Stanford rape verdict

[warriorchick]

Conversation reminds me of a MU friend who lead the leaderboard on getting sick drunk all the time.

 "Dude, run up to the cliff.   Maybe lean over the cliff a little.  Don't jump.  It's still a lot of fun without all the puking -- for all of us."

Here's the thing:  I am pretty sure that most people don't start the night out going, "You know what? I am going to get blackout drunk tonight!  WooHoo!  And I can't wait to start puking my guts out!  Tomorrow, I want to have a hangover that is so bad, I will be begging for death's sweet mercy!  Let's get this party started, bitches!"

At some point you might lose track of how much you have imbibed.  Or maybe you started out on an emptier stomach than you normally do, and don't realize how much more quickly you are going to get hammered.  Or the mystery garbage-can punch was much stronger than it tastes.  I am not saying that it's not one's own responsibility to monitor their level of intoxication, but unintended consequences do happen.

[Jay Bee]

Jay Bee, you are a pig.

If anything, one could argue that raping an unconscious woman is even worse because they have no chance of consenting or fighting back.

If someone robbed a quadriplegic who was rolling down the street by himself in an electric wheelchair, is that more or less heinous than robbing a 225-pound MMA fighter? 

What if that person was a quadriplegic because he was texting while driving and crashed his car? Would you say, "Well, he bears part of the responsibility, because it is his own fault that he is paralyzed"?

I wasn't commenting on what's more or less heinous.

There is a lesson here for those that still don't get it: be careful.

I think girls should be able to do as they choose. If that's go get hammered at a frat house, go ahead! Unfortunately - and this isn't fair - but there are nasty people in this world who may try to take advantage of you because of your situation (being hammered at a frat house).

It elevates risk. It's not fair, but it does.

If something happens to you, it's not your fault. It's wrong. It's awful.

But I think not only is it reasonable, but it's important to help people understand and remind them of risks. That's throughout life, not just susceptibility to criminal acts against you.

Here's the thing:  I am pretty sure that most people don't start the night out going, "You know what? I am going to get blackout drunk tonight!  WooHoo!  And I can't wait to start puking my guts out!  Tomorrow, I want to have a hangover that is so bad, I will be begging for death's sweet mercy!  Let's get this party started, bitches!"

At some point you might lose track of how much you have imbibed.  Or maybe you started out on an emptier stomach than you normally do, and don't realize how much more quickly you are going to get hammered.  Or the mystery garbage-can punch was much stronger than it tastes.  I am not saying that it's not one's own responsibility to monitor their level of intoxication, but unintended consequences do happen.

Most people? Sure, not most people. Some people? Absolutely. This victim in the OP's case has stated getting blackout drunk was something she had done numerous times before. If you go to a frat party and start throwing back whiskey, I think you know there's a chance "it's gonna be one of those nights."

That's fine. Doesn't mean you should be a victim. Doesn't mean anything that happens to you by a criminal act of another is your fault.

But, you did add risk. Quite a bit.

[Lennys Tap]

Jay Bee, you are a pig.

If anything, one could argue that raping an unconscious woman is even worse because they have no chance of consenting or fighting back.

If someone robbed a quadriplegic who was rolling down the street by himself in an electric wheelchair, is that more or less heinous than robbing a 225-pound MMA fighter? 

What if that person was a quadriplegic because he was texting while driving and crashed his car? Would you say, "Well, he bears part of the responsibility, because it is his own fault that he is paralyzed"?

A quadriplegic (regardless of his/her past actions) is more vulnerable in the present due to a condition out of his/her control.

A blacked out drunk is more vulnerable due to his/her own poor choices in the present. Basically texting while driving every time it happens.

Being helpless and rendering oneself helpless are not the same thing.

Reality? There are lots of predators out there. They are cowards who look for the easy marks, the potential victims who are the most vulnerable. Not putting yourself in that "most vulnerable" category won't guarantee your safety. Nothing will. But your odds will improve if you're not reckless.

[GGGG]

A blacked out drunk is more vulnerable due to his/her own poor choices in the present.

Not necessarily.  And that is part of the problem.

[warriorchick]

I wasn't commenting on what's more or less heinous.

