Instigator / Pro
Exile's avatar
8
Exile
1543
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#1349

College administrators should decline immunity to victims when reporting a rape or sexual assault

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
RationalMadman's avatar
11
RationalMadman
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

RULES:

- Rounds will go as follows: first round for opening, 2 rounds of rebuttals, and a conclusion for the last round.
- This is a touchy subject, so do not request to debate if you may get bothered by the topic at hand, (especially if you are a victim of sexual assault).
- Refrain from the use of ad hominem. This is a civil debate, not a screaming match.
- Loser has to share the blog on my profile ;)

Round 1
Exile's avatar
Exile
Pro
#1
*I'm not aware of any debate formats that exist on this online platform, and given that it's my first debate here please excuse the formatting. The format that I'm using is loosely based off of British Parliamentary*  

On college campuses today, Title IX policies have been continuously reworked by college administrators in order to ensure the safety, justice, and the coming forward of a potential victim. Recently, a lot of the revision that has been taking place within many Title IX policies on college campuses involve the immunity (or amnesty) of the potential victim of sexual assault/rape. This means that if the victim had been participating in the illegal consumption of alcohol/drugs while the sexual assault/rape happened to him/her, and if it happened on a college campus, then the actions of the victim would be completely overlooked and the case file would proceed as normal. 

Thesis: the use of immunity policies to exonerate rape and sexual assault victims on college campuses is unfair to the accused, and existing policies that promote this should be revised to ensure the rights of the accused, just as much as the victim.

An immunity or amnesty policy is a policy that is intended to be a way for victims of sexual assault or rape to come forward about their encounter regardless of the use of illegal drugs/consumption of alcohol. so that they can receive necessary justice. To give you a proper example of an immunity policy on a college campus, consider the CUNY Title IX amnesty policy towards victims. [1]

In no way do I excuse the actions of rapists or anyone who commits sexual assault. Rape is a horrendous crime, and anyone charged with said crime properly deserves the necessary punishment/jail time that is required. That being said, I emphasize the phrase "anyone charged with said crime" because on college campuses, the lines between justice and witch hunts have been dramatically blurred.  

The use of these policies are a complete infringement of the rights of the accused. Consider a hypothetical for a moment. Assume that a boy and a girl are both doing illegal drugs, and eventually the two decide to have consensual sex. In a normal scenario without an immunity policy, the victim will be less inclined to come forward to administrators because the fact that she was doing illegal drugs would be taken into account, and her standing with the college could be at stake. However, with an immunity policy, a victim will come forward with an accusation knowing that she will not be held responsible for any illegal activities that had taken place that night. The events that follow are now obvious; she comes forward with the assault knowing she won't get in trouble, and the guy will be held for questioning and have his education/reputation at stake. 

These policies, however, do not apply to the accused. The guy in our hypothetical scenario will actually have the evidence of the use of illegal drugs used AGAINST him. There is nothing in immunity policies that forbid the use of that evidence against the accused. College administrators are actually instructed to not give any amnesty to someone who is accused of committing sexual assault, but instead to use the same circumstances that would have discouraged the victim from coming forward in the first place AGAINST the alleged perpetrator. The end result is a form of justice that closely resembles a witch hunt, rather than a fair hearing where the accused can fairly combat the accusation with necessary rights. [2]

The same can be said if we changed our scenario to the point where the guy actually does rape the girl. You may think the circumstances are different, because this time a rape actually took place right? Wrong. Rights are still being infringed, and even if that person did commit a rape it still causes a skew in the college "judicial" system because the punishment will be more severe for the guy being accused. Policies like these still make it harder for someone who is accused to defend themselves because evidence that did not exist for the victim somehow exists for the alleged. Sure, rape is an awful crime, but does it completely warrant such a skew in policy just for the victim to come forward? 

Furthermore, an immunity policy does not only do damage to the accused, but also the accuser. As the science of addiction tells us, someone who had been doing illegal drugs/consuming alcohol once will most likely do it again, and keep doing it. Eventually, regardless whether or not a victim gets justice, there's no incentive/motivation for a victim to stop doing drugs or decreasing alcohol consumption. This evidently puts the victim in more danger, as now the victim has the idea that he/she can still do drugs and be protected by the administration. What if another rape happens to the victim? What if their health gets worse and is now in danger? All of these variables and more are some of the few costs of immunity policies, and if college administrators actually had the students' best interests in mind, then they would utilize necessary punishment for doing drugs/consuming alcohol below the federal minimum in order to create deterrence to not do it again. Thee needs to be punishment in order for there to be room for improvement.

Finally, I want to reiterate that if a rape/sexual assault does occur, then I believe that the victim should take the necessary steps to receive justice. However, the key word here is "necessary" because an immunity policy is a completely unnecessary policy that only does more harm than good. I have no sympathy for people who commit rape and sexual assault on the regular, but I do have a lot of sympathy for those who are unfairly held in contempt by a college, and not even given a chance to defend themselves. Colleges should focus less on having a victim come forward with an accusation, and more on creating a better environment for victims to seek justice, while having the accused be able to fairly defend themselves. 
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
Con
#2
This round is my Opening Speech. Rebuttals are saved for Round 2 as to respect the agreed upon description of the debate.

There will be full burden of proof on Pro to prove that any accidental rebuttals to Pro’s case on my part were anything but. 

==

What does Side Con stand for in this debate?

Con Asserts (CA) #1: The absolute burden-of-proof(BoP) is on Pro and is the resolution itself (which involves no ‘not’ or ‘doesn’t’).

Probable Burden [of proof on Pro] (PBP) #1:
The active denial (as opposed to passive avoidance) of immunity deals even being considered to be put into play is an incorrect thing to do, morally.

PBP #2:
That it is either true that rape is moral, that privacy of rapists matters more than security and protection of the victims or it is true that rape is abhorrent, correct to be disliked but that victims being offered immunity leads to a net-detrimental outcome nonetheless.

The reason for the ‘or’ is that if Pro were to assert both elements of PB2 simultaneously, it would become a battle between idealism and pragmatism, which would ultimately open up Pro to be attacked on either and/or both angles via hedging some arguments against others.

