Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Stanford Rapist Sentence

I know there is a reason I keep telling my 21 year old to:
  • avoid shots and drugs
  • avoid drinks that someone else mixed 
  • always party with 2+ close female friends
What do you think regarding this case and the sentencing?


CNN Rape Sentence
CNN Victim's Letter

109 comments:

Sean said...

Three felonies, six months in jail? The sentence is too light for the crime.

Laurie said...

once again I am going to respond with a link

Why the Stanford attacker’s smiling photo is far more telling than any mugshot

6 months seems too light to me. I don't think being drunk should excuse rape. I can't believe either of my sons around that age would commit such a crime, but if they did they should do the time, like maybe a year or two in jail.

maybe longer sentences would help to combat rape culture and deter other young men from such crimes.

John said...

I did a brief search to see if Brock knew the victim, had they been together prior to the event, etc... And struck out.

I know many people want to make this a black and white topic, however having been very stupid and often very drunk in college.... I don't know if this is a good or bad sentence...

I vaguely remember a college woman saying that it was fine teasing a man while in her underwear. I remember someone else saying that it was stupid of that woman to trust that a thin cotton panel in her panties as an adequate defense against a drunk horny man that she has enticed and egged on.

John said...

As for Brock trying to run when confronted... I have humorous story.

Back when I was about 20 we went to Watertown SD to party at some guy's house. We got plowed and went to a bar... Then we started walking back to this "white colored older house" in this strange town. One of my friends got lost in his inebriated state... Now this was before cell phones so he decided to knock on a door at 2 AM and ask for directions to the "white colored older house". This apparently made sense to him at the time.

Unfortunately apparently the people in the house thought calling the police was the better idea. Then my drunken friend ran into the backyard and hid under a pine tree. Which to him seemed like a good hiding place. Of course, it was about as effective as an ostrich burying it's head in the sand.

The good news he had a safe place to sleep that night and we knew wear to pick him up in the morning... The biggest problem we had was pulling together ~$190 in cash to pay the fines... :-)

Laurie said...

your 2 comments indicate to me that you are willing to makes excuses for rapists. What does your drinking story have to do with rape anyway?

maybe you should take the time to read the lengthy victim impact statement

‘You took away my worth’: A sexual assault victim’s powerful message to her Stanford attacker

John said...

I don't have time to read anything that starts with "you took away my worth"... No one can take away a person's worth unless they let them. She was stupid / irresponsible to put herself in such vulnerable position, and he was stupid and wrong for taking advantage of her.

As for "making excuses for rapists", as I said above I simply do not know enough of the details to have an opinion. That is why we have judge who has to make the call.

Of course then all the "crucify the white guys" folks read into it and cry foul with no more knowledge than I have.

By the way, I do agree that Brock's Dad is a real tool. I mean what idiot would say "20 minutes of action" in this situation...

Anonymous said...

John-

He was found guilty of rape. What more do you need?

There is sex and there is rape. There is no in-between. You're making excuses.

Joel

Sean said...

"Of course then all the "crucify the white guys" folks"

This comment is extraordinarily telling.



John said...

Joel,
And the judge sentenced him as he felt was appropriate. What else do you need?

Sean,
You are correct.

I believe that there are some folks out there who are biased against minorities, women, etc. And I believe that there are some folks out there who are biased against white men.

Anonymous said...

"And the judge sentenced him as he felt was appropriate. What else do you need?"

What does that have to do with you making excuses for a convicted rapist?

Joel

Sean said...

You only seem to be worried about the white men. Heck, you're the guy who said that it was perfectly OK to give people from bad families longer jail sentences.

Sean said...

"As for "making excuses for rapists", as I said above I simply do not know enough of the details to have an opinion."

Have you read your own posts? You've expressed plenty of opinion on this. One's stupidity or irresponsibility doesn't create a license for someone else to commit a violent criminal act against you. But hey, just as long you feel better (and superior) about shaming a victim of a horrible crime and pointing out their lack of virtue...

Anonymous said...

"Heck, you're the guy who said that it was perfectly OK to give people from bad families longer jail sentences."

Good god, I'd forgotten that lovely piece of Republican logic.

Thanks for reminding me what kind of attitude we're dealing with here.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Hey, how about discussing the merits of the sentence or the underlying felonious assault, rather than each other's possibly dark and inappropriate motivations for our opinions? Our opinion is what our opinion is, in this case, since our combined detailed knowledge of the case is substantially less than the judge and jury had. From what I read, since the lad was convicted, I think I agree that six months was too little. There are no extenuating circumstances under which he did not, with premeditation, sexually assault a defenseless stranger. He made a very serious "youthful mistake," if that's what you want to claim, and deprived another of their youthful innocence for years. He should serve at least a year, IMHO, but having to register as a sex offender is the one part of the sentence the judge got right.

Anonymous said...

"He made a very serious "youthful mistake," if that's what you want to claim..."

