Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[innonimatu]

So... if we can have an 8 page thread about a "rapist" who wasn't convicted of rape (and who had the rape charges against him dropped), does that mean the next time we have an abortion thread we can just call that murder without all the tiresome "actually murder has a very specific legal definition so you're wrong" comments? No?

It's all politics - people are biased.... what irks me is when they deny it and claim to be the unique holders of the moral high ground. Seeing this from abroad it seems to me that the whole racism debate in the US is awfully racist. The most loudly demanded fixes for the perceived problems are itself racist, and it's strange that people thing it rational to fix a problem by doing more of the same but supposedly on an "opposite" direction.

It suspect it is a result of a political theory of making maximum demands in order to shift the "center" of the status quo. That theory of "haggling" was promoted in current democratic politics a few decades ago and spread across parties and "activist groups". It has come to pervade politics. Sentencing and discussion about the judiciary came to suffer from the same problem.

And it is too much to hope that, with such culture already in place, people can easily become serious again about what they stand for in politics, instead of treating public debate as a haggling game. Compromise should be about accepting the outcome of elections - not about seeking to shift positions by demanding more that what one really wants, and promising more than one intends to deliver, as a game to manipulate the outcome. But political leaders, "opinion leaders" in the media and so on have been practicing that kind of politics for so long now that it became the norm. The end result are the two foremost US presidential runners, whose statements everyone seems to not believe, but who nevertheless have popular support. And the situation in many european countries is similar, cynicism is becoming pervasive. That is very bad for democracy.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm not advocating for a longer sentence for Brock as a solution to racism.

 

[Vectors]

So... if we can have an 8 page thread about a "rapist" who wasn't convicted of rape (and who had the rape charges against him dropped), does that mean the next time we have an abortion thread we can just call that murder without all the tiresome "actually murder has a very specific legal definition so you're wrong" comments? No?

According to the FBI definition it is rape.

 

[emzie]

So... if we can have an 8 page thread about a "rapist" who wasn't convicted of rape (and who had the rape charges against him dropped), does that mean the next time we have an abortion thread we can just call that murder without all the tiresome "actually murder has a very specific legal definition so you're wrong" comments? No?

It seems a bit pedantic to worry about if it was a penis or just dirt-covered fingers that got shoved up someone's vagina. Thank you for bringing us back to the real issue.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

According to the FBI definition it is rape.

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.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It seems a bit pedantic to worry about if it was a penis or just dirt-covered fingers that got shoved up someone's vagina. Thank you for bringing us back to the real issue.

You could describe the law in general as being a bit pedantic. That's just how it works.

 

[Vectors]

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.

There is absolutely zero chance he could win as he would have to prove "intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth" and that the statement was false, as he has been convicted of a sex crime that meets the federal government definition of rape it isn't a falsehood. He would also have difficulty showing actual damages.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

as he has been convicted of a sex crime that meets the federal government definition of rape it isn't a falsehood.

Given that that isn't the law that applies in the jurisdiction or the court in question, it kind of is a falsehood really.

 

[Vectors]

Given that that isn't the law that applies in the jurisdiction or the court in question, it kind of is a falsehood really.

It would qualify as a substantial truth

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I really wish I hadn't said the word "libel" now as that reeeeally wasn't my point.

 

[Bootstoots]

Oh, a class warrior I am.

But I don't think you can convincingly build a case that the racism of poor white people is because the Left has abandoned them in favour of identity politics. I think the racism predated the identity politics, such that the latter is more likely a reaction to the former instead of the other way round. There is a rich tradition of racism and prejudice that has stuck around, and it's still nauseating when poverty is used as a shield to bash people with when the prejudice is talked about.

Also, the cry for attention often entails a 'biggest victim' mentality, particularly when the spectre of affirmative action is raised over and over.

You're right, of course, that racism among poor whites predates modern identity politics. My point is that identity politics provides a positive feedback, helping to reinforce racial animosity. Above all, the mostly correct belief that liberals dislike or at best don't care about working class white people is a strong factor in their defection from the Democratic Party to the Republican one and it underlies the hatred many of them have for liberals. At one point, the Democrats cared about labor issues and working people of all races, but this fell by the wayside with the neoliberal revolution and the collapse of labor unions.