Con will cover both PB’s of Pro, regardless of Pro taking them up. Con has to ensure to make it clear that neither PB#1 nor PB#2 are met, thus meaning that the absolute burden of the resolution itself being true is not met by Pro.

So, the side that Con stands for in this debate is one that negates either (or both):
  • that rape is a significantly less morally desirable thing than the framing of someone for rape (note that the former is guaranteed to succeed, since it’s happening and has happened at the time of the true convictions) 
and/or 
  • that pragmatically, the net benefits vs net detriments to the college’s community and even society overall are of a significantly better ratio in the scenario of immunity being at play than denial being the default, if not concrete ‘always pick’ avenue.

However, if the reader and general audience feel that both debaters equalled each other, it is Con’s assertion that the BoP is stronger on Pro than Con, for Con is advocating a negative ultimately, on top of the positive. This is not even like Theism vs atheism where the atheist fails to come up with an alternative to the God to explain the origin of everything, this is a deeper ‘BoP is on Pro’ than that because if you cannot justify ruling out immunity as being a ‘card to keep in the deck that you’re willing to play’ as a college administrator, then you naturally conclude that the resolution is false, even if not a strong enough case was made to give immunity in most cases.

==

What Immunity is, the Concept of Plea Bargaining and the Application Game Theory to Cases of Date Rape and Student-Professor Rape (either way around) on Campus.

Note: Some of what I say here will require sources as and when battled against Pro's counter-definition or counter-interpretation. I think it best to save reliable sources for such clashes and in my opening speech let the logic speak for itself.

In the world of (especially criminal, rather than civil) justice, the concept of immunity is simply the most extreme (positive/active) end of a concept known as plea bargaining. The concept revolves around the idea that the crime is so severe or especially that the criminal(s) involved are extremely likely to reoffend and harm many more victims, that lowering the punishment to some lesser offender (aka 'lesser fish') who have incriminating (or at least investigation-assisting) information on the overall 'big shark' crime.

I will like to explore why student-professor (or even student and student-teaching-assistant) relationships are de facto rape (especially the former but in more evolved clauses of university policy, the student assistant often is barred from romance with the students). The reason is that submission, obedience and such are demanded as a psychological given by a good student to a teacher. This means that the very personality traits that make one be a good student would lead to them being far more vulnerable to manipulation sexually and their capacity to consent againt it (especially if they want any leniency later on with things due late and such) is eroded.

Date rape is rape for obvious reasons, most significantly so when one is totalyl sober and the other anything but with severe roofies and such but there's no excuse for doing it to a blatantly sleeping or barely conscious individual. It is rape and the worst part is that with date rape they can be 'awake but not really there' mentally so they later have it embedded in their subconscious nightmares etc and loathe themselves for the drugs but did you know that it happens with spiking too? I'll address this all in Rebuttal battle rounds with sources and such, I'm laying out my case here. 

Take all the three above paragraphs into account when understanding game theory and immunity.

Immunity incentivises people to come foward by comepletely removing the punishment for their lesser crime in exchange for one of the most heinous ones there is; rape. It does not at all incentivise false accusation. If you wanted to frame someone for rape, you are 0% better off in an immunity-friendly scenario than without because immunity never ever comes without the clause that it can be completely revoked if the information the snitch gives is proven knowably false to himself/herself. This round isn't for rebuttals, I would have said this regardless of Pro mentioning it or not.

Game theory is about consequences, rewards, likelihood of both and the variables involved. One thing game theory allows us to realise, by its very own existence, is that would-be rapists on a campus with immunity, will be extremely discouraged to ever plan out or attempt a date rape, or to either rape a professor as a student or the opposite (if the student is doing something punishable too in any shape or form 'keep your secret' type rape on top of the authority). Immunity is the sole thing that is going to make people want to come forward who otherwise would measure up the likelihood of getting in trouble vs them even being taken seriously.

Actually while I notice that Pro keeps referring to female victims and male perpetrators a non-rebuttal point that I would have brought up anyway in my case is that when males are raped (especially by females but regardless), which almost always is date rape especially with stronger-built men, it's far harder for them to come forward. If the female is attractive or whatever, it's extremely humiliating for them to come forward about it they struggle to come to terms with the fact that they, manly as they are, were raped by this psycho bitch who often can be charming during it if she wants to, especially if she wants him to get hard. It's disgusting, vile and deeply scarring just as much as rape to any female victim. The humiliation associated with it, teasing from friends 'you wanted it man', 'wow what a pussy' etc are so utterly brutal, unbearable that they'd rather keep their mouth shut. Now, imagine that on top of that they need to get a drug charge and what-not, they're blatantly not going to report it unless they are some saint with a hero complex seeking redemption for their soul or something.

There is both carrot and stick elements to why immunity is so effective. I would even extend Con's case to include a counterplan to Pro that has layers of plea bargaining, not necessarily immunity-alone. Immunity shouldn't always be the extreme 'lesser sentence' that's offered for coming forward but should always be an option and playing-card considered to be at play for them to bring forward victims with horrors they struggle to come to terms with or admit happened due to the guilt associated with being at a party with drugs and whatever else.
Round 2
Exile's avatar
Exile
Pro
#3
Thank you RationalMadman for your response, and for contending to this debate while agreeing to its terms. 

We must consider the basis of this debate. Right off the bat, Con states the following:

net benefits vs net detriments to the college’s community and even society overall are of a significantly better ratio in the scenario of immunity being at play.

What we have to understand is that if Con takes up this burden, then acknowledges that there is indeed a net detriment. This will be key in my arguments to come, because as the audience will see, the idea that there is even a detriment will be enough to disprove Con's argument.