I wonder if Trayvon Martin made a "youthful mistake". Or maybe it was Zimmerman whose "mistake" was "youthful"? So confusing.

But back to the topic of rape, how many black rapists get the "youthful mistake" cover that this despicable person is getting?

Joel

John said...

Joel and Sean,
I realize that you are obsessed with racism against minorities... My point is simply that racism and prejudice goes both ways.

As for "OK to give people from bad families longer jail sentences". I agree totally that it is logical and practical.

If the Judge sees that the criminal has no support system, no serious regret, etc they need to "throw the book" at them...

Where as if the Judge sees a truly sorry individual who has made a mistake and a has a great support system to ensure it does not happen again, the Judge has more options.

Do you support mandatory sentencing where the judge is not allowed to use their judgment?

Personally my goal for sentencing is to punish somewhat, but more importantly it is to ensure that the individual learns from the experience and never offends again...

Sean said...

"But back to the topic of rape, how many black rapists get the "youthful mistake" cover that this despicable person is getting?"

Well, actually there's a rather comparable recent case. In April, Vanderbilt football player Cory Batey was found guilty of three felonies for raping an unconscious woman in a campus dorm room. Batey, who was also drunk and claims no memories of the events, was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in state prison (not the county jail).

Sean said...

"Do you support mandatory sentencing where the judge is not allowed to use their judgment?"

I don't, but I find it fascinating that you find that the person who needs the book thrown at them is not the one who had all the advantages and still screwed up, but instead the one that has behind the 8-ball their whole life. Perhaps you should rename your blog to "Comfort the Comfortable".

John said...

I think the different States and Laws were a bigger factor.

Apparently Tennessee is tougher on rapists than California.
"Neither defendant has a felony conviction history, which could factor into sentencing. Findings of guilt on aggravated charges carry mandatory minimum sentences."

John said...

Sean,
So your belief then is that the responsible student / employee who commits a crime, shows true remorse and can show a clear strong path towards ensuring it never happens again should be sent to jail for as long or longer than...

The irresponsible student / employee who commits a crime, shows attitude and has no clue how they will prevent it from happening again...

Please explain your rationale.

John said...

Also, this case seems quite different to me.

It has multiple participants, physical assault, sent photos, etc, etc. Not sure if it matters in a court of law, but the differences seem too large to try and compare the cases directly.

Sean said...

Simple: a person's sentence should be based on the sentencing guidelines for the crime they committed. If a judge wants to use their discretion on a certain case, they better have a darn good reason.

Sean said...

Do you find Brock Turner to meet your criteria for a reduced sentence? Why or why not?

John said...

Sean,
I really do not know enough details to make a decision either way. And I just don't have time right now to research this in enough detail to make a judgment.

I am going to trust our hired Judge to do his job correctly and not second guess his judgment...

John said...

Just curious... If the judge had been female or a minority and had set the same sentence, would you and the rest of the outraged people still be as upset?

Sean said...

And said the same things as the current judge, you bet.

John said...

What did the judge say?

Laurie said...

My 19 year old son thought the guy got off way too easy. He was very adament that an unconscious person cannot consent to sex. He did not think being drunk excused the behavior.

Everyone in my family agreed that there is gray area in some of the cases of drunken hookups, followed by regret the next day, which could lead to an unfair charge of rape. This instance that is receiving so much news coverage is not one of those cases.

I think it is very likely that a black student found guilty in a similar case would receive a much longer sentence.

jerrye92002 said...

I think Laurie is pointing to the right question. We know the race of the perpetrator from his picture, but we do not know the race of the attorneys and judge, or even the victim, and we can only infer the sex from their names or comments about them. So the question is: if the perpetrator had been black but with the same background – no criminal record, star athlete, frat boy, well off, genuine remorse – would the seemingly light sentence still be an outrage? What other changes could have been made to the race or sex of the perpetrator, victim, judge, jury or attorneys that might have offered a different result based on the exact same set of established facts in the case, and if so, would this hypothetical outcome or the actual outcome be the perversion of justice?

Laurie said...

this is not what genuine remorse sounds like:

Brock Turner's statement blames sexual assault on Stanford ‘party culture’

John said...

This whole thing is complicated to say the least. I finally read the victim's statement...


"As this is a first offence I can see where leniency would beckon. On the other hand, as a society, we cannot forgive everyone’s first sexual assault or digital rape. It doesn’t make sense. The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error. The consequences of sexual assault needs to be severe enough that people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be preventative.

The probation officer weighed the fact that he has surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. How fast Brock swims does not lessen the severity of what happened to me, and should not lessen the severity of his punishment. If a first time offender from an underprivileged background was accused of three felonies and displayed no accountability for his actions other than drinking, what would his sentence be? The fact that Brock was an athlete at a private university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency, but as an opportunity to send a message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class.

The Probation Officer has stated that this case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication. It felt serious. That’s all I’m going to say.

