Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[Vectors]

The only "defense" I'll say for the rapist is some people are saying he himself should be raped/beaten up/tortured in jail, and that's the only place where I draw the line. He needs to be rehabilitated: to see what he did wrong, learn from it, and be entered back into society. Or if he never sees what he did wrong, to never be released from jail.

If he gets raped/beaten up/tortured that will only make him even more ***** up in the head, and probably make him more likely to rape again when he gets out, if anything. We need him to get less **** in the head, not more.

Again, I do not deny the judges sentence is absurdly short. He should be in jail much longer than 3 months or 6 months. There's a difference between spending time in jail though, and violent vigilante justice.

As the famous saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind.

The problem with thinking he himself getting raped is justified, is that mentality often makes you just as bad as the rapist yourself. Many rapists use "she did something to piss me off" as their excuse when pressured on why they did it. And maybe she even did. Who cares, violence is never acceptable.

bottom line: Despite all the hype that vigilante justice in rape cases work, the reality is they don't. Hence why so many rapists are repeat rapists even though they were tortured while in jail. The system is flawed because it's centered around revenge instead of rehabilitation.

I'm not sure they are saying he should, rather that it'd be karmic justice

Not many rapists spend any time in jail for rape.

Are there any rape victims that you know that would be better off murdered instead?

Given the number of rape victims who experience suicide ideation a fair amount would say they would have been better off dead.

 

[caketastydelish]

Given the number of rape victims who experience suicide ideation a fair amount would say they would have been better off dead.

Oh come on. First, "a fair amount" is awfully vague. I highly doubt they are a majority.

Second, lots of people contemplate suicide at some point in their lives, including me. But I've recovered from that, and I'm a much happier person now than I was then. I've actually gotten inches close from attempting suicide before, I was about to jump off a bridge. But I've recovered from that state of mind. Saying someone is better off dead the moment they contemplate suicide is absurd.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Given the number of rape victims who experience suicide ideation a fair amount would say they would have been better off dead.

If living becomes too unbearable for a survivor of horrific traumatic event, then at the very least they probably gave a real effort to overcome it and move on with living. They can weigh their options, get their affairs in order and make a personal decision to end their lives on their own terms.

A murder victim never has a choice or chance in anything. No chance to heal and be happy again, nothing. Which is another reason I think why society (a healthy one at least) in general views murder as a uniquely worse crime.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'd like to end the "rape versus murder" discussion at any rate, as it's off topic for this thread.

 

[Vectors]

Oh come on. First, "a fair amount" is awfully vague. I highly doubt they are a majority.

Second, lots of people contemplate suicide at some point in their lives, including me. But I've recovered from that, and I'm a much happier person now than I was then. I've actually gotten inches close from attempting suicide before, I was about to jump off a bridge. But I've recovered from that state of mind. Saying someone is better off dead the moment they contemplate suicide is absurd.

I think it is something like 30% contemplate it and over 10% attempt it.

I never said anything of the sort. Rape is one of those things where it can leave severe and lasting scars, it also can seriously derail someone's life to the point where someone can go from A average student to flunking out and alcoholism. It can completely suck the drive out of you to even get out of bed and make it terrifying to go outside or be near someone of the same sex who victimised you.

 

[caketastydelish]

Either take it to PMs with me or start a new thread. Like I said already, this is NOT a place to compare murder and suicide.

This isn't even about rape in general, or the idea of rape. Or how the average, typical rape victim deals with it (you were only posting the most extreme examples anyway, in your desperate attempt to say rape is worse than murder).

This is about one specific case, a case where the rapist was a rich, white athlete at a prestigious university. Who had a legal system that did everything it could to protect him. And had he been a poor black/brown man, the chances of him getting the maximum punishment (14 years) would have been pretty damn good.

And as a result of that, there is a knee-jerk reaction of people saying the judge should be removed from the bench even though that would be unconstitutional, and even though there is basically a 95% chance the judge will be removed anyway (voting him out of office).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The US criminal justice system is designed so as to maximize recidivism. Anyone with any criminal convictions has a permanent, public record of those convictions, unless they get expunged somehow, the rules on which vary by state but which is not especially common. Nearly all job applications ask whether you've had a felony conviction, and many ask for all convictions including misdemeanors. They then conduct a background check to find your criminal record, to verify your statement. Sometimes it's even worse: simply whether you've been charged might appear, but the result may not appear, resulting in negative consequences for being charged with a crime but not convicted.

Once you do have a felony conviction, your prospects for being legally employed again, especially at anything above poverty wages, fall dramatically; even a misdemeanor will moderately reduce your chances. The result is the creation of a permanent underclass. The sex offender list makes sex offenders be treated even worse than usual criminals, not being allowed within some arbitrary distance of schools, parks, etc. along with the usual issues. Still, all crimes have a permanent record associated with them, sex crimes just have a second and even more visible and punitive record too.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. People who are put on probation or parole often have to pay a recurring fee for the privilege of being on probation or parole. Failing to pay the fee results in being re-imprisoned. Of course, the conviction along with arbitrary and mandatory meetings with parole officers makes so that finding a job is very difficult, and the vast majority of convicts are poor. The result is something out of Catch-22: people who get arrested for selling drugs often end up selling drugs so as not to get re-arrested for not paying their parole fees. Unless of course they're caught selling the drugs that paid for their parole fee, in which case they go back to prison for a much longer time as a repeat offender.

I could go on. If you look even further into the US judicial system, you'll keep encountering these sorts of things. Part of the problem is that the tough-on-crime fad of the 1980s-2000s resulted in skyrocketing prison populations and hence costs, and the state legislatures then tried to shift as many of the costs onto the offenders as possible, even though they're mostly poor and that is like squeezing blood from a stone. Part of it is that private prison companies and associated contractors lobby heavily for the continuation of policies that make re-offending as likely as possible, so as to ensure that they keep making money.