There is a lesson here for those that still don't get it: be careful.

I think girls should be able to do as they choose. If that's go get hammered at a frat house, go ahead! Unfortunately - and this isn't fair - but there are nasty people in this world who may try to take advantage of you because of your situation (being hammered at a frat house).

It elevates risk. It's not fair, but it does.

If something happens to you, it's not your fault. It's wrong. It's awful.

But I think not only is it reasonable, but it's important to help people understand and remind them of risks. That's throughout life, not just susceptibility to criminal acts against you.

Most people? Sure, not most people. Some people? Absolutely. This victim in the OP's case has stated getting blackout drunk was something she had done numerous times before. If you go to a frat party and start throwing back whiskey, I think you know there's a chance "it's gonna be one of those nights."

That's fine. Doesn't mean you should be a victim. Doesn't mean anything that happens to you by a criminal act of another is your fault.

But, you did add risk. Quite a bit.

I still haven't figured out why this is even relevant to the conversation as to whether the Stanford Rapist's sentence was appropriate.  Wasn't that the original topic, and weren't you the one who pointed out that she was drunk?

[Benny B]

I don't think a good message to send to females heading off to college is, "Hey, don't get drunk to the point of passing out and you won't be raped. If you don't get drunk, nothing bad can happen to you."

It's not about cause and effect.  It's about odds and probability.

If you go to class and do your homework every day, you're probably not going to drop out (but you might).
If you don't drink to the point of passing out every weekend, you're probably not going to get raped (but you might).

[wadesworld]

It's not about cause and effect.  It's about odds and probability.

If you go to class and do your homework every day, you're probably not going to drop out (but you might).
If you don't drink to the point of passing out every weekend, you're probably not going to get raped (but you might).

Fair enough.  In a day and age where you can go to work, church, the mall, the movies, school, or, heck, stay in bed and end up getting shot and killed, I just personally don't think we need to teach teens as they go off to college, "Before you throw back that beer while you're already feeling it pretty good, sit there and think to yourself, 'This might be the difference between me getting raped and me simply having a hangover tomorrow.'"  To me, the message is more, "Be careful.  At all times.  There are bad people out there."  Not, "Be careful not to black out."

[Lennys Tap]

It's not about cause and effect.  It's about odds and probability.

If you go to class and do your homework every day, you're probably not going to drop out (but you might).
If you don't drink to the point of passing out every weekend, you're probably not going to get raped (but you might).

Exactly.

[jsglow]

Fair enough.  In a day and age where you can go to work, church, the mall, the movies, school, or, heck, stay in bed and end up getting shot and killed, I just personally don't think we need to teach teens as they go off to college, "Before you throw back that beer while you're already feeling it pretty good, sit there and think to yourself, 'This might be the difference between me getting raped and me simply having a hangover tomorrow.'"  To me, the message is more, "Be careful.  At all times.  There are bad people out there." Not, "Be careful not to black out."

That's my message.  Makes perfect sense.

[Lennys Tap]

To me, the message is more, "Be careful.  At all times.  There are bad people out there."  Not, "Be careful not to black out."

Well, since "blacking out" is a 10 on a scale of 1-10 of not being careful I would hope it was covered under the umbrella of being careful at all times.

[jficke13]

I still haven't figured out why this is even relevant to the conversation as to whether the Stanford Rapist's sentence was appropriate.  Wasn't that the original topic, and weren't you the one who pointed out that she was drunk?

Am I misreading this dispute entirely?

I thought that the "drinking makes you vulnerable" crowd were saying: "I have more sympathy for some victims than others, and one group I have less sympathy for are those who put themselves in a vulnerable position by blacking out."

I never read that to be: "Offenders who prey on blacked out people should have more lenient sentences."

Maybe I'm giving the "drinking makes you vulnerable" crowd too much credit, but I never saw them discounting the guilt/scumbaggery of rapists just because they had somewhat less sympathy for the rapist's victims.

Am I totally off base here or is this a situation where two sides are arguing over different things and conflating them?

[Pakuni]

How about some other examples:

Does the thief who pickpockets your wallet get treated differently than the thief who finds your lost wallet on the sidewalk and decides to keep it?   

Probably not.

