MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on June 06, 2016, 12:06:33 PM
-
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/stanford-swimmer-rape-brock-turner-victim-letter-trial/1xt36onm4plvp1udrelob5a1sa?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
What a sad world we live in
-
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/stanford-swimmer-rape-brock-turner-victim-letter-trial/1xt36onm4plvp1udrelob5a1sa?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
What a sad world we live in
I read her statement the other day. It's a long read, but I found it impossible to stop reading. My heart breaks for her. I will admit that my knowledge of the incident is limited and comes almost exclusively from the victim's point of view. From that perspective, I think the light sentence is unconscionable. Since the jury convicted him on all counts, it's clear that they did not credit his testimony and believed the victim/prosecution. In other words, they believe he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. I simply do not understand how that translates to a six month sentence.
-
I simply do not understand how that translates to a six month sentence.
Especially after a jury of his peers recommended the max, 14 year, sentence.
-
That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life
That quote, from the rapist's father, makes me irrationally angry
-
That quote, from the rapist's father, makes me irrationally angry
I don't know if you've read the victim's statement (https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.jfglwW59Q#.nhQdvx62G). If not, give it a read. But I suspect you'll feel even angrier.
-
Especially after a jury of his peers recommended the max, 14 year, sentence.
You sure about these 'facts'?
-
Especially after a jury of his peers recommended the max, 14 year, sentence.
The story actually says that was the max, not the recommendation of the jury.
-
You sure about these 'facts'?
I think the linked article is ambiguous. If read quickly, one could come away with that conclusion. It states that the Judge considered the jury's recommendation -- and chooses that spot to list the maximum. But it definitely does not state that was the jury's recommendation. I read in another article that the prosecutor recommended six years. I haven't seen what the jury recommended -- or if they even made a recommendation.
Regarding my first post, it also includes a couple of assumptions. First, that he was convicted of "all" counts. Also, some might think it implies that he was convicted of penetration with his genitals. I'm not sure if either of those assumptions is correct.
I point out the assumption in my post so we can avoid the, "why are you misrepresenting things..." posts. If I am making inaccurate assumptions, my bad. From my perspective, the points I was trying to make apply even if he was acquitted of some charges and/or if the only crimes he was convicted of penetrating her something other than his genitals.
-
I think the linked article is ambiguous. If read quickly, one could come away with that conclusion. It states that the Judge considered the jury's recommendation -- and chooses that spot to list the maximum. But it definitely does not state that was the jury's recommendation. I read in another article that the prosecutor recommended six years. I haven't seen what the jury recommended -- or if they even made a recommendation.
Regarding my first post, it also includes a couple of assumptions. First, that he was convicted of "all" counts. Also, some might think it implies that he was convicted of penetration with his genitals. I'm not sure if either of those assumptions is correct.
I point out the assumption in my post so we can avoid the, "why are you misrepresenting things..." posts. If I am making inaccurate assumptions, my bad. From my perspective, the points I was trying to make apply even if he was acquitted of some charges and/or if the only crimes he was convicted of penetrating her something other than his genitals.
You seem pretty upset for something you don't have the facts on.
I think many of you would flip you sh1t if you spent a few days in court and understood some of the sentences handed down to heinous criminals.
From a distance -- since we're doing that -- 6 months, 3 years of probation and being handed the sexual predator stamp doesn't seem like an out of whack sentence.
-
You seem pretty upset for something you don't have the facts on.
I think many of you would flip you sh1t if you spent a few days in court and understood some of the sentences handed down to heinous criminals.
From a distance -- since we're doing that -- 6 months, 3 years of probation and being handed the sexual predator stamp doesn't seem like an out of whack sentence.
Feel free to educate me and change my mind. I have some facts. And I know he was convicted. I'm open to learning more. But it does seem out of whack to me.
-
You seem pretty upset for something you don't have the facts on.
I think many of you would flip you sh1t if you spent a few days in court and understood some of the sentences handed down to heinous criminals.