While I believe that you do care about class issues, in general very little of the political discourse I hear from modern leftists is about social class. It's not been totally abandoned, but class issues have definitely been put on the backburner in favor of race, gender, and sexuality. Bringing up poor to working class whites (or just rural people of all races) in left-wing circles causes a range of responses from apathy to derision, and that's something that really has to be addressed. There actually is a rather serious crisis going on in the world Farm Boy is defending, and if we don't address it, they'll continue to be drawn to quasi-fascists ranging from Trump to the militia movement.

The problems in working class white America don't justify racism and other bigotry, but they do help to explain why racist ideas are becoming more popular. Further, I fear that the development of white identity politics is a logical conclusion of the increasing focus on identity politics lately, especially given that a large proportion of whites really are marginalized.

 

[emzie]

You could describe the law in general as being a bit pedantic. That's just how it works.

The word "rape" often gets used in place of the term "sexual assault" outside of the courtroom when there are aggravating circumstances (like the use of force, coercion or inability to consent). Language. It changes. As this forum is not a courtroom, why is this point of vernacular so important to you? What does changing the words we're using do to the points we're making?

 

[Bootstoots]

Sexual assault by digital penetration and attempted rape of an unconscious person doesn't roll off the tongue quite like rape. I don't think that detail is especially important, except inasmuch as it may be a legal reason for a lighter sentence.

 

[Mise]

I think that's pretty important tbh.

 

[Lexicus]

The word "rape" often gets used in place of the term "sexual assault" outside of the courtroom when there are aggravating circumstances (like the use of force, coercion or inability to consent). Language. It changes. As this forum is not a courtroom, why is this point of vernacular so important to you? What does changing the words we're using do to the points we're making?

Manfred seemingly will never miss a chance to point out how all the SJWs are out to undermine and destroy innocent men. I mean look at how they're destroying Brock Turner's reputation by calling him a rapist when he is clearly no such thing!

 

[Vectors]

Sexual assault by digital penetration and attempted rape of an unconscious person doesn't roll off the tongue quite like rape. I don't think that detail is especially important, except inasmuch as it may be a legal reason for a lighter sentence.

Lawmakers were pretty shocked at how outdated the definition was. Some states stopped using the term rape so their highest sex offense is also called rape though they haven't lowered the penalties, that is because feminists tried to change it as juries were more reluctant to find someone guilty of rape v. A crime with identical sentencing, but not called rape.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The word "rape" often gets used in place of the term "sexual assault" outside of the courtroom when there are aggravating circumstances (like the use of force, coercion or inability to consent). Language. It changes. As this forum is not a courtroom, why is this point of vernacular so important to you? What does changing the words we're using do to the points we're making?

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.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Manfred seemingly will never miss a chance to point out how all the SJWs are out to undermine and destroy innocent men. I mean look at how they're destroying Brock Turner's reputation by calling him a rapist when he is clearly no such thing!

Nice use of "seemingly" there. Kind of allows you to say anything you want doesn't it.

Lexicus "seemingly" will never miss a chance to sacrifice goats on the Solstice.

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus "seemingly" will never miss a chance to sacrifice goats on the Solstice.

Good one

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sexual assault by digital penetration and attempted rape of an unconscious person doesn't roll off the tongue quite like rape. I don't think that detail is especially important, except inasmuch as it may be a legal reason for a lighter sentence.

There's a non-trivial health risk differential too. Certainly the actions are in the same ballpark, but the risk inherent in one crime vs the other is not identical.

Regardless of the theoretical optimal way to handle this sentence is, I don't like the idea of putting it on judge discretion to this extent. We *know* the system has heavy bias, so why set it up to make practicing bias so easy?

There are attorneys that win before a given judge 20x in a row in non-settled cases. Are they just filtering losing cases so perfectly? Are we really okay with a system that has no realistic disincentive for biased sentencing?

I consider it a separate issue from "how should cases like Turner be handled to optimize against crimes of this nature" to some extent, but it's still an important consideration. Minimum sentencing might not fix this, but grossly uneven sentencing patterns/applications are still questionable, even more so when lacking data on how much it helps.