What has he done to demonstrate that he deserves a break? He has only apologized for drinking and has yet to define what he did to me as sexual assault, he has revictimized me continually, relentlessly. He has been found guilty of three serious felonies and it is time for him to accept the consequences of his actions. He will not be quietly excused.

He is a lifetime sex registrant. That doesn’t expire. Just like what he did to me doesn’t expire, doesn’t just go away after a set number of years. It stays with me, it’s part of my identity, it has forever changed the way I carry myself, the way I live the rest of my life."

John said...

From Brock's Statement:
"I am the sole proprietor of what happened on the night that these people’s lives were changed forever. I would give anything to change what happened that night. I can never forgive myself for imposing trauma and pain on [redacted].

It debilitates me to think that my actions have caused her emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair. The thought of this is in my head every second of every day since this event has occurred. These ideas never leave my mind. During the day, I shake uncontrollably from the amount I torment myself by thinking about what has happened.

I wish I had the ability to go back in time and never pick up a drink that night, let alone interact with [redacted]. I can barely hold a conversation with someone without having my mind drift into thinking these thoughts. They torture me. I go to sleep every night having been crippled by these thoughts to the point of exhaustion.

I wake up having dreamt of these horrific events that I have caused. I am completely consumed by my poor judgement and ill thought actions. There isn’t a second that has gone by where I haven’t regretted the course of events I took on January 17th/18th. My shell and core of who I am as a person is forever broken from this. I am a changed person. At this point in my life, I never want to have a drop of alcohol again.

I never want to attend a social gathering that involves alcohol or any situation where people make decisions based on the substances they have consumed. I never want to experience being in a position where it will have a negative impact on my life or someone else’s ever again."

John said...

So we apparently have a post college aged woman who went to a college party with her younger sister, she got extremely drunk, and somehow left the party. Likely with Brock?

Assuming that the 20 year old man and older woman then started the groping thing? Then she apparently passed out and he kept going?

Or do you think she passed out, he was just walking past the dumpster, saw her and said well that is interesting? Then he jumped her?

John said...

What frustrates me about her statement is that she swears she has no memories of the whole ordeal and yet she insists that this has scarred her for life?

She thanks the bikers for saving her? If they had not found her and she had woken up laying next to the dumpster in the morning... Would it have been as equally terrible and scarring? Or would she have said... What the frick did I do last night?

As for his comments, I agree that he could have said that he is very sorry for attacking a passed out woman. But should he do that if he truly believes that they were having consensual sex and she passed out...

Again... I have no idea... I am happy I wasn't on the Jury or the one doing the sentencing.

John said...

Imagine if Brock's version of reality is correct and he was truly just drunk, horny, immature and really really stupid.

His fine of a lost scholarship to Stanford, the jail time, lost potential endorsements, being a lifetime registered sex offender, etc is definitely significant...

Happy I just got a minor intoxication conviction at 17...

Anonymous said...

John, your attitude is horrific.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: She went to a college party where she drank alcohol, so she should expect to get violated. They were groping each other, so of course when she passes out, she should expect to be violated. She doesn't actually feel what she says she's feeling, according to you.

Thank you for supporting rape culture.

Karma's a bitch, and perhaps he'll find out in prison what rape feels like. But then, he'll probably receive preferential treatment there, as well.

Joel

Sean said...

If she passes out there is no consent. Period. Should he have apologized? Yes! But I don't think he's actually sorry for what happened to her. He's sorry about what happened to him.

The problem with what Brock said, what the judge said, and what Brock's dad said, and frankly about what you are saying John is that it's all about the impacts on Brock's life. Poor Brock lost his college scholarship. Poor Brock has to register as a sex offender. Poor Brock lost potential endorsements. No one registers concern for what happened to this woman.

And then John actively questions her pain, and keeps bringing up this "older woman" nonsense like it's meaningful.

Here's the kicker: Brock Turner knew what he was doing was wrong. Why? Because when the two grad students saw what was going on, he ran. It wasn't "oops, how embarrassing, you caught us having sex". He ran!

Sean said...

"But then, he'll probably receive preferential treatment there, as well."

You betcha! Turner is serving his sentence in the county jail, not state prison.

John said...

Now if I choose to get incredibly drunk and take a walk in North Mpls at 2 AM after hanging in a gangster bar with my wallet full of $100 bills singing at the top of my lungs... Then I get robbed of my wallet...

How much of the responsibility and consequences for the robbery should be assigned to me and how much to the robber?

And of course we are focused on Brock's consequences, that is the whole point of the uproar...

What do you think would have been the victim's consequences if the bikers had just kept going, she had not been taken to the hospital, there had not been a trial, there had not been a national media blitz? Would she have felt so traumatized / shamed, or would she be thinking she was stupid and had consensual sex?

I have no idea...

Sean said...

"How much of the responsibility and consequences for the robbery should be assigned to me and how much to the robber?"

Should the robber get less of sentence because you were drunk? Of course not. The robber is held responsible for their own actions.

Anonymous said...

We are talking here about a single sexual assault against a woman by a white male that happened by a garbage dumpster.

