Chicago Tribune painting unflattering picture of MU...

[2TimeWarrior]

...but I'll bet you looked swell in the yellow jacket.

probably not nearly as nice as you with that greasy apron at the AMU.

MPD can make their stats say anthing they want.  The truth is that their response time on non-emergency calls is very poor.

[2TimeWarrior]

Thirdly, MU just adopted the very policy I said they should have been doing all along.  Maybe you should talk to Father Wild and tell him how wrong he is.

I think Fr. Wild knows the realities of the situation well enough to know that this isn't the best way to do things.  Unfortunately, he doesn't have much choice in this situation.

[Litehouse]

Old Policy:  DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD.  DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.

New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.

This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved.  However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.

[MerrittsMustache]

Old Policy:  DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD.  DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.

New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.

This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved.  However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.

Even though the case will be reported to MPD, I believe that with the new policy, the accuser still has the option of speaking with the police. He/she can always choose not to if he/she would prefer the police not be involved.

[Benny B]

Old Policy:  DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD.  DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.

New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.

This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved.  However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.

Although, it could perhaps open MU up to civil liability.  If a victim doesn't want to pursue and police involvement ends up as or more traumatizing, then MU could be found responsible for creating or contributing to "emotional distress" and couldn't hide behind the "just following Wisconsin law" defense because there's a clear exception to the duty to report a crime statute if you owe a duty to others.  In such a scenario, one could argue that MU has an implied duty to uphold the privacy of its students and therefore reporting a crime to MPD when the victim explicitly said not to do so would be a blatant breach of that privacy.

Frankly, MU is damned if they do, damned if they don't.  If you're going to get sued either way, I would think the more defensible position is with the old policy where the onus is on the victim to go to police.

[ChicosBailBonds]

probably not nearly as nice as you with that greasy apron at the AMU.

MPD can make their stats say anthing they want.  The truth is that their response time on non-emergency calls is very poor.

Greasy apron...nah....never wore one.  I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are.  Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours.  Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours.  I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.

[2TimeWarrior]

Greasy apron...nah....never wore one.  I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are.  Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours.  Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours.  I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.

I never wore a yellow jacket either, so we'll have to call a truce on that.

I can say with certainty that if you called to report a sexual assualt (not in progress) it would not be outside the norm to see a 1-2 hour response time, especially on a weekend night.  It doesn't mean these crimes shouldn't be reported for that reason, but it does explain why students respect the relationship they have with DPS.  I just don't see why the victim shouldn't have the right to confide in a service they pay for (DPS) without DPS going against their wishes by contact MPD.

[HouWarrior]

Frankly, MU is damned if they do, damned if they don't.  If you're going to get sued either way, I would think the more defensible position is with the old policy where the onus is on the victim to go to police.

I would disagree....(If you are weighing the loss/cost of a breach of privacy claim vs a sex assault handling claim, a breach of privacy is negligible in damages, in comparison.)
The overriding key is the civil liability of an institution is measured by its response or lack thereof. US Supr Court, clarified that the institution is not to be held liable for an act occuring...but it is liable in the aftermath, for how it is handled.
Over reporting is preferred to under reporting. Privacy is not a protected right to thwart or inhibit the investigation of a crime. When has a cop stopped asking questions to someone answering..."sorry, thats a private matter."lol


MU should consider, like businesses, not just handbooks,or letters, but safety and conduct seminars, including mandatory seminars at orientation.
Instructional videos are readily bought, or cheaply produced, and are easily posted to the web....on  MU no toucha da boob tube.com lol

With even the current presidential administration expressing a policy concern over sexual assaults on campuses (thats not politics, mods..its reported truth-lol), now is a good window for MU to seize the teaching moment, get out in front of this, and go beyond the reactive to the proactive, to broad and diligent multiple level responses, like the above, and others. I'd think the school would be applauded, and it'd be in keeping with its religious misiion, as claimed.

The main risk with just a partial reactive measure is you'll only learn you didnt go far enough or do enough by the expensive lesson of the next civil claim you lose...the courtroom is an expensive schoolhouse. lol

[ChicosBailBonds]

You were the one who suggested that the idea was to pass the buck to the MPD and make them look bad, not me.

