So in class we watched a documentary about hazing focused on/inspired by this guy from UC Boulder who had drunk too much, passed out, and then died because none of his frat bros called the police until the morning after (at which point he was already dead). The documentary talked about why this is happening, why a kid like the one who died would do things like that and get himself killed (the film went into some depth about him to show that he didn't have a drinking problem, his parents didn't keep him cooped up at home, he didn't have a troubled childhood, he had no problem making friends, doing well in school or sports, etc.), and the consequences.
This kind of thing always pisses me off, not because they're drinking underage (which I still disagree with), not because they're having a party at a frat house, but because in order for an environment to be created in which a) there is enough alcohol, per capita, for someone to die, b) there is the pressure to drink enough to pass out, c) people don't do a whole lot for people who do pass out, d) going to parties and drinking excessively is considered the only/best way to have fun and e) for this to happen regularly, there needs to be a lot of stupidity and irresponsibility floatin around.
I understand why kids want to go to parties. They feel (because of adds, peer pressure, movies, certain beliefs about our society) that in order to have friends, meet a hot guy/girl, have fun, etc. they need to go to these parties and drink X amount of alcohol.
So, why is it a good idea to host a party and provide for your guests, all the things they need to kill themselves, and then pressure them to do those things. Like WTF? Sure, it's 'fun' but lets weigh the options; on one side we have, enjoying ourselves, meeting lots of people, etc. and on the other side we have, you might die or end up in the hospital. Hmmmm, seems like a really hard decision right? I mean, how can you be so unintelligent!? I just don't get it... Okay, fine, there are other ways to have fun that might kill you: bungee jumping, going on a cruise (apparently), rock climbing (not on a wall), driving a racecar, but when you go to a party and drink excessively, your safety isn't in the hands of time tested equipment, a ship's captain, your climbing partner, or a fine-tuned machine, it's in the hands of someone almost as drunk as you are. That's a really bad idea, so don't do it. If you're going to go to a party, go to one where you don't need alcohol to have fun, or go to one where you won't be pressured to drink yourself into a coma.
Let's say you're in college, it's a Friday night, and you want to have some fun. What can you do? Well, you could watch a movie either solo or with friends, play some video games (again either solo or with friends), play a board game with some friends (monopoly, risk, sorry, apples to apples, cards against humanity, chess, blokus, the list goes on and on), you could go to a restaurant with your significant other, you could hang out at a local park or field with your friends, or you could drink yourself into oblivion. In the documentary one of the reasons the kids had for drinking so much and going to these parties, or participating in these hazing activities, is because they're fun. Well gee, is the only thing you could come up with to have fun life threatening, because that's just sad. Another kid said they drink because they can, well there are plenty of things people can do, but just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. Sheesh, I'm pretty sure that's a lesson you're supposed to learn in elementary school. Can you really not thing of anything else to do for fun?
So obviously these kids think that going out and drinking is a good idea and a good way to have fun, but why? How were they raised that they think this kind of thing is a good idea (either from the host's or attendee's perspective)? And to me, a question equally important, how was I raised that I think doing those things is one of the dumbest things ever? Is it an environmental factor? A genetic factor? A factor in how they were raised? So where does the irresponsibility come from? I'm not sure, but hopefully a study will reveal more info, or a new policy instituted by colleges and universities can in some way change the frequency of events like these. But some things that people can do, is keep the consequences of their actions in mind, be aware of how peer pressure is affecting them (and if they feel uncomfortable, leave), and know what you're getting into.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Rape Mock Trial
We recently finished the second of two mock trials in class. This most recent case was about rape and I was for the defense. The case consisted of two college students who had had a relationship during their freshman year, split up the next summer, got back together during their junior year, and had consenting sex several times before, and now the girl is accusing the boy of raping her.
When the event happened there was no one else in the the apartment with them and the girl, Susan, showered almost right away after the event. The only physical evidence was a torn shirt (we'll get to the explanations of each side later) and some faint bruises on Susan's arm that wouldn't show up in a photograph.
