Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[Lexicus]

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.

I guess I don't understand the question. Give me an example of "how" we might decide.

 

[Mise]

Just returning to an earlier point because I forgot about it until now.

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.

I'm not sure you can put comparison aside entirely, because I believe in proportionality of response. I.e. the severity of the punishment should be in some way proportional to the severity of the crime. And since we have no way of assigning an ordinal value to the severity of the crime, we have to look at how each crime sits in relation to other crimes when deciding a proportional sentence.

However, I agree that the proportionality principle only gives a very broad window for sentencing, and judges should be given wide discretion in actual case sentencing.

 

[Mise]

I guess I don't understand the question. Give me an example of "how" we might decide.

I edited my previous post with the question: Why is rape worse than shoplifting?

I suppose I should really be asking "why is rape more deserving of a harsher sentence than shoplifting", but presumably the answer will mostly be "because rape is worse than shoplifting". In any case, the former question is a good place to start.

 

[Flying Pig]

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.

Moderator Action: Enough ad hominems - discuss the topic, not other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lexicus]

I edited my previous post with the question: Why is rape worse than shoplifting?

I suppose I should really be asking "why is rape more deserving of a harsher sentence than shoplifting", but presumably the answer will mostly be "because rape is worse than shoplifting". In any case, the former question is a good place to start.

All morality is ultimately based on axiomatic principles that are simply assumed to be true.

So my answer would be that it is axiomatic to me that crimes against people are worse (and thus deserve harsher punishment) than crimes against property.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

If I'm going to appreciate the open mindedness and prejudgement you're selling, I could have laundered the sheets decades ago.

 

[Mise]

@Lexicus: Surely not all crimes against people are worse than all crimes against property? And how are you defining a crime against a person vs their property? Don't crimes against property have consequential damage to the person themself? e.g. I steal money from a poor man -> poor man can't buy food -> poor man goes hungry -> crime against person.

Also, I don't think we're anywhere near axiomatic principles yet...

 

[caketastydelish]

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.

No, it isn't on topic. And to say we have more problems reporting rape could only be partially true at best. If someone is murdered in a dark alley or somewhere and nobody saw who killed them, what are there odds at being caught? Yes you can report the person has gone missing, but that's about it. With rape, at least if the victim is still alive, they can identify the rapist, as happened with Brock Turner, even with Brock Turner being a good ol' boy there was still a chance for justice to be served, and it did in this case.

Anyway: Explain this: There are tons of movies, video games, books, etc that depict murders. Tons of media "action movies" where people die and get murdered all the time. But a rape is considered 100 times more disturbing.

No, we are not more comfortable with rape than we are with murder, no matter how many times some people (such as yourself) say otherwise. I could go on and write one of my big walls of text for several paragraphs explaining how cynical and indifferent we are to murder than we are to rape. I could mention all the mass shootings going on in this country and so many people saying they're 'zoned out' of feeling anything about it at this point. But i'll leave it at that, and hope you understand.

Rape does not "affect the victim the most" (as in, opposed to murder) because the victim is still alive. Like I said before, most victims recover at least to some degree, and go on to lead meaningful, successful lives. And you'd be insulting them and putting words into their mouths to say otherwise. And even if they're one of the exceptions where they can't go on, they can at least put their affairs in order and end their lives on their own terms. Murder victims don't get that.

Based on the statistics I read the majority of rape victims quit having PTSD 365 days after the rape occurred, with the percentage continuing to dwindle after the original year. But even if they continued having PTSD their entire lives, it still wouldn't be the same thing as murder.

I know soldier with PTSD that say "thank God I'm still alive" and I've known rape victims who say the same. In any case I'm reporting both my own post (this one) as well as yours. This is horribly off topic.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus: Surely not all crimes against people are worse than all crimes against property? And how are you defining a crime against a person vs their property? Don't crimes against property have consequential damage to the person themself? e.g. I steal money from a poor man -> poor man can't buy food -> poor man goes hungry -> crime against person.

Also, I don't think we're anywhere near axiomatic principles yet...

I could reduce it to more basic axioms but frankly I'm too lazy to do that right now.

Suffice it to say that my answer would be based on axioms, so ultimately I just assume that rape is worse than shoplifting. I can't "know" it in any sense because it's not a fact, it's a subjective judgment.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, it isn't on topic.

It's not flagrantly off topic. The reason is that, as Mise says, we need some framework around which to build a "reasonable sentence". Earlier in the thread, you said it should have a "2 year minimum". Absent other frames of reference, 6 months vs 2 years vs 10 years is arbitrary. Do we know the expected consequences of future crime based on those sentences? No. How does that sentence rate against stealing? Murder? Assault to the extent of permanent physical mutilation? Accidents that nevertheless result in manslaughter or mutilation?

