Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[caketastydelish]

This story has been circulating for a while now but it seems nobody's going to make the thread.

Unlike some other "rape" stories I won't mention *cough university of Virginia cough* this rape actually happened.

What bothers me is not only the exceptionally lenient sentence, but the way the guy has been privileged by the justice system. As one example, they tried to not give his mugshot to the public/media for the longest time, to protect his image.

Some people are saying the judge should be removed from the bench- I agree, but I don't think a petition is the way to do it. Rather, in the next election cycle surely a challenger will appear and beat this judge, forcing him to look for a new job. I am 95% sure this will happen.

Questions:

1) Do you agree that the 3 month sentence is absurdly short, considering how brutal the crime was?

2) Do you think the judge should be removed from the bench? If so, how? From the government giving into a petition (which would be unconstitutional) or by the judge being defeated in a democratic election in the next election cycle?

I'm not defending the judge here, so much as defending the constitution, and think exceptions should not be made in a knee-jerk reaction to one bad person. The problem is then there will start to be more and more exceptions until it is the norm. And eventually it would get to the point that anyone can be removed from a democratically elected position at any time, just because somebody else doesn't like them.

Maybe I am optimistic but like I said, I am 95% sure the judge will be defeated by a challenger in the next election, and he won't be able to get a job as a judge anywhere else (nor should he). For those that don't know, the judge not only also went to Stanford, but was a member of the very same fraternity as the rapist. It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on here.

The other best part about it is the girl originally didn't even want to go to court, and wanted to settle. Had the rapist complied, he wouldn't have been famous now (in a bad way). The outrage is not that the rape occurred- many rapes occur every day so that is not exceptional. What is exceptional is the pathetically weak sentence. It helps to be rich, white and attending a top university.

When the articles about the rape first appeared, one of them mentioned how fast the rapist was as a swimmer (he was training to join the U.S. Olympic swim team), as if that's even relevant to anything. Even if you're Michael Phelps, you don't get to go around raping people.

His father made a statement about how he doesn't deserve to be punished for "20 minutes of action".

You do realize the duration of the crime is mostly irrelevant- it's the severity of it. Let's say you got a machine gun, shot up 50 people at a gay bar in Orlando, and it took less than 10 minutes. Just because the crime was short doesn't mean your punishment should be so lenient.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

How is that even possible ?
Aren't there minimum sentencing laws or do those only apply to pot smokers ?

 

[IglooDame]

Could you post the "sentencing guideline" rules that the judge was required to adhere to?

 

[EgonSpengler]

In a subsequent, unrelated court case being presided over by this same judge, a number of people in the jury pool were dismissed after voicing their displeasure.

An online petition for an impeachment hearing against the judge has gotten 1.24 million signatures. The petition says it needs 1.5 million, but exactly for what, I'm unsure. I also haven't read their privacy policy, so if you're motivated to sign, I recommend looking into more closely than I have.

California jurors upset over Stanford rapist’s sentencing refuse to serve on judge’s other case

New York Daily News, 9 June 2016

Jurors upset over a California judge’s light sentencing for convicted Stanford University rapist Brock Turner have started refusing to serve under the judge, according to a report.

At least 10 prospective Santa Clara County jurors declined to serve this week in Judge Aaron Persky’s court in an unrelated case because they object to the judge’s six-month jail sentence for the former All-American swimmer, the San Jose Mercury News reported Thursday.

One potential juror stood up in court during jury selection for the misdemeanor stolen property case and told Persky, “I can't believe what you did,” according to multiple sources cited by the newspaper.

“I can't be here, I'm so upset," another person said as lawyers tried to pick jurors for the case. Persky excused everyone who said they objected to his handling of the case and told them, “I understand.”

[cont.]