In a criminal case the goal of the prosecution is to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no burden on the accused to prove their innocence and if there isn't enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty, the jury must acquit.
This case went much more quickly than the previous case. The prosecution called Susan, a college rape counselor, and the police officer who had investigated the apartment. The defense called David (the accused), David's roommate Terry, and a psychiatrist who David had gone to see after Susan accused him.
Susan told her story about her relationship with David and then about the event in question. She said that she and David had gone to a party before going back to David's apartment. While both of them had consumed alcohol, neither was drunk. Susan had seen David talking to a girl named Jenny, whom David had class with and was partnered with for a project, during the party and a note on David's desk afterwards that said "Honey, you're a great husband. See you tomorrow," (Jenny and David's project had them acting as a husband and wife).
While they were in bed together David and Susan made out but when David tried to take off her shirt, she pushed his hand away. Eventually they started making out again and David tried to make another move so Susan got out of bed. David grabbed her shirt and accidentally tore part of it down the back. Then they had sex even though Susan said no.
That right there is the whole point of contention for the whole case. The Rape counselor said that Susan exhibited symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS), but these symptoms were very vague and could have been cause by a variety of other things besides rape. The police officer saw the ripped shirt, but not the note from Jenny (David showed him that he and Jenny were in the same class by showing the officer the assignment), and said he'd seen similar cases in which the woman was telling the truth and similar cases in which the woman was lying. The psychiatrist maintained that David was a nice guy and didn't tend towards anger which supported what David himself had testified, but that didn't exclude the possibility that David had raped Susan, it only made it less likely. And Terry said that David was a good guy, but he also said that Susan was pretty chill also (even if he thought she was a little clingy).
All this other evidence amounts to very little except to cloud the case. In David's testimony he tells much the same story as Susan except he says that she said 'no' in a playful tone. This is where the main issue is. They both agreed that Susan said no. However the difference is in how they think she said it. David maintains that Susan expressed consent in a non-verbal way and that the tone she used when she said 'no' implied that she was giving consent. Susan maintains that she wasn't being playful and in no way encouraged David.
My personal opinion (which should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I was on the defense) is that there isn't enough information to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, David was guilty. In other words, I was sure that I wasn't sure and so I would need to acquit David. Yes, they both agree that she said no, but how she said it definitely matters. So does the possibility that Susan was jealous of Jenny (even though her relationship with David was completely platonic). The prosecution said that David broke under his desire for sex (even though he'd restrained himself, and stopped when Susan said no in the past). This idea makes me really angry not because it's impossible or unlikely but because this is in the face of evidence that David is a really nice, patient, slow-to-anger, guy and the defense wouldn't recognize that the same could be said of Susan. Sure, she's a really nice girl who had no reason to claim David raped her unless he actually did, except that she did. She was clingy and could've been motivated by jealous. The double standard there, that David might have gone against his personality and raped Susan, but there is no way that Susan could've gone against her personality and falsely claimed that David raped her, no that would never happen (read after the italics with heavy sarcasm).
One of the jurors suggested a hypothetical situation in which Susan doesn't stray too far from her personality and still ends up accusing David, the man she loves very much, of rape. He suggested that Susan goes back to her apartment angry after reading Jenny's note to David and tells her roommate that they had non-consenting sex in a fit of jealous anger. After this point Susan has basically lost control as her roommate pressures her to go see a counselor and contact the police. Susan can't really stop this process without serious embarrassment so she continues on. She seems to have RTS because she is in the middle of a serious conflict with her boyfriend who she just falsely accused of raping her.
That situation might seem unlikely, but it is possible. While there isn't really a ton of evidence to suggest that David is innocent, there doesn't need to be. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, and so he should be acquitted.
In the end the result was a hung jury with 4 for the prosecution and 5 or 6 for the defense.
