Resolving sexual battery cases: No courts vs. the law

In Gainesville, sexual battery cases all too often follow this pattern: A college student is in a bar drinking, she meets a man and accepts an offer of a ride or an invitation to his apartment to watch television. Sex to which the woman did not consent occurs.

If a police report is made, the case goes nowhere legally — with little or no evidence other than she said/he said testimony, prosecutors have no case.

If both parties are University of Florida or Santa Fe College students, another option exists under the federal Title IX law. It prohibits gender discrimination on campuses, including sexual misconduct.

Title IX cases are kind of like a trial without criminal prosecution. If a party is found responsible, he or she could be kicked out of school or face other sanctions. Still, that process has flaws and can be just as adversarial as a criminal case.

Now, a third option is being floated locally — restorative justice. Both parties will meet — no lawyers present — to discuss what occurred and the impact it had.

No one will go to jail or be expelled from college. But, ideally, the victim will get an apology, and the responsible party will understand the ramifications of what was done.

Gretchen Casey is a proponent of restorative justice. She spent a career in victim/witness advocacy and has worked with countless sexual assault victims. Casey now works for the River Phoenix Center for Peacebuilding, which facilitates restorative justice programs.

“Restorative justice has a very different focus and distinctions from the criminal justice system, where the focus is who broke the law and what the evidence is,” Casey said.

Restorative justice may become a more sought-after option with recent changes to the guidelines for Title IX hearings by U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Critics say the guidelines will make it more difficult to find a person responsible for misconduct. Supporters said the changes make the process more fair for both parties.

Under guidelines created in 2010 under President Obama, schools were to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in determining if the accused was responsible for misconduct. DeVos recently gave schools the option of using that standard or “clear and convincing evidence.” It’s a tougher standard to meet than preponderance but neither is as tough as “beyond a reasonable doubt” required in criminal cases.