As for truth and justice, the MPD has to have known the policy MU was following for the past 10 years. And they were totally ok with it as it allowed MU to handle things that, in MU's ant the DPS's judgement, didn't rise to the standards of a crime. But when sex + athletes became part of the mix, the MPD and DA feigned public outrage over a policy they had tacitly approved. We'll see how much they like the new policy (which takes the judgement of DPS officers out of the equation) when they're inudated with any and every complaint that could possibly be construed as a crime. My guess is not much. My further guess is that the "unintended consequences" will lead to less truth and justice as the police are forced to spend time on matters that shouldn't merit their attention.

As someone who is familiar with problems that arise over unintended consequences I thought you would agree.

Yes, and I admitted that's PART of the benefit, to take the onus off of MU and put it where it belongs, the authorities.  I'm sorry Lenny, but I don't want DPS or Stephanie Quade or Father Wild deciding what a Sexual Assault is especially when it could look like they are benefitting one type of person (male, or athlete, or guy from their home town, or whatever) vs another. 

As for MPD being inundated, then maybe that might be a wake-up call for the university about the issue of sexual assault on campus.  Catholic University is addressing this very issue by going back to single sex dorms.  It's like having a teenage daughter.  She's home and the boyfriend comes over to visit, you make rules that they can't go into her room with the door closed....tends to put the kibosh on extracurricular activities or at least makes it harder for them.

Ultimately kids will be kids and they're going to find ways to get it on, but we have much more of this sexual assault crap going on now (statistically speaking...yes...lies lies and more lies of statistics) then we did in the past.  That's why Catholic U is changing their stance and perhaps others should follow suit.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369843592242356.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://mommylife.net/archives/2011/06/catholic_univer.html


http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/catholic-university-returns-sex-dorms-13860335

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't disagree, but MPD was absolutely fine with DPS taking all the calls.

If MPD knew that DPS was breaking the law (and they did), a call from Ed Flynn to the head of DPS was in order.

Do we know they were "absolutely fine" with DPS taking calls, or was this discussed in the past but it took a big event like this to hit the media to move the discussion to the forefront?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I never wore a yellow jacket either, so we'll have to call a truce on that.

I can say with certainty that if you called to report a sexual assualt (not in progress) it would not be outside the norm to see a 1-2 hour response time, especially on a weekend night.  It doesn't mean these crimes shouldn't be reported for that reason, but it does explain why students respect the relationship they have with DPS.  I just don't see why the victim shouldn't have the right to confide in a service they pay for (DPS) without DPS going against their wishes by contact MPD.

And I would think we would all agree a response time of 1 to 2 hours is better than waiting for MU to let MPD know 6 weeks later....if we go with your timeframe.  I'm happy to go with it...is that timeframe better than the weeks that MU sometimes took to report to MPD if they bothered to report it AT ALL.

[2TimeWarrior]

And I would think we would all agree a response time of 1 to 2 hours is better than waiting for MU to let MPD know 6 weeks later....if we go with your timeframe.  I'm happy to go with it...is that timeframe better than the weeks that MU sometimes took to report to MPD if they bothered to report it AT ALL.

I think if you go back to my original point, it was that if DPS would not be required to report all cirmes (the law doesn't differentiate between a sexual assault and some type of property crime as to MU's obligation to report to MPD), they would do nothing but stand around and wait for MPD all day.  That wouldn't serve anyone well.  My point wasn't that sexual assaults should go unreported to MPD because it would take too long for them to respond, but rather that DPS has to have the discretion on what to report if they expect to remain effective.

In terms of a sexual assault, of course, if the victim wants MPD involved DPS should help facilitate that.  In my 10 years of experience with DPS, I don't believe that they would ever refuse to call MPD if the victim made that request.  I do believe that they would honor a victim's wishes if they did not wish to report a crime to MPD.

[MUMac]

Greasy apron...nah....never wore one.  I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are.  Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours.  Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours.  I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.

One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day.  You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations?  Doubtful, very doubtful.