In the world of (especially criminal, rather than civil) justice, the concept of immunity is simply the most extreme (positive/active) end of a concept known as plea bargaining. The concept revolves around the idea that the crime is so severe or especially that the criminal(s) involved are extremely likely to reoffend and harm many more victims, that lowering the punishment to some lesser offender (aka 'lesser fish') who have incriminating (or at least investigation-assisting) information on the overall 'big shark' crime.
Con has greatly misconstrued the concept of an immunity/amnesty policy. It should be noted that an immunity policy is comparably different than a plea bargain from a judicial process, or even the concept. A plea bargain involves the exchange of pleading guilty to any crime someone has been charged with in exchange for a shorter sentence. It is an incentive for a victim to come forward about their assault, rather than an exchange. Bear this in mind for when I elaborate my points further. Con only correctly defines the context of immunity in a judicial court system, yet the concept of immunity on college campuses is evidently different, otherwise there would be no contemporary Title IX policies like the ones in effect today to begin with.

One thing game theory allows us to realise, by its very own existence, is that would-be rapists on a campus with immunity, will be extremely discouraged to ever plan out or attempt a date rape, or to either rape a professor as a student or the opposite (if the student is doing something punishable too in any shape or form 'keep your secret' type rape on top of the authority).
I don’t know if this was a mistake or not, but the logic with would-be rapists on a college campus being discouraged to carry out rape by having immunity doesn’t line up. Assuming that this was a mistake in phrasing on Con’s part, then it still does not excuse the fact that immunity would create an unfair hearing on behalf of the accused. Sure, giving victims immunity to come forward about their assault sounds great on paper for the VICTIM, yet this creates an unfair hearing for someone who is accused, regardless whether or not they actually committed rape in the first place.

I will like to explore why student-professor (or even student and student-teaching-assistant) relationships are de facto rape (especially the former but in more evolved clauses of university policy, the student assistant often is barred from romance with the students). The reason is that submission, obedience and such are demanded as a psychological given by a good student to a teacher. This means that the very personality traits that make one be a good student would lead to them being far more vulnerable to manipulation sexually and their capacity to consent againt it (especially if they want any leniency later on with things due late and such) is eroded.

I still need to see where Con goes with this idea, but unless if this scenario involves the victim using illegal drugs, illegally consuming alcohol, or anything similar that would involve breaking the law then this point is completely redundant. An immunity policy would not incentivize a victim of sexual assault if the victim themselves did not break the law in some way. Nevertheless, I still need to see where this point goes, so this is a PoB on Con.

Actually while I notice that Pro keeps referring to female victims and male perpetrators a non-rebuttal point that I would have brought up anyway in my case is that when males are raped (especially by females but regardless), which almost always is date rape especially with stronger-built men, it's far harder for them to come forward.
Con needs to prove to the audience how rape/sexual assault on males warrants the obstruction of justice for someone who is accused. 

Now onto my elaboration.

It is important to consider the difference between someone who is a rapist, and someone who is being accused as a rapist. With any kind of accusation comes with reasonable doubt that the accused did not commit said crime. I was very clear on my stance in this debate when arguing the Pro, and that is to ensure the protection and rights of the accused. With an immunity policy working against an accused person, it makes it incredibly hard, nearly impossible, for that person to defend himself. According to the CUNY Title IX policy under the section where they describe the amnesty policy, the note that this policy is indeed used against those who use "drugs or alcohol as a weapon or to facilitate assault," [1]. While this could be true for someone who is convicted of doing these things, never do they indicate or acknowledge the fact that there is a reasonable doubt that someone who is accused might be innocent. KC Johnson, professor of history at the CUNY graduate center says this very well, that the current due process system "fails to define what it means when it refers to ‘the most basic elements of fairness and due process’ or what it means to have procedures be ‘overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.’” Evidently, there is an assumption that a hearing on a college will be likely biased because those who carry out the due process have nothing to go off of, and automatically assume that the person being held in contempt is guilty of using said drugs anyway, thus making a defense near impossible to achieve [2].

After a college hearing on the assault, it begs the question as to whether or not the health of the victim is at stake, considering that amnesty has taken its place among the victim. 

Obviously, there is no doubt that an incentive such as an immunity policy (given the proper circumstances) is effective in having such a victim come forward about a rape; it basically guarantees the protection of the victim and the continuation of his/her studies at the given institution. However, it does not only no good, but much harm for the person being accused of rape when amnesty is given to a victim, and that the

This debate is not about whether or not incentives like immunity policies are good for the victim, but if they're good over; specifically for the person being accused. Never does it say in the plethora of bylaws and Title IX policies that there is a follow up of the victim having taken drugs during the assault. There is no assurance on part of the administration that the student who was raped gets the necessary treatment he/she needs after taking harmful drugs. Never does a college indicate that they can receive therapy or reach out to groups to help with fighting addiction (since the science of addiction tells us that doing drugs prior increases your likelihood of retaking them) [3]. 

Con has to do multiple things in order to win this debate.

  • Prove that an immunity policy does not hinder and obstruct the rights of someone being accused of sexual assault and/or rape.
  • Show how game theory is an integral factor for a victim coming forward.
  • Show how the various methods of rape that exist on college campuses today (like the student-professor rape and vice versa that Con points out) could warrant the use of an immunity policy.
  • Prove that the immunity policies that exist don't help the victim overcome drug abuse.
SOURCES:
[1] http://www2.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/ovsa/policies/Sexual-misconduct-8.30.18-PSM-2018-005.pdf

EXAMPLES OF TITLE IX IMMUNITY/AMNESTY POLICIES




RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
Con
#4
Deterrence and Rapists

What Pro says on the matter is this:

1. Tries to twist a quote of my text to imply I was saying that rapists themselves having immunity would deter them (despite that blatantly being a ridiculous interpretation and notion).
2. Tries to flip the deterrence-factor by saying that the lack of immunity is a deterrent to people framing people for rape.

When I said that immunity deters rapists from raping, in the context of this debate it is very clear that I was referring to immunity for the victims and/or witnesses at most. I clearly did not mean if the rapist themselves gets off scott-free for the rape that this will deter them and the fact that Pro tried to twist my words like that and avoid rebutting it shows the weakness of his/her case and he building doom coming on.

