How about this word?
Rapist.
Brock Turner is a rapist.
Crystal clear, no mystery as to what the crime or deviation was…
Ah, thanks, greenwitch.
Gnocchi - fair point – I just think it’s a little dangerous to take a common name and assume that a description you find of someone with that name IS that person. I may not have great Google or stalking skills, but just racing through the usual suspect places on social media, I’ve found absolutely nothing to link that particular man to Ohio, to Brock Turner, or anything else relevant, and he doesn’t even look like the posted picture of the family.
From the same link…
Apologies that I am not sure what the issue is, and will not type the names of the siblings, but its frighteningly easy to do a quick search in a search engine and pull up all sorts of stuff about the family, including a cache of a now-removed facebook page that someone put up to raise funds for his defense, and a blog by some real estate agent that lists the parents full names, birthdates, siblings, personal and work information about them, where they live, the 3 kids (Brock and his brother and sister), etc. Its pretty scary what is so easily found.
@momofthreeboys – I’m a bit unclear as to your comment about the fact that inebriation should be considered a mitigating factor with respect to both attacher and victim. If, in this instance, Brock had been the only one drunk and the victim was sober but incapacitated for some other reason, would you still think that his state of inebriation should be considered in lessening his sentence, even in the absence of any expression of remorse? If not, why should the cause of the victim’s incapacitation affect how the criminal justice system addresses the attacker? The only possible reason that I can think of is if it somehow tempers his mens rea (his criminal intent) and that would only be if Brock’s belief in his victim’s drunknenness makes him less culpable. Is that what you believe? Truly trying to understand here. But if that is your thinking, then doesn’t that only further encourage binge drinking because those seeking to have sex, as Brock was, would be motivated to get potential hook-ups (voluntary or otherwise) trashed because it would make them less responsible for any consequences?
I was talking about this case with my 20 year old son and 25 year old daughter. Evidently, at least at my son’s school, they are teaching: “no means no, intoxicated means no, one drink means intoxicated”.
Raping someone when you are drunk is not an attitude.
Quote by the victim on Buzzfeed:
Personally, I will use her words as inspiration to not shut-up, not forgot, and not find excuses. No one, under any circumstances, asks to be raped and no amount of (often subtle) victim-blaming will alter that fact. Shaming supporters for the victim is another tactic (you don’t understand the laws, people you agree with are harassing the rapist’s family, people you agree with are a threatening a judge).
Campus rape will happen again, and maybe the facts in the next case won’t be so obvious, maybe the victim won’t be so well-spoken, but if we can use our collective fury as a tipping-point, we can change how justice is meted-out.
Why would it be a mitigating factor?
If someone is drunk, it generally does not excuse his/her committing a crime while drunk. Indeed, being drunk can increase the severity of the crime (e.g. if found to be drunk while committing a violation driving a car).
If someone is drunk, it may make him/her an easier victim for a criminal, but it should not mean that the criminal should get a lesser sentence because s/he picked an easier victim. If you got drunk and someone stole your stuff while you were drunk but got caught and convicted of the theft later, would you want the thief to get a lesser sentence because you were an easier victim?
The alcohol argument is advanced often in sexual assault cases in an attempt to reduce it to a “misunderstanding.”
I think the point about inebriation being a mitigating factor comes into play when it’s indisputable that a sexual act occurred, but there is a dispute over whether it was consensual or forced and in the absence of witnesses, it becomes he-said-she-said. If I have one drink, I am still fully capable of consenting or not-consenting to something. What about 2? 3? 4? 5?
Yes I addressed my thoughts on mens rea hundreds of posts back. I don’t think it should have any bearing on culpability in this particular case and it’s not worth addressing the culpability issues of two drunk people having sex in this case because it has no bearing…she passed out and was mentally and physically incapacitated so he’s guilty of the charges that were actually leveled pretty clearly… but I think those sorts of issues can be part of sentencing and often are…a judge will commit to rehab as a tradeoff to jail time where of course in our country people really don’t get rehabilitated. There are lots of woulda, coulda, shouldas that just don’t have bearing and post facto aren’t worth discussing. I thought the judges sentence was OK for California given all the facts that are available to the public and given California codes around criminal sexual activities. Every state is alittle different. The kid gets one chance at redemption but carries the sex registry probably for life and I’m all for one chance at redemption with respect to actual jail time for someone with a totally clean record including juvenile. I feel sorry for the victim that the defense is appealing but that is par for the course in our legal system and they won’t be able to appeal just because they want to. There has to be legal bearing for the appeal so they are going to once again comb through every little piece of the original trial which is sad for the victim I’m sure.
Sounds like a policy drafted by a first year attorney. Great in theory but not in practice. Kids are drinking at college (ignoring binge drinking because this policy only requires on drink for a no). A lot of sex in college is not 100% sober sex. So how does the policy work in practice?
I have no idea how this works in courts. However, in life and parenting:
It’s seems to me if we accept drunkenness as a mitigating factor, we are saying we don’t hold someone to normal standards of civilized behavior when drunk. And that seems to me the entirely wrong message to give our kids. We don’t want them binge drinking. We want to be very clear the consequences of binge drinking are potentially extremely severe. It does seem to me, we’ve given our kids some very mixed messages with regard to alcohol.
When I started on these rape threads, years ago, I believed drunken partying was an acceptable college rite of passage. I don’t believe that any longer. That doesn’t make me a teetotaler.
I agree w/ @ucbalumnus. @momofthreeboys – do you believe inebriation (drugs or alcohol) should be a mitigating factor for all crimes? Just sex crimes? Or just certain sex crimes? What is your justification for this? A tremendous amount of assaults of any kind are committed when the perp is drunk or high. And people who are drunk or high can often be more easily victimized (robbery, assault).
Turner was convicted of crimes with the following penalties listed in the California Penal Code:
Sexual penetration of unconscious victim: 3, 6, or 8 years in prison
Sexual penetration of intoxicated victim: 3, 6, or 8 years in prison
Assault with intent to rape or sexually penetrate: 2, 4, or 6 years in prison
Note that the state of the victim is explicitly included in the definitions of the sexual penetration crimes in the California Penal Code. Why should drunkenness be a mitigating factor in setting a penalty much lighter than that specified in the California Penal Code?
I don’t hold drunk people to the same standard…They are drunk. They are stupid. They do things they might never do sober. They say things they might never say sober. Ask anyone who has had an alcoholic friend or family member. The general response is “they are a completely different person when they are sober.”
From your own post (emphasis mine):
Momofthreeboys: I have more than one alcoholic in my extended family. For several generations. Thankfully, the worst impacted have quit drinking.
When my children were young, I had to use alcohol as an explanation for one relative’s behavior. I never let them think the behavior was acceptable in any way. I told them it was completely unacceptable behavior, and that the drinking that resulted in such behavior was also unacceptable. I did try my best to explain what was happening. And that some people just can not drink.
However, if someone is prone to committing crimes (like rape or starting fights) while drunk but would not otherwise be prone to such when sober, then that person should not get drunk in the first place.
Lots of people get drunk without raping anyone or starting fights or committing other crimes. Why should those who do commit crimes be treated leniently because they got drunk?