 

[Camikaze]

As I rule, I don't complain that sentences are too short. It's invariably not the actual problem. It looks like the problem when put it next to sentences for similar crimes, but that in itself could equally indicate other sentences are too harsh (which they almost certainly are in many cases). Putting a comparison aside, the only identifiable benefits from having an increased sentence are a) retribution, b) deterrence, and c) protection. I'd reject A as a solid basis on which to hang a complaint (is the problem here really that the sentence isn't satisfying our outrage enough?), and B is extremely dubious, especially in the case of the acts of drunken youths. C assumes the likelihood of recidivism, of which there do not appear to be any indications. All comparisons break down when you remember Albert Speer got 20 years, in any case.

If the problem isn't the sentence, what is it? It could be that this is drawing attention to society's overzealousness in locking people up for other crimes, but it's probably more related to the privilege this shows a particular person getting within the justice system - it's similar to the 'affluenza' cases. Again, that's less of a problem with this particular case, as with the unfavourable comparison it draws with a whole lot of other cases. It may not actually be a bad thing if judges exercised a higher degree of empathy with offenders when sentencing generally, but it shouldn't be the case that they do so arbitrarily/capriciously, or due to their particular biases.

There's also a problem in the attitude towards sexual violence that is revealed by this case. It appears that the guy and his father ('20 minutes of action') really fail to grasp what is wrong with what happened, and that's perhaps indicative of an ongoing societal problem that still needs addressing.

The idea that the judge should be removed because people are outraged is absolutely ridiculous, and patently anti-constitutional and contrary to the rule of law. The appeals process exists for a reason (though I'm not sure what the local law regarding sentencing appeals is), and the judge didn't abuse his powers. He just made a decision people don't like, one that might even be described as ridiculous. Making bad decisions isn't a valid reason to remove judicial officials within the confines of the rule of law.

 

[Lexicus]

C assumes the likelihood of recidivism, of which there do not appear to be any indications.

Clearly, this is false as Brock Turner has never exhibited any evidence that he realizes what he did was wrong. Someone who does not know that raping someone is wrong certainly presents a danger of raping again.

Making bad decisions isn't a valid reason to remove judicial officials within the confines of the rule of law.

Brock Turner has exhibited no remorse for his actions. That makes him incredibly dangerous. This isn't just a bad decision, it is a decision that is placing all the women Brock Turner will ever come into contact with in danger.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It appears that the guy and his father ('20 minutes of action') really fail to grasp what is wrong with what happened, and that's perhaps indicative of an ongoing societal problem that still needs addressing.

I don't think (or maybe I just don't want to believe) a majority of people look at it the way these two seem to see it. If you try to picture what that "20 minutes of action" looks like, put a face on the people involved, and visualize it it's repulsive, in multiple ways (most importantly, there's a tendency to avoid continuing the thought outright).

I suspect that on a societal scale, like a child trying to kill someone (IE serious, damaging/successful efforts, sometimes stated outright) it's sufficiently repulsive to envision that most people won't really picture what happens when considering it. Unless you force yourself it stays abstract and then people cast doubt about severity/punishment even when there isn't much/any doubt what occurred.

But that still doesn't make someone do it. You say B is dubious, but it must be at least some level of deterrent, with more punishing sentences being more so. If we have a better method of deterrence to replace/augment it, we should use the better method. Are there any though?

And no, you don't break the law to remove someone because you don't like him. Not voting someone who will hook up his frat buddies after serious crimes, however, is the likely outcome.

 

[caketastydelish]

The victim read a powerful letter out loud while she was in court. It's gone viral. I can't post it here because it contains a graphic depiction of the rape that is against the forum PG-13 rules. But if you're interested, google "Stanford rape victim letter" and the first link (a buzzfeed) shows it.

And also, yeah, sorry Lexicus, but Camikaze is right. Nobody's defending the judge here, but removing a judge from a "petition" (the vast majority of the people signing it aren't even in that county) would indeed be unconstitutional. But like I said, it won't matter anyway. The judge will get his rear end handed to him by a challenger in the next election. And he'll never get elected in any other county due to his horrible decision to only give the rapist 3 months.

 

[Lexicus]

And also, yeah, sorry Lexicus, but Camikaze is right. Nobody's defending the judge here, but removing a judge from a "petition" (the vast majority of the people signing it aren't even in that county) would indeed be unconstitutional.