From a distance -- since we're doing that -- 6 months, 3 years of probation and being handed the sexual predator stamp doesn't seem like an out of whack sentence.
Low hanging fruit: Anger over length of sentences.
The number of guilty people with sentences of time served/probation/etc. for violent crimes will make your head spin and make people angry.
The number of guilty people with sentences that are radically out of balance with the severity of their offenses will make your head spin and make people angry.
Take your pick.
-
Feel free to educate me and change my mind. I have some facts. And I know he was convicted. I'm open to learning more. But it does seem out of whack to me.
+1. Please do, JayBee.
-
Low hanging fruit: Anger over length of sentences.
The number of guilty people with sentences of time served/probation/etc. for violent crimes will make your head spin and make people angry.
The number of guilty people with sentences that are radically out of balance with the severity of their offenses will make your head spin and make people angry.
Take your pick.
Agreed; white guy, "rich school", college campus... the "outrage of the day" elements are there for the masses to stew over.
There are a lot of lies told on college campuses... that said, in this one, it looks like this guy was just a slimeball/predator. But... the victim here has a history of going out and getting blackout drunk. Her right to do so. Crimes against her are not her fault. But, need to recognize that there are slimeball/predators out there and be careful.
Feel free to educate me and change my mind. I have some facts. And I know he was convicted. I'm open to learning more. But it does seem out of whack to me.
To be clear, I'm saying it doesn't appear out of whack to other sentencing. If you're interested, you can do your own work to educate yourself on the pathetic sentences so many heinous criminals receive.
Out of whack with this one?:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-sues-ex-husband-du-pont-heir-dodged-prison-raping-3-year-old-daughter-article-1.1740180 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-sues-ex-husband-du-pont-heir-dodged-prison-raping-3-year-old-daughter-article-1.1740180)
-
Agreed; white guy, "rich school", college campus... the "outrage of the day" elements are there for the masses to stew over.
...
I was really only pointing out that it's very easy to be outraged at length of sentences long and short when your sample size is one. I just saw a felony sex offender registration violation with bail jumping (skipped his trial) ultimately plead guilty and be sentenced to... 12 days, with credit for 12 days time served.
[cue outrage]
The number of examples where a defendant did something we might call nonserious (drug possession comes to mind) where they get years in prison are also legion.
[cue outrage]
Felon in possession of a firearm in Milwaukee? Odds are you don't see a long sentence
[cue outrage]
And the examples go on, and on, and on, the point is simply that people reacting with outrage to the length of a sentence is a routine as waking up in the morning.
-
Well we can all pick out specific examples of both over and under sentencing.
But he was convicted on three counts:
assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman
sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and
sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object
If people convicted on similar counts are given similar sentences, then I can understand the judge's decision here. However, that doesn't seem to be the case given the statements by the prosecutor. Furthermore, what I have a problem with, is that the judge seems to view the use of alcohol by both parties as a mitigating sentencing factor - and I find that bizarre.
-
If people convicted on similar counts are given similar sentences, then I can understand the judge's decision here. However, that doesn't seem to be the case given the statements by the prosecutor. Furthermore, what I have a problem with, is that the judge seems to view the use of alcohol by both parties as a mitigating sentencing factor - and I find that bizarre.
Similar counts, with similar circumstances (first time offender, setting, etc)... yeah, not wild. People are convicted for far worse things all the time, yet see only probation.
"doesn't seem to be the case given the statements by the prosecutor"... well, duh.
How do you feel about the probation officer's recommendation to the court in this particular case?
-
From a distance -- since we're doing that -- 6 months, 3 years of probation and being handed the sexual predator stamp doesn't seem like an out of whack sentence.
For rape?
I guess so - as long as it's someone else's daughter.
-
For rape?
I guess so - as long as it's someone else's daughter.
FWIW judge's shouldn't hand down sentences based on how severe they would be were the victim their own loved one. That's saying to the judge "Justice is revenge. Be our revenge proxy, please!" If that's really how you want sentences meted out then why bother with a range? Everyone's getting the max, always.