If we had evidence saying a 6 month sentence caused the fewest rape incidents out of every length tried it would be crazy to pick other lengths that allow for more of the crime. We don't have that evidence though, and I suspect optimized term would be quite different.

Outrage should be taking a backseat to theoretical optimum sentencing and the *reason* that said sentencing is optimal. Why'd you pick two years? Where did that one come from? Is exactly 2 minimum better than 4 minimum? Why should we believe either?

From a legal standpoint this is pretty important to society for serious crimes like this, but our decisions shouldn't be ruled by emotions. Ultimately, we want less of the crime. What choice leads to that, and what evidence do we have to make us believe that's the best choice?

I can't "know" it in any sense because it's not a fact, it's a subjective judgment.

I think it is possible in principle to come up with some standardized measure of harm that would have little difficulty consistently showing rape to cause more serious damage on average.

I'd estimate that it would grade out somewhere along the lines of permanent physical damage, with which one worse depending on afflicted individual and extent of the latter, but I could certainly be wrong and it would be good to have some reason to make our conclusions, rather than just stating them.

 

[Mise]

I could reduce it to more basic axioms but frankly I'm too lazy to do that right now.

Sure, that's fair enough. I don't think we'll get much further though so I'll just butt out now.

 

[Vectors]

@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.

Okay, how about the fact that rape victims are far more likely to attempt suicide than the background population. How many don't commit suicide though they want to because they don't want to hurt other people?

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.



Why is rape worse than shoplifting?

Rape is worse because it far more adversely affects the victim and is also a crime against a person's dignity.

@Lexicus: Surely not all crimes against people are worse than all crimes against property? And how are you defining a crime against a person vs their property? Don't crimes against property have consequential damage to the person themself? e.g. I steal money from a poor man -> poor man can't buy food -> poor man goes hungry -> crime against person.

Also, I don't think we're anywhere near axiomatic principles yet...

Well yes, Bernie Madoff in terms of damage he has inflicted is worse than a mugger.

 

[Gorbles]

No, it isn't on topic. And to say we have more problems reporting rape could only be partially true at best. If someone is murdered in a dark alley or somewhere and nobody saw who killed them, what are there odds at being caught? Yes you can report the person has gone missing, but that's about it. With rape, at least if the victim is still alive, they can identify the rapist, as happened with Brock Turner, even with Brock Turner being a good ol' boy there was still a chance for justice to be served, and it did in this case.

Anyway: Explain this: There are tons of movies, video games, books, etc that depict murders. Tons of media "action movies" where people die and get murdered all the time. But a rape is considered 100 times more disturbing.

No, we are not more comfortable with rape than we are with murder, no matter how many times some people (such as yourself) say otherwise. I could go on and write one of my big walls of text for several paragraphs explaining how cynical and indifferent we are to murder than we are to rape. I could mention all the mass shootings going on in this country and so many people saying they're 'zoned out' of feeling anything about it at this point. But i'll leave it at that, and hope you understand.

Rape does not "affect the victim the most" (as in, opposed to murder) because the victim is still alive. Like I said before, most victims recover at least to some degree, and go on to lead meaningful, successful lives. And you'd be insulting them and putting words into their mouths to say otherwise. And even if they're one of the exceptions where they can't go on, they can at least put their affairs in order and end their lives on their own terms. Murder victims don't get that.

Based on the statistics I read the majority of rape victims quit having PTSD 365 days after the rape occurred, with the percentage continuing to dwindle after the original year. But even if they continued having PTSD their entire lives, it still wouldn't be the same thing as murder.

I know soldier with PTSD that say "thank God I'm still alive" and I've known rape victims who say the same. In any case I'm reporting both my own post (this one) as well as yours. This is horribly off topic.

Rape is factually underreported, making up situations where hidden dead bodies are never found only helps skew the flawed perceptions I was trying to dismiss. A similar made-up analogy would be a rape that was never discovered by a third-party and thus reported on, except that that happens a lot due to the prevalent excuses offered for rape ("they were drunk", "they were just having fun", "you can't change your mind after you've said yes", etc, et al).

I never said anything about people being more comfortable with one than the other, and video games being linked to murder rates (and also attempted homicides) has been repeatedly disproven more times than I care to count, sorry. I'd presume the correlation to all media is similar, but I haven't read studies on it as I have for video games.

Mass shootings are a problem. Rape culture is also a problem. The existence of one does not devalue or dismiss the other - this was precisely the point of my post. But this goes both ways.

Rape affects the victim the most in context of the crime. The entire spiel of my post was to not compare the crimes against each other. In the event of a murder, the suffering goes to those affected that are still alive. In the event of a rape, the suffering goes to the victim and not really elsewhere.

