I read the father’s letter @Pizzagirl , and unfortunately in his attempt to “humanize” his son, it had the adverse affect.
Pizzagirl, I certainly am not trying to pile on the Turner family. I am trying to understand what would motivate them to not plead out this case and mount an appeal. Someone posted earlier in this thread that USA Swimming had to ban him due to the convictions. Given the outrage over the sentencing, I am wondering why they would prolong this ordeal with an appeal.
Good point, reddoor. As so many have pointed out, this case was unusually solid, with no room for doubt. How could they possibly think they’d convince a jury to acquit?
The father’s statement is disgusting. Not because of the steak, but because of the “twenty minutes of action.” I don’t know what I would do if my son committed such an act, but it wouldn’t be that. For some reason, and it’s about time, I’m realizing the damages of our patriarchal culture.
I’m sorry the media attention is waning, and I don’t think questioning the family, friends, judge, and supporters of a rapist is bullying. If you don’t want to be a touchstone for how sexual violence is perceived in America then don’t support a rapist. They are not the victims.
Per an article in The Atlantic:
I am not entirely sure media attention is waning. It was on the front page of the LA TImes again this morning. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stanford-attack-20160610-snap-story.html
I honestly think that if it were my son I would have pushed him to take a plea deal and make the whole thing go away. I don’t think I would have risked my longterm financial stability and that of my other children (who evidently had to take out student loans). But I feel like the family has so much time/energy/money invested in his swimming career they are in complete denial and don’t want to give it up.
Honestly I think the family should have spent more time ensuring that Brock was a super-star human being and less time on him being a super-star swimmer.
Of course most parents would want leniency for their son, but here they want it because they somehow think he wasn’t fully accountable. That is what disgusts people. If they had owned up to the offense, there may have been slightly less outrage
Re the statements to the court. These are meant to humanize the defendant. And of course, most parents are going to protect their kids. Serial killers get character letters from their families and friends. In addition, because many defendants are going to mount an appeal, there will rarely be any sort of statement that acknowledges a crime was committed (the difference is a plea agreement, where the letters are part of sentencing, and remorse becomes very important).
However, a lot of times these letters never even mention the crime. They are solely meant to humanize the defendant. I can tell you that the victim blaming statements in these letters are unusual. For many judges, they would backfire, and the lawyers would edit them out. I can only think that Brock’s defense attorney knew Judge Persky and knew these letters would work. And they did – he got a downward departure in sentencing. The defense attorney wasn’t thinking about what the public would think, he was thinking about the judge.
There was an interview on NPR with Michele Dauber this morning concerning the impact of the sentence and the rationale for the recall http://www.npr.org/2016/06/11/481656710/how-ousting-the-judge-in-the-stanford-sexual-assault-case-could-impact-future-ca
Not sure the media is waning just yet. It was one of the lead stories on the morning national news shows today.
"The father’s statement is disgusting. Not because of the steak, but because of the “twenty minutes of action.” "
And again, I think it’s blindingly obvious that he wasn’t saying “hey, a guy should be able to get 20 minutes of action with whatever chick he likes, heh heh wink wink” but he was trying to say that this one bad mistake shouldn’t get to define his son’s life. It was a poor choice of words. Too bad so many stupid people took it to mean that he was using “action” in the colloquial sense of “getting some sexual action.” Read the entire context and it’s clear what he meant. But never underestimate the ability of people to manufacture even more outrage. The situation as presented is bad enough; whether the father was a stellar writer or not is really beside the point.
Why do you think he should have taken a plea deal? Any deal would have involved many years in jail. By going to trial he gets a few months!
Very good parents have bad kids. Who are we to say that anything the parents did with him led to this?
Historically it was the survivors of acquaintance rape who were tarred and feathered and bullied into silence. Focusing negative attention on the rapist is really new. This public outrage facilitates change. imho.
I already wrote that I understand the family wants to protect and defend their son. I also imagine that as long as there is no admission of guilt, the survivor’s family may want to protect and defend their child by keeping negative media attention focused on the rapist.
I am sorry Turner raped someone. Maybe the good that comes out of all this media attention is that other young men (and women) decide to be Good Samaritan bystanders instead of rapists when they encounter an unconscious individual. We are beginning to identify more closely with survivors than with golden boy perpetrators. That is a cultural good. imho.
Ok, so now we all feel better that we’ve piled on his family; and so now I guess this makes us feel better it couldn’t ever have been any one of our kids, right? Because we are all oh so perfect parents? And a “bad kid” MUST be the result of bad parenting? Because I don’t buy that. I think some people may be “bad seeds” despite perfectly fine parenting.
@pizzagirl - I find that statement appalling regardless. You can kill a bunch of people in 20 minutes. A lot of crimes are only a 20 minute portion of a person’s life. A lot of judges would cringe to see that kind of excuse. I seriously think it wasn’t a poor choice of words – I think the defense attorney knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he submitted because it worked. This judge gave an unusually low sentence.
Well, that ship has sailed. He’s been banned from USA swimming for life http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-swimming/
GTalum:
It took me so long to see it, but once I saw just a glimmer, the whole world looked different to me, and I had to pretty much reevaluate my whole life history. I find it incredibly difficult and challenging to look outside the culture in which I was raised, but really worth it when I can do so.
@jym626 I know he is banned for life. But the only logic, to me, that would explain going for an appeal, especially since he was given such a light sentence, and especially in light of the evidence, would be for him to be found not guilty. At which point he would not have a conviction, and USA swimming could re-evaluate.
" I can only think that Brock’s defense attorney knew Judge Persky and knew these letters would work. And they did – he got a downward departure in sentencing. "
As has been amply and repeatedly explained by nottelling, who appears to know her stuff, the judge had more ties to the prosecution than the defendant.
Re post #895 that the 3yr probation is no picnic for this age make it an appropriately gravitas sentence because he won’t be allowed around alcohol. Are you really serious??? A thousand violins (sarcasm).
He viciously assaults a woman (caught dead to rights) and you think being deprived of alcohol for three years is a significant burden on him to bear for his crime??
Honestly, this type attitude toward sexual assault (that the alcohol made him do it but the girl who drank is also culpable and complicit) is caught in the same time warp with the concept that drunk drivers who maimed or killed innocent bystanders were less culpable because of the drinking. Back then society was loathe to fully punish the behavior as an actual crime because folks saw themselves or their friend in that defendant: There, but for the grace of God, go I.
With a lot of work by MADD and others we got past that. I’m so sorry to see some still have that mentality regarding sexual assault–particularly if it happens in a campus party scene. Hopefully, this young woman’s articulate and moving victim impact statement will help turn the tide on Society’s view toward the campus sexual assault cases.
This was serious sexual assault, with or without alcohol being involved. And being deprived of alcohol does not make an insultingly light sentence for the degrading and vicious sexual assault palatable.
IF Turner had acknowledged his actions, taken responsibly for them, and been horrified at what he did and caused, I could understand the sentence. But he–and his family–continue to ignore the real crime he committed. All they seem remorseful about is that he got caught over-indulging himself. He doesn’t seem the least bit concerned or mortified at the damage he caused this woman. He doesn’t recognize the gravity of his sexual advances or even that they were wrong. Thus, he is at risk of repeating.
But the fact that he is legally not allowed to drink alcohol for 3 years? Nope, you cannot convince me that that is a form of serious punishment or loss of privilege. He is 19; he isn’t legally permitted to drink for another 2 years anyway. So he has to wait another year to be legal. Big whoop.