That's more sexual assaults than have ever been perpetrated by a transgender person in the "wrong" restroom or locker room.

And here's John, trying to sweep it under the rug and pass it off as a youthful mistake.

Check your biases, John.

How many mistakes does he get to make before we take his violence seriously? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty? Is the second or tenth one more damaging to the victim than the first? Should we treat murderers the same way? "Well, you've never done this in the past and you don't look or sound like the kind of person who would do it in the future. Here's a lenient sentence."

Joel

John said...

Please remember that I am just agreeing with the probation officer and the judge. It is the 2 of you who are saying that the "government professionals" are incompetent and biased.

This has to be a rare occurrence... Usually it is me who is questioning the performance of public employees... :-)

John said...

" sweep it under the rug "

Do you really think that being:
- a registered sexual predator for the rest of your life
- losing $200+ K of financial benefits
- going through the trial and media circus
- being put in prison
- etc

is sweeping it under the rug? You must have a pretty big rug.

Sean said...

So you believe Brock Turner has shown -- in your words -- "true remorse" and is deserving of a lighter sentence?

John said...

It is strange that "sexual predator" registration in cases like this are life long. I don't think we do this for thieves, people who commit assault, etc...

Sean said...

Losing the scholarship and going through the trial should have nothing to do with his criminal sentence.

*Anybody* who gets convicted of three felonies is going to lose their job or means of supporting themselves. *Anybody* who gets convicted of three felonies is going to likely face the risk of some level of media scrutiny.

None of that is unique to Brock Turner. It just isn't. And to pretend otherwise is the privilege talking.

John said...

Sean,
Yes and no... He has expressed true remorse, however he still blames the booze.

Just curious, do you think the victim has expressed true remorse for putting herself for her high risk behavior that contributed to this mess? I found it amusing that she blamed the booze also. She said something like "I drank to fast and did not account for my lowered tolerance".

Do you know exactly how much one needs to drink to pass out? This is not someone just getting a little drunk...

John said...

If these people lose their job...
Is it equal punishment?

1. Man working at McDonalds for min wage
2. Man working at somewhere for $100,000/yr

Sean said...

"He has expressed true remorse, however he still blames the booze."

That's not true remorse.

"Just curious, do you think the victim has expressed true remorse for putting herself for her high risk behavior that contributed to this mess?"

Brock Turner stuck his fingers and foreign objects up an unconscious woman's vagina behind a dumpster. He admitted at trial that he sought out drunk women at parties as targets for sexual conquest.

The victim did nothing illegal. Brock Turner did. Stop shaming her and start shaming him!

Sean said...

"If these people lose their job...
Is it equal punishment?"

I guarantee you the guy working for minimum wage at McDonald's needs that job just as much as the guy making $100K/year.

But this whole discussion is irrelevant, because it's not supposed to matter when determining the criminal sentence.

Anonymous said...

"Is it equal punishment?"

Yes, because income isn't relevant.

If you think punishment for a crime should depend on how much money the criminal will lose by losing their job, you are part of the problem.

Joel

John said...

So to you all fines are equal? We can just standardize on a say $100 no matter the offense.

As for shaming... They both behaved very poorly and blame the booze, Brock just also behaved criminally. Is that hard for you to agree with?

So I don't think you have answered this one...
"What do you think would have been the victim's consequences if the bikers had just kept going, she had not been taken to the hospital, there had not been a trial, there had not been a national media blitz? Would she have felt so traumatized / shamed, or would she be thinking she was stupid and had consensual sex?"

Anonymous said...

Prison sentences =/= fines.

Joel

John said...

Punishment can consist of jail time, fines, probation, life long registration, mandatory classes, community service, home confinement, mandatory counseling, etc...

What is your goal of punishing a criminal?

Sean said...

"What is your goal of punishing a criminal?"

It depends, based on the crime. For instance:

For something like a possession drug offense, the goal should be deterrence of future criminal activity by the offender, which might mean a stronger emphasis on treatment and counseling than prison time.

For a violent crime, you also want deterrence of future criminal activity by the offender but you also need to provide a measure of justice to the victims of that crime.

John said...

After reading this I think the judge should have given him 3 years and kept him off that list... That list is cruel and unusual punishment in this case...

CNN Who is Judge

"Palo Alto public defender Gary Goodman told CNN that an attempt to recall Persky is "the last thing" the county wants or needs.

The judge has to weigh "all the factors and rules," he said. He pointed out that Turner must register as a sex offender.

"Yes, prison is a big deal, but he [Turner] does have punishment. He is on the sex registry, so now if he has kids, he can't ever drop his kids off at school. He can't go watch his kids play basketball. He can't be a teacher. He can't go to a playground with his kids. He is severely limited for the rest of this life and it's not just a financial punishment, it's a lifetime punishment."

"Judge Persky is a kind, gentle soul -- very well considered and bright," Goodman said. "You can't send a message to the community with one person. The judge has to be focused solely on that person in his courtroom. The legislature has to take care of the community."

jerrye92002 said...

