|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 18, 2006 11:32:27 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 18, 2006 11:51:31 GMT -5
kc -- No. I think that anyone convicted of a crime of violence (e.g., rape, battery, etc.) should be subject to expulsion. That is, based on the circumstances, expulsion should be seriously considered. For an unprovoked act of gay bashing, yes, I think expulsion is exactly the appropriate remedy. I viewed attending GU as a privilege. Students who endanger the well-being of fellow students and community members should not be permitted to attend. This does not strike me as an outrageous or overly strict standard -- especially since I'm only applying it to those CONVICTED of a crime, not merely arrested. I was embarassed when I read this story in the Post this morning. The University cannot control its students 24/7, but it can properly discipline those whose behavior reflects poorly on the school. Acts of criminal violence are beyond the pale. Well then, there's nothing to indicate this particular GU student was convicted of anything. In fact, neither was the Duke player. I disagree that such a standard should only be applied to convictions. I don't think that the school should be limited only to convictions. If the school follows the process it has established, I think the school can take action regardless of what the legal system does. I agree that attending GU is a privilege. That is especially true for student-athletes who get scholarships. Therefore, I agree that GU students should be held to a higher standard. But I don't equate that to automatic expulsion.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 18, 2006 12:38:44 GMT -5
It is true that there was no conviction, although innocent people usually don't agree to enter diversion programs. I suppose I shouldn't have focused on convictions -- my concern here is due process. Without any sort of adjudication, the case is left up the University's judicial system and I can't speak intelligently about how well run or fair that is.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,427
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 18, 2006 12:39:03 GMT -5
When two track student-athletes trashed Healy, one had already (or was close to) graduated, the other was suspended for a year and is now back at GU (hopefully having made restitution).
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 18, 2006 12:50:23 GMT -5
It is true that there was no conviction, although innocent people usually don't agree to enter diversion programs. I suppose I shouldn't have focused on convictions -- my concern here is due process. Without any sort of adjudication, the case is left up the University's judicial system and I can't speak intelligently about how well run or fair that is. Hmmm, innocent people don't usually enter diversion programs. That's a good one. When faced with the possible penalties, no matter how small the probability of a conviction, a diversion or deferrment is often times a very attractive option, even to innocent clients. I agree that there's not way to tell how fair or well-run the school judicial system is. I don't think there's a lot of transparency there to have any sort of checks on the process to ensure due process is being provided. I agree it's a big concern.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 18, 2006 13:29:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaLawya on Apr 18, 2006 13:58:03 GMT -5
Delbarton has come out with a statement of support for its player, Seligmann. msnbc.msn.com/id/12370733/I think there might be a younger brother still at the school.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Apr 18, 2006 14:36:03 GMT -5
Delbarton has come out with a statement of support for its player, Seligmann. msnbc.msn.com/id/12370733/I think there might be a younger brother still at the school. The biases in these articles are getting a bit obvious: Seligmann, a 6-foot-1 sophomore, lives in a well-landscaped neighborhood about 17 miles west of New York City. His home is within 1.5 miles of three golf clubs.
A message left at the Seligmann home was not returned Tuesday. There was no answer at the two-story red brick home, which has two white columns.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 18, 2006 14:54:37 GMT -5
Delbarton has come out with a statement of support for its player, Seligmann. msnbc.msn.com/id/12370733/I think there might be a younger brother still at the school. The biases in these articles are getting a bit obvious: Seligmann, a 6-foot-1 sophomore, lives in a well-landscaped neighborhood about 17 miles west of New York City. His home is within 1.5 miles of three golf clubs.
A message left at the Seligmann home was not returned Tuesday. There was no answer at the two-story red brick home, which has two white columns.You think? One headline I saw on MSNBC said "suspects come from very privileged backgrounds." It's not enough to say they come from a privileged upbringing, but it's very privileged. What's the cutoff point between the two? And speaking of MSNBC: "Bill Thomas, a defense attorney representing one of the team captains, said Tuesday that neither Seligmann nor Finnerty had any contact with the woman that night. “We are ... actually shocked,” he said. “We always thought she would pick out someone who at least had a conversation with her or paid her.” Thomas said “multiple witnesses and a commercial transaction” indicated one of the charged players wasn’t at the party. And defense attorney Robert Ekstrand, who represents other players, said neither Seligmann nor Finnerty was at the party “at the relevant time.”" Can we say reasonable doubt?
|
|
JimmyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya fan, est. 1986
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by JimmyHoya on Apr 18, 2006 15:04:09 GMT -5
Wow, I just had to laugh at those lines.