When the event happened there was no one else in the the apartment with them and the girl, Susan, showered almost right away after the event. The only physical evidence was a torn shirt (we'll get to the explanations of each side later) and some faint bruises on Susan's arm that wouldn't show up in a photograph.
In a criminal case the goal of the prosecution is to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no burden on the accused to prove their innocence and if there isn't enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty, the jury must acquit.
This case went much more quickly than the previous case. The prosecution called Susan, a college rape counselor, and the police officer who had investigated the apartment. The defense called David (the accused), David's roommate Terry, and a psychiatrist who David had gone to see after Susan accused him.
Susan told her story about her relationship with David and then about the event in question. She said that she and David had gone to a party before going back to David's apartment. While both of them had consumed alcohol, neither was drunk. Susan had seen David talking to a girl named Jenny, whom David had class with and was partnered with for a project, during the party and a note on David's desk afterwards that said "Honey, you're a great husband. See you tomorrow," (Jenny and David's project had them acting as a husband and wife).
While they were in bed together David and Susan made out but when David tried to take off her shirt, she pushed his hand away. Eventually they started making out again and David tried to make another move so Susan got out of bed. David grabbed her shirt and accidentally tore part of it down the back. Then they had sex even though Susan said no.
That right there is the whole point of contention for the whole case. The Rape counselor said that Susan exhibited symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS), but these symptoms were very vague and could have been cause by a variety of other things besides rape. The police officer saw the ripped shirt, but not the note from Jenny (David showed him that he and Jenny were in the same class by showing the officer the assignment), and said he'd seen similar cases in which the woman was telling the truth and similar cases in which the woman was lying. The psychiatrist maintained that David was a nice guy and didn't tend towards anger which supported what David himself had testified, but that didn't exclude the possibility that David had raped Susan, it only made it less likely. And Terry said that David was a good guy, but he also said that Susan was pretty chill also (even if he thought she was a little clingy).
All this other evidence amounts to very little except to cloud the case. In David's testimony he tells much the same story as Susan except he says that she said 'no' in a playful tone. This is where the main issue is. They both agreed that Susan said no. However the difference is in how they think she said it. David maintains that Susan expressed consent in a non-verbal way and that the tone she used when she said 'no' implied that she was giving consent. Susan maintains that she wasn't being playful and in no way encouraged David.
My personal opinion (which should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I was on the defense) is that there isn't enough information to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, David was guilty. In other words, I was sure that I wasn't sure and so I would need to acquit David. Yes, they both agree that she said no, but how she said it definitely matters. So does the possibility that Susan was jealous of Jenny (even though her relationship with David was completely platonic). The prosecution said that David broke under his desire for sex (even though he'd restrained himself, and stopped when Susan said no in the past). This idea makes me really angry not because it's impossible or unlikely but because this is in the face of evidence that David is a really nice, patient, slow-to-anger, guy and the defense wouldn't recognize that the same could be said of Susan. Sure, she's a really nice girl who had no reason to claim David raped her unless he actually did, except that she did. She was clingy and could've been motivated by jealous. The double standard there, that David might have gone against his personality and raped Susan, but there is no way that Susan could've gone against her personality and falsely claimed that David raped her, no that would never happen (read after the italics with heavy sarcasm).
One of the jurors suggested a hypothetical situation in which Susan doesn't stray too far from her personality and still ends up accusing David, the man she loves very much, of rape. He suggested that Susan goes back to her apartment angry after reading Jenny's note to David and tells her roommate that they had non-consenting sex in a fit of jealous anger. After this point Susan has basically lost control as her roommate pressures her to go see a counselor and contact the police. Susan can't really stop this process without serious embarrassment so she continues on. She seems to have RTS because she is in the middle of a serious conflict with her boyfriend who she just falsely accused of raping her.
That situation might seem unlikely, but it is possible. While there isn't really a ton of evidence to suggest that David is innocent, there doesn't need to be. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, and so he should be acquitted.