How about this approach? The defendant got six months in prison, three years of probation and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Prosecutors had asked for six years of prison, apparently no probation nor registration. If you believe that this sentence was too lenient (not many have said it was too harsh), then what sentence do you believe would have been proper? And please, let us not have any bias introduced in the answer.

John said...

My very uninformed vote:
1 - 3 years prison
3 years probation
No sexual predator registry

My rationale: I think this was a crime of convenience and stupidity. I have heard no where that he spiked her drink in an attempt to make her pass out. And if going to parties to find drunk girls to have sex with was a crime... Most college age men would be in jail.

Sean said...

"That list is cruel and unusual punishment in this case..."

In your America, black 12-year-old kids shot and killed while holding a toy gun in an open carry state should have known better, but we can find all kinds of excuses to make sure a white 19-year-old penetrating an unconscious woman doesn't have to troubled by that for the rest of his life.

John said...

Sean,
I am assuming you support giving felons who served their time back their voting rights. Yet in this case you support a life long punishment?

Unfortunately the child died because the officers thought he posed a significant threat. Not because he was guilty.

Sean said...

"I am assuming you support giving felons who served their time back their voting rights. Yet in this case you support a life long punishment?"

I frankly don't have strong feelings about the sex offender registry part of the sentence (it's my understanding under CA law that the crime he was convicted of requires registration if the judge sentences you to state prison. Since he ordered Turner to county jail, that stipulation had to be included as part of the sentence.). My problem with the sentence is that Turner's jail time should be far closer to prosecutor's recommendation than what he received. That jail time reflects the severity of the crime and respects the impact of said crime on the victim.

Even under a six year sentence, Brock Turner will have decades to rebuild his life to the best of his abilities.

Laurie said...

Stanford sex assault case: Sentence was too short — but the system worked

Some cases I have read about in the past have been badly mishandled by a college or university. Law enforecement seems the way to go.

jerrye92002 said...

"...Most college age men would be in jail." What a sad commentary that is on the state of our society. We find ourselves passing law after law to prohibit things that used to be morally unacceptable and common sense decent behavior. A guy that goes to parties looking for drunk girls to have sex with is a guy in need of a moral realignment, with a 2 x 4 if necessary. That in this particular instance his impulses let him further down that wrong road, with more serious consequences for himself and his victim, would seem to be the natural progression of things until something or someone impresses upon him that such attitudes and behaviors will not be tolerated. I can agree that six months may be insufficient to teach that lesson to Brock Turner, and probably not sufficient to teach it to anyone else, either. I believe that the six years requested by the prosecution is too much, probably an opening bargaining position, so three years may be about right. [Interesting that his "remorse" did not include taking a plea bargain and saving his victim from the added suffering of a long trial.]

As for the sex offender registry, I know that it is based on the finding that sex offenders are almost never "cured" of their predilections. I don't think this youthful indiscretion is a mental illness, so three years of jail and six years of probation should put him past the "youthful indiscretion" phase of his life.

John said...

Jerry,
Why again do you think bars have "Ladies Nights"?
Where do you think the term "Sow your wild oats" comes from?
Yes a large portion of 18 to 22 year old adults do go to parties / bars to have a good time and find someone to warm their beds. I guess you can blame the Free Love generation for this moral decay.

Laurie,
Good article but again with the support of a life long punishment...

"Yes, six months is too short a jail term. But it may also be the least of Turner’s punishments. The stain and notoriety of his crime will mark this champion athlete turned registered sex offender for the rest of his life, everywhere he goes. As it should."

Maybe we should go back to cutting a hand off thieves...

John said...

Sean,
"That jail time reflects the severity of the crime and respects the impact of said crime on the victim."

You keep avoiding ...
"What do you think would have been the victim's consequences if the bikers had just kept going, she had not been taken to the hospital, there had not been a trial, there had not been a national media blitz? Would she have felt so traumatized / shamed, or would she be thinking she was stupid and had consensual sex?"

I mean even in her letter she talked about the trauma of the hospital, the news coverage, the facing her parents, the trial, the verdict, etc, etc, etc.

Now again have you seen anything that indicates that Brock stalked her, drugged her, forced her outside, knocked her out, etc... These are the things I usually associate with violent traumatic crimes.

John said...

Now I agree whole heartedly that Brock should have stopped their sexual activity when she passed out. But I have seen nothing in the articles I have read that show this predatory violent person who consciously inflicted harm on another human being.

Maybe I am missing something or I am missing those restrictive Victorian values that Joel always talks about us uptight Americans being obsessed with.

Anonymous said...

When you stop blaming the victim, perhaps this conversation can move forward.

Joel

Sean said...

"You keep avoiding ...
"What do you think would have been the victim's consequences if the bikers had just kept going, she had not been taken to the hospital, there had not been a trial, there had not been a national media blitz? Would she have felt so traumatized / shamed, or would she be thinking she was stupid and had consensual sex?"