People are undoubtably are thankfuly they're alive, it's a baseline human reaction to any violent event. I've had a knife pulled on me before, I'm still thankful I'm alive. That doesn't mean much, because humans in general trend to being thankful for the things they still possess (note: tend to. Psychology is of course nowhere near that simple, and your generalisations and anecdotal evidence don't help stereotypes in the slightest). I know rape victims. Anecdotal evidence does not a statistical baseline make.

I mean, to tie this back to the main topic in a more cohesive manner, people were lamenting the length of Brock Turner's incarceration (or potential incarceration) by saying "but look at murderers who get less, why should he get more". This in of itself is a red herring, and I'm surprised people are still going to lengths to try and dismiss this horrific event to continue that kind of logic. I got involved specifically on the rape vs. murder angle myself, but it arose because of the aforementioned attempt at diverting the discussion onto something worse to make the original crime, and / or the punishment thereof, more lenient. Intentionally, by comparison.

Do some crimes need to carry more weight than others? Absolutely. But in terms of impact to the victim and the people around them, these two crimes can't be compared on a similar scale to each other. Will this end up as different prison sentences? Yes, but that's what law experts are for. For us, here in this thread, all we can do is debate the morality and ethics according to our own compasses, and that's what I was attempting to talk about (in very reasonable terms, I thought) with my bit. Certainly, you don't have the moral authority to reject my statements in any absolute manner, and it speaks more of your views that you would prefer to tear down rape victims by comparison to murder, accuse people who debate it of devaluing the crime of murder, and all you do to back up your own statements is provide anecdotal evidence. That's a bit absurd, sorry.

 

[caketastydelish]

I did not "tear down rape victims". If you've been even reading this thread at all, you'd see I'm outraged that Turner got such an absurdly short sentence. And that the judge is more concerned with Turner's life being "ruined" rather than the woman's life, which actually did get ruined.

In any case you're not even reading my posts. I'm done.

edit: If murderers are getting even shorter sentences, that doesn't make me inconsistent. Brock Turner deserves a much longer sentence, and murderers deserve an even longer sentence than that.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it is possible in principle to come up with some standardized measure of harm that would have little difficulty consistently showing rape to cause more serious damage on average.

I'd estimate that it would grade out somewhere along the lines of permanent physical damage, with which one worse depending on afflicted individual and extent of the latter, but I could certainly be wrong and it would be good to have some reason to make our conclusions, rather than just stating them.

Sure, you could come up with any number of very complicated systems for grading the relative harm and severity of all different kinds of crimes. My point would be that the self-consistency of such a system doesn't mean it isn't, ultimately, based on principles that would be axiomatic.

By saying "I believe this axiomatically" I'm cutting out a whole lot of unnecessary theorizing and system-devising, which isn't the job of people posting in this thread but of the people society designates to write/interpret criminal law and fight criminal cases.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll also point out when I said "two years minimum" I was referring to any rape case in general, not this one specifically.

Honestly for Turner I'd consider the max 14 years. The reason being, he doesn't even see what he did wrong. He still has not apologized, and he still thinks the only wrong thing he did was drinking too much alcohol. And that any bad thing he did while drunk is irrelevant- blame the alcohol and not him. And his father is encouraging this behavior even more with his "20 minutes of action" nonsense. And that his uber spoiled brat entitlement is something that he probably wasn't born with, but was fed to him throughout his life until it reached this point. Giving him such a short sentence when he knows others of less privileged background receive much harsher sentences for much less severe crimes (such as possession of marijuana) will make him continue to have his sense of entitlement. And honestly you can't blame him. He can rape and get an exceptionally short sentence in jail. And the girl was lucky for him to get anything at all. Of course he's feeling almost completely untouchable, and he should be.

All kinds of other people (such as the women on Stanford's swim team) had known about this guy's bad antics long before the rape occurred, and during the trial Stanford University heavily pressured the swim team to hush up about it, because he's a good ol' boy, and good ol' boys should never have to look bad in the public eye, no matter what they did or continue to do.

 

[Lexicus]

The reason being, he doesn't even see what he did wrong.

That's exactly what I was saying upthread.

 

[caketastydelish]

Did I ever say he deserves a short sentence? I completely agree with you as far as that goes.

My only disagreement was over rape vs murder, not that he doesn't deserve to be severely punished. I've been going at it throughout this entire thread to emphasize his punishment was so incredibly short for what he did (and the way he reacted to his sentence). Some of you are not even reading my posts.

 

[Lexicus]

Did I ever say he deserves a short sentence?

Did I say you did

Of course I'm aware that our opinion of how this case was handled are the same. I was just pointing it out, because I used the same rationale to argue for a longer sentence than what was handed down. No remorse = still dangerous as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Hygro]

Okay, how about the fact that rape victims are far more likely to attempt suicide than the background population. How many don't commit suicide though they want to because they don't want to hurt other people?

So for the latter group they see their death would be worse than they being alive as victims... ok so it's self-evident to those victims that murder would have been even worse.