To state the obvious, when a college/university will firstly introduce amnesty for rape in the US, it will bring out a lot of date rape victims who were having alcohol. Note that alcohol isn't always the drug being intaken but because they're afraid of coming out with the alcohol consumption, below age 21, they then can't reveal that it was spiked with roofies or whatever was in it. They would previously have struggled to admit anything, from chloroform to being tied up in a room or just taken advantage of while helpless because of needing to admit to willingly being at a party involving alcohol and taking some (which often the rapists will pressure them into as well) as they fear the consequences of admitting of something something as harmless to others as having some alcohol at a party.

So, naturally, at first there is a raise in accusations of rape. This can seem to support the notion that it also is increasing the rate of false accusations but that is total nonsensical assumption. It also doesn't disprove the deterrence. See, while on paper it will show a huge 'rise in rape' after the immunity policy is introduced it's going to be a short-term factor as all you are seeing is the absolutely formidable power that victim-and/or-witness-immunity has to rapists and exposing them.

The first thing to understand. when it comes to the deterrence angle, is that no matter what the college campus policy is the victims could run to the cops no matter what, yeah? It just looks much better if the campus dealt with it and handed the rapist to the cops than if the cops have to come in and say to the campus 'did you even know this was happening?'. So, if you want to talk about deterrence for the rapist, it's there anyway and law enforcement often (as will the college as soon as it find out) not want the case to go to trial so they engage in plea bargaining. They will want to offer the victim either immunity or a very, very light sentence of some kind for the drug charge (or maybe they were caught cheating and blackmailed into sex due to it, to keep it secret and can't be let off scot-free as such but it's about lesser evil).

As I said at the end of my Round 1, it's not true that in all cases total blanket immunity should be applied, but in most cases of rape it should be an option and not declined. The policy should always be crystal clear on what is and isn't covered by immunity so that the victim never underestimates or overestimates what they can admit and come forward with. The case of alcohol and drugs is a classic one and one where it's nearly undeniable that you're morally abhorrent to essentially blackmail the victim into silence for admitting they had some alcohol or even drugs, at the sake of letting a rapist run free on campus able to not just prey on others but get a high-end career in the future where they will be in a position of power and influence thanks to those qualifications and have power in society, despite being so morally depraved.

I believe the public is ill served by perpetuation of the myth that plea bargaining is a copout by the criminal justice system that provides cover for lazy judges, prosecutors and defense counsel alike.

As a Supreme Court Justice assigned to the criminal term in Brooklyn, I am committed to due process for all, including not only the accused, but especially the victim and the community. I believe all cases ought to be tried on the merits, but the numbers do not permit this.

Apart from the simple reality of too many cases for the limited resources available, there are substantial benefits to be derived from plea bargaining that better serve the community than taking every case to trial.

Often a crime victim is very young or elderly, or otherwise infirm and does not want to be subjected to the rigors of trial, to have to relive in the presence of the accused the detailed horrors of victimization. In rape and abuse cases particularly, an accuser is often treated on the witness stand as the accused and must have great fortitude to endure cross-examination. In such cases, acceptance of a plea to a lesser crime, with a less-than-maximum sentence, may be mercy not only for the accused but also for the accuser, even as it exacts reasonable retribution and seeks to prevent future crime.

In some cases, the judge and lawyers know of compelling evidence of guilt (for example, a confession), but know the jury will have to decide the case without such evidence because it has been suppressed as improperly obtained under applicable rules of law. At times a witness or complainant may be unreliable, unavailable, uncooperative or inherently incredible because of life-style, character or criminal history, or even, unfortunately, physical impediments, which will render his or her testimony less credible before a jury. In those cases a plea will insure a conviction where a trial may result in acquittal.

To insure against wrongful conviction through coercion of the innocent, a plea requires the accused to admit the details of criminal acts, following a waiver of rights described by the court. Only when the court is satisfied, based on the accused's own statements, that he is guilty of a crime, may a plea be accepted.
- Demarest, C. (1994). Opinion | Plea Bargaining Can Often Protect the Victim. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/opinion/l-plea-bargaining-can-often-protect-the-victim-794066.html [Accessed 10 Sep. 2019].

[citation help by: http://www.citethisforme.com/ used for all my source formatting]

To fully grasp what immunity for victims enables, you need to think from the perspective of a rapist and even of would-be partygoers. Do you want a culture on campus where everyone who is smart and vulnerable (female, weak male etc) are all terrified to go to parties and enjoy life in and around campus, especially around strong males or whatever from the campus? Do you want people who should be protecting others, in any shape or form incentivised (or not deterred away from) to rape them when the opporunity arises? If your answer is no, nothing will send fear through their body and mind like the knowledge that the victim can come forth fully against them whether or not they were drugged.

Drink spiking may be prevalent on U.S. college campuses, and women are at much greater risk than men, new research finds.

Women were also more likely than men to cite sexual assault as a motive for drink spiking -- where someone secretly adds alcohol or drugs to another person's drink.

Men were more likely to say the motive was "to have fun," according to the study of more than 6,000 students at three U.S. universities.

These findings show it "is more than simply an urban legend," said study leader Suzanne Swan, an associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of South Carolina.

The researchers found that almost 8 percent of the students said they'd had drugs put into their drinks. Also, 1.4 percent said they had either spiked another person's drink or knew someone who had.

While spiking drinks is often linked to "date rape," some students said it was done for amusement, to calm someone down or to make them go to sleep.

The study results were published May 23 in the journal Psychology of Violence.
- Preidt, R. (2016). Drink Spiking a Problem on U.S. Campuses. [online] Consumer HealthDay. Available at: https://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-information-16/alcohol-abuse-news-12/drink-spiking-a-problem-on-u-s-campuses-711295.html [Accessed 10 Sep. 2019].
Original article it's citing from: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/vio/#

==

Debunking the "People will fake more against rapists"

I notice that in Round 1, Pro tried to make this about sympathy towards males, demonising females as vindictive framers of men on the regular. In Round 1 from Con, you'll note I state the following:

When males are raped (especially by females but regardless), which almost always is date rape especially with stronger-built men, it's far harder for them to come forward. If the female is attractive or whatever, it's extremely humiliating for them to come forward about it they struggle to come to terms with the fact that they, manly as they are, were raped by this psycho bitch who often can be charming during it if she wants to, especially if she wants him to get hard. It's disgusting, vile and deeply scarring just as much as rape to any female victim
To which, Pro totally backfooted on his 'males are victimised by females and framed' mantra and demands me to prove that I encourage an obstruction to justice...

