Stanford rapist only gets 3 months

[Kozmos]

His life is pretty much ruined already. He's a google away from being blacklisted in anything he ever does.

 

[Lexicus]

If he had shown remorse for his actions I might agree with warpus. But you are not addressing the point here, which is that the lack of remorse tells me he doesn't realize what he did was wrong and he can't be trusted not to do it again.

 

[warpus]

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.

 

[caketastydelish]

Actually Warpus has a point. We should put the other kind of criminals he mentioned on a blacklist as well.

 

[warpus]

I mean, I'm saying that such a list should not exist for anyone. Once you've paid your dues to society, you can start from a clean slate.

But having a list for one type of crime and not for others is even worse. Especially considering that you can end up on this list for urinating in public. And especially considering that people who commit much worse crimes don't end up on a life-long list either.

 

[Kozmos]

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. Well done. I love these mostly feigned moral outrages, when in fact this song and dance is 'we're the good guys' self-affirmation. Pat yourselves on the back until you forget.

 

[Lexicus]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/womens-swim-team-not-surprised-by-brock-turner-arrest/

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.

 

[warpus]

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.

Yeah, those lists should not exist either. I don't think such a list exists here in Canada or in western Europe. I could be wrong, though.

Either way, the sentencing in such cases seems so backwards. If this guy is dangerous, lock him up for a couple years. Don't take the rest of his life away. Even drunk drivers, who kill entire families and ruin a lot of lives, don't get this sort of treatment. It's inhumane.

 

[uppi]

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.

To your list, I would add d) to give the impression that justice is applied equally regardless of social status. If the average punishment is 8 to 9 years and a very privileged member of the society gets much less than that, distrust in the judicial system and social tensions arise.

It is hard to fully prevent while leaving some discretionary power to the judges, but in this case I would say the law is at fault: If the judge can lawfully apply such a lenient sentence for a crime that is usually punished much, the law has to be changed in order to narrow the range of lawful punishments.

 

[Vectors]

The US sentencing guideline is 97 months for this act

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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. Yet 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.

 

[Farm Boy]

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've bolded the relevant section. Because I think at least some degree of the unique rage we hold for rapists, comes from this statement being true, but not true in the same way.

A dead person is a constant grinding loss. A destruction that needs to be dealt with. But like most opportunity costs, you never know exactly what could have been. If you take rape in the context of almost all history, and even today, rape can and does create children. Rape is a violent misappropriation of the present and the future in one of the forms we are most emotionally vulnerable to.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think it's at all self-evident that murder is worse than rape.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that the problem is more that judges can give sentences (apparently) ranging from very little time to hugely more time in prison + other penalties. I recall how another US person years ago (we had a thread here too ) was sentenced to 3 years, for raping, a horse.

...

Now that was farcical and ruinous.

I don't think it's at all self-evident that murder is worse than rape.

Right. Just mercy-kill any rape victims then. Ok, in some cases it can be a living hell, eg persistent trauma coupled with actual somatic permanent damage. There was a case some years ago of a shy 16 year old raped, and afaik she just got closed into a semi-conscious state from then onwards.
But most rape victims have some ability to move past that, so murder seems hugely worse.

 

[Lexicus]

*shrug* I didn't express an opinion on which one is worse, all I said is...what I said.

 

[sophie]

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.

As Kozmos noted, getting convicted of a felony makes you essentially unhireable, and in many states excludes you from even voting to try to fix the situation. Getting convicted for a DUI basically f's up your car insurance for the rest of your life. Pretty much anything requiring you to spend lengthy time in court can f you up for a long time due to court/lawyer fees.

 

[warpus]

That all sounds like a huge problem in the U.S. that nobody seems to be talking about. I mean, yeah, I've heard that some felons can't even vote (WTH, really?) but there seems to be no momentum there in terms of solutions and getting these issues fixed.

Not that this horrible crime is a good segway into these issues, but when your legal system is broken, it's worth pointing it out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think it's at all self-evident that murder is worse than rape.

I doubt you can make a rational case otherwise, especially not on average. If you can show me a good reason to consider otherwise though I'd be interested to see it.

*shrug* I didn't express an opinion on which one is worse, all I said is...what I said.

While true, you did in essence cast doubt on reason to believe they are sufficiently different to conclude one is worse.

Notably, even by that standard the life-long penalty applied for one and not the other is strange.

Rape is a violent misappropriation of the present and the future in one of the forms we are most emotionally vulnerable to.

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.

I'm not willing to discount that because it seems more abstract.

but there seems to be no momentum there in terms of solutions and getting these issues fixed.

Someone arguing to change that would get the social equivalent of a tar and feathering, as if they're condoning the criminal actions. If a politician did it opposition would harp on it forever until that candidate disappeared (including fellow party members), even if the person making the case used viable outcome measures to demonstrate the harmful effects.

Not that partisan politics is very good about emphasizing or caring about outcome measures anyway, even for less controversial issues.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

Indeed. No disagreement. But emotional vulnerability is reality. An act that strikes at and wobbles the very intergenerational bedrock of human socialization and attachment is perhaps a poor candidate for measurement yet it remains a tangible.

 

[Zkribbler]

It was not a 3-month sentence; it was a 6-month sentence. With good behavior, he'll be out of jail in 3 months.

There are three terms which can be imposed by a judge. This judge chose the least of the three. In addition, a judge can further reduce the sentence if he finds mitigating factors. Here, he focused on the defendant's youth and the "facts" that the defendant was unused to drinking and that he was unlikely to re-commit the act again.

Since the trial, it has come out that, while the defendant was still in high school, he texted about his drinking and drug use at parties. Now, the Stanford Women's swim team is claiming they were pressured by the school not to come forward with how they all avoided him because of his persistent lewd comments and creepy behavior.

This judge is up for reelection now. He is running unopposed, and as I understand things, it is too late for an opponent to get onto the ballot.

The only other way to remove the judge is by impeachment. As I understand things, making a bonehead call from the bench is not grounds for impeachment.

The only other thing I can think of is the county's Presiding Judge has dictatorial powers about where judges are assigned. This judge could be reassigned to traffic court, to small claims court, or to a courthouse on the other end of the county.