Yes, I am on board with giving someone the opportunity for redemption. I agree with the sentiment that at the end of the day you want the individual to have the chance of a productive life. But that has to be balanced with sentences that provide some basic deterrent value. Deterrence has consistently been missing with the issue of sexual assault and women pay the price - the problem remains persistent and tenacious.
This sentence is an insult - to the victim, to the two men who risked their own safety to help and to women in general.
Personal redemption first requires the admission of wrongdoing. This young man has not taken responsibility for his actions. He has shown neither remorse nor contrition. The assault in itself was heinous; compounding the offense by blaming the victim is sickening and amoral. I doubt this young man will attain an appropriate level of introspection while spending a few months in the county jail. But perhaps his appetite will improve by the time he is released.
There are a few similarities to the rape case involving the Vanderbilt football players that it is being re-tried this year after a complete guilty verdict last year against 2 defendants. Unfortunately, the verdict was thrown out due to a juror not disclosing some relevant information during voir dire. One trial has been held and another (another defendant) is soon to begin. Sentences will be 15-30 years for the offenses for which the first defendant was found guilty. The next defendant should be found at least as guilty. The victim was unconscious and also did not have any idea what had happened to her. The Vanderbilt case involved at least 4 men, however, with others participating in trying to cover it up. Alcohol was also involved.
not sure if this is behind paywall. Dad’s letter was submitted before sentencing according to DA according to this story. I got a newsfeed saying that there is a huge public backlash but I can’t find that headline.
He was found guilty…not sure why people think the lighter sentence means he was “less guilty.” That makes no sense. Sentencing has nothing to do with more or less guilty…it has to do with objective and subjective analysis. The “guilty” is on record for his life.
What does make sense is that every judge, in every situation, has to weigh objective and subjective factors as presented and the sentence will fall on a continuum. The objective factors are on the record and determine the boundaries of the sentence, the subjective factors are age of victim, premeditation, prior criminal records, post-crime behavior, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and chance for recidivism - those types of subjective measures determine where on the continuum things fall and they don’t happen solely on the part of the judge, generally there are recommendations from multiple participants in the process including the victim. And frankly you may not like it, but a twenty year old, with an unstable family life, who is unemployed or bouncing from job to job, has a few things already on a juvenile or adult record is most likely going to get a stiffer sentence than a twenty year old with no prior record, from a stable home. Judges are different too and heavily influenced by what they see everyday in their courts. No judge likes to see someone “back in their court” for violating parole or worse. And judges generally aren’t in the business of “sending a message to society”…they are dealing with the person who is standing in front of them, who they are and what they did.
Finally any sentence is a “life sentence” with regard to a twenty year old person’s potential in society - others have expressed this with regard to educational opportunities, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, the list goes one. In my opinion the “amount” of jail-time is really a small factor. It is difficult to feel compassion for someone who has committed a crime, but I can sleep at night with this sentencing knowing there is a wide-variety of people that are out there with the same “guilty of fill in the blank.” Like the judge, I would have high hopes for this kid that he never sees a judge again. Time will tell.
Judges usually follow the recommendations of the probation report. The probation report considers factors that don’t relate to guilt or innocence. The report is prepared by a professional. The judge is also a professional, in this case a former prosecutor who prosecuted sexual assault cases. The judge was in the courtroom and observed the witnesses and saw all the evidence. In addition to reading the probation report, he may have had a discussion at length with the preparer of that report (this may not happen in all courts, but it definitely does in some). The judge knows what kinds of sentences are typically handed down for similar crimes, and for other serious crimes, in comparable circumstances.
As a result, you have to know a lot to really know whether this sentence is unusually short. It may not be at all when compared to other first-time offenders convicted of even very serious crimes.
It’s also worth considering what the purpose of imprisonment is. The judge has to consider this, and it goes beyond sending a message to other potential offenders. It also relates to preventing the convicted person from reoffending, and protecting society from potential additional crimes by him. Thus, in this case, it may have been that the judge was persuaded that re-offense by this person was unlikely. As a former prosecutor, he has some basis to make this kind of evaluation. The public, on the other hand, focuses a lot on whether the punishment serves as adequate retribution for the crime, something which is only a part (and probably not the biggest part) of the judge’s determination.
And one last thing–something that makes me uncomfortable–is the offender really a bestial monster? If, in fact, his behavior on this occasion was at odds with his previous behavior and surprised everybody who knew him, what does that mean? Does it mean that he was secretly a bestial monster all along. Or…?
The victim was not given the guilty party’s statement prior to her own input on sentencing. If she had known he was going to continue to blame the alcohol, not his own lack of character, morals, or decency, she would have strenuously objected to a sentence lighter than the recommendation.
He gets input on the choice of sentence, and a voice in what happens to him. She was not given that opportunity. She will never have that opportunity. She is stronger than what happened to her, for certain, but that does not give him the right to represent himself as any sort of victim. You could get my husband, my brothers, my sons good and drunk and they would never, ever, ever, consider this sort of behavior acceptable. Never. This man is a predatory violent offender who still blames alcohol and has parlayed his story into a nice light timeout. I don’t believe he’s learned a thing that will influence his further behavior.
I don’t want to offend you, but how do you know this?
To put it more generally, how much do we know about what decent, law-abiding people might do if they get drunk? We pretty much know that a lot of them will get into a car and drive it on the public streets, for example.
Wouldn’t crimes against intoxicated or unconscious victims be the hardest ones to arrest and prosecute suspects for, since victims may be unable to give useful information to police or prosecution? In this particular case, it was only the fact that two witnesses came by that resulted in Turner being caught and convicted. If they had not come by, would anyone have known enough to make an arrest and prosecution with a reasonable chance of conviction?
So there is the possibility that he did similar things to other intoxicated or unconscious victims before, but without being caught.
The Facebook page is CLEARLY a parody / mocking the young man’s “excuses.” Let’s not get sucked in. Come on now. It’s very obvious. (The clue is also in the title - people don’t get “voted in” to the Olympics.)
Sure, it’s possible. But there’s no evidence of it–and the judge will have seen many, many cases in which there was plenty of evidence of previous bad behavior.
The victim’s statement was very moving. I think the parents think since they paid a lot of money to a fancy lawyer that their son should have gotten off. Sadly, I think if it hadn’t been for the witnesses, physical evidence and cooperation of the victim, he likely would have gotten off. The statements from the parents, to me, make them sound like monsters with no acknowledgment for what the victim has endured. I don’t know anything about legal matters, but is this a strategy recommended by the defense attorney? The victim said in her statement that she would have been fine with the sentencing had he taken the plea deal and apologized for his actions. But the fact that he dragged her through the trial, and was found guilty, it seems the punishment should have been much more severe. I hope that if this was my son that I would have more compassion for the victim.