@MomofWildChild :
While from reading the account of what Batey did I think he deserves a harsh sentence…but it does raise the question @HarvestMoon1 makes, that what makes Batey different than the Stanford kid, what they are accused of are pretty much identical crimes? The counts against them are similar, and it raises real questions about the Stanford kid getting a cushy sentence. After all, Batey will have to be on a sex offender list, he lost his football scholarship that may have led to an NFL career, so why was more bad for the Stanford kid and not for Batey? The only conclusion I can come to is the judge in the Stanford case saw an upper middle class white kid going to an elite school who is in a ‘gentleman’s sport’ and decided that made the kid some kind of victim. It isn’t that I think Batey getting a harsh sentence is wrong, it is that the judge in the Turner case gave Turner a light sentence because “the kid lost so much”, when Batey lost just as much, if not more, that football scholarship likely was his ticket to a better life, or at least the promise of it…so why the disparate nature of the sentence? Obviously, Batey didn’t come up in front of Judge Persky, but this kind of thing is played out time and again, where race and class influences how the accused is viewed, if a kid from a well off background who is seen as ‘promising’ commits a crime they are seen as a kid who made a mistake, a kid from a not so great background is a threat and a danger that needs to be locked up for a long time, despite the fact that they committed identical crimes.
BTW, I wasn’t really addressing that question at you per se, you were commenting on the Batey potential sentence and weren’t commenting on what Turner got, I as using that as a rhetorical question. This was so bad that the Federalist Society website had an op ed saying that this sentence was a joke and they, not exactly Mother Jones News, said Turner got off with a light sentence because he was a white kid going to an elite school and from a good background, kind of shocked me to be honest, I would figure they would support the decision.
I have to say, I’m not sure I see really much essential difference between the Batey and Turner cases at all. If I’m correct, then it really is shocking the disparity between white /middle class and black/rougher background.
Some additional info including part of probation report, letter from his sister, where he worked while awaiting trial, the prescription he is taking for Depression, the fact that he has a private cell, and a statement that he will serve 4 months of the 6. He is petitioning to serve his probation in Ohio, rather than California. Of course, I don’t know if any of this is true…but the letters and probation report certainly look authentic.
aggravated sexual battery * 3 (class B felony, 8 to 30 years in prison)
aggravated rape (class A felony, 15 to 60 years in prison)
attempted aggravated rape * 2 (class B felony, 8 to 30 years in prison)
facilitating aggravated rape
Note: penalties listed in the state law for rape (or functionally equivalent crimes) are significantly greater in Tennessee than in California.
I find the argument that the drunk rapist should be punished less harshly that the “roofie” rapist baffling, and deeply troubling, for several reasons.
Alcohol is, in fact, the #1 date-rape drug on our college campuses. It's far more common for a premeditated rapist to incapacitate his intended target with alcohol than with "roofies." The only difference is that with alcohol there's usually co-consumption by perpetrator and target (though for that matter, there's usually co-consumption of alcohol when "roofies" are used, too). To use the perpetrator's alcohol consumption as a mitigating factor is to give cover to this class of crime.
Surveys indicate that the perpetrator has been drinking in about half of all rapes. This may sound like a lot of non-drinking rapes, but keep in mind that most men aren't drinking for half of their waking lives, so it suggests that rates of rape go up dramatically when men are drinking. That rate is similar for most types of violent crimes. We don't use the perpetrator's state of inebriation as a mitigating factor when handing down sentences for armed robbery, or mugging, or burglary. Nor should we for rape.
Unlike drunk driving accidents, rape isn't something that "just happens" due to loss of consciousness, involuntary movements, or loss of motor control on the part of the perpetrator. Like armed robbery, it is a crime that always involves some level of intent and conscious motor control. The perpetrator may be operating under impaired judgment, perceptual impairments, loss of normal inhibitions, peer pressure, or impulse when committing the crime, and he may misremember or completely forget events afterwards---just like the inebriated armed robber. But in both cases, intent is there at the time the crime is committed.