-
I'll be honest, I'm some scales I think rape is worse than murder. The comments from the dad man...just awful. My parents would never defend me if I did something like that, as the shouldn't.
-
FWIW judge's shouldn't hand down sentences based on how severe they would be were the victim their own loved one. That's saying to the judge "Justice is revenge. Be our revenge proxy, please!" If that's really how you want sentences meted out then why bother with a range? Everyone's getting the max, always.
Well said.
-
For rape?
I guess so - as long as it's someone else's daughter.
Family, not family. Stunningly "small" punishments (http://www.kpax.com/story/32018842/no-jail-time-for-missoula-man-who-sexually-assaulting-a-teen) are handed out to convicts with great regularity.
-
FWIW judge's shouldn't hand down sentences based on how severe they would be were the victim their own loved one. That's saying to the judge "Justice is revenge. Be our revenge proxy, please!" If that's really how you want sentences meted out then why bother with a range? Everyone's getting the max, always.
I agree completely.
I said that in reference to how a poster would feel.
-
FWIW judge's shouldn't hand down sentences based on how severe they would be were the victim their own loved one. That's saying to the judge "Justice is revenge. Be our revenge proxy, please!" If that's really how you want sentences meted out then why bother with a range? Everyone's getting the max, always.
I also agree with this.
-
I'll be honest, I think rape is worse than murder. The comments from the dad man...just awful. My parents would never defend me if I did something like that, as the shouldn't.
Agree. Anyone can hold a gun, make a movement with their finger that kills. Anyone.
Rapists, to do what they do .. take a special kind of animal.
-
Similar counts, with similar circumstances (first time offender, setting, etc)... yeah, not wild. People are convicted for far worse things all the time, yet see only probation.
Having spent nearly 20 years of my career in criminal courtrooms, this statement simply is nowhere close to true. I absolutely have seen cases in which where someone who committed an equally egregious crime received only probation, but it's rare. Suggesting that people convicted of "far worse things" than raping an unconscious victim get probation "all the time" does not square with reality.
In fact, according to this federal report, 68 percent of those convicted of a sex assault went prison, another 19 percent did time in a county jail and only 13 percent got straight probation. And, obviously, these includes cases that pleaded out, which usually results in lesser sentences than cases that go to trial.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF
So, no, this doesn't happen "all the time."
How do you feel about the probation officer's recommendation to the court in this particular case?
Judges impose harsher sentences than probation recommends all the time.
-
Agreed; white guy, "rich school", college campus... the "outrage of the day" elements are there for the masses to stew over.
There are a lot of lies told on college campuses... that said, in this one, it looks like this guy was just a slimeball/predator. But... the victim here has a history of going out and getting blackout drunk. Her right to do so. Crimes against her are not her fault. But, need to recognize that there are slimeball/predators out there and be careful.
It's not her fault ... but it's totally her fault.
-
It's not her fault ... but it's totally her fault.
I've jumped on JB on 'the board that shall not be named' previously, but I don't get that from him here at all - crimes against her are not her fault. Certain behaviors put us in the position to be a victim of a heinous crime more than others, still not her fault or any victims fault. I don't see blame being placed on her.
I'm not a professional in the legal/criminal system so i can't speak on if the sentence is the norm given the circumstances, but as others have said this situation checks every box for looking really bad.
On the dad quote -- yikes.
-
Regarding the dad's statement, it's worth looking at what makes a "good" statement on behalf of a defendant at sentencing.
https://popehat.com/2016/04/29/how-to-write-or-solicit-a-good-letter-supporting-a-defendant-at-sentencing/
Here's a strong section:
"Don't minimize the crime. Why do I have to tell you this? Don't suggest that the crime isn't a big deal. Even if it isn't. That's for the defense lawyer to argue, not you. You're going to undermine the defendant's attempt to show contrition.
Don't attack the victim. You utter moron.