I'm not avoiding it. I can't speak to how another person would feel.

And, more importantly, it's irrelevant. We know what happened in this case. We don't need to construct an Appelen-world where the facts are more friendly to your appalling opinions on this case.

jerrye92002 said...

Again, let me try to help. Not to go board the crazy train of college rules requiring everything up to (and maybe including) written consent, but I think that not only "no means no" but the absence of "yes" means "no" as well. Whether she started out conscious or not (and behind a dumpster seems like a strange place for even drunken consent), the obvious facts in the case are that she did not consent, and none of her behavior prior, including immediately prior, suggests any culpability for the crime committed against her. Were this a civil case the lawyers might argue she "asked for it" and thus contributory negligence to her own assault. In a criminal case such claims should be treated with rightful contempt. The ONLY question here should be what is the appropriate penalty.

John said...

The reality is that we are all "constructing a reality" of what happened, because the only 2 who know were so drunk that they don't remember or they aren't talking. Even the lawyers, jurors and judges had to do this.

Remember that I am fine punishing this idiot:
1 - 3 years prison
3 years probation
No sexual predator registry

However painting her as the the vestigial virgin who was sitting in her nightie in her room when this evil terrible man came in and ravaged her does no one any good either. They both screwed up royally. She is getting tons of sympathy and seems to be being praised for her strength, and he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

John said...

If some drunken idiot gets robbed after passing out in N Mpls, do you think the Vice President would write a letter praising them for their strength?

John said...

For your amusement. Meatloaf Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Anonymous said...

"They both screwed up royally. She is getting tons of sympathy and seems to be being praised for her strength, and he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life."

You keep suggesting that the actions of both of them are equivalent. Did they both make mistakes? Perhaps. But only one of them acted criminally.

Joel

Sean said...

"However painting her as the the vestigial virgin who was sitting in her nightie in her room when this evil terrible man came in and ravaged her does no one any good either."

Nobody is doing that.

"She is getting tons of sympathy"

Yes! That's what a rape victim should get!

"and seems to be being praised for her strength"

Yes! Because she is standing up for her rights in the face of people like you who continue to blame her and create a false equivalency.

Sean said...

"If some drunken idiot gets robbed after passing out in N Mpls"

Should the robber get less of a sentence because they robbed a drunk person? If somebody acts in a less than optimal (but still legal) way, does it make the criminal less culpable?

If you accidentally leave your front door unlocked, can I take all your stuff and then claim you contributed to the crime?

John said...

Joel,
And that is why only 1 of these irresponsible drunks will go to jail, serve probation, and be labeled a sex offender/monster with all related prohibitions that it entails. While the other is being praised for her strength...

Sean,
He didn't get the sentence he did because she was stupid and irresponsible. He got it because the probation officer and judged reviewed all of the details and determined it to be appropriate. Then a whole bunch of yahoos chose to second guess them even though these folks only had a few of the details.

Sean said...

So your big problem is that people are supporting and (gasp!) praising the victim and daring to challenge the wisdom of the sentence?

That's why you keep bringing up her behavior, questioning her pain, on and on and on?

jerrye92002 said...

John, I'm just trying to understand what isn't clear about this. Yes, she failed to use sound judgment. You can call it a mistake that she made herself vulnerable. Making a mistake should NOT subject you to criminal attack. That is a moral failing on behalf of the criminal and the criminal ONLY. How that criminal is punished depends on the crime, but 3 counts of criminal sexual assault don't deserve much leniency, IMO. Remember the old "Baretta" mantra-- "if you can't do the time then don't do the crime."

And I'm still bothered by the fact he didn't plea bargain to avoid giving her more pain, as true contrition might dictate; he seems to have been determined to get away with it if possible.

John said...

Sean,
I agree that the level of prejudice being shown here is frustrating me. A million people who know little or nothing about the details of the case believe they know more than the judge and probation officer. They see "White Male" and take off with accusations of preferential treatment, fire the judge, society supports rape, etc.

This whole situation was unfortunate for many people.

Jerry,
He didn't plea bargain likely because he thought he was for the most part innocent. From his perspective I assume he believes to this day that him and her were having a drunken hook up. Please remember that apparently both of them were sufficiently impaired. Unfortunately for him the jury saw it differently. He likely still sees himself as a victim also.

None of us have any idea what she agreed to or when she passed out. All we know is that the bikers came, he ran, they caught him, then they checked on her and she was out cold.

John said...

Jerry,
Do you think he got much leniency?

- 6 months in jail
- 3 years probation
- lifetime registry
- kicked out of Stanford / lost scholarship

It seems the consequences of his action have been very severe.

Sean said...

"I agree that the level of prejudice being shown here is frustrating me."

You can defend the sentence without commenting about the victim. Yet, you're all about talking about the victim's behavior.

John said...

I have talked about the behavior of both participants in this mess.