The conspiracy theorist is Pro, not Con. Pro keeps asserting that there are increased instances of frame-jobs and such but all cases of immunity and plea bargaining are contingent on the information being sound. If/when the victim is found to have knowingly lied or framed someone, it is not at all considered okay for them to have come foward.

The aftermath of rape on the victim and trauma involved are all permanent and do outweigh the harms of someone being framed for rape, so even with this baseless assertion from Pro, the resolution is still false.
Round 3
Exile's avatar
Exile
Pro
#5
To Con: please note that there was never any twisting of your words. I read your quote as is (like I should have) and although it would be perfectly reasonable to deduce that you meant otherwise, I did mention that I thought it was a mistake/typo on your part anyway. The onus fell upon me to make sure that you understood the resolution, so it was nothing personal.

That being said, there is a very clear indication as to what this debate is about as well as for what Pro stands for, and that is equality of rights for both parties involved in a rape/sexual assault scandal, which Con has failed to address as of yet.

What does Con mention in his first rebuttal? Con simply addresses the cause and effect of an immunity policy, how such a policy allows a college to handle a rape before the police in order to "look better" and cites sources saying why plea bargains are a good thing (which is completely irrelevant to this debate to begin with). All of these points have absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand, and Con has not once addressed the overall issue of immunity policies, which is the fact that the rights of the person accused are being completely infringed upon. Rather than address the issue, Con has built up a case on how an immunity policy is a great way for victims of date rape to come forward while brilliantly overlooking the repercussions that such policies have on a fair college hearing. 

Allow me to rebut some of what Con had said in the previous round.

To state the obvious, when a college/university will firstly introduce amnesty for rape in the US, it will bring out a lot of date rape victims who were having alcohol. Note that alcohol isn't always the drug being intaken but because they're afraid of coming out with the alcohol consumption, below age 21, they then can't reveal that it was spiked with roofies or whatever was in it. They would previously have struggled to admit anything, from chloroform to being tied up in a room or just taken advantage of while helpless because of needing to admit to willingly being at a party involving alcohol and taking some (which often the rapists will pressure them into as well) as they fear the consequences of admitting of something something as harmless to others as having some alcohol at a party. 

So, naturally, at first there is a raise in accusations of rape. This can seem to support the notion that it also is increasing the rate of false accusations but that is total nonsensical assumption. It also doesn't disprove the deterrence. See, while on paper it will show a huge 'rise in rape' after the immunity policy is introduced it's going to be a short-term factor as all you are seeing is the absolutely formidable power that victim-and/or-witness-immunity has to rapists and exposing them.
This is a classic "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy. Of course immunity would incentivize victims of date rape to come forward to the administration; it's literally one of the main purposes revolving around this policy. And yes, given that such a policy exists it would allow a "rise in rapes," given the number of people who start to come forward. Con never mentions the process of a college hearing, and only propagandizes the fact that I'm somehow arguing that an immunity policy would lead to more false claims, of which I NEVER mentioned. It's a nonsensical point that Con is using in order to diminish my argument, regardless of my thesis statement.

"The first thing to understand. when it comes to the deterrence angle, is that no matter what the college campus policy is the victims could run to the cops no matter what, yeah? It just looks much better if the campus dealt with it and handed the rapist to the cops than if the cops have to come in and say to the campus 'did you even know this was happening?'. So, if you want to talk about deterrence for the rapist, it's there anyway and law enforcement often (as will the college as soon as it find out) not want the case to go to trial so they engage in plea bargaining."
Sure, of course a victim can choose to go to the police, and of course it looks a LOT better if the college dealt with something like this first and then reported said rapist to the police. Few things look better than this scenario anyway, and it's a redundant point to bring up because what Con does not do here is address the price of these actions. Con does not address how the victim is provided amnesty for negative circumstances that took place the night of the rape, and that those exact same negative circumstances are used against the person being accused of said rape. Figuratively, you can report anyone to the police but that person being reported is usually innocent until proven guilty. With an immunity policy working against someone who is accused of rape, it makes it exponentially harder for that individual to defend him/herself when circumstances that the victim was SPECIFICALLY provided amnesty for the night of the rape, are used AGAINST the person being accused in the first place. Logically, the police are receiving a guilty person filed on report, which is not only blatantly immoral, but unconstitutional as well. This point does not stand, and will fail to stand for that sole purpose. 

"They will want to offer the victim either immunity or a very, very light sentence of some kind for the drug charge (or maybe they were caught cheating and blackmailed into sex due to it, to keep it secret and can't be let off scot-free as such but it's about lesser evil)."
Con exceeds the boundaries of this debate by taking things into perception of when a rape case (after being handled by a college hearing) goes to trial, and while instances like rape are bound to be handled by the law at some point, it goes outside the jurisdiction of a college campus which makes this point irrelevant as well. It makes no sense to refer to the US judicial system, because it's the college that is enacting immunity policies. Con also needs to provide some evidence of an immunity policy taking place outside of a college campus, and applied to the judicial system, but either way this notion is irrelevant. 

To fully grasp what immunity for victims enables, you need to think from the perspective of a rapist and even of would-be partygoers. Do you want a culture on campus where everyone who is smart and vulnerable (female, weak male etc) are all terrified to go to parties and enjoy life in and around campus, especially around strong males or whatever from the campus? Do you want people who should be protecting others, in any shape or form incentivised (or not deterred away from) to rape them when the opporunity arises? If your answer is no, nothing will send fear through their body and mind like the knowledge that the victim can come forth fully against them whether or not they were drugged.
This is pathos at its finest while stating the obvious. Of course no one wants that kind of culture on a college campus, but what is brilliant about this point is that Con already assumes the perspective from an already existing rapist. Con does not consider how an immunity policy can have an effect on regular people. Would a regular person be apt to go to parties fully knowing that if he/she gets accused of rape (whether guilty or not) that it could mean the end of his/her academic career through an unfair college hearing? Immunity policies create fearmongering to regular people looking to have fun at parties just as much as someone who is vulnerable like Con describes. 