Thanks for laying it out that concise.
And man - am I alone in thinking that this is freaking insane? Not in an exaggerated metaphorical way but actually god-dame insane? Such a thing just - shouldn't exist in a rich Western nation. It's mental and diabolical.

 

[Zkribbler]

When California Governor Jerry Brown left office after his first two terms, the recidivism rate was 18%. After a long absence, he was elected again. On his first day of his second pair of terms, the recidivism rate stood at 83%.

 

[Kyriakos]

(edit, i agree it is getting off topic)

 

[Lexicus]

And as a result of that, there is a knee-jerk reaction of people saying the judge should be removed from the bench even though that would be unconstitutional, and even though there is basically a 95% chance the judge will be removed anyway (voting him out of office).

He's already been taken off another sexual assault case, where the woman was under anesthetic at a hospital, which is a good thing in my view.

 

[Farm Boy]

We're getting a fantastic lesson in why judicial elections are extremely stupid.

Understanding that there is unfairness between how pasty rich and persons of color are treated is necessary. Trying to sack a justice for hitting the edge we should be dragging persons of color towards instead of expanding the crap treatment is just. .. pitchforky in the way our justice system is supposed to avoid, but selectively and capriciously ignores.

 

[cardgame]

Judicial elections *are* stupid, but how is it not the right action in this instance? What's the better outcome? The moron judge continues to ruin other women's chances at justice? One way or another this judge needs to go.

 

[Farm Boy]

If the guidelines are wrong change those laws, not the judge operating within them.

Lots of fans of sentencing minimums out there. This is simply what the reality of this issue is.

 

[caketastydelish]

I agree that the law should be changed. But you can see a big part of the problem when you can read between the lines in this particular case.

1) the guy was rich, white, a promising athlete, and attended one of the top universities in the world. Had he been poor, black, broke what are the odds he would have gotten such an absurdly lenient sentence?

2) the judge not only also went to Stanford, but was a member of the exact same fraternity as the rapist. And then what does he do? Give him the least punishment possible. What was he thinking? Of course this doesn't look good, nor should it.

 

[Vectors]

If the guidelines are wrong change those laws, not the judge operating within them.

Lots of fans of sentencing minimums out there. This is simply what the reality of this issue is.

Federal guidelines say 97 months, max according to law is 168 and this kid got 6 and will likely be out in 3. At most this brat will serve less than 5% of the maximum and most likely under 2%.

Brock Turner was incredibly privileged and that shouldn't grant leniency.

 

[Farm Boy]

I know. But is there any evidence that the sentence was outside of guidelines? That the maximum is different is besides the point. That is exactly what minimums are for. Maybe the state laws aren't harsh enough. Maybe the liberals should admit they want more lbs of flesh in these situations and change the law. But sacking a judge simply because a non sympathetic perp got less than he might have when we're confronted with an extremely sympathetic victim? These are situations in which the independence of judicial tradition is stressed. I get it. I watched people very very angry about O.J. Much angrier than this even.

 

[emzie]

I know. But is there any evidence that the sentence was outside of guidelines? That the maximum is different is besides the point. That is exactly what minimums are for. Maybe the state laws aren't harsh enough. Maybe the liberals should admit they want more lbs of flesh in these situations and change the law. But sacking a judge simply because a non sympathetic perp got less than he might have when we're confronted with an extremely sympathetic victim? These are situations in which the independence of judicial tradition is stressed. I get it. I watched people very very angry about O.J. Much angrier than this even.

I don't have a problem with the sentence in the abstract and I can think of cases where it would be appropriate. However, does anyone -- even the judge himself at this point -- think the guidelines were followed in this specific case? If they weren't, they're not particularly relevant because the problem wasn't the severity of the laws but with the judge losing his objectivity.

 

[Camikaze]

If guidelines weren't followed, then presumably there would be a sentencing appeal available for the prosecution to pursue. That's what the in-built appeals system is designed for after all - it contemplates that sometimes judges will make the wrong decision.

Unless for some reason there's no sentencing appeal available to the prosecution, in which case that's probably the problem, rather than the guidelines.

 

[Zelig]

I agree with Camikaze.

Judicial elections *are* stupid, but how is it not the right action in this instance? What's the better outcome?

Put the Danes in charge of US governance.

 

[Vectors]

I know. But is there any evidence that the sentence was outside of guidelines? That the maximum is different is besides the point. That is exactly what minimums are for. Maybe the state laws aren't harsh enough. Maybe the liberals should admit they want more lbs of flesh in these situations and change the law. But sacking a judge simply because a non sympathetic perp got less than he might have when we're confronted with an extremely sympathetic victim? These are situations in which the independence of judicial tradition is stressed. I get it. I watched people very very angry about O.J. Much angrier than this even.

There are cases where this kind of sentencing could be relatively reasonable such as if it were part of hazing, but this was not it. This did bring attention to the fact that legally this qualified as sexual assault, not rape and California appears to be swiftly moving to correct it. For three felonies when the standard sentence is six years, yes this is excessively lenient.

If guidelines weren't followed, then presumably there would be a sentencing appeal available for the prosecution to pursue. That's what the in-built appeals system is designed for after all - it contemplates that sometimes judges will make the wrong decision.

Unless for some reason there's no sentencing appeal available to the prosecution, in which case that's probably the problem, rather than the guidelines.

The prosecution almost never appeals as the US system tends towards excessive incarceration, but in this case there is a substantial chance of an appeal by the prosecution.