[Benny B]

I would disagree....(If you are weighing the loss/cost of a breach of privacy claim vs a sex assault handling claim, a breach of privacy is negligible in damages, in comparison.)
The overriding key is the civil liability of an institution is measured by its response or lack thereof. US Supr Court, clarified that the institution is not to be held liable for an act occuring...but it is liable in the aftermath, for how it is handled.
Over reporting is preferred to under reporting. Privacy is not a protected right to thwart or inhibit the investigation of a crime. When has a cop stopped asking questions to someone answering..."sorry, thats a private matter."lol

Funny... my wife said almost exactly the same thing when we discussed this morning.  To which I responded, "I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."

The main risk with just a partial reactive measure is you'll only learn you didnt go far enough or do enough by the expensive lesson of the next civil claim you lose...the courtroom is an expensive schoolhouse. lol

I don't disagree, but I suppose the problem I see is the lack of an immunity clause, i.e. something that says no good-intentioned person may be held liable for reporting a suspected crime to the police.  You don't ever need to see the light of a courtroom for things to get expensive... if you get sued - no matter how frivolous - you still need to defend yourself, and an institution like Marquette may be motivated to settle even if the facts in the case fully support its exoneration.

Hypothetically, what if the alleged victim (or her attorney) is making all of this up, i.e. the sex was consensual?  She can now drag MU into the mud with a lawsuit with no consequence to her.   No. 1, her identity - as an alleged victim of a sexual crime - will remain confidential.  No. 2, if she did make it up, there's no trauma or distress to be experienced by dragging this out (except that which is completely self-inflicted).  No. 3, if the legal action ever got to the point where she was about to get "outed" or revealed that she were lying, she could pull the plug.  And no. 4, MU simply isn't going to throw her under the bus and call her a liar no matter what the facts say.  So some slime ball J.D. takes the case on contingency, and she's got nothing to lose with her ridiculous lawsuit.

Granted, even an immunity clause in the statute wouldn't preclude someone from bringing suit, but at least it would drastically reduce the likelihood of someone bringing a "settle or bust" action in a case that's undoubtedly going to get tossed early on in summary.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day.  You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations?  Doubtful, very doubtful.

Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later?  That is the question that should be asked.  In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.

[Lennys Tap]

One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day.  You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations?  Doubtful, very doubtful.

+1. My guess is any call to the police that begins with the word "yesterday" is treated as something less than an emergency.

[Lennys Tap]

Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later?  That is the question that should be asked.  In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.

Evidence can be tarnished? What, like silverware? LOL

[MUMac]

Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later?  That is the question that should be asked.  In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.

That was not the question in debate, nor what my post responded to.  The comments that preceded were directed to the "tainting" of evidence due to the timeliness of the reporting.  I suspect that by the time they (MPD) would have been notified, it may have been the afternoon of the next day.  At that time, MPD knows there is not an emergency.  Not sure that they would dispatch someone immediately, that day or thereafter.  

Yes, I agree MU should report immediately as they now will do.  I do not, though, believe that would have made much of a difference in the "evidence" that would have been gathered.

The girl(s) still were provided the option of contacting MPD on their own.  They did not need DPS to do this for them.  They chose not to immediately, in fact months went by before they did make contact.  That alone would "taint" the evidence, would it not?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Evidence can be tarnished? What, like silverware? LOL

No, like destroyed....cleaned up...manipulated....etc.   

Can you answer the question...is it better to have the MPD involved that day or the day after or weeks later.  This isn't hard, but I realize you want to defend the actions so much it's hard for you to say the right answer.  Try, just try.

[2TimeWarrior]

No, like destroyed....cleaned up...manipulated....etc.   

Can you answer the question...is it better to have the MPD involved that day or the day after or weeks later.  This isn't hard, but I realize you want to defend the actions so much it's hard for you to say the right answer.  Try, just try.

Of course it would best for MPD to be involved as early in the process as possible.  That isn't the point.  When you have a victim that doesn't want MPD involved, why is MU obligated to go against their wishes?  I honestly don't believe that MU refused to report this incident to MPD against the victim's wishes.

[HouWarrior]

Funny... my wife said almost exactly the same thing when we discussed this morning.  To which I responded, "I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."

