This case is different in that is does national and international attention to the legal issues.
How the University system fails assault victims.
How the Judicial system fails those that come forward seeking justice.
How sentencing is handled.
How judges are elected and is justice meted out fairly.
I happen to be of the view that this is par for the course; much of the same; nothing completely out of the ordinary.
Yes, you are correct it has been par for the course. How to change how sexual assault is handled judicially is the issue.
The current system is a coercive monopoly
it's not a competitive monopoly which provides such good service at such stunningly good prices that competition cannot get established
it's coercive, in that it stamps out any competition. It views the rape, not as an offence against the victim, but as an offence against a statute and the state
Like all coercive monopolies, compared to freely competing providers (all other things kept constant) it will provide lower quality, less quantity and at an ever increasing higher price.
It doesn't have to worry about attracting customers who are seeking redress for wrongs committed against them, it denies them anywhere else to go, It's judges can remain out of touch and ignorant. If anything, crap judgements can be used as an argument for more money to help overcome the present difficulties, which in almost any state sector service, are almost always blamed on underfunding.
In private contracts, including insurance, it's normal to have an agreed system of dispute resolution or arbitration which both parties agree to abide by when they sign.
If the mediator or arbitrator made a bad decision, they'd be out of business on a much quicker time scale than the length of a state sector judge's elected term. For both parties to enter the contract - the mediator or arbitrator has have a reputation for sound judgements and absolute impartiality
Sound judgement and absolute impartiality are qualities that seem to have been sadly lacking in the present judge
IMO, the boys father sounds like a completely clueless entitled and invalidating arsehole.
There's also the question that has already been raised in this thread, of the crappy way that many universities treat their customers (their students).
There's a very strong argument that university administrators are more interested in ticking the boxes for government funds, rather than in competing to attract students by offering an excellent education and a safe environment.
I realise that this reply has gone far too long already - a little history might be useful, I'll happily start a fresh thread if anyone wants to discuss it further.
The University of Bologna (probably the oldest in the western world), began when the groups of students from outside the city of Bologna, who had travelled there to study, all got together to form an organisation, to universally insure against the claims for unpaid debts (if you were in Bologna, you were held liable for the debts of anyone from your city or your principality who absconded without paying)
and to hire teachers.
What might that look like in a modern university?
all students required to take out legal insurance against tort claims as a condition of acceptance (insurance sufficeint to compensate for loss and for the continued treatment of victims)
Expulsion of anyone who looses their insurance (as a result of behaviour likely to lead to a claim)
Small enough insurance groups that there is an incentive to keep an eye on people who are likely to generate a claim, or an incentive for insurance groups to police the campus (present day campus police hardly have much of a reputation).
In a dispute, any judge has to be acceptable to both parties and their insurers.