Don't talk about your yacht. When you're talking about how well you know the defendant and how you and the defendant have interacted, avoid emphasizing things that highlight the defendant's life of privilege and/or power. First, it sounds like you're bragging, which is obnoxious. Second, it sounds like you are implying that rich or powerful people should get lower sentences, will will antagonize the judge. Third, it tends to make the defendant look worse: if he or she had so much, why did they do this? Downplay it."
-
I've jumped on JB on 'the board that shall not be named' previously, but I don't get that from him here at all - crimes against her are not her fault. Certain behaviors put us in the position to be a victim of a heinous crime more than others, still not her fault or any victims fault. I don't see blame being placed on her.
If he's not casting at least some of the blame her way, why does he mention her behavior or her "history" of getting drunk. For what other purpose is that relevant, except to put some of the blame on her?
Yes, certain behaviors put us in a position to be a victim of a heinous crime more than others, but why is that logic referenced almost exclusively when we're talking about the victim of a sexual assault.
I don't often hear "Well, it's not the pizza deliveryman's fault he was gunned down in a robbery, but he did choose a dangerous line of work after all" or "It's unfortunate that elderly person fell for a telemarketing scam, but he should have been more careful when answering the phone."
Seems to me that it's primarily when it comes to victims of sexual assault that we focus so much on how the victim put him/herself in a dangerous position. Why?
-
Hate these trial by one-sided media report type things but six months no jail time seems pretty damn light.
Don't second time DUI offenders get mandatory week in the county clink?
-
If he's not casting at least some of the blame her way, why does he mention her behavior or her "history" of getting drunk. For what other purpose is that relevant, except to put some of the blame on her?
Yes, certain behaviors put us in a position to be a victim of a heinous crime more than others, but why is that logic referenced almost exclusively when we're talking about the victim of a sexual assault.
I don't often hear "Well, it's not the pizza deliveryman's fault he was gunned down in a robbery, but he did choose a dangerous line of work after all" or "It's unfortunate that elderly person fell for a telemarketing scam, but he should have been more careful when answering the phone."
Seems to me that it's primarily when it comes to victims of sexual assault that we focus so much on how the victim put him/herself in a dangerous position. Why?
100% agree that using the victims lifestyle/life choices as validation of the crime happens WAY more often with sexual assaults than with other crimes and it is deplorable. I get why some resort to this, both legal defendant and culturally wise, but I'm not going to be the one to stress Rocky out and force the thread to be locked - let it be enough to acknowledge it exists and where it exists it's absolutely wrong.
I just didn't get that from his mentioning her specific life choices in this case.
-
Regardless of the sentence, it was heartbreaking to read the victim's statement. I hope she can regain some sense of normalcy in her life.
-
Some of the comments in here are what make this country what it is today.
"In other sexual assault cases some people get probation or short sentences." That doesn't make it all good. That's the issue. Lock these people up for years. Who cares what her life choices are in regards to alcohol or even drug use? That doesn't have anything to do with this. The whole, "This isn't the only time this happens/example of this happening" excuse for everything bad that happens is sad and disturbing.
-
The Onion, as always, get it right.
http://www.theonion.com/article/wealthy-teen-nearly-experiences-consequence-2551
-
The Onion, as always, get it right.
http://www.theonion.com/article/wealthy-teen-nearly-experiences-consequence-2551
The Onion, Nostradamus?
http://www.theonion.com/video/college-basketball-star-heroically-overcomes-tragi-19097
-
FWIW judge's shouldn't hand down sentences based on how severe they would be were the victim their own loved one. That's saying to the judge "Justice is revenge. Be our revenge proxy, please!" If that's really how you want sentences meted out then why bother with a range? Everyone's getting the max, always.
If everyone got the max, would that necessarily be a bad thing? Any chance that would be a crime deterrent?
You stole a pack of gum from a convenience store? 30 days in jail!
-
The Onion, as always, get it right.
http://www.theonion.com/article/wealthy-teen-nearly-experiences-consequence-2551
One of the things that bothered me about the Stanford situation is that it was reported that, in making a sentencing recommendation, the probation officer mentioned the fact that he had lost his swimming scholarship as an element of punishment. The implication, of course, is that if he had not had a scholarship to lose a more severe sentence might have been appropriate.
