely is a threat, but there's enough reasonable expectation that he could be a threat that I support the University in barring him from campus. We're literally talking about someone who preyed on a 13 yr old girl here.

I guess for me, going to prison and being listed as a sex offender for 10 years is sufficient punishment.

From the government, sure. The full punishment for any crime has rarely been simply what the justice system lays down. There's an entire social element to "paying your debt" and always has been. It's amplified through social media now and I don't necessarily love that, but it is what it is. Don't like it? Don't do despicable shit. If there are acts that deserves a scarlett letter of sorts, this qualifies.

You yourself said that recidivism is only 19%, or 1 in 5. I think preventing him from attending university makes it more likely he becomes the 1 than the other 4.

First, 1 in 5 is a legitimate threat. If I told you that there was a 1 in 5 chance that some dude you work with was a murderer and was going to kill again, you'd quit your job if they didn't punt him. No rational person is sticking around to play that game of dice on a daily basis for the next bunch of years.

Second. He's not prevented from attending university. He's barred from campus. He can still "attend" university online and get an equivalent level of education (often faster and cheaper). So if the concern is his social mobility and ability to improve himself in life, it's there for the taking. He's just (rightfully) lost the privilege of doing that in a social setting, through his own actions.

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

I don't understand why you don;t think he's a sexual predator...since that's exactly what he did. Hunted, trapped...then what?

...and you think he should get the benefit of the doubt?

I'm curious, do you have a daughter in school right now?

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

See, I'd give the benefit of safety to my daughter, and all the other women going to school there. I would not suggest they should have to be around a registered sex offender against their will, cause that what you're basically saying....when the guy can get his education without being there.

No, sexual predation is not something you just "do your time" for. Should have thought of the repercussions before you decided to blackmail a 13 yr old kid.