In the end the result was a hung jury with 4 for the prosecution and 5 or 6 for the defense.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Sexual Harrasment Mock Trial
In class we recently finished the first of two mock trials. This mock trial dealt with sexual harassment. In it a woman who had recently started working as a trial attorney sued her employer for damages because she felt that the employer hadn't done what it should when she complained that her coworker was created a hostile environment for her.
Essentially the felt that the actions of her coworker, with whom she shared an office, caused her serious emotional stress, and hampered her ability to work well, culminating in her lateral transfer to another bureau.
The big thing about sexual harassment is how vague it is. Now I think that it is necessarily so, because what one person thinks is harassment, another might not, but this makes deciding on such a case rather difficult. The woman felt that the actions of her coworker constituted sexual harassment and this was backed up by her poor work performance, her being so stressed as to start seeing a psychologist, and the testimony of an expert. However, when she went to the EEOC they decided that there wasn't enough to suggest/prove sexual harassment.
After about a week of direct and cross examination of witnesses the jury, myself included, went into deliberation. The people who argued for the woman said that because she had made it clear that she didn't appreciate the actions of her coworker and that, because those actions continued, we should decide in her favor. I argued against the woman on this basis:
Besides the main idea of sexual harassment really just being repeated actions that could be interpreted in a sexual nature despite requests for the offending party to stop, what allows the suit to have merit is because the sexual harassment must in some way be shown to have created a hostile environment that makes it difficult for the harassed to continue working. However I felt that this wasn't the case. Why? Because the woman had, during her first six months, received a 3/5 on her evaluation and, during her second six months, received a 1/5 on her evaluation I began to think that the 'hostile environment' wasn't caused by sexual harassment, but it was simply the standard work environment and the woman was unable to deal with the stresses involved. This belief was reinforced by the testimonies of a couple witnesses who said that working as a trial attorney was very difficult and very stressful. I worked to convince the jury that the woman wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, but was simply unfit to work as a trial attorney and she was blaming her poor performance on her coworker who she didn't get along well with.
In the end the jury was split with 2 for the woman only getting money to cover her medical expenses and everyone else (I think 6) were totally against her.
Essentially the felt that the actions of her coworker, with whom she shared an office, caused her serious emotional stress, and hampered her ability to work well, culminating in her lateral transfer to another bureau.
The big thing about sexual harassment is how vague it is. Now I think that it is necessarily so, because what one person thinks is harassment, another might not, but this makes deciding on such a case rather difficult. The woman felt that the actions of her coworker constituted sexual harassment and this was backed up by her poor work performance, her being so stressed as to start seeing a psychologist, and the testimony of an expert. However, when she went to the EEOC they decided that there wasn't enough to suggest/prove sexual harassment.
After about a week of direct and cross examination of witnesses the jury, myself included, went into deliberation. The people who argued for the woman said that because she had made it clear that she didn't appreciate the actions of her coworker and that, because those actions continued, we should decide in her favor. I argued against the woman on this basis:
Besides the main idea of sexual harassment really just being repeated actions that could be interpreted in a sexual nature despite requests for the offending party to stop, what allows the suit to have merit is because the sexual harassment must in some way be shown to have created a hostile environment that makes it difficult for the harassed to continue working. However I felt that this wasn't the case. Why? Because the woman had, during her first six months, received a 3/5 on her evaluation and, during her second six months, received a 1/5 on her evaluation I began to think that the 'hostile environment' wasn't caused by sexual harassment, but it was simply the standard work environment and the woman was unable to deal with the stresses involved. This belief was reinforced by the testimonies of a couple witnesses who said that working as a trial attorney was very difficult and very stressful. I worked to convince the jury that the woman wasn't a victim of sexual harassment, but was simply unfit to work as a trial attorney and she was blaming her poor performance on her coworker who she didn't get along well with.
In the end the jury was split with 2 for the woman only getting money to cover her medical expenses and everyone else (I think 6) were totally against her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)