Kozmos
Jew Detective
His life is pretty much ruined already. He's a google away from being blacklisted in anything he ever does.
Members of the Stanford University women’s swim team wanted to write to the judge overseeing the Brock Allen Turner sex-attack case about his creepy behavior — but were reportedly “pressured” by school officials not to speak out.
The team members say they weren’t shocked by the arrest of Turner, 20 — a men’s-team swimming star — and had steered clear of him due to sleazy comments he would make about their bodies, according to InTouch magazine.
“Brock’s arrest wasn’t surprising to anyone on the team,” one woman told the magazine.
“From the beginning, the women swimmers had found him to be very, very odd. Brock would make comments to the women such as ‘I can see your t–s in that swimsuit.’ ”
One top competitor said she would never let herself be alone with Turner after observing his drunken antics at parties, the magazine reported.
The list exists, ex-cons can't find jobs if their life depended on it. Which you know makes them more likely to re-offend.
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.
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 seems correct to point out that the standards for this are inconsistent with the standards in general (murder being the obvious example).
Put another way, someone getting drunk and killing someone with a vehicle is, from an expected utility perspective, a worse crime. Someone or multiple people die, and nothing anybody can do will bring them back. You're seeing similarly idiotic judgment under the influence of alcohol that presumably wouldn't occur the same way without its influence. Yes people who have taken lives in this context are not held to a lifetime standard, despite that the impact of their actions is, at *minimum* at least equal in duration. And this is before we even get into murder.
You could make a case that all of the top-level horrific crimes get handled this way, but that's not the case being made then Warpus has a point.
I don't think it's at all self-evident that murder is worse than rape.
What other crimes lead to you being put on a list for life, anyway?
Do we do this to murderers? Serial murderers? People who defraud others of millions? People who pollute the oceans? Treason?
If that's what our legal system did - anyone convicted of a serious enough crime is put on a list and is unable to find employment ever. Then sure, put rapists on similar lists. I mean, I would still argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment, but at least it would make more sense.
I don't think it's at all self-evident that murder is worse than rape.
*shrug* I didn't express an opinion on which one is worse, all I said is...what I said.
Rape is a violent misappropriation of the present and the future in one of the forms we are most emotionally vulnerable to.
but there seems to be no momentum there in terms of solutions and getting these issues fixed.
Bias of emotional vulnerability vs reality isn't a very good measure. You have a pretty damning "opportunity cost" when someone dies outright, and that ripple effect similarly finds its way into future generations. Any children that dead person might have had are gone forever, right alongside the rest of that person's life.