Er, sorry, where did I say the petition was constitutional?

 

[Tigranes]

This was in the news like a month ago. What's up with starting a thread on this very special day?

 

[warpus]

I would love to see some stats on how long people are usually jailed for rape. Can't really comment without that information, although I do have to say this sentence seems rather short.

At the same time though, I can't help it but think that having to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life is a punishment that is way too harsh.

Conclusion: On one hand 3 months in jail seems rather short, but having to register as a sex offender forever is rather harsh. It doesn't really balance out. IMO overall the sentence is way too harsh.

Much better sentence: Lock him up for a year and have him register as a sexual offender for 5 years. A lifetime of hurt is inhumane. Not to excuse what he did, he needs to be punished for it, but yeah..

 

[Lexicus]

I would love to see some stats on how long people are usually jailed for rape. Can't really comment without that information, although I do have to say this sentence seems rather short.

Turner received more punishment than the vast majority of rapists, most of whom are never even charged let alone jailed.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I might accept that 3 months of incarceration is long enough, if the punishment also required castration that would render him physically incapable of repeating the offense.

 

[Tigranes]

Turner received more punishment than the vast majority of rapists, most of whom are never even charged let alone jailed.

Most rapists apprehended by witnesses at the crime scene formally apologize and settle way before the trial in view of so many damning evidences. But the star athlete decided to give this victim one extra year of hell by making her to relive that ordeal again and again, exposing lots of irrelevant details of her private life and subjecting her to cross examination by his defense lawyer. With so much taxpayer money spent and so much additional trauma to the victim one could expect a triumph of justice, not a 90 days in slammer.

 

[caketastydelish]

I've got to disagree with Warpus here. He deserves to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. He not only raped her, but she wasn't even conscious. Then to top it off he still doesn't see what he did wrong and even his father is just calling it "20 minutes of action".

Let's say a 19 year old had consensual sex with their 16 year old partner, and the 19 year got caught. Fine, a life sentence of being a registered sex offender would indeed be harsh. And in that case only a few years of it would suffice. But considering how brutal and ridiculious this is? Yeah, he deserves to be one for the rest of his life.

 

[rah]

Clearly, this is false as Brock Turner has never exhibited any evidence that he realizes what he did was wrong. Someone who does not know that raping someone is wrong certainly presents a danger of raping again.

I disagree. Only an idiot would let him get himself in this situation again after "getting away with it" Even if he doesn't think he did wrong, I doubt we'll ever see him in court again on a similar issue. Which doesn't mean that I don't think he's scum and deserved to rot for considerably longer.

 

[rah]

Turner received more punishment than the vast majority of rapists, most of whom are never even charged let alone jailed.

YEs, that's the real sad part.

 

[warpus]

He deserves to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.

Why punish him for the rest of his life? That is cruel and unusual punishment.

Let him pay his dues to society and then be done with it. Punishing him for the rest of his life is petty and inhumane.

I don't even think the same thing is done for much more heinous crimes, such as mass murder. So why here? Is this really worse than mass murder? Or even murder?

 

[Lexicus]

Why punish him for the rest of his life? That is cruel and unusual punishment.

Let him pay his dues to society and then be done with it. Punishing him for the rest of his life is petty and inhumane.

No, it's not a punishment, it's a safety measure.

I mean, I don't get this. Does it really not dawn on you, the significance of the fact that he raped someone and has exhibited no remorse? Do you not realize how dangerous that makes him?

 

[warpus]

No, it's not a punishment, it's a safety measure.

I mean, I don't get this. Does it really not dawn on you, the significance of the fact that he raped someone and has exhibited no remorse? Do you not realize how dangerous that makes him?

I know what he did. If he's dangerous, lock him up for a couple years.

I don't care that I have to take this guy's side here. He's a monster and he needs to be locked up for a while, 3 months is far too short. But to put him on a "your life is going to suck forever" list is inhumane.