“Pro tried to make this about sympathy towards males, demonising females as vindictive framers of men on the regular.”
I was EXTREMELY clear about my stance in this debate, and while there is a reasonable chance that such a framing can occur (hence my sympathy), that’s not what this debate is about or what Pro stands for at ALL. The issue lies not in whether we should be sympathetic to males or demonizing females who frame men, but rather whether or not the rights of the person being accused (male or female) are upheld by college administrators and university policy. The status quo tells us that they are not, and Con has not addressed this thus far. 

“Pro keeps asserting that there are increased instances of frame-jobs and such but all cases of immunity and plea bargaining are contingent on the information being sound. If/when the victim is found to have knowingly lied or framed someone, it is not at all considered okay for them to have come foward.”
Never once did I ever assert the fact that there would be increased instances of framings for rape. Con is basing this rebuttal solely based off of the hypothetical I gave in Round 1 and failed to understand the deeper meaning behind it. I even said that my argument could apply to a scenario where someone does in fact carry out a rape, as this could help create a defense for said accused person. There is no “conspiracy theory,” and although instances of framed rape like Duke Lacrosse scandal in 2007 are entirely POSSIBLE, I never said that immunity policies directly or even indirectly cause framings.

By now, the purpose of immunity policies are completely obvious, and that is to create an inherent imbalance in rights, with the victim getting the better treatment. Either Con addresses this head on, or he loses this debate. 

Con still has to do multiple things in order to win this debate.  
  • STILL prove how a student-professor rape warrants the use of an immunity policy (like Con mentioned in his opening)
  • STILL prove how game theory is an integral factor in keeping immunity policies on college campuses.
  • Address the status quo, the overlay in rights of a victim vs the accused, and prove why the rights for the victim are far more important than that who is accused in the first place.
  • Understand the difference between a plea bargain and an immunity policy.
  • Show why the presence of a net-detrimental outcome for someone who is accused is a good thing for victims, and how this solves the status quo.


RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
Con
#6
I actually don't need to do a single thing that Pro says I do, but I'll probably be doing most of them anyway.

The masqueraded burden of proof - UNMASKED!

Pro comes in telling you that I, Con, need to do some things at the end of both Round 3 (R3) and R4. There is no apparent explanation of why I need to do that to win, it's sort of assumed that everything typed before that, in the Round, justifies the stated crtieria laid out at the end. Unfortunately, it not only is a lie but while some of it does skim the edge of what I actually have to do, there's a massive 3-4 points missing (which I've totally met) that are things Pro now has to (and cannot without raising brand new points in the last Round) do. 

For instance, let's look at this whole notion of me needing to prove that student-teacher sexual relations demand immunity or that game theory applies. I don't actually have to prove either, as in cases of drugged-victim date rape alone, I have won this debate from multiple angles. I pointed out that the drinking doesn't harm anyone but the student themselves and while that may be a college issue in terms of professionality or health of the student, it is nowhere near to as morally abhorrent as rape. I don't see why I need to go into detail about why rape is so abhorrent or worse, when since R1 Pro has continually demonised rape for me and only ever equated it morally to the intentional framing of someone as a rapist. Nowhere in this entire debate does Pro explain how/why using alcohol spiked with drugs (which I give a reliable source in R2) is nearly as morally abhorrent as rape. Also, the net-beneficial consequence of immunity; making a campus where people feel safe to party and thus increases the quality of parties and culture in the university (which I raised in R2) is completely ignored. 

As for game theory, it applies, that's just a fact. If it makes Pro happy I can totally ignore students raping teachers and vice versa (where the student has done something naughty and is blackmailed into it by the teacher, thus requiring immunity to come forward) for the remainder of the debate, and still win. I'll leave those criteria met solely through blatant logic and allusion to them, my fundamental pillar is easily date rape and has been for this entire debate, which was also supposed to be Pro's but somehow it's altered entirely into ignoring the comparison of drug usage to rape, both morally and legally, and instead talking about some kind of conspiracy to frame rapists that somehow always unleashes when immunity is introduced to a college... We are supposed to take Pro's word on that.

From R1 to now, I have been consistently advocating for a system where immunity is contingent on the victim and/or witness coming forward admitting to a crime far less severe than rape and based on their own knowledge that in no way at all is something that can be proven to be a lie (and totally revoked if this is not the case). If, later on, either by their own admission or through evidence that comes up throughout the defence's investigation(defending the accused rapist) there is proven to be intentional lying and indeed obstruction to justice on the part of the one coming forward, immunity can and will be lifted. 

The intricate link between immunity and plea bargaining lies in my R1 explanation of plea bargaining and the fact that you are getting a guilty plea out of the victim in exchange for the ability to enact justice on the rapist (and deter would-be rapists from raping, as well as removing a college-educated sociopath or whatever they are psychologically, from the future working force). Since it seems to be confusing Pro and is becoming one of the only things Pro says Con has to do, to win, that Con may actually have to do, I will do it here and now.

Plea bargaining is most significantly used in anti-corruption (or defeating organised crime) so I'll use a definition from one of those articles:

In essence, a plea bargain is an admission of guilt in return for, or in hope of, a shorter sentence or alternative benefits. It does not necessarily require cooperation, just acceptance of personal responsibility in return for leniency. Law enforcement officials might offer favourable plea bargains to induce some defendants to provide evidence and testimony against other corrupt actors. As explained by Stephenson (2015), sometimes the strategy is to “flip” lower-level participants in a corrupt scheme to get evidence on the ringleaders (who would otherwise be impossible to prosecute).
- Martinez, R., Kukutschka, B. and Chêne, M. (2017). Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Plea Bargaining, Immunity Programmes and Corruption. [online] Transparency International. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/Deferred_Prosecution_Agreements_Immunity_Programmes_Plea_Bargaining_and_corruption_2017.pdf [Accessed 10 Sep. 2019].

