Rape and Schrödinger's Box

[Meadowchik]

Words make it so easy to simplify a situation such as the one where an individual comes forth to say they have been raped or sexually assaulted.  Words create an identity, "rape victim," then making the story easily consumable when told and retold. I've understood this before, but in the past few days my thoughts on the BYU Honor Code and Rape topic have been muddled.  This morning, however, during a nice walk in the crisp Spring air and sunshine, I was able to get my thoughts together more clearly.

In reality, when an individual, for example, an 18-year-old first-semester BYU freshman girl, comes forward to say she has been raped, for rational human beings being asked to make decisions based on her claim, Schrödinger's Box is created:

She may very well be a victim of rape.  If she is a victim of rape, then her rapist is guilty.  Therefore, to believe her word, those she tells must believe in the guilt of another.  On the other hand, at the same time, rational thinking implies the possibility that the one she has accused is innocent of rape, thus implying she may be guilty of deception. So for, say, a body like the police, a bishop, a friend, or the Honor Code Office, they are presented with the problem much like Schrödinger's box. This young woman is either a victim or victimizer, the accused is either a rapist or a victim. 

The authorities have to determine whether or not they can "unlock" this box, hopefully revealing what needs to be known to prove the guilt of another human being.

So, to have a better understanding of why the police, or whoever else makes a decision, remember this. To them, they cannot accept her word without question, to do so would assume the guilt of another.  It's such a horrible problem to have to deal with, needing to simultaneously be sensitive to the trauma the woman is experiencing if she has been raped, while also weighing that against the need for justice to first assume the innocence of her accused.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Meadowchik

[thesometimesaint]

It works for everything. So we try to do the best we can while respecting the rights of all concerned.

[Lemuel]

So she is both raped and not raped simultaneously until the box is opened?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

So she is both raped and not raped simultaneously until the box is opened?

If you're joking, I think the joke is in poor taste.  If you're serious then I think you missed the point of Meadowchik's post

Edited April 20, 2016 by ksfisher

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If you're joking, I think the joke is in poor taste.  If you're serious then I think you missed the point of Meadowchik's post

From the point of view of those investigating the matter, it is most certainly true that both are equally possible and equally true prior to the box being open.

We all need to be even-handed and without prejudice upon encountering the unknown and unknowable.

[longview]

Why no mention of the rape kit?  Even though the victim (could be either male or female) has been subjected to a horrible (life changing) experience, it is incumbent on the victim to not shower, keep their original  clothing (if dressed at the time), and to proceed immediately to the local police station or hospital.  Or simply call 911 and wait for assistance.  If the victim is reluctant to get help, then the victim has empowered the perpetrator.  Which could lead to further victimization of other students in the months to come.

As far as the Honor Code, I would assume BYU will hold off the process until AFTER the police investigation is completed and legal process is concluded.  Ecclesiastical authorities (from Bishop up to University personnel) for respective parties will have a chance to provide assistance and counseling.  But in no case should there be any kind of cover up or evasion of responsibility.  First priority will be to pursue charges and explusion of the perpetrator.  Next to comfort the victim, provide healing, and THEN to counsel on the possible moral turpitude and the resulting vulnerability which brought about this sad incident.

Edited April 20, 2016 by longview

[USU78]

I've been puzzled by something throughout this process:  Why the report to the Title IX office and not directly to the Provo City Police Dept?  Title IX does not investigate crimes.  Mission creep?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've been puzzled by something throughout this process:  Why the report to the Title IX office and not directly to the Provo City Police Dept?  Title IX does not investigate crimes.  Mission creep?

Not all victims want to go through the legal process but still want protection.  Title IX supposedly requires a lower bar for evidence.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, longview said:

Why no mention of the rape kit?  Even though the victim (could be either male or female) has been subjected to a horrible (life changing) experience, it is incumbent on the victim to not shower, keep their original  clothing (if dressed at the time), and to proceed immediately to the local police station or hospital......

As far as the Honor Code, I would assume BYU will hold off the process until AFTER the police investigation is completed and legal process is concluded....