-
If everyone got the max, would that necessarily be a bad thing? Any chance that would be a crime deterrent?
You stole a pack of gum from a convenience store? 30 days in jail!
Then why have the range in the first place? Why not just say Crime X gets Punishment Y? Why bother with Crime X could get Punishment 1Y - 10Y, but always gets 10Y?
Over the evolution of the criminal justice system in the US, we've settled (for the most part) on the idea of blending punitive and rehabilitative sentencing. We've also settled (for the most part) on giving the authority to affix sentences within a range to the judiciary. Other societies have done so differently.
You are advocating for a much different system than we have currently.
As to the merits of what you propose? Well, I'd say that severe punitive sentencing as deterrence works to an extent, but there are still thieves in societies that cut thieves' hands off, so there's probably a point of diminishing returns. Paying to house petty criminals in already overcrowded prisons would also seem like a complication in your plan.
-
Then why have the range in the first place? Why not just say Crime X gets Punishment Y? Why bother with Crime X could get Punishment 1Y - 10Y, but always gets 10Y?
Over the evolution of the criminal justice system in the US, we've settled (for the most part) on the idea of blending punitive and rehabilitative sentencing. We've also settled (for the most part) on giving the authority to affix sentences within a range to the judiciary. Other societies have done so differently.
You are advocating for a much different system than we have currently.
As to the merits of what you propose? Well, I'd say that severe punitive sentencing as deterrence works to an extent, but there are still thieves in societies that cut thieves' hands off, so there's probably a point of diminishing returns. Paying to house petty criminals in already overcrowded prisons would also seem like a complication in your plan.
How about canings? ;)
My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I do, however, feel that part of the crime issues in this country are a result of punishments not being strict enough. I don't want to turn this into any sort of political debate though so I'll just leave it at that.
-
How about canings? ;)
My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I do, however, feel that part of the crime issues in this country are a result of punishments not being strict enough. I don't want to turn this into any sort of political debate though so I'll just leave it at that.
Some people might enjoy that kind of punishment...
-
Some people might enjoy that kind of punishment...
Well played.
-
If he's not casting at least some of the blame her way, why does he mention her behavior or her "history" of getting drunk. For what other purpose is that relevant, except to put some of the blame on her?
Yes, certain behaviors put us in a position to be a victim of a heinous crime more than others, but why is that logic referenced almost exclusively when we're talking about the victim of a sexual assault.
I don't often hear "Well, it's not the pizza deliveryman's fault he was gunned down in a robbery, but he did choose a dangerous line of work after all" or "It's unfortunate that elderly person fell for a telemarketing scam, but he should have been more careful when answering the phone."
Seems to me that it's primarily when it comes to victims of sexual assault that we focus so much on how the victim put him/herself in a dangerous position. Why?
Having a dangerous job or simply growing old is not analogous to engaging in voluntary (and dangerous) behavior that renders one helpless against any number of crimes (robbery, assault, sexual assault, etc.). If suburban teenagers go into into dangerous areas of a city to buy drugs and get assaulted (or worse) their stupid behavior is partially responsible for those consequences. Doesn't exonerate the perpetrators, but it alters some people's view of the victims.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/stanford-sexual-assault-judge-recall
https://www.change.org/p/california-state-house-recall-judge-aaron-persky
-
Having a dangerous job or simply growing old is not analogous to engaging in voluntary (and dangerous) behavior that renders one helpless against any number of crimes (robbery, assault, sexual assault, etc.). If suburban teenagers go into into dangerous areas of a city to buy drugs and get assaulted (or worse) their stupid behavior is partially responsible for those consequences. Doesn't exonerate the perpetrators, but it alters some people's view of the victims.
So getting drunk at a college party is analogous to going into a dangerous part of the inner city to engage in illegal activity with known criminals?
That's asinine.
-
So getting drunk at a college party is analogous to going into a dangerous part of the inner city to engage in illegal activity with known criminals?
That's asinine.
