Greenbutton 615 - and here, the victim did make a poor choice (to get inebriated to the point of blackout). However, that still doesn’t mean that anyone who took advantage of her should have a “lesser” punishment than if she were fully sober and saying no, no, no.
My point is that if a person deliberately drinks and then goes out and kills somebody with his car, there is a meaningful sense in which that crash isn’t an accident. Nobody would be interested in hearing Brock Turner claim that what he did was an accident.
Actually, my point is that it’s inconsistent to say that intoxication should mitigate guilt or punishment in some cases, but not in other cases. In my view, intoxication is relevant to the accused person’s ability to form the requisite intent for certain types of crime. That really should be more relevant to what crime he is charged with in the first place–as it is with drunk driving.
“On another point, I was thinking what I would do if somebody I knew was convicted of a crime like this, and I was asked by the defense to write a character reference to the judge for the purpose of sentencing. Assume that this is somebody I knew for years (i.e., when the kid was in high school), and that I had never observed anything negative about the kid; rather, he had always seemed to me to be a good kid. Let’s also assume that I was shocked that he was accused of this crime, and had trouble believing that he could have done it. What would I write in my letter? I think I’d have to tell the truth, and say that in my experience he had always shown good moral character. Would that make me a victim-blamer?”
I have to agree with you on this. I don’t blame his family and friends for writing in their letters – this is a good kid, who has just made one bad mistake. The father’s wording was poorly chosen, but I get the point he was trying to make – let’s look at this kid in totality where he’s been a good kid for the vast majority of his 20 years. And of course the character references aren’t going to be soliloquies about the poor victim and her suffering – that isn’t their purpose. Their purpose is to beg for mercy for the accused.
And I assumed he was using the flashlight on the phone to check she was breathing and okay.
I don’t want to read that report again, but I am interested now in what was going on. I couldn’t tell who called 911, but I had to read it so quickly to even read it at all. And I wasn’t going back to figure that part out.
I blame his lawyers for not properly vetting the letters.
I read it the same way as alh- the guy with the phone was using the flashlight component to check on her and call 911, but didn’t want to be “caught drunk” when the police arrived so he left. However, I could be mistaken in my interpretation.
Believe me, if there were a photo of her in the situation, it would be all over the unsavory parts of the internet by now.
I thought about this, too. It seemed to me she could have written that in her experience, he had always shown good moral character, and never said a word about either the incident, or the victim, or political correctness and she would have been just fine. If she had asked those of us on this thread to look it over before she sent it, I’m pretty sure most of us, if not all of us, would have suggested she heavily edit it.
No. Not if that is what you said. The Rasmussen letter went beyond that to editorializing and actually blaming the victim. That was the problem. If she had simply said that she knew him for years and he was always a fine fellow, no one would be outraged. I don’t think anyone expects a friend to talk about the victim.
On the other hand, I think people are outraged about the father’s letter because of it’s complete absence of concern for the victim. He seemed to be sorry only that his son got caught. I think that people DO expect some degree of remorse or a broader view from a parent.
And frankly, bemoaning your kid’s lack of interest in an expensive steak is just tone deaf.
@GnocchiB Brock’s older brother Brent swam at Cincinnati. Brent Turner from Northwestern did not go to Cincinnati. Simple research. Please be more careful in the future, as I know Brent Turner and he is a wonderful man who is not in anyway associated with this. I would hate for someone to see his name brought up and then make assumptions about his character.
I think your letter of support is irrelevant.
I think the musician’s letter in the Brock case should be irrelevant too.
Thank you, Calicash. That’s exactly what I mean - dragging someone who has nothing to do with anything into this based off a common name.
Thug has become synonymous with the n-word. It’s the PC way of saying it.>>>>>>>>>
interesting
http://reverbpress.com/features/thug-evolution-racist-code-word/
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug
momofthreeboys, earlier, you said that there were “very few states” in which Turner would have gotten more than six months in county jail for being convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault. I asked if you had any evidence for that statement. You didn’t respond, but have now limited your assertion to California. I think that it’s safe to assume that you actually had no evidence for your “very few states” claim.
Compare and contrast intent and consent with respect to alcohol.
“Actually, my point is that it’s inconsistent to say that intoxication should mitigate guilt or punishment in some cases, but not in other cases. In my view, intoxication is relevant to the accused person’s ability to form the requisite intent for certain types of crime. That really should be more relevant to what crime he is charged with in the first place–as it is with drunk driving.”
Forgive me if this is a really dumb question, but IANAL (I am not a lawyer, before anyone thinks I"m going dirty here).