I don't think they'd even include most of the info had their houses been robbed. Totally impertinent to the situation, lol.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 18, 2006 15:25:26 GMT -5
kc -- No. I think that anyone convicted of a crime of violence (e.g., rape, battery, etc.) should be subject to expulsion. That is, based on the circumstances, expulsion should be seriously considered. For an unprovoked act of gay bashing, yes, I think expulsion is exactly the appropriate remedy. I viewed attending GU as a privilege. Students who endanger the well-being of fellow students and community members should not be permitted to attend. This does not strike me as an outrageous or overly strict standard -- especially since I'm only applying it to those CONVICTED of a crime, not merely arrested. I was embarassed when I read this story in the Post this morning. The University cannot control its students 24/7, but it can properly discipline those whose behavior reflects poorly on the school. Acts of criminal violence are beyond the pale. Ummm, right... glad you're not the Dean or whoever metes out punishment. Of course, a Georgetown lacrosse player apparently calling someone gay, starting a fight, and then it subsequently getting printed in the Post, is a poor reflection of the school. However, expulsion? You cannot be serious. Like kc said, we don't even know for sure if it happened or not. And even if it did, which there will never be substantial evidence of, expulsion? It's just ludicrous. Are you suggesting that every student who is overheard muttering anything the least bit racist or anti-gay should be expelled? I'm not saying those words are right, in fact they are very wrong, but there is a little something called freedom of speech in this country, in case you've forgotten. I'm not sure where hate speech falls under that, but I'm pretty sure you can't get arrested or convicted for it, let alone expelled. In the bigger picture, I'll reiterate that it's very important that people resist the temptation to rush to judgment. Obviously we want to be on the side of the victim, but we need to see how the facts play out. There is a lot of uncertainty in this case. Although it will be hard to find, I hope we can just somehow get the TRUTH out of these horrible, unfortunate series of events.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 18, 2006 15:45:29 GMT -5
CA -- how in the world can you possibly read any of my posts and think that I am arguing free speech should be stifled?!?! My entire point is that violent crimes should not be tolerated -- emphasis on violent and on crimes. Hate CRIMES are different from hate SPEECH. In fact, in prior threads regarding the Palestinian conference I've argued that the limitations on free speech on campus should mirror those of First Amendment law. (Now, we can have an academic debate about whether federal hate crime legislation croses the line into thought police but that's something different.) I think expulsion is the proper response to violent criminal conduct. We're not talking about a bar fight here. This incident (as portrayed in the press) involved physically attacking an individual because of his percieved homosexuality. I can't believe you are arguing that students capable of such behavior deserve a place at the Hilltop.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 18, 2006 16:17:43 GMT -5
All right, I reread the article and see your point. I mistakenly thought that the fight was between the Georgetown lacrosse player and Duke lacrosse player, and that there was only anti-gay speech involved by the Gtown guy. The article insinuates that the Gtown player also participated in the beatdown of the guy, and the Washington Blade article confrims that he was also arrested as the Duke player was. I stand corrected. Needless to say that changes things.
Unfortunately, hilltopper, I think you'd be surprised how often this can happen on the Hilltop, or anywhere else for that matter, especially when alcohol is involved. I don't know if expulsion is the answer, but I would tend to think some sort of punishment from the school had to have taken place. The crime did occur off-campus, however, so I'm not sure whether or not that falls within the school's jurisdiction.
Now, I think we should get back to the real situation at hand: the Duke case.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaLawya on Apr 18, 2006 17:07:49 GMT -5
Hilltopper 2000 -- regarding that Slate article you posted, there was a response in the messages section by someone who knew the author, from Delbarton. fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17299682Didn't this author, of the response, attend Georgetown? He'd have been Class of '02.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Apr 18, 2006 17:19:23 GMT -5
Yes (according to the alumni database). Can't say I knew him.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Apr 18, 2006 23:04:12 GMT -5
Talked to someone who knows Finnerty today after a concert - sounds like Finnerty has fast food receipts from the time that the incident is alleged to have happened which put him out of the house at the time. Also, the players are apparently claiming that the woman showed up drunk and bruised, passed out in the bathroom with the door open and these three guys came to help her out of the house. She woke up. Freaked out. Started yelling rape and they told her that it was ok she just passed out - then she ran out of the house and later called 911.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 19, 2006 9:49:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 19, 2006 13:38:13 GMT -5
Talked to someone who knows Finnerty today after a concert - sounds like Finnerty has fast food receipts from the time that the incident is alleged to have happened which put him out of the house at the time. Also, the players are apparently claiming that the woman showed up drunk and bruised, passed out in the bathroom with the door open and these three guys came to help her out of the house. She woke up. Freaked out. Started yelling rape and they told her that it was ok she just passed out - then she ran out of the house and later called 911. Sounds like Finnerty's and Seligmann's alibis are similar, according to the abcnews.com article. KC, I'm curious, how much information sharing occurs before an indictment, if any? If alibis can be backed up by bank records, phone records, etc., should a defense attorney share this info with a prosecutor via a phone call in order to avoid an indictment for his client? Unfortunately they don't teach this sort of stuff in law school.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 19, 2006 13:44:57 GMT -5
|
|
JimmyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya fan, est. 1986
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by JimmyHoya on Apr 19, 2006 13:50:08 GMT -5
The accuser didn't do herself any favors by letting her father talk on MSNBC a few days ago.
Honestly, what a crackhead, and I mean that in the best way possible.
|
|