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.