Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[Hygro]

Yes, the sentence sucks. You know it sucks. I know it sucks. Everyone knows it sucks. The sentence seems legal. Let's hope it's appealed if it's not. Let's change the law if this is how it works. Or, since it's a state law, ya 'll go change it. I see no point in a sentence for this sort of thing shorter than half a decade time served. But my primary interest there isn't rehabbing rich boy. My primary interest is the lb of flesh. He deserves to be punished more for our sake, not his. Judicial elections remain stupid.

Whenever the media tells me to hate someone I check out.

 

[caketastydelish]

But the liberal media/left wing conspiracy/political correctness is trying to brainwash you.

See, Brock Turner was a good ol' boy. He had a rich daddy, he was of the Caucasian persuasion, and he had a promising career as a swimmer. Good ol' boys shouldn't have to play by the rules that normal people do. Unlike normal people, Good ol' boys should have the right to do whatever they want without severe consequences. The vast majority of good ol' boys would have managed to get this settled out of court. The real outrage is that good ol' boy was even punished at all. It's unfair that his life was "ruined" (between 90 to 180 days in the slammer), just because he brutally raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. See, her life doesn't matter. Unlike good ol' boys, ordinary people play by a different set of rules. According to her own testimony, she gave good ol' boy a back rub, and that gives him the right to take advantage of her unconscious body and violate it. And besides, it was just "20 minutes of action" as the father pointed out. Good ol' boy had a bit to drink himself, which clears him of responsibility even more.

Hopefully the girl learned her lesson. She made two critical mistakes:

1) she wasn't rich. A more expensive lawyer probably would have got a better sentence to go toe to toe with good ol' boys lawyer.

2) she didn't have anything particularly prestigious or valued in society in her life. Good ol' boy was going to be an 'all American Olympic swimmer', which means he's too precious to be seriously punished. His life is worth so much more than hers, which is why the real outrage is that good ol' boy got any punishment at all. The vast majority of good ol' boys who rape don't get punished, so why pick on him?

Of course, if a poor, black, nobody raped her, they'd be out of their minds. In fact poor black nobodies can't even have possession of marijuana without a much harsher sentence than good ol' boy gets for rape. Again, that's their punishment for not being a good ol' boy. Next time they'll learn hopefully.

 

[aelf]

Either way, the outrage is good.

One second it's bad, the next second it's not.

Go team white, indeed. Anything to walk back and make you look better. "I actually have a lot black friends!"

 

[caketastydelish]

Farm Boy is wrong, but your personal attacks aren't doing you any favors.

 

[aelf]

If you think that's flaming, report it. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Mise]

I was ready with the pitchforks until I read Camikaze's posts. Thanks for the bit of perspective.

Farm Boy isn't expressing himself very well (which, I hope he doesn't mind me say, is fairly typical of him), but his point is a good one. We shouldn't be demanding that this rich white man be given a black man's sentence. We should be demanding changes to sentencing more broadly, so that it is more fair and serves the aims and goals of justice more faithfully. To the extent that our outrage is directed toward that end, the outrage is good. But to the extent that our outrage is directed toward giving everyone a black sentence, our outrage is bad and misdirected.

 

[Hygro]

But to the extent that our outrage is directed toward giving everyone a black sentence, our outrage is bad and misdirected.

It's a no brainer. I guess sometimes I just need to remember even though everyone switched to Liberal Bread 10 years ago we're dealing with the same people who want Saddam dead for 9/11.



Hating the judge, specifically, is definitely someone else's agenda.

 

[Vectors]

I was ready with the pitchforks until I read Camikaze's posts. Thanks for the bit of perspective.

Farm Boy isn't expressing himself very well (which, I hope he doesn't mind me say, is fairly typical of him), but his point is a good one. We shouldn't be demanding that this rich white man be given a black man's sentence. We should be demanding changes to sentencing more broadly, so that it is more fair and serves the aims and goals of justice more faithfully. To the extent that our outrage is directed toward that end, the outrage is good. But to the extent that our outrage is directed toward giving everyone a black sentence, our outrage is bad and misdirected.

It isn't demanding he get s black man's sentence, it is demanding he gets more than a slap on the wrist relative to the crime.

As to minimums, if it were a case of hazing where his sober fraternity friends got him drunk and then encouraged him to do this as part of initiation, he had never done alcohol or drugs before and he didn't have a history of sexually harassing women then I could see a relatively light sentence of two years or maybe even a year.

Mandatory minimums can be quite unjust which is why judges are generally given massive latitude in sentencing, some times however, judges are doing cases they should have recused themselves from and this results in unjust sentencing.

 

[aelf]

He deserves to be punished more for our sake, not his.

Of course it's for our sake. Like it or not, penalties exist for our sake as well.

If the system exists purely for perpetrators, why pay attention to guidelines (or even precedents)? Might as well go 100% judicial discretion and let judges decide how much is punishment enough for each individual on a purely case-by-case basis. That can mean a brief sentence when it comes to rich people for whom a night in jail might be particularly uncomfortable, sure.

