The victim will feel pain the rest of her life. Give him the maximum sentence and he will get off easy.
He never felt remorse towards the victim until the sentencing hearing. Until that he was sorry he got drunk.
Imagine if we applied this logic to other crimes.
“Sorry, officer, I didn’t mean to mug him… I was drunk!”
“Sorry, judge, I didn’t mean to shoot her… I was drunk!”
“Oh you were drunk? Then clearly you weren’t at fault. Probation for you since the victim was probably somehow asking for it.”
Oy vey
In Michigan assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration which is what the Stanford student was charged with is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 year so the max would be 10 years but the judges obviously aren’t required to punish with the maximum which is why with a first-time offender, no previous record, both drunk…I thought the jail time, the probation and sex registry were well within the bounds of what a judge might do.
I don’t understand why his being drunk would be be a mitigating factor in a violent crime? That’s not the same as drunkeness in a nonviolent crime and the comparison is very weak.
Lots of domestic violence is committed by drunks too. Should a man who gets drunk and then beats his wife and kids get off lighter because he was drunk when he did it?
People who use alcohol to excuse violent actions are making it an excuse. Allowing them to do so allows them to deflect responsibility for their purposeful actions.
@momofthreeboys
“both drunk”
As someone asked before, how is her being passed out unconscious supposed to be a mitigating factor?
You are consistently attempting to state that her state/actions bear responsibility for his actions.
There are very, very limited cases where being drunk mitigated the punishment of the crime. In almost all cases where this tactic works is with long term alcoholics not young people that not cannot legally drink alcohol.
I read that the maximum sentence was 14 years. The prosecutors asked for 6 years. 6 months is just a joke. A bad joke.
The probation department officials recommended six months in county jail, and the judge followed their recommendation. The probation department thought he was remorseful.
Case followers said he expressed regret about being drunk that evening. However, he never expressed regret about his violent actions upon the victim until his sentencing hearing,
Maybe it comes to mens rea because he was drunk. While not a defense it goes to being able to comprehend his intent and the situation. He did run, and drunkeness in and of itself is not a defense, but I was supposing that it might come into play in the sentencing and in the recommendation by the probation department. I have no knowledge where California is on diminished capacity to form intent to commit a particular crime and he was charged with assault with intent to commit rape and not rape. None the less, I don’t know the sentencing guideline for sexual assault in California, what the judge sentenced in Cali was within the guidelines for Michigan. especially if found guilty on multiple charges that are to be served concurrently.
No read the posts @ranek, what is so difficult about doing that. Her actions have no bearing on anything…only his and his actions (in being drunk) may have come into the sentencing he received. What are you not getting?
Is it 10 years max for sexual assault of an adult in California?
@momofthreeboys
in post #103, you reference that both were drunk. Why? - You haven’t answered this. Why is her drunken state a mitigating factor?
post #91, you state “Her blackout/pass out is what makes him guilty.” This reveals a lot about how you view that situation. You naturally frame the situation in terms of her being responsible.
post #55, you attempt to use the “both drivers are drunk” analogy, despite the fact that the victim in this case committed no crime. You refuse to back down from this analogy despite multiple people pointing this out to you. You are clearly committed to the idea that both the victim and the rapist bear responsibility.
These posts are the basis for my statement in post #105. You only admit that “her actions have no bearing” when someone challenges you on it.
I don’t see alcohol as a mitigating factor for him. Any female ought to be able to be unconscious in the presence of any male without risking sexual assault. He took advantage of the situation. He raped her, then ran when caught. How is this somehow excusable? The jail time given is a wrist slap. How about if he is in jail at least until his victim is out of college? Cuz guess what… I bet Stanford will eventually let him back in.
raneck…it is generally considered that people do bear responsibility and there is some kernal in criminal cases that address intent…hence the analogy of two drunk drivers in Michigan where one driver was killed but the other driver was not charged with vehicle manslaughter. But in this case the law says if she’s passed out and she was found passed out, then it’s illegal for someone to attempt to have sex even though they were both drunk, in this case her drunkeness has no bearing… her black out/pass is what made him guilty without question according to California law. Without the black out/passout the entire trial could have devolved into he said/she said which could in some sense be the equivalent of two drunk drivers crashing into each other. My point is not about his guilt or innocent, it is that I did not find the sentence to be an unreasonable sentence and others thought it was lenient. I supposed that perhaps the recommendation and ultimately the judges decision may have hinged around whether he, given his drunken state, knew the victim did not consent which is at heart the meaning of mens rea. Does that help you understand what I am saying?
I think someone is too protective of the "he"s.
And still you can’t seem to admit that his raping her is what makes him guilty.
It is illegal to drive drunk and illegal to rape people. It is not illegal to be drunk (when of age, which she was). The analogy is unfounded. In this case, the victim HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME. In your drunk drivers analogy, both parties have committed a crime.
Aaaand, once more, with feeling: How is her being drunk supposed to be a mitigating factor? You haven’t answered this.
I found the sentence to be grossly inadequate and unreasonable. I do not believe that his drunkenness should be a mitigating factor. That is my opinion.
“no read the posts,” indeed.
What kind of world do some people live in that they think getting drunk makes it more likely that a person will think it’s sort of ok to strip an unconscious girl lying on the ground behind a dumpster, outside, naked and and forcibly assault her, causing abrasions and leaving pine needles and dirt inside her body? (That is assuming he didn’t just force her to the ground). What kind of person can possibly claim that the only reason they did that was alcohol? That makes no sense.
Not only did this kid sexually assault this young woman, he then continued to harm her for a year as he attempted to put the blame for his actions on her and even her sister. He accused the guys who saved her of assaulting him. He blamed the tough defense in the courtroom towards his victim on his lawyer. He played the victim. And now the only responsibility he has taken is drinking too much which leads to poor decisions and promiscuity. He deserved the maximum sentence, IMO.
I sincerely hope that mo3b’s 3 boys have learned somewhere along that way that alcohol doesn’t reduce one’s culpability.
Drinking (in and of itself) is not a crime (yes, unless a minor which this survivor was not). Committing crimes while drinking doesn’t make one’s actions any less criminal.
She’s not a student at Stanford.
@intparent i don’t think stanford will not let him back in lol
@intparent oops i miswrote my previous post my b. *i dont think stanford will let him back in