Thanks for liking the post but I deleted the post. 
I know you didn’t mean to ignore victims.
@pizzagirl:
You raise a good point about reform and the possibility of it, and that sending someone to jail with hardened criminals can work against that. One of the arguments about trying juveniles as adults is exactly that, that if you send them to adult jails you likely are going to harden them…and there is definitely a reality to that. Not to mention that likely had he been given a longer sentence, he would have served it at a minimum security facility and not be around hardened criminals at a place like Lumpoc or San Quentin (the only jails I know of in Ca:).
However, there is another side to this, and that is deterrence, about sending a message. We are in a time when the issue of non consensual sex/sexual assault has come out of hiding, where we are trying to deal with this (to tell the seriousness, that finally the president and ADA of Baylor were fired as well as the football coach for covering up these kind of crimes, this in the land where football may be second to Jesus in people’s hearts, and maybe not even that). Giving this kid 6 months sends the message that what he did was no big deal, not just to himself, but others who do the same thing, it is saying (to me) that if you happen to be from a good family, otherwise are what is considered a ‘good kid’, you don’t have to worry, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Someone mentioned drunk driving, and I was on a rescue squad in the late 70’s-early 80’s as a teenager. A good percent of our calls were auto accidents, and a lot of them involved drinking and driving (and sadly, the drunk driver usually didn’t take the worst of it). Up until that time, when someone was involved in a vehicle accident that involved drinking where there was a fatality, often the person responsible got off with suspended sentences and probation, they rarely got jail time. Often, it was because the person in question “was a good person” who had had a few too many drinks at a party, was a family person, went to work, went to church, etc…judges would issue these sentences, and say that having that on their conscience was a big burden, that getting the suspended sentence and probation shamed them, you name it (and I am talking from direct experience…we had cases with fatalities like that, and we often got follow through from the cops who were at the scene, they followed through). One of the few bitter fights I ever had with my dad, who was a pretty sensible person, was when someone he worked with had gone to some company event, gotten drunk,. drove and ended up in an accident that killed someone, and my dad was like “the guy wasn’t a murderer, he didn’t mean to do what he did, he was drunk, it was an accident”, and I really went off on him…I had been on an accident scene, a gruesome one, the week before where a family was literally wiped out (parents, two older kids, all dead, baby was only one that survived) by some arrogant jerk, and the cops at the scene were upset and told me that likely the guy would get a slap on the wrist (and he did, for killing 4 people like that he got a year in jail plus suspended sentence of several years, a fine, and I think later on their was a civil suit where he ended up having to pay some himself…). …
With this, do we want to send the message that what they did was no big deal? Yes, I realize being on a sex registry is a big deal and will haunt him,.but there also is something to be said for deterrence based on public perception. If you give the guy 6 months in jail, it sends one message , you give him years, it sends another. The sex offender registry doesn’t register with most people, but jail time, that says a lot, to general society the length of a sentence means how badly the crime is viewed, pure and simple, and what kind of message does that 6 month sentence show? Jail isn’t just about reformation , it also is about deterrence, least that is what I see.
Why didn’t the judge just sentence Brock for 2 or 3 years in prison? Brock would serve 1 to 1 1/2 years.
A minimum sentence was too strict?
I read what the judge wrote about the sentence…what is public so far.
What the judge wrote is so weak.
Sentences like this are why we have the 3 strikes law in California. Voters got fed up.
This judge was also involved in the DeAnza gang rape civil case.
This is the case where 9 male athletes were in a room with one girl. Bad things were happenng in there.
Three female athletes eventually broke into the room. Saw an unconscious woman gettting raped.
There was never a criminal case.
The victim lost the civil case. There were some settlements though.
Afterward, the three witnesses asked, “Why weren’t we believed? We saw this girl getting raped”.
It was a tough case. Who did what? There were 9 guys.
I am not a woman. Women out here…
Do you want to have sex with strange guys when you are unconscious?
I like sex but as a man… I don’t think unconscious sex would do much for me.
Also, the act of causing someone else to be involuntarily intoxicated could be another charge.
He was the judge in the civil DeAnza case and he allowed the defense to show photos of the victim, dressed “provocatively”, a year later. The remaining defendants were found not liable (2 or 3 had already settled with the victim and 2 or 3 had been dropped).
Our system needs a lot of improvement.