I don't disagree, but I suppose the problem I see is the lack of an immunity clause, i.e. something that says no good-intentioned person may be held liable for reporting a suspected crime to the police.  You don't ever need to see the light of a courtroom for things to get expensive... if you get sued - no matter how frivolous - you still need to defend yourself, and an institution like Marquette may be motivated to settle even if the facts in the case fully support its exoneration.

Hypothetically, what if the alleged victim (or her attorney) is making all of this up, i.e. the sex was consensual?  She can now drag MU into the mud with a lawsuit with no consequence to her.   No. 1, her identity - as an alleged victim of a sexual crime - will remain confidential.  No. 2, if she did make it up, there's no trauma or distress to be experienced by dragging this out (except that which is completely self-inflicted).  No. 3, if the legal action ever got to the point where she was about to get "outed" or revealed that she were lying, she could pull the plug.  And no. 4, MU simply isn't going to throw her under the bus and call her a liar no matter what the facts say.  So some slime ball J.D. takes the case on contingency, and she's got nothing to lose with her ridiculous lawsuit.

Granted, even an immunity clause in the statute wouldn't preclude someone from bringing suit, but at least it would drastically reduce the likelihood of someone bringing a "settle or bust" action in a case that's undoubtedly going to get tossed early on in summary.

There is no such thing as bringing a civil lawsuit, with ones identity protected...you are a party, and your name/claims are a matter of public record.

Current filings in all courts already require redaction of ID info such as SS nos., and DL nos....its not an imposition for marquette's daily report of possible criminal conduct to redact the names, and meet privacy laws...with the info of such to be provided subsequently to police, by non public means...to the cops over the phone/secure computer, etc.

"...As to.."I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."

Privacy vs reporting isnt two evils competing, but we are, as society having trouble, at times, balancing constitutional freedoms, and law enforcement (see patriot act)...and because the law, both civil and criminal deals more often with the remedies for bad conduct, and is rarely triggered by good actions, we become associated with our clients acts--fairly, or unfairly.

[2TimeWarrior]

its not an imposition for marquette's daily report of possible criminal conduct to redact the names, and meet privacy laws...with the info of such to be provided subsequently to police, by non public means...to the cops over the phone/secure computer, etc.

Do you think that doing this type of daily report of possible criminal conduct without providing details would bring MU into compliance with the requirement that they report all crimes?

[HouWarrior]

Do you think that doing this type of daily report of possible criminal conduct without providing details would bring MU into compliance with the requirement that they report all crimes?

As to details...no....but thats not what I noted....I'm noting just the redacting of names, only....to which the answer on your query is a certain yes.

--consider the Chicago Tribune article, would the addition of her name have added anything vital to the facts? Of course not. If the rest of the MU daily report is complete as to details/facts, the police should have more than enough to determine a need for further investigation--a name is not initially relevant in the least.
The day we decide a need to investigate, or not based on the names involved is a day....that is ....oops....well, now thats in the past.lol

[ChicosBailBonds]

Of course it would best for MPD to be involved as early in the process as possible.  That isn't the point.  When you have a victim that doesn't want MPD involved, why is MU obligated to go against their wishes?  I honestly don't believe that MU refused to report this incident to MPD against the victim's wishes.

I believe we're talking about two different things.  One is whether the person should feel compelled to talk and the other is timing.

First, how is the timeline NOT a point when some folks here are bashing that time doesn't seem to matter?  Of course it's one of the points and this is exactly what MPD and the DA were complaining about...the TIME LAG?   In this particular case, there wasn't the time lag, but in the October case there was....the point being that MU's policy of not reporting creates that possibility for mischief on stories, evidence, etc.  I disagree that it's not the point...it's one of the central points that the authorities were pointing out was flawed with MU.

Your argument is a separate point and a valid one.  If the victim doesn't want to talk to MPD, then they don't have to even under the new policy.  The problem is that MU was playing the role of criminal arbiter in the past as gatekeeper on whether a crime had been committed.  Quite frankly, I'm pleased MU is no longer in that business because it has been the source of all this bad press.  It looks like a cover-up because of the policy.  Fortunately that is gone.  Unfortunately, to your point, it may put the person who feels violated on the hot seat to talk to authorities, but they can decline if they wish (a tough spot for that person, I agree).