 

[Hygro]

It isn't demanding he get s black man's sentence, it is demanding he gets more than a slap on the wrist relative to the crime.

"Relative"... how do we measure that?

 

[Farm Boy]

"I actually have a lot black friends!"

No Aelf, I don't. Most of my friends are about my age. By the time I was 18, there was one black man living in the next town over. I went to school for one year with his daughter. She was lovely, we were both in chorus.

The community is more mixed race now(still pretty damned white), but my son hasn't started school, so I'm not involved in that circle yet.

One second it's bad, the next second it's not.

Go team white, indeed. Anything to walk back and make you look better.

Mise is undoubtedly right about me being clear as mud, but this minigame is a little bit of fun on a certain level. I can always tell when I've found a way to walk it through in your language, rather than mine, because it's when you switch from "He's whiiiiiiiite guys!" to "Now he's changing his story!" So poor communication on my part, my bad. Reading with a specific inclination on your part, I think, but I'm sure that's probably good natured, eh?

Of course it's for our sake. Like it or not, penalties exist for our sake as well.

Darn skippy! I'm not entirely sure why rehabilitation needs to be our first and foremost goal. I don't think that's appropriate. The punishment has to fit society first, within a degree of reason with compassion, hopefully, then we can, and should, work at salvaging what can be saved.

 

[Lexicus]

"Relative"... how do we measure that?

How do we measure what the punishment should be for any crime? It's measured, ultimately, by what people think - by the prevailing notion of a fair punishment for a given crime.

Personally I'm flabbergasted that anyone actually thinks 3-6 months is a sentence that makes sense for a crime like this.

I mean, are you not aware of the degree to which rape is tolerated and permitted by the culture and the justice system? And you want to make it even worse by giving all rapists lenient sentences?

 

[Gorbles]

I want to speak for a little while, perhaps problematically, on the rape vs. murder thing. I see it as pretty on-topic because people have been alluding to it in terms of sentencing and I think we all agree the leniency of the sentence is one of the core points of discussion here.

Murder is one of the most awful acts to be committed against another human being. This has been encoded into our culture and our laws since pretty much the dawn of modern humanity (i.e. modern man in paleontological terms). Rape, however, is a bit more nebulous. We still have problems with reporting it, and greater problems still with proscecuting it. This is probably in no small part down to it being easier to pin the blame on the victim because the victim is still alive.

So, firstly, I'd say neither is worse than the other. They are both, in my opinion, the highest form of violence you can commit against another person and they both have very different effects (though it can overlap into suicide-death for the victim in the case of rape). However, murder affects people around the victim. Yes, the victim is dead, and robbed of their potential life, but in real actual terms that we can define (the paranormal doesn't count, I'm afraid) the impact is on those that are affected by the victim's death.

Rape is a terrifying inverse in that it affects the victim the most. In fact, to the extent where it barely affects those around the victim, which is further reinforced by popular culture being so fond of blaming the victim (or "insinuating" in all the glorious ways the media is known for). This incredibly detrimental event traumatises people, often irreversibly (which would lead me onto another tangent about support networks and how at a country-wide level official initiatives often founder; it pushes reliance back down to a local community support level), and in a lot of ways destroys their future too. Only they still have to live through it, through the flashbacks, the onset of PTSD, the people who actively don't support them or are outright malicious in their actions and attitudes towards the event, and so on.

I haven't been raped. Nobody I'd class as a friend has been raped. I haven't known anyone who was murdered, either. However, I have suffered intense personal loss to a very similar level. That person is at peace now, but the impact lingers on me and others who were close. So grief is something I'm used to talking about. But not rape. I'm not used to talking about rape, and I usually shy away from it because it's very easy to make assumptions that can belittle victims of rape and thus hurt them further. They aren't the same thing, but one is not "worse" than the other. There is no competition here, no points to be won, no shaming to be made because someone is "making light" of murder, or "making light" of rape.

They're both horrific in different ways, and the best thing you can do is recognise how they're different instead of claiming one is easier than the other, ergo the legal ramifications should be more or less severe depending on your point of view.

 

[Hygro]

@Lexicus, I'm asking how we measure "relative". Vectors answered my earlier question I had asked you by saying enough experience "suicide ideation" as some kind of proof. While I think suicide ideation is a pretty low bar for saying "better of murdered"... I know as a kid when hit with a stomach virus frequently wished for death over continued suffering and I can confidently say no matter how much I wished for death I wouldn't have been better dead... it's a pretty interesting metric in of itself.

For example: this kid is going to be a lifelong registered sex offender. Dunno about everyone else but to me that seems like a much greater punishment than half a year in jail. I wonder whose suicide rates are higher, rape victims or registered sex offenders? Whose suicide ideations are higher?

Now we have a measurement, and I'll bet you in Nu-Hammurabi's code it's fairly eye-for-eye.

