And why are we even focusing on comparing this particular sentence to others in evaluating it’s adequacy? I already know that many of these sentences minimize the severity of the crime. This has now become the norm so we should not challenge it?
There are countless examples - remember Audrey Pott? She was the unconscious California 15 year old who was sexually assaulted by 3 boys who later distributed pictures of the assault online. They admitted guilt and were sentenced to 45 days to be served on the week-ends.
These types of outcomes are seen often and this is precisely what has to be challenged.
Exactly. This was a horrific crime which will haunt the victim for her entire life. 6 months in county jail for this is ridiculous when many non-violent offenders get much longer sentences.
The most galling thing is the utter lack of responsibility taken by the rapist and the rapist’s family. I’ve seen defendants at sentencing weep with remorse. This guy is just sad because he can’t eat a ribeye? And the insult of him talking about “promiscuity” again doesn’t acknowledge the violence in his crime. But, the judge worried it would be tough on him, so no state prison. This is privilege. This is rape culture.
Any principal or dean that allows this criminal to speak to their students about “sexual promiscuity” and the “dangers of alcohol consumption,” deserves to be fired. Immediately. It’s obvious that he will blame the victim and claim that he is a victim of a system that punishes men after girls “cry rape.”
" 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."
@Hunt, no offense taken, I know just what you mean. And it’s a valid point. My belief is that people’s inherent character is revealed, not changed, by overuse of alcohol. So loudmouths are mouthier, control freaks are more violent and argumentative, etc… But that’s obviously not based on anything other than my feelings. As someone said upthread, this is unlikely to have been the felon’s first assault, just the first time he was caught. It’s who he is. We can see that, even if he can’t.
I would argue that decent, law abiding people are the ones who call a taxi, have a designated driver, or sleep it off at wherever they are. People who are drunk and get in a car, are by definition, not decent law abiding people. Imho. I’m thinking that lots of people get drunk, but the majority of them are not driving around. Similiar vein, lots of men get drunk, or are “promiscuous” and very few of them are dragging unconscious women into alleys, banging their head on the ground, and assaulting them.
greenbutton- Unfortunately, I have to disagree with what should be a correct argument. In the Vandy rape case, one of the main defendants (the one who already had his 2nd trial) had never, ever been in any trouble and was described for classmates and friends as the last person who would do something like this. He was raised by a hard-working single mother and went to a top private school on scholarship before going to Vandy to play football. There are pictures of him and video doing the most reprehensible things imaginable. He claims he had no memory of what he did because he was so drunk. He will be in jail for a long time.
The convicted robber has already spent about 10 months in jail awaiting trial, so the sentence was not only probation. However, 10 months seems short for robbery (though it was not armed robbery).
In the case of Turner’s crimes, the 2-4-6 and 3-6-8 years are for first offenses. For a second violent felony, sentences are doubled in California.
@HImom Oh, he expressed remorse… over drinking! I may not be fully updated, but from what I’ve seen he has continued to blame everyone and everything that isn’t himself, from evil Swedes who saved the victim, to the victim herself (he claimed that she liked it), to alcohol and “campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that”. It’s truly disgusting.
I have enormously mixed feelings about the sex offender registry. In many cases, it seems like “cruel and unusual punishment” since it is, in fact, a punishment for life. Part of me feels it should only be used in the most heinous cases.
We all like to think that people who commit awful crimes are different from ourselves and our loved ones, and that there must have been some clues from prior behavior if people had only been looking for them. I’m just not convinced that this is true, especially if we are talking about behavior done under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
While I think the father’s letter is tone-deaf, I also think it’s abundantly clear that he meant “20 minutes of action” in the sense of “20 minutes worth of activities”, not action in the “heh-heh buddy let’s get some action” sense. There’s no need for us all to act like Buzzfeed and take it out of context.
Would this not be considered too close of a connection to school/activity which makes him predisposed to being more sympathetic to the defendant based on school affiliation and athlete status?
Shouldn’t he have recused himself from this case and have another judge examine this case so there’s not even a possible appearance of a conflict of interest on his part?
Isn’t rape or functionally equivalent crime the type of heinous crime that the sex offender registry is for?
Yes, there are issues with sex offender registries covering minor crimes (not necessarily sex crimes) in some states and having restrictions in some states that can cause registered sex offenders to be homeless due to not allowing them to live within a certain distance from a school or park, which excludes most urban or suburban areas.
No, I don’t think so. I think it’s unlikely that the prosecution would have even considered asking this judge to recuse himself for that reason, given that he was a former sexual assault prosecutor.
Judges don’t get recused because they went to Stanford, or because their parents were Mexicans. There has to be some much more direct source of potential bias than that.
@dr0wning - I did not know Brock Turner had made public statements outside the courtroom…links please. I would be quite surprised if his attorneys let him say a word publicly.
In my observations of the effects of alcohol on friends and drunks from my old neighborhood and from studying a bit about the effects of alcohol in a pharmacology class, alcohol only reduces inhibitions for behaviors the individual already had some inclination towards doing but in a sober state could restrain him/herself to maintain an appearance of respectability.
Alcohol doesn’t magically change the personality of someone so he/she goes from being a good moral/ethical person to being someone who commits heinous violent crimes such as rape. Anyone who claims otherwise IMO…especially those using it as an excuse for their own/relative’s/friend’s bad/criminal behavior is manifestly doing so to avoid taking any responsibility for such behavior.
“Would this not be considered too close of a connection to school/activity which makes him predisposed to being more sympathetic to the defendant based on school affiliation and athlete status?”
No. Just having attended the same school isn’t evidence of any bias. I bet you that half the judges in Illinois went to Northwestern’s law school; that wouldn’t be sufficient to disqualify them if this case were to involve a Northwestern student (ditto for Penn and Philly, and so forth).
I’m talking a combination of school affiliate status with the same division within a university AND the fact he was an assistant athletic coach.
Someone who attended Stanford Law would not have the same affiliation as someone who attended their undergrad divisions…or those who attended their Arts & Sciences, engineering, or other graduate divisions respectively.
Just wondering as for instance…Clarance Thomas recused himself from hearing the case of the VMI mandatory mealtime prayer case in the '90s because his own son was an enrolled student there at the time he was hearing the case.