Or perhaps better, how about a random assault of a person minding their own business, versus one who exercises their freedom of speech by yelling the n-word, who then gets assaulted.

This seems a pretty clear case of provocation. Not sure how it fits into a discussion about the rape of an unconscious woman. Was Brock Turner provoked by his victim's unconsciousness? If so, is that a mitigating factor in his favor?

[GGGG]

I still haven't figured out why this is even relevant to the conversation as to whether the Stanford Rapist's sentence was appropriate.  Wasn't that the original topic, and weren't you the one who pointed out that she was drunk?

The problem is, while it is very good to say "..but this doesn't absolve the rapist of anything," the fact is that in the public eye's it oftentime does.  And since the public serves on juries...well...

[Lennys Tap]

Am I misreading this dispute entirely?

I thought that the "drinking makes you vulnerable" crowd were saying: "I have more sympathy for some victims than others, and one group I have less sympathy for are those who put themselves in a vulnerable position by blacking out."

I never read that to be: "Offenders who prey on blacked out people should have more lenient sentences."

Maybe I'm giving the "drinking makes you vulnerable" crowd too much credit, but I never saw them discounting the guilt/scumbaggery of rapists just because they had somewhat less sympathy for the rapist's victims.

Am I totally off base here or is this a situation where two sides are arguing over different things and conflating them?

You're not misreading anything. Spot on. Because we admit to having more sympathy for victims who have not conspired to make themselves vulnerable some are assuming a whole lot of things that just aren't true. Thank you.

[jficke13]

For more analysis from a defense attorney regarding advocacy at sentencing:

http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/brock-turner-the-sort-of-defendant-who-is-spared-severe-impact/10288

"The trick is to light a spark that catches the judge’s eye, that transforms your client even momentarily from an abstraction or a statistic or a stereotype into a human being with whom the judge feels a connection.  Judges are people, and people connect with each other through commonalities – family, hobbies, sports, music, and so forth.  At sentencing, a good advocate helps the judge to see the defendant as someone fundamentally like the judge, with whom the judge can relate.  It’s harder to send a man into a merciless hole when you relate to him."

...

"Judge Persky clearly empathized with Brock Allen Turner.  Turner was a championship swimmer and a Stanford student; Judge Persky was a Stanford student and the captain of the lacrosse team.  Judge Persky said that sending Turner to prison would have a “severe impact” on him, that he did not believe that he would be a danger to others, and that he was young.  Turner’s victim was not spared a severe impact, despite her youth and lack of criminal record.  Her statement was harrowing. Her sentence is lifelong.

Judge Persky’s empathy fell so far into tribalism that he rendered good defense attorney practice irrelevant."

...

"So you won’t find defense lawyers like me cheering Brock Turner’s escape from appropriate consequences.  We see it as a grim reminder of the brokenness of the system.  We recognize it as what makes the system impossible for many of our clients to trust or respect.  And we know that when there’s a backlash against mercy and lenient sentences – when cases like this or the “affluenza” kid inspire public appetite for longer sentences – it’s not the rich who pay the price.  It’s the ones who never saw much mercy to begin with."

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

You're not misreading anything. Spot on. Because we admit to having more sympathy for victims who have not conspired to make themselves vulnerable some are assuming a whole lot of things that just aren't true. Thank you.

Why does this matter?  Sure people do stupid stuff and consciously and unconsciously make bad mistakes.  What if we replace rapist with serial killer?  Still feel the same if someone gets 'Dextered' while drunk or while sober? 

I can understand the point that people need to learn from their mistakes and exercise caution/control but time and place and defining some sort of spectrum of sympathy may not be the best implementation of the idea you are communicating.

[Benny B]

Why does this matter?  Sure people do stupid stuff and consciously and unconsciously make bad mistakes.  What if we replace rapist with serial killer?  Still feel the same if someone gets 'Dextered' while drunk or while sober? 

I can understand the point that people need to learn from their mistakes and exercise caution/control but time and place and defining some sort of spectrum of sympathy may not be the best implementation of the idea you are communicating.

A 5-year old dies from hereditary cancer.
A 55-year old, 3-pack-a-day smoker dies from lung cancer.

