Two of FIRE’s conditions request that victims of sexual assault must face their assailant in order to have any hope of justice. I’m extremely glad that EA organisations violate FIRE’s “safeguards”.
Two of FIRE’s conditions request that victims of sexual assault must face their assailant in order to have any hope of justice.
If I’m not mistaken, only one condition requires this (“Right to face accuser and witness”). I don’t see how the “Access to all evidence” condition requires this.
You seem to have strong feelings about this. I think these are complex issues that deserve careful consideration. Here in the US, the right to confront witnesses is a guarantee provided by the Sixth Amendment to our constitution. I’d want a good understanding of why it’s there before being confident in its removal.
FIRE has some discussion on their website if you search for “cross-examine” here. Maybe you can provide legal background on how this situation differs from a college disciplinary hearing.
But I’m less interested in legal technicalities and more interested in what the best policies for Effective Altruism are. There’s a decent chance this is the end of Jacy’s career as an EA. It’s important for CEA to wield its power in this area responsibly.
I’m not saying Jacy should definitely be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. I’m just saying it’s a complex issue that deserves careful consideration.
I do have strong feelings about this, but having strong feelings and having given complex issues careful consideration are not mutually exclusive, and the implication otherwise was uncalled for. Having carefully considered the issue, I have concluded the anonymity of sexual assault victims is the most important factor here, I’m not alone in this conclusion. The UK legal system, for example, agrees.
Give that you easily identified that “access all evidence” was the other criterion which risked anonymity, I don’t think it’s too hard to see the connection between them.
Can you provide a reliable source supporting the claim that the UK legal system does not allow the accused access to all evidence?
I did some research of my own, and from what I can gather, it seems the provision you refer to is mostly about not letting the public know the name of the alleged victim. I find it hard to believe that the accused sometimes does not know the name of the alleged victim in the UK legal system.
Two of FIRE’s conditions request that victims of sexual assault must face their assailant in order to have any hope of justice. I’m extremely glad that EA organisations violate FIRE’s “safeguards”.
If I’m not mistaken, only one condition requires this (“Right to face accuser and witness”). I don’t see how the “Access to all evidence” condition requires this.
You seem to have strong feelings about this. I think these are complex issues that deserve careful consideration. Here in the US, the right to confront witnesses is a guarantee provided by the Sixth Amendment to our constitution. I’d want a good understanding of why it’s there before being confident in its removal.
The Sixth Amendment only applies in criminal cases. These are not criminal cases.
FIRE has some discussion on their website if you search for “cross-examine” here. Maybe you can provide legal background on how this situation differs from a college disciplinary hearing.
But I’m less interested in legal technicalities and more interested in what the best policies for Effective Altruism are. There’s a decent chance this is the end of Jacy’s career as an EA. It’s important for CEA to wield its power in this area responsibly.
I’m not saying Jacy should definitely be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. I’m just saying it’s a complex issue that deserves careful consideration.
I do have strong feelings about this, but having strong feelings and having given complex issues careful consideration are not mutually exclusive, and the implication otherwise was uncalled for. Having carefully considered the issue, I have concluded the anonymity of sexual assault victims is the most important factor here, I’m not alone in this conclusion. The UK legal system, for example, agrees.
Give that you easily identified that “access all evidence” was the other criterion which risked anonymity, I don’t think it’s too hard to see the connection between them.
Can you provide a reliable source supporting the claim that the UK legal system does not allow the accused access to all evidence?
I did some research of my own, and from what I can gather, it seems the provision you refer to is mostly about not letting the public know the name of the alleged victim. I find it hard to believe that the accused sometimes does not know the name of the alleged victim in the UK legal system.