one_eyed_jack

The problem with law enforcement's approach to sex crimes is one of perverse incentives. Thanks to a flow of federal money and asset forfeiture laws that allow local police departments to enrich themselves with what they seize from drug investigation, they tend to put most of their resources into drug enforcement. They'll send out teams of guys to raid pot dealers while rape kits sit untested for months, even years, if they are ever tested at all. They don't get any money for solving rapes, but they do for going after drug dealers. As far as defense attorneys go, they should not be shamed for "victim blaming" because they raise a consent defense on behalf of their client when there is evidence to support it. Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to a vigorous defense. (I see this narrative about defense attorneys raised frequently, I swear they must teach kids in school these days that Atticus Finch was the bad guy in To Kill a Mockingbird because he questioned a rape accuser.)

Sufficient evidence for what - a conviction? Yes, if the jury believes it, the victim's testimony alone could be enough. But that doesn't really mean much because the alleged victim's testimony is not the only evidence presented at a trial. Whether the jury believes the victim will often hinge on how well it matches the other evidence presented. In this case, given that there was no independent evidence to substantiate the allegations, and possibly evidence to contradict them, it would be pretty tough to sell a jury on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not going to satisfy everyone, but based on the evidence this strikes me as the correct result. At the end of the day, what you had was a Twitter accusation that Sano committed a serious crime in a public place 2 years ago. The MLB investigated and found no evidence to corroborate it, and apparently, perhaps some evidence to contradict it. I have a hard time seeing how punishing Sano would be fair in this situation. Maybe there's temptation to do so to show support for #metoo, but I think we also need to be mindful of the fact that this country also has a history of punishing black men for allegations of sexual misconduct against a white woman based on flimsy evidence. It's interesting to me that so many seem to be so quick to assume that Sano is guilty here - would the reaction be the same if a black woman made the same accusation 2 years later, giving a reason for waiting that is demonstrably false, against Mauer or Dozier?

To your last point, this is a perfect example of what we've been talking about when we say that it's important to distinguish between criminal and boorish behavior, and how damaging it is to conflate them. And it refutes the claim of those pushing back at the point that "nobody is saying those are the same thing". Well, look at all the "Ansari accused of sexual assault" headlines. I think another way this happens is that there are these non-specific terms like "sexual misconduct" and "inappropriate behavior" thrown around. "Sexual harassment", "assault" and "rape" are legal terms with specific definitions. There may be arguments in a given case whether the conduct at issue falls into those definitions, but they are clearly defined. But "sexual misconduct" is a vague term used to encompass all sorts of bad behavior of vastly varying degrees by men towards women. So when an article talks about the number of the men in the entertainment industry that have been accused of "sexual misconduct", then lists Weinsten and Ansari as examples, it creates a false impression of equivalency between them.

Yeah I'm kinda uneasy about this one too. That statement does make you wonder. Also the way she went to a publication about this a year later with every lurid detail of the evening, after changing her mind that this was not just an awkward encounter but an assault. It does seem like this was a lot more about getting revenge on Ansari than on getting justice or changing the culture. Also, neither gender should have to do the 'vast majority of putting on the brakes'. Both parties should have the same responsibility for clear, open communication and respecting what the other person tells them. This woman admits she was a willing participant in sexual activity with Ansari, but complains that he did not pick up on her "non-verbal cues" that she wasn't enthusiastic about it. I don't know what non-verbal cues she gave off, but his failure to read them does not make him a criminal.

The latest to stand accused is Aziz Ansari I think this one touches on a lot of the issues discussed in this thread.

This is a good piece that articulates a lot of the concerns I have about where the #metoo movement is going with its "reflexive and unnuanced sense of outrage", even though I am wholly supportive of the main underlying issue that prompted its creation. Worth a read.