Not all victims are in a rational enough state of mind to be able to do what is "incumbent on the victim" to do.

In the most public case, one of the key problems was that BYU was not holding off the process until after the legal process was concluded and the student was suspended because she refused to discuss circumstances with BYU officials surrounding the alleged rape because she had been instructed not to discuss what she was going to testify with anyone (besides the police and prosecutors I am assuming).

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've been puzzled by something throughout this process:  Why the report to the Title IX office and not directly to the Provo City Police Dept?  Title IX does not investigate crimes.  Mission creep?

Uh, at least definitely creepy. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Words make it so easy to simplify a situation such as the one where an individual comes forth to say they have been raped or sexually assaulted.  Words create an identity, "rape victim," then making the story easily consumable when told and retold. I've understood this before, but in the past few days my thoughts on the BYU Honor Code and Rape topic have been muddled.  This morning, however, during a nice walk in the crisp Spring air and sunshine, I was able to get my thoughts together more clearly.

In reality, when an individual, for example, an 18-year-old first-semester BYU freshman girl, comes forward to say she has been raped, for rational human beings being asked to make decisions based on her claim, Schrödinger's Box is created:

She may very well be a victim of rape.  If she is a victim of rape, then her rapist is guilty.  Therefore, to believe her word, those she tells must believe in the guilt of another.  On the other hand, at the same time, rational thinking implies the possibility that the one she has accused is innocent of rape, thus implying she may be guilty of deception. So for, say, a body like the police, a bishop, a friend, or the Honor Code Office, they are presented with the problem much like Schrödinger's box. This young woman is either a victim or victimizer, the accused is either a rapist or a victim. 

The authorities have to determine whether or not they can "unlock" this box, hopefully revealing what needs to be known to prove the guilt of another human being.

So, to have a better understanding of why the police, or whoever else makes a decision, remember this. To them, they cannot accept her word without question, to do so would assume the guilt of another.  It's such a horrible problem to have to deal with, needing to simultaneously be sensitive to the trauma the woman is experiencing if she has been raped, while also weighing that against the need for justice to first assume the innocence of her accused.

You get several rep points for thinking of this, understanding what the heck a Schrodinger's Box IS, and mostly for knowing how to get that umlaut into the OP.

That last one still mystifies me.  

And of course I have to get a plug in here for why the correspondence theory of truth doesn't work in instances like this. 

The presumption has to be that "The rapist is guilty" is simultaneously true and false at the same time, while a contextual understanding of truth provides the answer:  In one context, he is presumed innocent, and in another he is treated as if guilty.

We end up with two contexts which would normally be seen as "conflicting" - true and false at the same time- while in fact because of their contextual presumptions, they do not conflict at all, and indeed the perceived conflict is necessary to resolve the problem.

Edited April 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mapman]

In this particular case it was reported that the police recorded a phone call by the alleged rapist where he confirmed the victim's story, which seems like pretty damning evidence. Your point that these cases can be like Schrodinger's cat is definitely valid, though. My understanding is that the cases are sometimes dropped due to lack of evidence, but the victim still should be able to get support from BYU's counselors and be able to file a report with the school.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Lemuel said:

So she is both raped and not raped simultaneously until the box is opened?

Yes, in effect according to the correspondence theory of truth, until the trials are concluded

After all both propositions cannot be true!

Is the trinity one or three persons?  These are the kinds of problems this kind of thinking leads to and which more contextual ways of seeing truth solve.

Edited April 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

The fact that in this one case the alleged rapist was not a BYU sudent and thus there needed to be no investigation of him also shifts the parameters some as well, I believe.

But the problem of needing to investigate and not just take one person's word for events when there is more than one person's innocence involved is there.  What a tightrope to walk.

Makes me glad I am not involved in such things and can instead choose to be supportive without having to make those kind of judgments in every case (even if my mind is likely to wonder because that is what I do).

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The fact that in this one case the alleged rapist was not a BYU sudent and thus there needed to be no investigation of him also shifts the parameters some as well, I believe.