From the same article comes this:

Leniency and immunity programmes offer immunity or reduced sentences to  witnesses/co-conspirators if they blow the whistle, self-report criminal activity and cooperate  with  lawenforcement. They differ from plea bargaining or deferred prosecution agreements in that, in many cases,  they are targeted at wrongdoers prior to detection and before criminal activity has been exposed.In addition, rather than granting a reduced penalty on a case  by  case  basis,  leniency  is usually granted  to anybody fulfilling a number of requirements in a codified situation. Compared to plea bargaining, this reduces judges’ discretion and legal uncertainty, and is likely to promote self-reporting by providing wrongdoers with an “exit option” they can rely on (Nell 2008).

If you are curious of how they are similar, it is because immunity simply is the extreme end of plea bargaining. It is when the administration, or law enforcement are at the most lenient (weakest negotiating position) in situations where the crime of those admitting to it is seen as so much less severe than the crime that's being hunted. The law enforcement agrees to the 'immunity' before the divulging of information begins, whereas plea bargains often happen part way through and are more commonly occurring when they have the one pleading guilty, dead to rights (or close to it) beforehand. That is why I made the comparison. I think immunity regarding the intake of drugs should be a plea bargaining chip if/when they have the person caught (especially in cases of spiking, where it was only alcohol they thought they were drinking in a decent enough quantity) but that full immunity for the intake shouldn't be applied if they already have them dead to rights anyway. Similar to the sourced application, the reasoning behind this is that they'd never find out about the rapist otherwise but also because this then leaves no logical incentive, based on game theory, for the person to frame the rapist. You see, if you were to offer immunity even after they are caught taking drugs etc, you incentivise them to frame as they figure the penalty for lying and framing is just as bad as going down for the drug use or whatever. There should, however, be plea bargaining involved when the alcohol was spiked or if they were coerced/blackmailed into it. Again, I am waiting for Pro to provide us with any evidence that this remote case of 'motivated framing' is ever done on a large enough scale to be tied to the introduction of immunity and plea bargaining but do note that that's outside the realms of the resolution since the resolution is about immunity; which I have said would apply to cases where they otherwise wouldn't be caught (from R1 I told this is about giving them less to lose and relatively more to gain, technically they only have less to lose but in terms of justice and feeling safe on campus there's more to gain relatively speaking than the scenario without immunity).

Also note that Pro keeps talking about 'imbalance of rights' and how it's unfairly making life easier for the framers. The entire debate is a dynamic that was supposed to be at most half about framing (which I cut at the root early on with pointing out that immunity policy always is enforced, contingent on that what you give is valid information according to you and that immunity never ever covers you from punishment for the obstruction of justice later on). The entire other half of the debate (comparing the moral and legal severity of rape as opposed to, let's say having alcohol or drugs) has been glossed over by Pro, seemingly intentionally at this point. Pro keeps making this about Con not wanting the rapist to get a fair trial, but really no trial at all will happen without immunity and the immunity is always contingent on the information being true to the knowledge of the accuser. Even if immunity for the original drug-intake applies, the new crime of obstructing justice and deceiving the administration to frame someone for a crime would itself be an entirely new crime that the 'immunity' has zero application to. What part of this is so confusing that Pro keeps saying I have to justify framing someone for rape in order to justify the resolution being false?

This debate comes down to whether or not it is the removal of immunity being declined as an option that's immoral (Pro advocates this, which was my probable burden 1 for Pro to meet). I believe I have explained that actually, without immunity you don't even know most of the rapists to go after, and that even worse the extent of drugs taken in when things get spiked isn't even fair to blame the victim for in the first place. I also explained how based on consequences vs rewards, you significantly create less and less drawbacks for coming forward (but not framing) rapists with the incentives of the justice and feeling safe on campus as both retributive and deterrent factors of game theory. If you hate that phrase, use your own.
Round 4
Exile's avatar
Exile
Pro
#7
As is testament to this final round, two very different worlds exist in this debate. 

One world is hyper focused on two extremely important elements: the status quo of college Title IX policies, and the person being accused of rape/sexual assault.

The status quo is not hard to realize after reading the number of amnesty policies that I cited in R2. All share an impeccable resemblance to one another, and the rhetoric is obvious considering the purpose of these immunity policies. The rhetoric is in favor of only the victim, and no one else. It is obvious to see that the interests of college administrators are not in creating a better student dynamic, but to simply solve the issue at hand the simplest way possible, and that is to have the accused serve as a policy scapegoat.

When a policy works against a type of person, it causes an oppression. The oppression that lies within immunity policies is the rights of the person accused. We have seen how immunity policies play an integral role in causing an impenetrable burden when creating a defense. Anyone who is accused of anything has the right to create a defense against said accusation. College administrators have forgotten this logical principle, and thus it leads to sever damaged of someone who while could be guilty of carrying out a rape, is also just as likely to be innocent. Colleges have forgotten the importance of being innocent until proven guilty, and this bias for the victim at hand does a very important damage to this principle. The end result is a witch hunt, and not one that surrounds the framing of good willed men/women, but that of the rights that exist within the United States that are becoming less present on college campuses by the daily. The price is paid, and it is an unjust one at that.

The other world, that of Con, has ignored not only the status quo, but the negative effects that immunity policies cause. Summed up, Con simply tells that if there is no immunity policy, then victims cannot come forward about their rape. The hyper focus is not on the status quo, but on the concept of date rape. Never once does Con give you any evidence of date rape and how immunity policies deter it (like he should have) and instead excuses this action by mentioning that it's evident because of game theory. Con also desperately tries to equate immunity policies with plea bargains and attempts to sell the fact that they are essentially the same, when absolutely none of his sources that he cited support this notion (as is evident in the policies that I cited in R2). 

If there has ever been a misconstruing or "twisting" of words (that Con has graciously claimed me of doing in R2), it just took place in Con's R3 argument about my stance. Repeatedly does Con equate my stance with the idea of someone being framed of rape, when my arguments let alone thesis statement say nothing of the sort. My stance has been in favor of the accused from the start, not because of the idea that someone can get framed but rather the fact that immunity policies make it near impossible to formulate a satisfactory defense. It is obvious to see that Con has failed to contest my points effectively, and has instead rushed for the strategy of dismissal. 