I have called her behavior stupid and irresponsible.
I have called his behavior stupid and criminal.
I have proposed a penalty I would have preferred to see handed down.
- 1 - 3 years prison
- 3 years probation
- No sexual predator registry

It is only the "burn the violator folks" and "racism is rampant folks" who only want to focus on the "white male athlete" and how they believe the judge let him off too easy with only the following:
- 6 months in jail
- 3 years probation
- lifetime registry
- kicked out of Stanford / lost scholarship

John said...

I wonder how the million people have set their opinion without looking at all aspects of the case.

Maybe their thinking goes something like this... Those White Male College Athletes get away with "everything", we need to nail this kid to the cross to set a precedent?

jerrye92002 said...

OK, let's examine that idea that he is also a victim in this case. A victim of what? Of succeeding in finding a woman drunk enough to hook up with him and taking advantage of her? There are only two differences between this and his normal /criminal/ behavior of having sex with the intoxicated. First, she was so drunk as to be unconscious, which is another crime, and second, he got caught. The more I look at this, the more difficulty I have finding any sympathy for him whatsoever. I find that he could have received 14 years in prison for his crimes. 6 months seems exceedingly light. And I wouldn't object to that so much except for this attempt to breed sympathy for this lowlife.

Sean said...

"kicked out of Stanford / lost scholarship"

The judge had nothing to do with the scholarship, and it should be a non-factor in determining his punishment. Stanford could change its mind tomorrow if it wanted to and put him back on scholarship.

"without looking at all aspects of the case."

What aspects of the case have gone unreviewed in your mind?

John said...

Of course the colleges punishment is part of the cumulative punishment.

None because I brought them all up.

John said...

Here are some interesting sites that include definitions and sentencing guidelines:
USC Cal laws

Cal Leg Law

Rape Definition and Penalties

If they got up to 14 years they must have been stacking the potential maximums.

jerrye92002 said...

Of course they stacked the maximum. That is what they do for "heinous" crimes by habitual criminals. Now if you can separate out the race, status, etc. of the perpetrator and look strictly at the crime without such bias, your idea of the proper sentence hinges on how outrageous you consider the proven criminal behavior. Had parents today continued the child-rearing practices of the past and told this young man "sure, it's all good fun until somebody gets hurt" he might have avoided this problem.

John said...

Here is another interesting twist.

"Q. And what did the victim want?

A. The probation officer interviewed the 23-year-old woman on May 3 and quoted her as saying she preferred Turner receive counseling: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."

But on Thursday, she disputed the officer's account and complained to the judge that Turner failed to show remorse or take responsibility for the assault.

"I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars," she said. "The probation officer's recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time-out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, an insult to me and all women.""

John said...

Sentencing was Legal

TP Defense Arguments

CNN Sentence is Legal

John said...

Heinous Crime Examples

"your idea of the proper sentence hinges on how outrageous you consider the proven criminal behavior."

I think this a very important statement. Maybe I am desensitized since when I went to college ~30 years ago I hung with a very large group of young men and women who loved house parties, binge drinking and having sex. One pair of young ladies kept a list in their dorm room of young men that both of them had bedded. (at different times) These folks greatly enjoyed taking free love to the max.

So some idiot not stopping when he should have is bad and illegal, however it certainly isn't heinous like a guy who intentionally drugs women to take advantage of them. Or someone who stalks and violently assaults or kills his victim.

John said...

Here is an interesting question.

Was this event about power/control or about sex?

From what I understand traditional rape has little to do with sex / passion, it is all about control / dominance.

jerrye92002 said...

And maybe I am overly sensitized, having been shot at chasing a would-be rapist. Sorry, but this hook-up culture is morally repugnant, and making an example of somebody that took it too far would be generally healthy for the society as a whole, if unfortunate for him. It's good that so many are outraged over this one crime, but better that they should be outraged over the whole "rape culture" (I appropriate that inappropriate term for the hook-up culture) that spawned it. Whatever made him think that any part of what he did was OK?

John said...

Jerry,
Well let's think... He and she both went to a college house party and participated in binge drinking. Then it is likely they did the next thing that often happens at college house parties, they started dancing and getting amorous. Inhibitions were down and people started to look better than they do when one is sober... Next they likely walked outside to cool off or for more privacy, or she was feeling unwell. They start kissing...

Is this okay so far? or are we already into the morally repugnant?

If she had stayed conscious and if they had had sex in the back yard... Would that have been acceptable? I think the only law they would have been breaking would have been minor intoxication and public indecency. And ironically she would have been the one in trouble because she (an adult) would have been caught with a drunk minor.

To ensure I give multiple possibilities. There is the possibility that she went to a college house party and participated in binge drinking. Then she started to feel poorly and chose to walk outside by herself without telling her sister. She went to puke by the dumpster and passed out. At which time he walked by and attacked her.

A question that keeps going through my mind is where was her sister during all of this?

Personally I blame it all on those darn hippies. :-)

jerrye92002 said...