I think we're talking about 2 different things here. You're talking about what should be considered "OK" in a general sense. But I'm talking about it in a more disciplinary context. Being found guilty of sexual harassment can get you fired from your job or kicked out of school. So in that context, it's important to have a clear definition of what constitutes "sexual harassment", it's not enough to do what you and the article you cited are doing and say it's just something where everyone should instinctively understand where the line is and not cross it. They gray areas I'm referring to are those where we would probably say that a guy was clumsy or misguided in making an advance and should have proceeded differently, or not at all. But his behavior was not so bad as to require official consequences. For example an issue of mixed signals where a guy mistakes a woman's friendliness for romantic interest and makes an advance that is rejected. (Your repeated claims these matters are 'easy' and 'simple' notwithstanding, this is something that happens with some regularity.) Maybe it's fair to say that he was dense and should have read the situation better, but should he lose his job or his scholarship over it? Unless he persisted after rejection, that seems draconian to me. But it would fit your definition, so he would. A few other things: 1) Consent cannot be obtained unless requested. My point was that under your broad definition, any request for consent that is rejected would qualify as sexual harassment. You seem to be saying that you shouldn't even ask unless you know the answer is going to be 'yes', but that just isn't realistic. You can't really know until you ask, hence the requirement that you ask. 2) Women are individuals. They do not all act and think the same way. So the broad, sweeping generalizations about what women know and do are not particularly helpful. 3) You keep bringing up interactions with "strangers". That doesn't seem relevant to me because sexual harassment is largely a workplace issue, and co-workers, generally speaking, are not strangers. There are different norms and expectations for when you're interacting with someone you've never seen in your life vs. someone you know. Making an off-color joke to a friend is quite different from making one to someone you've just met.

We can all recognize the difference between obviously innocuous conduct (walking up to a woman and saying hello) and obviously disgusting conduct (walking up to a woman and asking her to disrobe). But it's always easy to see the extremes, it's the spectrum between the two that's problematic. My comment, again, was on your definition, which I don't believe even attempts to distinguish harassment from flirting. You can claim that anyone should be able to see the difference, but definitions are important. They get written into policies and laws, and are the basis for adjudication of complaints. Suppose a college had a sexual harassment policy that incorporated your definition, which has 3 elements: 1) verbal or physical behavior, that is 2) uninvited and unwelcome, and is 3) of a sexual nature Prior to any consensual sexual encounter, there has to be an expression of sexual interest of some form, yes? Under this definition, any such expression where the interest is not shared by the recipient would qualify as sexual harassment because all 3 requirements are satisfied. You can try to wave that away by saying nobody would ever bring a frivolous complaint, but the approach of creating an overly broad definition of something, then just trusting that it will be reasonably applied and not abused has been tried many times in many contexts before. It never works.

A couple of things here: 1) You're using a dictionary definition. Dictionaries are not law, we don't dole out punishments based on what it says in dictionaries. 2) If that's really the definition that people are going to use, then it's unsurprising that there would be confusion about what sexual harassment is because it's so broad that, read literally, it could encompass virtually any flirtation or advance that is not met with reciprocal interest.

Duly noted. I misinterpreted an earlier post and perhaps overreacted a bit My apologies, I will be more deliberative before responding from here on.

Sorry, I forgot, one cannot make a point these days without the prerequisite degree of gertruding. I believe that Betsy Bissen endured a traumatic event and that shes deserves our support and gratitude for coming forward. OK?

Fun fact one can be concerned about addressing the seriousness of sexual misconduct AND fairness to the accused.

I made a longer post about this in the other thread, but one point worth repeating is that there is no consensus on the percentage of accusations that are false and the 6% figure is disputed. In any case, while it's safe to say that the majority of accusations are not false, false accusations happen enough that it is both dangerous and foolish to dismiss the possibility off the bar due to its alleged rarity. I don't believe this is a false accusation, but I object to cavalierly waving away concerns about false accusations based on their alleged rarity. Even if you take the 6% figure as true, that means out of every 100,000 allegations, 6,000 are false. That's 6,000 innocent men that are unjustly punished or branded as sexual predators. Are you comfortable with that, if it means the other 94,000 face consequences? What if you, your father or your brother were among those 6,000?