But the problem of needing to investigate and not just take one person's word for events when there is more than one person's innocence involved is there.  What a tightrope to walk.

Makes me glad I am not involved in such things and can instead choose to be supportive without having to make those kind of judgments in every case (even if my mind is likely to wonder because that is what I do).

Speaking of which, note my new siggy which includes a Rorty quote, but you still get top billing for saying essentially the same thing.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It works for everything. So we try to do the best we can while respecting the rights of all concerned.

You mean it works for all crimes?

To some degree, yes, because filing a false report can be a crime. However, with rape in the case of sin or HC rules, the person coming forward as a victim is also testifying that he or she had sex. So then, even if the claim of the greater crime of rape is false, then there is the issue of extramarital sex (assuming the two are not married to each other.) 

To make an analogy, which of course is not perfect, it's like extortion to commit a crime: if the authorities disprove the element of extortion, what remains may effectively be a confession.

 

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, in effect according to the correspondence theory of truth, until the trials are concluded

After all both propositions cannot be true!

Is the trinity one or three persons?  These are the kinds of problems this kind of thinking leads to and which more contextual ways of seeing truth solve.

Is it possible for one person to believe they did not consent while the other person believes consent took place?

I think so.

So not only must authorities be prepared to respond to both as true provisionally depending on trials and evidence, they may be required to treat both as true indefinitely. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You get several rep points for thinking of this, understanding what the heck a Schrodinger's Box IS, and mostly for knowing how to get that umlaut into the OP.

That last one still mystifies me.  

And of course I have to get a plug in here for why the correspondence theory of truth doesn't work in instances like this. 

The presumption has to be that "The rapist is guilty" is simultaneously true and false at the same time, while a contextual understanding of truth provides the answer:  In one context, he is presumed innocent, and in another he is treated as if guilty.

We end up with two contexts which would normally be seen as "conflicting" - true and false at the same time- while in fact because of their contextual presumptions, they do not conflict at all, and indeed the perceived conflict is necessary to resolve the problem.

For the third thing, I googled and copied and pasted the character...that's my cheat

Certainly it seems to me that when the claim of rape is discovered, the presumed victim should be triaged away from disciplinary concerns and to medical care, be it an hour or year after the alleged rape occured. A psychologist should at least be present asap and at all subsequent meetings with the victim.

It seems to me this would be the fastest and most compassionate and effective way at getting at the truth, be the claim true, be it maliciously false, false and some result of mental illness, or false and a result of desperate fear and hopelessness.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I've been puzzled by something throughout this process:  Why the report to the Title IX office and not directly to the Provo City Police Dept?  Title IX does not investigate crimes.  Mission creep?

When it comes to generic procedure, we have to consider the general nature of the problem, not just this one case. It's part of institutional inertia.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Why no mention of the rape kit?  Even though the victim (could be either male or female) has been subjected to a horrible (life changing) experience, it is incumbent on the victim to not shower, keep their original  clothing (if dressed at the time), and to proceed immediately to the local police station or hospital.  Or simply call 911 and wait for assistance.  If the victim is reluctant to get help, then the victim has empowered the perpetrator.  Which could lead to further victimization of other students in the months to come.

As far as the Honor Code, I would assume BYU will hold off the process until AFTER the police investigation is completed and legal process is concluded.  Ecclesiastical authorities (from Bishop up to University personnel) for respective parties will have a chance to provide assistance and counseling.  But in no case should there be any kind of cover up or evasion of responsibility.  First priority will be to pursue charges and explusion of the perpetrator.  Next to comfort the victim, provide healing, and THEN to counsel on the possible moral turpitude and the resulting vulnerability which brought about this sad incident.

I'm not sure that a rape kit is always enough in itself, but I'm not an expert on them. I just know that rape is still rape even if they were dating (or married) or even if they'd previously had consensual sex or even if the victim did not visibly fight back.  

Some people can go ballistic on attackers while others freeze and others respond ineffectively. I know of a rape/murder where the victim was seen arguing with her attacker (a stranger) shortly before her death, although she was not seen to yell out for help or struggle to get away.