So in the case of a death, as I understand it (and lawyers, please correct me if I’m wrong), we distinguish between:
First-degree murder (I wanted to kill him, and made a plan to do so - bought a gun, stalked his house)
Second-degree murder (I wanted to kill him, but didn’t have a specific plan)
Voluntary manslaughter (crime of passion - I killed him because I found him in bed with my wife)
Involuntary manslaughter (I drove drunk and hit him with my car, but I never intended to kill him or anybody)
IOW, we distinguish between intent (the first 3) and lack of intent (the last 1). We distinguish between pre-planning and not pre-planning.
Just intuitively, as horrified as we all are by this particular crime, we’d feel even more revulsion if, for example, we found a diary entry saying “I intend on raping (victim’s name) and I’m going to invite her to a party next weekend and ensure that I separate her from her friends.” Or “I plan on raping any girl this weekend.” Or “she said no to my advances, so I’m going to show her who’s boss.” Or if we found evidence that he had spiked her drink / roofied her.
I guess my question is – for the lawyers – how (if at all) do these concepts for murder translate into rape? Are there parallels?
Turner’s own letter to the judge asking for leniency. Not one single word that I can see acknowledging or expressing remorse for the harm he caused to the victim. It’s all about how his life has been damaged.
I’ve never said drinking is an “excuse” for committing a crime Pizza, but I’m not opposed to it being a mitigating factor, and I suspect it is, when determining a sentencing. If you believe that alcoholism…and I’m not suggesting that Brock Turner is an alcoholic, is a disease then you need to make the leap that it’s not a choice. Honestly I don’t know that I think it’s a disease. I’m not sure obesity is a disease but there are those that do and that is neither here nor there. But again, if the judge subconsciously or consciously took his drunkenness into consider when determining how much jail time and how much probation within the guidelines I have to admit I probably would have too would I have been in his shoes. Some of you are ignoring the fact that he was found guilty and alcohol cannot be used as a factor in guilt or not guilt. There’s an inherent difference. He’s guilty of sexual assault. All that is being discussed is the thoughts on the judge’s decision regarding sentencing. Maybe I’m just too much of an INTJ to be able to express my thoughts on the difference - which to me is a big one…of deciding of someone is guilty or not and deciding an appropriate punishment.
@pizzagirl raises an interesting point. I don’t see the “degree” of the rapist’s planning/intent as having anything to do with the punishment to be given, but I might consider it to have an impact on whether the perpetrator has the ability to be rehabilitated, post-punishment.
For example, I don’t care whether the rapist only did it because he was drunk or whether he did it because he schemed and planned to do it even though sober. The innocent victim received the same harm, and the rapist in either case should be punished harshly.
But, I could support the argument that the rapist who did so only because he was heavily drunk might be a better candidate for reform because this person could be trained to never drink again, or to at least curb the drinking substantially. In other words, the trigger could be avoided with proper rehabilitation.
The rapist who schemed and plotted a rape while sober, and then carried it out sober, seems to be to be a candidate unlikely to be rehabilitated ever. IANAP (I am not a psychologist!) but this seems instinctively like there could be a distinction in how these two types of rapists need to be treated by society on an ongoing, post-punishment basis.
I might hypothesize, though, that the longer someone stays in jail, the more likely they are going to be exposed to the “dark side” / hardened criminals and thus be harder to reach from a rehabilitation standpoint. From that point of view, one might conceivably conclude: Brock is a good candidate for reform; in order to maximize that good candidacy, it’s to our benefit to minimize his jail time. Is it possible the judge thought like this?
@DonnaL links are posted in another thread…referenced two times. It’s hard to find references because the media doesn’t generally cover cases like this - first time offender, etc. mostly local media reports on multiple offenses, assaults on children…things like that. I found two reports in the past two weeks and posted the links. I also mentioned that I have friends in the system - lawyers an judges and believe it or not, they talk about things like this that are happening in their courts. I wish we had a district judge in CC or at least one that would report.
Yes @prospect1…you and Pizza are doing a better job explaining than I am. I believe there are degrees of guilt and I believe there are degrees of punishment - hence the guidelines. I’m OK just fine if a state sets sentencing guidelines and the judge makes determinations based on a whole lotta stuff I’m not privvy too and his or her experience. It’s their job…I trust them to do their job. Recalling THIS judge is not going to change California law. Prosecutors and Defense attorney’s KNOW their judges. I think the prosecution was just fine with this judge…he’d been a prosecutor with experience in prosecuting sexual assaults. Heavens the crazy public seems to think they know more than he does about who might be redeemable to society and who might not be. Of course prosecutors are going to ask for everything they can as justice/retribution…and of course defense attorneys are going for the most favorable outcome. The judges job is to figure out what makes the most sense given what he knows. If people have a problem with our sentencing guidelines then their anger is misplaced.