Fair enough. Nick going in is certainly a lot different than Betsy going in, but I still don't think we can assume that the police would have done nothing. It depends on what Nick would have told them. If he gave them enough detail to investigate further, it's possible they would have done so. I used to work for the Hennepin County court system, I saw domestic assault cases prosecuted where the victim was uncooperative with law enforcement. Not many, but it happens. To be clear, I'm not saying that Nick or others Besty confided in should have gone to the police (I wouldn't have in Nick's shoes either), or that the police definitely would have taken it further (probably not, possible.) My only point is that the speculation doesn't help.

I understand that knowing the accuser must make this situation somewhat emotional for you, but this is irresponsible speculation. What makes you so certain that you know how law enforcement would have reacted if she had gone to them immediately? You realize that the police investigated the allegations against Kirby Puckett and it led to criminal charges filed by Hennepin County, right?

I'm mostly lurk and rarely post these days, but it was a fun season, and I wanted to thank all involved for making it more fun - I enjoy the content and the conversation. The ending was tough, more so because it was in the Bronx. I hate the Yankees with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns. If this had happened in Boston or Houston, I wouldn't be nearly as ticked off as I am right now. But the future is bright. This team can score runs. The rotation and bullpen need help. Here's hoping that the postseason losing streak ends 1 year from right now.

Look I don't truly know whether Mauer is tough or not. I've never claimed to. I was just trying to refute the line of thinking that because Souhan, a bunch of fans, and possibly one former teammate with a penchant for saying ludicrous things think he is, there must be something to it. I have no inside access to what goes on behind the scenes. But I can see what happens on the field and draw some conclusions from that. For example I think what Mauer was able to accomplish from '08-10 tends to refute Hunter's 2007 comment. I don't see how you excel as an MLB catcher to that degree while lacking toughness. To me, it's also not particularly suggestive of a guy who "begs" out of the lineup because of a bruise.

Information? You've cited other people's opinions and perceptions. That's not information. The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a couple of local writers who like to stir up the hornet's nest, a bunch of ranting keyboard warriors in the Strib comments section, and one former teammate whose mouth moves faster than his brain does not give it legitimacy.

Sore hip won't stop Mauer from catching Mauer playing through all kinds of pain Examples in addition to the one I posted earlier in the thread.

Well, that assumes that Mauer could have played at 80%. But we don't know that and frankly, neither does Hunter. I noticed Hunter also went with the Favre tough guy schtick there: "Me, I grew up in a different time. I'm ready to play no matter what -- broken toe, hamstring, groin, back -- and that's the mentality I've grown to have." I'm with twinsnorth, this is macho silliness. Instead of making it the analysis of risk vs. reward that it should be, it gets made into this thing about manhood where you play "no matter what'. (And Torii has missed time due to injury in his career, so clearly he does not play "no matter what".) But getting back to the Souhan's original comment: I would believe that Mauer has been held out of the lineup on days he could have played. But Souhan said Mauer begged out of the lineup because of a bruise. That I do not find believable at all.

Others players have defended him before. Perkins here for example. But Souhan didn't ask any other players for comment here, and they're not going to pro-actively address something like this. I don't know what Hunter said, but much as I loved watching him as a player, his memory is questionable. And while the local scribes may be closer to the team and have more access than us, that doesn't mean that they are always right, or that their word should be taken as gospel.

The appropriate question is where is the prrof that Souhan was right. The burden is on him to support it, not on everyone else to refute it. You can't throw out a claim like that and expect it to be assumed accurate until someone provides proof to the contrary.

I'm not sure we know enough about how that whole thing went down to say that Maddon himself acted unethically. I guess all is fair in love and war, and the Cubs felt that they had the chance to replace a good general with a great general, but it doesn't feel right to me somehow. I'll tell you this, Epstein better be right about this, because if he isn't, and the Cubbies flounder under Maddon, it could come back to bite him.

Not my first choice, but not a bad choice. I'm sure there will be more teeth-gnashing over Maddon, but in terms of W-L, I don't think having him manage the 2015 Twins instead of Molitor would make much of a difference.