It's terribly sad to think that some victims are so accustomed to being kind and polite that they may not even know how to allow themselves to become enraged and defensive. 

My karate class is offering a self-defense session next week. Interestingly enough, my first self defense class was 20 years ago at BYU.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Is it possible for one person to believe they did not consent while the other person believes consent took place?

I think so.

So not only must authorities be prepared to respond to both as true provisionally depending on trials and evidence, they may be required to treat both as true indefinitely. 

No question about it!

[Yirgacheffe]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Words make it so easy to simplify a situation such as the one where an individual comes forth to say they have been raped or sexually assaulted.  Words create an identity, "rape victim," then making the story easily consumable when told and retold. I've understood this before, but in the past few days my thoughts on the BYU Honor Code and Rape topic have been muddled.  This morning, however, during a nice walk in the crisp Spring air and sunshine, I was able to get my thoughts together more clearly.

In reality, when an individual, for example, an 18-year-old first-semester BYU freshman girl, comes forward to say she has been raped, for rational human beings being asked to make decisions based on her claim, Schrödinger's Box is created:

She may very well be a victim of rape.  If she is a victim of rape, then her rapist is guilty.  Therefore, to believe her word, those she tells must believe in the guilt of another.  On the other hand, at the same time, rational thinking implies the possibility that the one she has accused is innocent of rape, thus implying she may be guilty of deception. So for, say, a body like the police, a bishop, a friend, or the Honor Code Office, they are presented with the problem much like Schrödinger's box. This young woman is either a victim or victimizer, the accused is either a rapist or a victim. 

The authorities have to determine whether or not they can "unlock" this box, hopefully revealing what needs to be known to prove the guilt of another human being.

So, to have a better understanding of why the police, or whoever else makes a decision, remember this. To them, they cannot accept her word without question, to do so would assume the guilt of another.  It's such a horrible problem to have to deal with, needing to simultaneously be sensitive to the trauma the woman is experiencing if she has been raped, while also weighing that against the need for justice to first assume the innocence of her accused.

But it's not the Honor Code personnel who are in charge when it comes to determining if a rape took place, that would be law-enforcement and the justice system.  There is no reason for the honor code people to get involved until the law has done it's job.

[Yirgacheffe]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Why no mention of the rape kit?  Even though the victim (could be either male or female) has been subjected to a horrible (life changing) experience, it is incumbent on the victim to not shower, keep their original  clothing (if dressed at the time), and to proceed immediately to the local police station or hospital.  Or simply call 911 and wait for assistance.  If the victim is reluctant to get help, then the victim has empowered the perpetrator.  Which could lead to further victimization of other students in the months to come.

As far as the Honor Code, I would assume BYU will hold off the process until AFTER the police investigation is completed and legal process is concluded.  Ecclesiastical authorities (from Bishop up to University personnel) for respective parties will have a chance to provide assistance and counseling.  But in no case should there be any kind of cover up or evasion of responsibility.  First priority will be to pursue charges and explusion of the perpetrator.  Next to comfort the victim, provide healing, and THEN to counsel on the possible moral turpitude and the resulting vulnerability which brought about this sad incident.

This does not seem to be the case at all.

[Yirgacheffe]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You mean it works for all crimes?

To some degree, yes, because filing a false report can be a crime. However, with rape in the case of sin or HC rules, the person coming forward as a victim is also testifying that he or she had sex. So then, even if the claim of the greater crime of rape is false, then there is the issue of extramarital sex (assuming the two are not married to each other.) 

To make an analogy, which of course is not perfect, it's like extortion to commit a crime: if the authorities disprove the element of extortion, what remains may effectively be a confession.

 

 

 

 

And even then you are still left with a problem, just because the state can't prove it was rape, it does not mean that it wasn't rape from the victims POV, or consensual from the other view.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

But it's not the Honor Code personnel who are in charge when it comes to determining if a rape took place, that would be law-enforcement and the justice system.  There is no reason for the honor code people to get involved until the law has done it's job.

They are not the public authority in it, no, but they do have a legalistic role at the school.