 

[Mise]

How do we measure what the punishment should be for any crime? It's measured, ultimately, by what people think - by the prevailing notion of a fair punishment for a given crime.

That's not really answering the question. He's asking how we as a society come to decide what the prevailing notion of a fair punishment is. Or more pertinently, how should we decide what is a fair punishment? How do I know that 3 months is too lenient, or 60 years too harsh?

Put another way, you say that "fair punishment" is essentially a vote or majority opinion. Fine, but how does each individual in society know what a fair punishment is? How should we, as individuals, decide what a fair punishment is, in order for us to "cast our vote", as it were?

 

[aelf]

Mise is undoubtedly right about me being clear as mud, but this minigame is a little bit of fun on a certain level. I can always tell when I've found a way to walk it through in your language, rather than mine, because it's when you switch from "He's whiiiiiiiite guys!" to "Now he's changing his story!" So poor communication on my part, my bad. Reading with a specific inclination on your part, I think, but I'm sure that's probably good natured, eh?

The story change was timely. Certain keywords and habits show your bias, that much I think is certain. But your modus operandi has always been to go as far as you can and then try to redeem your position when called out on it. It's not all that special except your use peculiar language to make it even less clear when you're trying to say for bonus deniability points.

 

[Farm Boy]

Am I supposed to be more active on topics where really, my experience leads me to believe listening is more useful than speaking?

Whatever Aelf. Yes, I'm white. My family is white. My friends are white. I'm more familiar with and more attached to issues that impact people with shared overlap with me. Pretty good indication of bias, yes. Not that much overlap with richy rich boys that go to Stanford, but hey man, don't blame ya. Those white guys can't be trusted. They're just playin' ya.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not really answering the question. He's asking how we as a society come to decide what the prevailing notion of a fair punishment is. Or more pertinently, how should we decide what is a fair punishment? How do I know that 3 months is too lenient, or 60 years too harsh?

Put another way, you say that "fair punishment" is essentially a vote or majority opinion. Fine, but how does each individual in society know what a fair punishment is? How should we, as individuals, decide what a fair punishment is, in order for us to "cast our vote", as it were?

In the United States we do this by electing representative who then create the criminal statutes. We also may elect judges and DA's, and of course decisions about resource allocation for prosecution and enforcement also represent political choices.

We can't "know" what a fair punishment is because a fair punishment is just an idea, not a real thing.

But I really don't think I am stating anything controversial by saying that ideally the justice system is supposed to be reflective of the community's standards as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not, as well as the degree to which behaviors are unacceptable (eg rape should probably be treated as more unacceptable than, say, shoplifting).

@Lexicus, I'm asking how we measure "relative". Vectors answered my earlier question I had asked you by saying enough experience "suicide ideation" as some kind of proof. While I think suicide ideation is a pretty low bar for saying "better of murdered"... I know as a kid when hit with a stomach virus frequently wished for death over continued suffering and I can confidently say no matter how much I wished for death I wouldn't have been better dead... it's a pretty interesting metric in of itself.

For example: this kid is going to be a lifelong registered sex offender. Dunno about everyone else but to me that seems like a much greater punishment than half a year in jail. I wonder whose suicide rates are higher, rape victims or registered sex offenders? Whose suicide ideations are higher?

Now we have a measurement, and I'll bet you in Nu-Hammurabi's code it's fairly eye-for-eye.

I don't much like suicide ideation as the measure here. In my view the way rape is treated by the justice system should send a strong message that rape is not to be tolerated. Rapists are brought to justice in so few cases that any sentence is going to be a visible example.
As I said before I've no idea of the actual utility of the sex offender registry, which would be my main concern here. If it actually helps prevent further crimes from being committed, then it's got a purpose other than vindictiveness.
If not, get rid of it but greatly increase the minimum sentences for those convicted of rape.

 

[Mise]

You're not saying anything controversial because you're not saying anything at all. Hygro (and I) ask you how should we decide what a fair punishment is. You say that we decide by deciding.

But I really don't think I am stating anything controversial by saying that ideally the justice system is supposed to be reflective of the community's standards as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not, as well as the degree to which behaviors are unacceptable (eg rape should probably be treated as more unacceptable than, say, shoplifting).

Why is rape worse than shoplifting?

 

[aelf]

Am I supposed to be more active on topics where really, my experience leads me to believe listening is more useful than speaking?

Whatever Aelf. Yes, I'm white. My family is white. My friends are white. I'm more familiar with and more attached to issues that impact people with shared overlap with me. Pretty good indication of bias, yes. Not that much overlap with richy rich boys that go to Stanford, but hey man, don't blame ya. Those white guys can't be trusted. They're just playin' ya.

It's interesting how your background means you like to zoom in on white, rural issues (and endlessly rage at those who ignore them - but only minorities who do that kind of raging are officially annoying, of course).

As for me, I belong to the big coloured brotherhood, I guess. We are one tribe made of many. I wish you would come to appreciate what such a union is like.