Comments on: “Are One in Five College Women Sexually Assaulted?”

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:22:19 +0000

You didn’t answer my follow questions about what your niece actually received.

Jim, you think the statistics are flawed. Most statistics are. I gave you reasons why they could also be skewed in the opposite direction. But, ultimately, I’d rather be relying on flawed statistics than anecdotal stories involving unnamed schools and 20 year old stories. Because at least statistics try to give you a full picture. They may fail but they try. War stories don’t even try.

(How was he talking to the “local magistrate” before he made a plea also escapes me. And the officer “smelled his breath” and then gave him a DUI. I would think a little more would have been done. )

But, yes, in a free society people will sometimes be changed with crimes they did not commit. Of course, it happens more often in a unfree society. People are wrongfully accused (and convicted and put to death, actually) for murder. But let’s not pull that crime out of the ole law books that Gitacarver knows so well. (Hey, Git, you won’t tell me where the law is. Can you tell me what form your found it in? What type of “book” did you find it in?)

By the way, I’m not suggesting your unverified stories don’t give any insight. But I think the probative value of statistics and facts we can actually demonstrate is much higher. Statistics are collected and methodology is revealed. And you can take shots at that methodology as you have done. But how do I take shots at a what your think your niece received as literature? I’d like you to call your niece and verify that the school gave her that definition in literature as you said. I’ll bet she tells you right there that you got it wrong.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:06:13 +0000

By the way Ron, my favorite DUI charge, was one that I was called as a witness for the Defense. It took place in Butler, Pennsylvania in 1991. A man from out of state obtained permission to park his Winnebago in the parking lot of a bar overnight. He then proceeds to drink several beers and then retires to his bunk in the Winnebago. At about 3 AM he awakened by a knock on his door, by a police officer. When the officer smells his breath he is promptly charged with DUI. The local magistrate offers to reduce the charge to public drunkeness, but the man has a job that requires a security clearance, so he goes to court. It costs him $1500 to get the charge thrown out. I had been talking to him at the bar and gave him my name and phone number, because I was interested in a job that his company had open. I was called as a witness to verify that he had asked the bar owner for permission to remain overnight, proving that he had no intent to drive.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:34:44 +0000

Ron,
Nobody walked away who should have been charged. That has no bearing on what I am saying. The point that I am trying to make is that statistics are reliable only when there is a clearly defined definition of their scope. My other point is that DUI statistics are artificially inflated and the problem is not as wide spread as certain people want you to think. I am pretty sure that the same thing is true about the title of this post. Note that the information used here comes from surveys and not criminal charges or prosecutions. If the women polled believe that the definition of sexual assault is the same definition as provided to my niece, then they may believe that they have been sexually assaulted, even if the incident does not result in criminal charges.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:15:15 +0000

Right, Gitarcarver. It is in the books. Them law books. Over there.

Well, at least you admit that you know where it is.

And my friend’s story is germane to the argument but I can’t tell you any of the details. Okay, I’m done.

Please tell me how the so called “details” you think you are missing are relevant? Because you think they are?

You are done simply because you cannot and will not address the facts and issues.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:49:50 +0000

So what do we do with that nugget? Do we not longer use statistics? Are they without meaning?

So you are representing that a college wrote down somewhere in printed literature that if a man looks at you like he thinks you are attractive, that is sexual assault? I’ll take your word for it but you are saying you actually saw this with your own eyes? Is anyone aware of any report of this anywhere?

Of course MADD spins statistics. They are a trade organization. Cato does it too as does every trial lawyer group. Every interest group spins statistics. Both the ones you like and the ones you hate.

I’m sure what you say has happened somewhere. Sure. But I’ll also bet you police have let lots of people walk who they should have charged. Who does not know someone who the police have not let walk on what should have been a DWI charge? How do those stats balance out because there is some level of garbage in, garbage out? I have no idea.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:40:50 +0000

The intent of my post was that you can use statistics to prove or disprove anything that you want. All you have to do is to broaden the definition enough to obtain the desired result. My information on the campus definition comes from my neice’s literature from her Freshman orientation. I won’t mention which college because she is still a student there and I have used my name on this post. As far as my bringing up “drunk driving” is concerned, all you have to do is to look at the the way that MADD spins the NHTSA’s statistics. NHTSA does NOT track drunk driving incidents. They track “alcohol related” incidents. Under their definition of “alcohol related” if an intoxicated person, steps off the curb, in front of my vehicle and I have no chance to avoid him, it is listed as an alcohol related incident. If I am a completely sober designated driver, but my passengers have been drinking, and I hit a deer, it is considered “alcohol related”. I’m friends with several police officers and they have told me that it is standard policy to check the “alcohol related” box on their accident report forms. The purpose behind this is so that they can show a problem in order to obtain grant money for DUI checkpoints. These grants come from the State, NHTSA and MADD. It is literally “cop welfare”. They man these checkpoints with part-time officers, auxilliary officers and retirees. MADD uses NHTSA statistics to give the impression that drunk driving is a much larger problem than it actually is.

By: Benji

Benji — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:18:49 +0000

Assume instead that someone with a 0.23 BAC is sitting in the driver’s seat of a car with an open beer. He is fumbling with his keys near the ignition but isn’t coordinated enough, so he has not yet started the car. If a police officer sees this, can he do nothing until the drunk man starts moving in a 1.5-ton hunk of metal? What about if the ignition is on but the car is still in park?

At some point sitting in a car become sitting in a car with intent to drive it. The law isn’t perfect but it exists for a valid reason. Its main flaw is assuming that anyone drunk sitting in a car plans to drive it imminently. That isn’t true – but some people sitting drunk in a car probably are planning on driving it and it’d be nice for the rest of us if they didn’t get to that point.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:01:42 +0000

Right, Gitarcarver. It is in the books. Them law books. Over there. And my friend’s story is germane to the argument but I can’t tell you any of the details. Okay, I’m done.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:06:56 +0000

Benji,

There are many laws that can punish you for something you plan on doing but haven’t done yet.

If you plan a murder, you are not convicted of a murder. Sitting in the front seat of a car is not the same as driving the car.

Look at it this way….. assume that after washing your car, you decide to polish it. You open the door and turn on the radio. Your four year old gets in the car and pretends to be driving.

Does anyone here think that the 4 year old should be arrested for driving under age? Not having a license? Not having proof of insurance?

Sitting in a car is not the same as driving it.

By: Benji

Benji — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:46:52 +0000

There are many laws that can punish you for something you plan on doing but haven’t done yet. Attempted murder or conspiracy to murder are cases where ‘may’ murder someone in the future but haven’t done so yet.
The difference, I think, is that for those offenses there needs to be convincing proof that you intend to do the deed. These DUI apparently assume the intent is there so long as you’re drunk and in a car – which seems reasonable but ignores people that want to sleep it off in their cars. That’s probably not a very large group, but I’m concerned because it’s a group that’s trying to not drive drunk and is punished for it. They might then decide the best alternative is to try and drive anyway, forcing them into endangering everyone else on the road.