The morally repugnant part was his /intention/ to find a drunk girl to have sex with, and the thought that such behavior was OK. If that was her intention, too, shame on her, but at that point the double standard comes into play. If they're both drunk, he gets the blame for whatever happens next. If they're both drunk and she's unconscious, for certain he gets the blame.

The hippies may have been more honest, engaging in consensual sex without the excuse of alcohol. Morally dubious, but not as repugnant as premeditated sexual assault.

John said...

I guess I have never thought of people who go to parties and bars to find a drunk sex partner as people committing "premeditated sexual assault". If so a large portion of America's modern citizens would be guilty. And we should probably ban "Ladies Night" at bars.

Usually they go to parties and bars hoping to get lucky... Or even to meet their soul mate... Nothing violent or evil intended... They just know that the booze makes people more confident and lowers inhibitions in themselves and others.

As for those pure Hippies... I think they had other drugs of choice... (ie pot, LSD, heroin, etc)

jerrye92002 said...

People who go to parties hoping to "find somebody" are just, presumably, lonely. Those who get lucky and find consensual hookups are following current moral standards, what used to be called "low moral character." Those who go with the intent to find those too drunk to consent are sexual predators and criminals.

jerrye92002 said...

Not everybody that goes to a bar or party gets blackout drunk, and that is the difference here. The proper response to the victim in this case was to make sure she wasn't dangerously drunk and she got safely home. Or to find her sister (if known) and let her take care of it. The proper response was NOT to rape her and run.

John said...

"intent to find those too drunk to consent"

Here we go with that elusive intent thing again. Rarely have I heard of a 20 year old looking to spend time with an unconscious woman. They usually like some participation...

I am pretty sure Brock didn't say... "Man I hope she passes out on me when we go outside. That will be exciting !!!"

And yes there is no doubt that he should have stopped and helped her when she started snoring. I just can't understand how much she drank to pass out. And I did not hear about any head trauma or other drugs. This whole story is odd.

jerrye92002 said...

I am going by the man's own words. He stated in court that he went to these parties to find women drunk enough to have sex with him. Apparently in this case he miscalculated on how drunk she was and decided to proceed anyway. Unconscious or blind drunk, the law says she cannot consent, so it is sexual assault. Q.E.D.

“This behavior is not typical assaultive behavior that you find on campus, but it is more akin to a predator who is searching for prey,” the prosecutor wrote.

jerrye92002 said...

Her BAC was estimated at .22 at the time of the attack, .12 when she regained consciousness. .20 is "blackout drunk."

John said...

Black out yes. Passed out? Per my source.

Even with my youth full of excessive drinking, I have only been "Blackout" drunk maybe a hand full of times, and truly passed out maybe twice. Again she was hitting the boos really hard, likely shots.

"0.16-0.19 BAC: Dysphoria predominates, nausea may appear. The drinker has the appearance of a "sloppy drunk."

0.20 BAC: Felling dazed, confused or otherwise disoriented. May need help to stand or walk. If you injure yourself you may not feel the pain. Some people experience nausea and vomiting at this level. The gag reflex is impaired and you can choke if you do vomit. Blackouts are likely at this level so you may not remember what has happened.

0.25 BAC: All mental, physical and sensory functions are severely impaired. Increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falls or other accidents.

0.30 BAC: STUPOR. You have little comprehension of where you are. You may pass out suddenly and be difficult to awaken."

John said...

What else do you think an aggressive Prosecutor would say ???

"Yes that kid sure was drunk, horny and stupid..."

jerrye92002 said...

And what would you expect a sleazy defense attorney to say? "Oh, he's really sorry, but he was too drunk to know what he was doing and she didn't try to stop him."

Sorry, but I cannot gin up any sympathy whatsoever for this low-life.

John said...

Not asking for a sympathy response. Just pointing out that the opinion of your source was very biased and trying to sell their case.

jerrye92002 said...

I thought I was the one who didn't give sources? And I don't see that I have given one here. If you refer to the prosecutor's comment, that is, I assume, accurately quoted. The defense quote was invented, but clearly a substantial part of the defense case. The whole defense seems geared to a) he did nothing wrong, b) he's sorry he did, and c) he won't do it again. That argument might have been a lot more effective had he taken responsibility, plead guilty, apologized on the spot and asked for mercy.

If you are not asking for sympathy for the perpetrator, then why are we having this discussion? Sympathy would be the only reason for the sentence he's already received.

Sean said...

"Rarely have I heard of a 20 year old looking to spend time with an unconscious woman. They usually like some participation..."

What do you think "roofies" do? What do you think Bill Cosby did? Darren Sharper?

jerrye92002 said...

Those comparisons to older sexual predators, unfortunately, seem likely to create sympathy for a "youthful indiscretion" and while I doubt that is your intent, I think we should scrupulously avoid any and all excuses for such criminality.

Sean said...

I'm not making any excuses. Merely pointing out that the notion of men "looking to spend time with an unconscious woman" is not some out-of-nowhere concept, and this in fact cuts against Turner's defense.