Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, in terms of the health consequences to the victim, the fact that he was stopped before he could actually rape her was definitely a good thing. I don't think it should have much effect on sentencing though - he was convicted of attempted rape, which should carry similar sentences to successful rape, along with sexual assault for the digital penetration.

 

[emzie]

Not a problem for me, I'll just remember this the next time there's an "abortion = murder" thread and the same people make exactly the opposite argument and insist on legal definitions only.

If you want to call abortion murder, go ahead. If you want people to be charged with murder for having or providing an abortion, well then yeah, the legal definition kinda matters now.

Brock Turner wasn't convicted on rape and his sentence should not reflect the guidelines for that specific crime. He was convicted for 3 felonies for he has never taken responsibility. He still claims the encounter was consensual. His sentence should reflect that, and it doesn't. Considering the severity of his actions -- not to mention the fact that the reason he's technically not a rapist under California law is because he was too stupid to take his victim somewhere more private -- I have to ask, how would you describe his actions, what impact would those actions have on the victim, and what is the difference between what you describe and how you would describe rape, the word you so want to defend Brock Turner the rapist from?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, in terms of the health consequences to the victim, the fact that he was stopped before he could actually rape her was definitely a good thing. I don't think it should have much effect on sentencing though - he was convicted of attempted rape, which should carry similar sentences to successful rape, along with sexual assault for the digital penetration.

No arguments there for this case of course, just pointing out that the distinction between the two is potentially useful since they carry different risks (though many overlap).

I have to ask, how would you describe his actions, what impact would those actions have on the victim, and what is the difference between what you describe and how you would describe rape, the word you so want to defend Brock Turner the rapist from?

Bootstoots put it pretty succinctly. I still think this sentence is very likely the wrong one/too lenient/not doing enough to disincentivize future crime.

 

[Vectors]

If you want to call abortion murder, go ahead. If you want people to be charged with murder for having or providing an abortion, well then yeah, the legal definition kinda matters now.

Brock Turner wasn't convicted on rape and his sentence should not reflect the guidelines for that specific crime. He was convicted for 3 felonies for he has never taken responsibility. He still claims the encounter was consensual. His sentence should reflect that, and it doesn't. Considering the severity of his actions -- not to mention the fact that the reason he's technically not a rapist under California law is because he was too stupid to take his victim somewhere more private -- I have to ask, how would you describe his actions, what impact would those actions have on the victim, and what is the difference between what you describe and how you would describe rape, the word you so want to defend Brock Turner the rapist from?

Two things Turner was convicted of meet the federal definition which under guidelines recommend 8-20 years which seems to be per offense so 8 years total would be light.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah, in terms of the health consequences to the victim, the fact that he was stopped before he could actually rape her was definitely a good thing. I don't think it should have much effect on sentencing though - he was convicted of attempted rape, which should carry similar sentences to successful rape, along with sexual assault for the digital penetration.

Does attempted murder carry the same sort of sentence as murder? Or attempted robbery vs robbery etc. Genuine question, too lazy to google...

 

[Bootstoots]

On average it would be a little lower, but not enormously so. Someone who might get life for murder might get 25 or 30 years for attempted murder, for instance. In this case, the crimes he was actually convicted of carry possible sentences of many times the 6-month sentence he received. I'm not sure what the median sentence for his specific crimes is though - might be worth looking up.

In general, the US justice system imposes sentences that are far longer than necessary, and usually I wouldn't favor raising mandatory minimums to prevent cases like this. It is something that might be considered for some forms of sexual assault, though, if this sort of thing is a widespread enough phenomenon to justify it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

He wasn't convicted of rape, therefore he's not a rapist and it's most likely libel to label him such. Obviously a lot of people would argue that what he did SHOULD be classed as rape and so in their minds they're justified in labelling it as such. But of course you're only allowed to do that when you're "right". If you're not then you're only allowed to stick to the strict legal definitions as they currently stand.

A sexual assaultist and penertating of unconscious person with foreign object.
The main problem has been this carries up to 14 years gaol, of which he got 3 to 6 months. The main reason was he had a clean criminal record and had prospects of rehabilitation

At least he is registered as a sex offender, so probably just "legally" label him as a sex offender then

Turner was convicted on three felony counts of sexual assault: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Strange how the same attempted rape charge can be applied for intoxicated OR unconscious (shouldn't it be and/or?) people, but penetration has to have two separate charges.

 

[BvBPL]

It makes sense for the inchoate offense to be broader.

 

[emzie]

Strange how the same attempted rape charge can be applied for intoxicated OR unconscious (shouldn't it be and/or?) people, but penetration has to have two separate charges.

Think of it as being an extra offense for not stopping once she passed out. Like, if you didn't know to refrain from sexually assaulting a person too intoxicated to consent, you really shoulda known to stop when they passed out.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hmm. Makes a sort of sense. On the other hand, given that attempted rape is always wrong no matter the state of the person, it seems odd to need to specify intoxication or unconsciousness at all for that charge.

 

[Nexlev]

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?

1) I think the sentence (6 months not 3 months) was too short but I don't agree it was absurdly short. The sentence matched the recommendations of the parole office. Furthermore, I could list several recent cases where the convicted received less time for similar or worse crimes. I also don't think the crime was especially brutal... as far as rapes go, all of which are detestable.

2) If the people want to vote him out, that's fine with me. I don't feel compelled to do my own research because I can't vote on it anyways, but I don't support removal of judges by petition or other means in reaction to a single case.

Edit: other people have pointed out that Turner wasn't convicted of rape, but imo what he did (sexually assault an unconcious woman) meets the colloquial definition of rape. Or close enough. YMMV

 

[Nexlev]

You're right, of course, that racism among poor whites predates modern identity politics.

Poor whites can't be racist because they don't have power...



Sorry, I don't even believe that, I just had to say it.

 

[aelf]

Relative to those they are racist against? Of course they do.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They have intrinsic power due to the inherent superiority of the white race.

 

[Lexicus]

They have intrinsic power due to white supremacy.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They're essetially the Illuminati.

 

[rah]

I think judges should have a wide range of sentencing available so they can judge each case appropriately. But when you allow this there are going to be some you don't agree with and others where the judge makes an error. I still prefer this to mandatory sentences.

The racial aspect does contribute negatives here and must be monitored closely due to historical abuses.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you want to call abortion murder, go ahead. If you want people to be charged with murder for having or providing an abortion, well then yeah, the legal definition kinda matters now.

I've never heard anyone make that argument. It's certainly not the argument I'm referring to.

 

[aelf]

They have intrinsic power due to the inherent superiority of the white race.

You think the average poor white person is less politically and socially powerful than the average Mexican immigrant?

I don't know which planet you live on, but I think I know what it can be called.