The comparison is easy to make at the end of the day: one side recognizes the reality of society, and the other has not. We have seen how I argued that there is a plethora of resources for a victim to get the justice s/he deserves. We have seen how much damage an immunity policy does to the person accused of rape. We have seen how an immunity policy does not guarantee the health of the victim, and choses to ignore it. Rape happens to men and women alike on the daily, and if we want to help victims of rape/sexual assault, then we have to help the right way by having the interest of both parties at hand. Only then can we pursue a fair hearing and rightfully put rapists behind bars, and not through college Title IX policies that obstruct this form of justice.

The overall crux of this debate is very simple, and that is the status quo; the reality of college administrations, and nothing else. It's not about deterring date rape, plea bargains, or conspiracy theories that Con tries to paint as Pro with poor taste. Without recognizing the reality that exists on our college campuses today, you have a perfect recipe for ignorance. It is for this sole reason that Pro has won this debate. 

This is what you need to determine when judging this debate: do you want address the status quo and the detriments, or do you want to ignore them? 

If you agree with the former, then you will vote for Pro. 

Special thanks to RationalMadman for contending this debate topic. I look forward to your response and the outcome of this debate!
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
Con
#8
The status quo is actually a lot larger than you realise and is completely in support of Con (even in most Islamic nations but most certainly in the "developed world"). The fact of the matter is that if you run to your doctor, whether physical or psychological, to your lawyer or the cops, you will find immunity, plea bargaining and much else at your disposal as the victim of date rape or really any rape (on campus or not) where you were compromised beforehand legally or morally. You won't always find full immunity but when it comes to date rape, you almost always will (if anything they'll plea bargain you further, begging for information on the dealer etc.). So, while Pro makes a severe error in both logic and use of the logical fallacy, in turning to the status quo, I urge us not to assume that's what's done is right but still to consider the irony that Pro is misguiding us anyway. If Harvard, for instance, were to genuinely put a black mark on one's record or even worse kick one out of clubs and/or study groups due to revealed drinking that came from the victim themselves on a rape case, it would be demonised by the media (probably by journalists from itself) in no time. If status quo and caring about social norms and horrors was ever the concern of Pro, it would result in Pro conceding the debate realising how putrid it is on a moral level to equate drug usage/possession laws for one's own personal use to rape (seriously, you should feel sick reading that it's just that morally wrong).

This debate, from the side of Con, began as what was assumed was one where both sides agreed that rape was morally abhorrent and nigh-unforgivable and that the real concern was how best to handle the victims and get information out of them, propagating a safer campus and world (since college educated rapists become high-level career-rising sexual harassers as they get older or perhaps abuse their authority in different but just as sinister ways). I made the case of deterrence as well as making a better culture in the campus and college-educated world (which is almost all the highest ranking jobs in society) in R2 and R3. It's been completely ignored by Pro, as has the entirety of my case. Even when Pro quotes sections of text and types something underneath them, it rarely was ever an actual reply to what I said, rather it was more of a deceptive off-shoot.

Pro has failed to meet their BoP entirely. In fact, even proving that rape should be morally equated to framing someone for rape has failed to be proven by them but the fact that that's become their whole argument (until the last Round) is a bit disturbing. There was some conspiracy theory throughout that you're 'unbalancing' things too far against the rapist in allowing people to get away with drug use. If it isn't clear by now that immunity is offered in cases where the college otherwise wouldn't be aware of drug use (unless perhaps it invaded everyone's privacy 1984-style to see who takes what at any given time) then I don't know how to get the point through to you, reader. I tried my level best to use the 10k characters every Round to explain how if you use drugs/alcohol and aren't going to be caught anyway, the only thing stopping you coming forward is a phobia of authority, the authority you should trust the most in your time as a university student; your college's administration. When I say trust the most, I do realise I am ignoring parents but we don't all have the best parents in the world and the college is in a way like a surrogate guardian for many who had it tough in life beforehand. Not all universities have such explicit immunity policies laid out but in practise most have the moral decency to realise that if a student is shaking, crying, embarassed and horrified telling you that they've been raped on campus or at least by someone from the college elsewhere, you're one hell of psychopathic administrator to then say 'oh that's so horrrible, let's just kick you out of your studies, label you as a drug addict and remind you that you better not dare frame the rapist if you know what's good for ya!' when it comes to a fair trial and 'innocent until proven guilty' it seems Pro only applies this to accused rapists. What about the one coming forward with the information? What on Earth warrants this assumption that they are guilty and framing, until proven innocent? How about a fair trial and fair attitude to the one coming forward? The title of this debate actually is worded 'victim' not 'potential victim', so it's clear that this is Pro twisting things later on, realising how strong my case was, in order to avoid the facts and very valid points I've put forth.

There is no room to dilly-dally here, voters, you should vote me the winner of this debate. I explain that it is immunity that's meant to be the card you play with and avoid removing, not the declining of immunity, which hurts everyone if we want to remove rapists from the college-educated society and society as a whole for that matter. I also pragmatically explained why even in the extreme case (that barely ever happens) of someone framing someone for date rape... Like seriously, who goes through the effort of framing someone for rape and then says 'oh by the way I was illegally intaking this drug while it happened....' ? Do you know someone who will do that? The sad truth is maybe some extreme minority would. Unfortunately for Pro, fair trial for the accused happens regardless and immunity for the accuser is withdrawn, with obstruction of justice slapped on top and prosecuted with a vengeance, if it's later found out that intentional deceit and misleading was what led to this information. Immunity always, every single instance of it ever being used IS CONTINGENT ON THE INFORMATION BEING TRUE TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONE GETTING IMMUNITY! 

I would go into morality but it seems Pro totally agrees and made the case for me throughout, that rape more morally reprehensible than intake of alcohol that's spiked or even than drugs knowingly being taken in. In fact even cheating on a test and such are far less morally reprehensible than rape.

In conclusion, Pro has not met their BoP in a single way. The most they have done is to disproportionately exaggerate the frequency of people framing others for rape, while ignoring the fact that immunity is always contingent on the information given being sound according the one giving it and can be revoked later on if this is proven untrue.