Are individuals in the USA innocent until proven guilty? Does someone accused of a crime get to cross-examine the person making the complaint? Is someone who is acquitted subject to being tried again for the same alleged crime? The Constitution answers each of these questions in a rather clear way: people are innocent until proven guilty; the accused does get to hear and cross-examine the person making the accusation and there is no double jeopardy for the same alleged crime. These rules have been in place since the Bill of Rights was passed at the start of our republic. They applied to everyone until the Obama administration decided to write a letter to universities explaining to them how to deal with cases of alleged sexual assaults on campus. It wasn't an amendment to the Constitution. It wasn't a law passed by Congress. It wasn't even a regulation properly promulgated by the Department of Education. No, it was a letter sent out from that department to colleges and universities across the country. And that letter told the universities that in cases of alleged sexual assault they should only require proof by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The letter said that it was proper to bar the accused from cross-examining the complainant or even hearing her testimony. The letter also told universities that if the accused is acquitted, they must let the complainant appeal that decision so that the accused could be tried a second time. There's more, but that's enough.
The Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos has now withdrawn that letter and told the universities to follow the rules in place prior to the Obama era letter. DeVos says that new regulations will be forthcoming -- adopted through proper practice -- but that until then she could not let the tainted and illegal Obama regulations stay in place.
The response has been predictable. Many on the left have denounced DeVos and President Trump for not caring about victims of sexual assault on campus. It's a nonsense charge, but it is being made by many nevertheless. Think of it this way. A horrible thing happens; a child is crossing the street in a cross walk and a car zooms through and hits him. The driver does not stop; it is a hit and run. There is only one witness, a 60 year old woman who tells police she thinks it was a red SUV that hit the kid. About 15 minutes later, police find a man with an SUV pulling into a parking lot about two miles away. They question him and learn that he had been driving nearby for the last half hour. They arrest him for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident. There's a trial that follows. The suspect is not allowed to hear the testimony of the witness about the red car. The suspect is not allowed to cross examine the witness either. The police know that the witness doesn't know the make, model or age of the SUV. In fact, she is not even sure that she saw an SUV rather than a sedan. The jury, however, does not know this. When the jury deliberates, the members were not really sure but they thought it more likely than not that the accused committed a crime. They vote to convict him.
If a case proceeded in the way outlined above, every court in the country would throw out that conviction and chastise the prosecution for proceeding in a clearly unconstitutional manner. But that is what the Obama letter outlined for public universities across the country to do. DeVos is correct to get rid of this travesty. We don't get to ignore the Constitution because we want to show that we care about a victim.
The Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos has now withdrawn that letter and told the universities to follow the rules in place prior to the Obama era letter. DeVos says that new regulations will be forthcoming -- adopted through proper practice -- but that until then she could not let the tainted and illegal Obama regulations stay in place.
The response has been predictable. Many on the left have denounced DeVos and President Trump for not caring about victims of sexual assault on campus. It's a nonsense charge, but it is being made by many nevertheless. Think of it this way. A horrible thing happens; a child is crossing the street in a cross walk and a car zooms through and hits him. The driver does not stop; it is a hit and run. There is only one witness, a 60 year old woman who tells police she thinks it was a red SUV that hit the kid. About 15 minutes later, police find a man with an SUV pulling into a parking lot about two miles away. They question him and learn that he had been driving nearby for the last half hour. They arrest him for the crime of leaving the scene of an accident. There's a trial that follows. The suspect is not allowed to hear the testimony of the witness about the red car. The suspect is not allowed to cross examine the witness either. The police know that the witness doesn't know the make, model or age of the SUV. In fact, she is not even sure that she saw an SUV rather than a sedan. The jury, however, does not know this. When the jury deliberates, the members were not really sure but they thought it more likely than not that the accused committed a crime. They vote to convict him.
If a case proceeded in the way outlined above, every court in the country would throw out that conviction and chastise the prosecution for proceeding in a clearly unconstitutional manner. But that is what the Obama letter outlined for public universities across the country to do. DeVos is correct to get rid of this travesty. We don't get to ignore the Constitution because we want to show that we care about a victim.
No comments:
Post a Comment