I'm sorry, but there's a sympathy spectrum.  If you disagree, please understand that there are common terms for people who would empathize equally in both situations: cold-hearted, psychopath, Jim Boeheim, etc.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

A 5-year old dies from hereditary cancer.
A 55-year old, 3-pack-a-day smoker dies from lung cancer.

I'm sorry, but there's a sympathy spectrum.  If you disagree, please understand that there are common terms for people who would empathize equally in both situations: cold-hearted, psychopath, Jim Boeheim, etc.

I don't see those scenarios as equal equivalency since there was no predator involved. 

Look you can believe what you want and conceptually I agree people need to be careful and understand their choices have implications.  It is just my opinion that focusing on how sympathetic we should be  to someone who was abused by another human being is missing the point that a human being abused another person.

[Benny B]

I don't see those scenarios as equal equivalency since there was no predator involved. 

Look you can believe what you want and conceptually I agree people need to be careful and understand their choices have implications.  It is just my opinion that focusing on how sympathetic we should be  to someone who was abused by another human being is missing the point that a human being abused another person.

Au contraire... cancer is the worse kind of predator, friend.  In fact, I would think many people would rather take their chances fighting off a would-be rapist than fighting off cancer; I sure as hell would.

But to your point:

A 5-year old is caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout and dies.
A 25-year old with a gun who instigated the shootout catches a bullet and dies.

If that doesn't do it for you... what if the 5-year died from a bullet from the 25-year old's gun.  You still feel equally sad for both victims?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Au contraire... cancer is the worse kind of predator, friend.  In fact, I would think many people would rather take their chances fighting off a would-be rapist than fighting off cancer; I sure as hell would.

But to your point:

A 5-year old is caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout and dies.
A 25-year old with a gun who instigated the shootout catches a bullet and dies.

If that doesn't do it for you... what if the 5-year died from a bullet from the 25-year old's gun.  You still feel equally sad for both victims?

So a predator gets shot by another predator or a innocent person is shot by a predator?  Still not really the same.

[Benny B]

So a predator gets shot by another predator or a innocent person is shot by a predator?  Still not really the same.

Exactly... there's always a difference.  And there's your spectrum.

[wadesworld]

Au contraire... cancer is the worse kind of predator, friend.  In fact, I would think many people would rather take their chances fighting off a would-be rapist than fighting off cancer; I sure as hell would.

But to your point:

A 5-year old is caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout and dies.
A 25-year old with a gun who instigated the shootout catches a bullet and dies.

If that doesn't do it for you... what if the 5-year died from a bullet from the 25-year old's gun.  You still feel equally sad for both victims?

So a girl blacking out at a frat party is instigating someone to rape her?

You're right, I find myself having an insanely hard time resisting the urge to force myself upon a woman who is non-responsive.

Come on.

[GooooMarquette]

It's not about cause and effect.  It's about odds and probability.

If you go to class and do your homework every day, you're probably not going to drop out (but you might).
If you don't drink to the point of passing out every weekend, you're probably not going to get raped (but you might).

Well said. 

[jficke13]

Not really to leap to the defense of the "sliding sympathy scale" folks (but I guess I will), but what does it matter to you how bad someone else feels for the victim of a crime? Their internal evaluation of sympathy is immaterial here. They've come out and said that it doesn't change their evaluation of guilt on the part of the offender, and (I'm 99% sure I'm reading it right) they don't think it should affect the *sentence* for the offender, so why does it matter?

I'm pretty sure the issue here is "Was the sentence for the Stanford swimmer rapist appropriate?"

Engaging in a strange ahem-measuring contest over "do you feel the appropriate amount of sympathy for the victim" doesn't seem very useful. It's not helpful in evaluating the sentence in this case, or future cases, and really is so inherently subjective that there's no way to reconcile the points of view.

Now to take the other side:

Why bring up how bad, or not bad, you feel for the victim in the first place? What possible good can come of it? How does that further the discussion of the appropriateness of this particular sentence?

<takes deep breath> arguing on the internet, sigh.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Exactly... there's always a difference.  And there's your spectrum.

Agree to disagree - I don't believe the woman or me for that matter when I was irresponsible with alcohol instigated a 'gun fight'