From what I read, I wondered if she had been roofied but the evidence was not admissible or thrown out? To be completely passed out and unresponsive for three hours at the hospital, after being raped, sounds like more than too many shots to me. I read that rohypnol (the date rape drug) can be very hard to pick up on a toxicology report. I wonder if it couldn’t be proved. I read that the defendant is planning to appeal. I wonder what the chances are that he will get a stiffer sentence. As a mother of a daughter, and a woman, the verdict is really depressing. I also can’t help but wonder if people have been giving this kid free passes his whole life, and what else has he done, is this just the first time he was caught?
There is no doubt the rapist should have gotten a much longer sentence, but the message here is that if you are charged with a criminal offense, hire the best lawyers you can afford to minimize the penalty.
Reiterating that our drunk rapist here in town (Vandy rape case) who was a model citizen until the fateful night when he became involved in a gang rape of an unconscious female will likely get 15 years in prison. He is African American and was a football player.
" I’d still find them both guilty of rape, but I’d punish the roofie rapist more harshly than the drunk rapist."
Agreed. There are two separate crimes committed in the roofie case. Slipping someone drugs can easily kill or injure them by itself. It’s deliberate poisoning, plain and simple. Apart from that, premeditation is relevant to me as an aggravating factor to the rape charge. It can be a factor not just in murder but in burglary, arson, etc. The law looks harshly on people who took a long time to plan a crime, had plenty of opportunity to change their minds, and still went through with it.
There would be a lot less outrage if Brock had simply apologized and taken responsibility for his actions.
@Lennon When I read the police report I thought the same thing (that she was roofied). And I think the sister left her to take her friend, who was also overly intoxicated, home, so maybe they both were roofied.
I have been looking at website at my son’s university. It seems they changing from “no means no” to “yes means yes”. Sexual violence prevention and response is covered in orientation. From their literature:
•Sexual violence is never the fault of the survivor.
•Consent at its most basic level means everyone involved wants to participate. Consent cannot be given if someone is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; if someone is passed out, unconscious, asleep, or coming in or out of consciousness; under direct or implied threat of bodily harm or other forms of coercion; or if any party is under 18 years of age.
•It is a crime to engage in any sexual activity with someone who cannot give consent.
•Drugging someone without their knowledge is a crime.
•If you think someone is at risk for a sexual assault or any other form of violence, consider it an emergency and get involved. Don’t wait for someone else to act.
Has it been mentioned anywhere how much time the rapist spent with the victim at the party? Did he encourage her to drink more and more when she was already drunk with the idea of her reaching the point of being unable to consent? It wouldn’t be as deliberate as drugging her but would have a similar effect.
Link to statement by Brock Turner that * The Guardian * reports he made in a letter to the court:
The entire text of the letter has been posted on another site. His writing style, grammar and word choice is unimpressive and that’s not even getting into the substance of what he wrote.
I would think her behavior on his part would be part of the prosecution’s case especially if anyone they interviewed from the party stated that they saw him encouraging her to drink. But if I recall from the little that’s been posted that didn’t seem to be the case. Remember her blood alcohol was 3x the legal limit.when tested at the hospital…that’s scary high for most women if she’s a average size woman. I would presume under the circumstances they tested her for many things that would ultimately be part of the record if not public.
I thought this article was interesting. The writer resides in Turner’s small town and feels that the culure of the town fosters a sense of entitlement that may have contributed to the crime:
Santa Clara county does not test for “roofies” as part of their blood work so the victim wasn’t tested.
The victim encountered the perp shortly before the crime occurred. Just before that, he had been going after her sister. When the sister walked her friend home, that is when the victim and perp encountered each other.
They were both already outside, but just outside of the fraternity house. The victim doesn’t remember moving away from the building at that point.
She could have been tested for rohypnol but the results were inadmissible, inconclusive, his lawyer managed to get them thrown out. Clearly, they could not prove it in court, so I don’t want to harp on it. But 3x over the limit is a lot but not sure if it’s passed out cold for hours quantity. I have a friend who had a DUI recently, and it made me realize that2-3 glasses of wine could actually put me way over the legal limit. (I am petite) But I would be nowhere near passed out or losing memory. I am not sure that I would even consider myself “drunk” after 3 glasses of wine. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/amount-of-drinks-it-takes-to-get-over-the-legal-limit.html I did see that she had done at least 4 shots though-so I don’t doubt that she was very drunk.
Three women caught an alleged date rape drugger putting something in a wine glass.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/29/date-rape-women-catch/
Link to full statement by Brock Turner:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/08/us/document-Defendantstatement.html
Oy, forget the content. The writing is awful and full of grammatical mistakes not at all befitting a student at a school of that caliber. I think Stanford went down the well here in terms of requiring athletes to have good academic credentials.