Using alcohol consumption as a mitigating factor in rape is to give aid and comfort to the rape culture that pervades many college campuses, which thrives on and is fueled by alcohol consumption. Seriously: if a drunken stranger impulsively broke into your home and raped your daughter, would you think the perpetrator's state of inebriation should qualify him for a lighter sentence than if he committed those same crimes while sober? I don't think very many of us would answer that question in the affirmative. Yet some of us seem more inclined to tolerate rape when it occurs on a college campus in the context of excessive drinking, because . . . well, I suppose because drinking and sex have always been a part of college life. Look, I'm no prude; I drank and had sex in college, and I enjoyed both. But there was a line then and there's a line now that's not to be crossed, and that line is consent. If you have sex with someone who doesn't consent, or who is incapable of consent, that's rape. It's a serious crime, and it should be punished as such. It's not an excuse or a mitigating factor that you were drunk at the time you committed the crime. Do the crime, do the time.
I find the Batey case worse for the victim in that there were 3 attackers working together and they took photos and other evidence of their crimes in their cell phones. The poor victim has had to testify in repeated trials. They all lied to the victim as well. I can see why the sentence could be different for this case.
“The letter makes him sound like a dumb-ass kid, which is exactly the impression the lawyer would have wanted him to make to the judge. That’s why the lawyer wouldn’t have edited the letter to eliminate spelling or grammar errors or to clean up the poor writing.”
If this was actually the lawyer’s logic, I think it was a foolish strategy. This kid was a Stanford freshman. If he writes me a messy letter, I don’t think, “Wow, someone this dumb could rape someone by mistake.” I think, “Wow, he couldn’t even be bothered to use spell check. He doesn’t respect me enough to put in reasonable effort.”
If a judge gets a handwritten pro se pleading from an unrepresented inmate, there’s some sympathy for his lack of education. Anybody else who files some half-assed, unedited mess in front of a judge is treating the judge’s time as less important than his.
I think it’s more likely that the lawyer is a crummy editor/writer himself or that the family resisted good advice.
If you read about the Vanderbilt case you will see the multiple and heinous acts by the 4 men. I think it is worse. Batey actually penetrated her with an object and urinated on her. Vandenburg, who is about to go to trial, set it all up and is about to be re-tried. It’s hard to think in terms of “worse” in situations like this, but the nod clearly goes to Batey and Vandenburg. Vandenburg is white, but will be as soundly convicted and sentenced as Batey…
"I find the argument that the drunk rapist should be punished less harshly that the “roofie” rapist baffling, and deeply troubling, for several reasons.
Alcohol is, in fact, the #1 date-rape drug on our college campuses. It's far more common for a premeditated rapist to incapacitate his intended target with alcohol than with "roofies." The only difference is that with alcohol there's usually co-consumption by perpetrator and target (though for that matter, there's usually co-consumption of alcohol when "roofies" are used, too). To use the perpetrator's alcohol consumption as a mitigating factor is to give cover to this class of crime."
In our hypothetical, we weren’t comparing a guy encouraging a girl to drink with a guy slipping roofies into her drink. We were talking solely about his status (drunk) in the first scenario, and whether he was drinking or not was irrelevant to the second scenario.
I personally have a hard time treating as the same thing –
A) I encouraged her to drink (cheers! shots! drinking games! let me refill your cup!) and
B) I spiked her drink with a drug intended to incapacitate her
She still has individual agency in A. Unless he has a gun to her head (another story altogether), she is still choosing to incapacitate herself. She chooses to go from the one-drink-buzzed to the five-drinks-blotted-out.
She doesn’t have that free agency in B, where she may have intended one-drink-buzzed and then goes to blotted out. And in B, there’s a premeditated aspect – which “elevates” it, the same way that first-degree murder is “elevated” above other murder charges.
Also, with Batey. While he was raised (well) by a single mom who worked hard to support him, he did go to an elite prep school (scholarship) and then to Vanderbilt on a football scholarship. He was absolutely dead drunk, and seemed honestly horrified when he was told the next day what had occurred and saw the pictures of himself. Vandenburg had a big role in ruining Batey’s life (and his own, of course). I’m pretty familiar with the case and some of the lawyers involved, and while Batey deserves his punishment, Vandenburg is the more reviled defendant. He was dating the girl and was the one who carried her into the dorm room and set this whole thing up. Most people believe she was roofied, but that evidence is not being allowed.
