The prosecution had recommended 6 years. How again did the judge “go with the recommended guidelines”? Why did he choose to throw that away and go with the probation department?
We can only use his own words to understand why - he was overly concerned with the rapist having a “harsh effect” by his sentence.
@suzy100, victim blaming would be if she were blamed for what happened and people were now asserting that he was innocent and that is not the case here. He was tried and found guilty of sexual assault. But similar to how decisions are made when two drunk drivers collide, the circumstances leading up to this might have been part of the trial and might have been considered in sentencing which happens all the time in many different crimes other than sexual assault or drunk driving. Think about another example of someone found guilty of a crime and perhaps lack of a good home life of type of friends with with whom the guilty associates or any circumstantial factors is used during a trial and in making a judgement about punishment. In my opinion using the term “victim blaming” as some sort of argument inhibits true dialogue about root issues regardless of our of our individual beliefs in personal responsibility.
The prosecution is supposed to be an advocate; the probation department is supposed to be neutral. Different roles. The prosecution argues for a particular sentence (as does the defense); the probation department recommends one. I am just explaining my use of semantics here, and why I referred to the probation department’s recommendation as the recommended sentence.
6 months for these crimes is ridiculous. And it is going to be 3 months.
How many years can you get for drug crimes?
People who can’t make bail for lesser crimes are serving more than this guy.
The judge was more concerned about the rapist than the person who was raped.
The sentence was a slap on a pinky.
I agree the sentence seems too light. But surely he’ll have a hard time because of the sex offender status? Like with getting jobs and such? He’ll never be an Olympic swimmer either.
Yes. I don’t understand how the sentence can be so much shorter than even the minimum sentence for the crime!! Three months? What a mockery. And if I was a juror and had done my sworn duty conscientiously, I’d be angry, too.
“But similar to how decisions are made when two drunk drivers collide, the circumstances leading up to this might have been part of the trial and might have been considered in sentencing which happens all the time in many different crimes other than sexual assault or drunk driving.”
Please explain how the victim being unconscious should have been considered favorably in sentencing this young man.
It will be interesting to see if the prosecution appeals the sentence. Such appeals are very difficult to win, but if the prosecution really feels there has been a miscarriage of justice they can appeal the sentence.
It will also be interesting to see if the DA’s office uses its ability to get this judge taken off other sex crime cases. Litigants in every case get one chance to get the case transfered to a different judge. When the DA’s office feels that a judge is unfairly biased in favor of the defense, the office sometimes repeatedly uses this power against a particular judge (“papering” the judge, it is called). If they do it enough, it means the judge can’t really continue in a criminal assignment.
My very strong guess is that the DA’s office is NOT going to be papering this judge, given that the judge is a former prosecutor. Whether the office uses its ability to paper a judge is about as strong a signal you can get as to whether the DA’s office thinks a judge belongs on the criminal bench.
PS I repeat that I personally think the sentence was too lenient, based on the very limited (and possibly inaccurate) info that is available publicly. I’m still reacting to the suggestion that there should be some concerted effort to get this judge thrown iff the bench because of this decision. That’s why i am posting here.
From the local newspaper:
"Probation department officials recommended six months in county jail, and Turner requested a four-month county jail term.
The maximum sentence Turner could have gotten was 14 years in state prison".
re: post 88…because in general a jury and a judge are going to take into consideration the “drunkeness” of the accused person. In general someone who assaults someone stone cold sober is generally found more reprehensible by juries and judges than someone who does something when they are stupidly drunk. A person who gets in a car stone cold sober and mows down innocent bystanders is held in much greater contempt than someone who stupidly gets behind the wheel drunk and hits someone. They are both guilty but state of mind and chance of recidivism will always come into play. Her blackout/pass out is what makes him guilty but his drunkeness and chance of recidivism is going to be taken into consideration by everyone trying to determine what a sentence should be. I would think if he had previous charges for public intoxication, DUIs, previous complaints by women that too would be taken into consideration and the sentence would be appropriate. This is why I was curious what the general sentences are and why people thought 6 months jail, 3 years probation and sex registry was too lenient.
So rape isn’t a crime if the victim isn’t blacked out? Really? This statement assumes that she would have consented if she wan’t drunk. The default state is NOT consent.
Raping her is what makes him guilty. Her unconsciousness simply moves this case from ambiguity and he said /she said to unarguable fact. She could not consent because she was drunk, and then unconscious. We don’t know if she would have consented if she was sober, but it seems nuts to assume without evidence that she would (i.e that women will always consent to sex).
By that reasoning, folks convicted of DUI should have light/no prison sentences because they were drunk during the commission of the crime.
Thankfully, such reasoning is not used for that or many other criminal cases.
If anything, as most cases of crimes being committed while drunk are done by folks who voluntarily imbibed themselves to the point of intoxication, some have argued the drunkenness of the defendant committing violent/negligent crimes resulting in death or injury to others should be an AGGRAVATING factor arguing for a greater sentence, not a mitigating one arguing for a reduced/no sentence.
6 months for rape is ridiculously light. Some first-time drug offenders guilty of mere possession of tiny amounts of marijuana for personal use have been sentenced to far longer sentences than that.
And this, ladies and gents, is rape culture at its absolute finest.
Even in a clear-cut case of rape, the victim’s state is still what “makes” him guilty. Not the fact that he raped a woman. Nope, it’s her condition.
As I said earlier, rape is about the only crime where it is assumed that the VICTIM does something wrong until proven otherwise. In this case- it’s proven that she’s unconscious which is what “makes” him guilty.
Raping her is what makes him guilty.
^ this this this this this this this this this this this. Oh, and this.
Oh good grief - I can’t say whether she would or would not have consented had she not passed out and neither can you. He may have been found guilty of assault had she not passed out if it didn’t devolve into a he said/she said thing, but the law is clear…she was passed out and he was found guilty. Period. Don’t read into this. You guys sometimes read way to much into what people are trying to put forth. Good heavens…the guy tried to have sex with a passed out person and he was found guilty. Why is everyone just loosing it? No one yet has answered my original question…if 6 months jail, 3 years probation and sex registry is not acceptable to people on this thread…what do you think the sentence should be? And yes, I do believe a judge and jury would give a lighter sentence to someone who is drunk and hits someone than they would do someone totally sober and of clear mind who gets in a car and mows down someone - goes to state of mind.
He admitted in his statement to police the actions which brought about the conviction. The witnesses and the police that arrived on the scene could not rouse the young woman. There is absolutely no doubt that he committed three counts of felony rape.
This is not 'he said, she said."
R-E-A-D please before you respond.
I, personally, would like to see him in jail for the maximum sentence - 10 years. There’s your answer.
I don’t believe that his drunk state should have any effect on the sentencing.
At worst he is a violent predator. At best he is an idiot who is unable to control his violent actions.
10 years @momofthreeboys. And if he is raped during those 10 years, please feel free to point out his blame for making the bad choice of being a pretty, white and incarcerated, as well leniency for the perpetrator because of his state of mind.