The difference between someone putting a roofie in someone’s drink then raping them and having sex with someone who is passed out drunk is intent I suspect. With a roofie, that means you had some kind of plan, you had the drug with you in the first place (which has no use outside making someone comatose) and if you gave it to someone then had sex with them there is no other conclusion then you did it with the notion of having sex with them.
With alcohol alone, you don’t have the kind of control, plus the victim in that case knows what they are taking in. The way I look at it (and don’t confuse that with what the law would actually say) having sex with someone passed out is a crime of opportunity, whereas with a roofie it is one of planning and intent. Doesn’t mean I think both are not horrible, talking about from how the law might view it.
Putting an incapacitating drug in someone’s drink in order to facilitate sex is a crime unto itself. You will be charged separately for that in addition to the rape if one took place. So the sentence is going to be greater in any event.
In NY it is a Class D Felony and carries a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 7. I don’t know what the sentencing guidelines are for rape in NY but you would add that to the above.
How would you view putting more potent alcohol in a drink than the victim was expecting @musicprnt ? Not being argumentative , just wondering how or if this would change your impression.
@carolinamom2boys : Good question, but I don’t think that would come under the heading of being the same as a roofie. It is true the intent might be there, but it (to me) would still be different. For one thing, if you made the drink stronger than expected, the person drinking it would still be consensually drinking it, if you are getting a 7 and 7 let’s say, and there is more booze than the standard 1.5 oz, the person knows they are drinking booze. More importantly, if a drink is made stiffer, someone drinking it can potentially tell, they will start feeling the effects of the booze faster and likely might slow down, and if they continue to drink it, it is likely they are happy with getting drunk. When you give someone a roofie, they don’t know about it, and the effects are pretty much guaranteed, so to me it would still be in a seperate league, not to mention that a roofie is illegal on its own (as @HarvestMoon1 said), whereas putting extra booze in a drink is not illegal in of itself. I can see where that is a gray area, but to me there still is a difference there, because with alcohol the person drinking it is consenting to drinking, and if the alcohol level is higher they likely will detect it is stronger than it should be and make decisions based on that. Anyone who has ever done any drinking, even as little as I relatively do, has gone someplace and noticed if a drink was weak or strong, some bars you get a drink and it is like “holy cow”, another bar you might as well be drinking the mixer alone , and usually you can detect that.
@musicprnt Higher proof liquor does not necessarily taste stronger than lower proof liquor , and one could actually consume less alcohol but have stronger effects , just to play devils advocate . In both cases , the one being served the alcohol is drinking something that they didn’t know that they were consuming. Again , just posing a question .
So if, as various news outlets are reporting, he lied in his letter to the judge about being a naive kid that never partied, can he be tried for perjury? Or can the sentence be re-visited since it appears the probation board and judge may have bought his story about how he was influenced by the older swimmers. Should the prosecution have uncovered some of this information?
In principle, causing someone to be involuntarily intoxicated with more alcohol than expected is similar to doing so with “date rape drugs”. But it may be harder to convince a third party about involuntary intoxication with just alcohol, since lots of people get voluntarily intoxicated with alcohol. In contrast, if “date rape drugs” are detected, most would presume that there was nefarious intent.
One point with respect to the impact of prison on convicts. I think that it is the poor kids from the street that are more likely to be further criminalized by prison time. In jail, they lose more time away from possible school or employment, they are more likely to join a gang, they are exposed to new criminal ideas and potential future criminal partners, etc. The kid with the great past and the bright future is more likely to have a safety net to return to and will keep his eye on the future when he is released from jail. In this instance, I think Brock needs a little bit of real time to reflect on what he has done as it is apparent that he has not yet come to accept the significance of his actions.
Of course, we could also just freaking double down on drinking, which (best case scenario) “changes” good people to those capable of very bad things. This is why, if I were a benevolent dictator who ruled the world, no one would have more than (say) 2 glasses of alcohol at any given time. And we would shame people who “need” significant quantities of alcohol to socialize.