Wrong. Public drunk (3x the legal limit in this case, so essentially comatose) can be a misdemeanor and is extremely reckless and dangerous behavior on a number of levels. Buying drugs is a misdemeanor and can be extremely reckless and dangerous behavior on a number of level, too. Both choices exponentially increase one's chances that he or she will end up the victim of a crime. Still victims, yes. But victim's whose own bad choices put themselves at risk.
Want asinine? Making an analogy comparing the "risks" that people "choose" simply by aging to the risks one chooses by going to a party and drinking oneself comatose. That's asinine.
-
I think the linked article is ambiguous. If read quickly, one could come away with that conclusion. It states that the Judge considered the jury's recommendation -- and chooses that spot to list the maximum. But it definitely does not state that was the jury's recommendation. I read in another article that the prosecutor recommended six years. I haven't seen what the jury recommended -- or if they even made a recommendation.
Doesn't the jury typically decide the sentence in these cases (even though the judge has the final say)? Do we even know whether or not the jury recommended six months or if the judge reduced the juries recommendation?
-
Wrong. Public drunk (3x the legal limit in this case, so essentially comatose) can be a misdemeanor and is extremely reckless and dangerous behavior on a number of levels. Buying drugs is a misdemeanor and can be extremely reckless and dangerous behavior on a number of level, too. Both choices exponentially increase one's chances that he or she will end up the victim of a crime. Still victims, yes. But victim's whose own bad choices put themselves at risk.
Want asinine? Making an analogy comparing the "risks" that people "choose" simply by aging to the risks one chooses by going to a party and drinking oneself comatose. That's asinine.
OK. Blame the victim.
She probably shouldn't have dressed so provocatively either.
-
Doesn't the jury typically decide the sentence in these cases (even though the judge has the final say)? Do we even know whether or not the jury recommended six months or if the judge reduced the juries recommendation?
No.
Juries almost never have a say in sentencing, except in capital cases in some states. Even then, under certain circumstances a judge often can set aside the jury's decision.
-
No.
Juries almost never have a say in sentencing, except in capital cases in some states. Even then, under certain circumstances a judge often can set aside the jury's decision.
So can one conclude that the six months' sentence was entirely the judge's discretion/decision in this case?
Also, does double jeopardy apply to sentencing, i.e. the prosecution can't appeal the judgement, but can the sentence be appealed by the prosecution?
-
So can one conclude that the six months' sentence was entirely the judge's discretion/decision in this case?
Also, does double jeopardy apply to sentencing, i.e. the prosecution can't appeal the judgement, but can the sentence be appealed by the prosecution?
In every jurisdiction of which I'm aware, a judge has sentencing discretion within a set of statutory parameters set out by the legislature. For example, in Illinois, the legislature has made aggravated criminal sexual assault a Class X felony with a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years in prison without the possibility of probation. The judge has discretion to sentence anywhere within that range, but can't go above or below (unless the legislature allows it for additional aggravating factors, such as use of a firearm).
Much has been made over the years about federal sentencing guidelines, especially in drug cases, that are so narrow that they essentially strip the judge of sentencing authority.
Does that explanation make sense?
Prosecutors could appeal a sentence if the judge imposed one outside his statutory authority or based on a miscalculation of the sentencing range, but not simply on the basis they think it's too lenient.
From what I've been able to find, the normal sentencing range in the Stanford swimmer's case was between two and 14 years in prison. However, the laws but there was an exception (which the judge obviously took advantage of) that allows something lighter if the court finds special circumstances exist.
-
In every jurisdiction of which I'm aware, a judge has sentencing discretion within a set of statutory parameters set out by the legislature. For example, in Illinois, the legislature has made aggravated criminal sexual assault a Class X felony with a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years in prison without the possibility of probation. The judge has discretion to sentence anywhere within that range, but can't go above or below (unless the legislature allows it for additional aggravating factors, such as use of a firearm).
Much has been made over the years about federal sentencing guidelines, especially in drug cases, that are so narrow that they essentially strip the judge of sentencing authority.
Does that explanation make sense?
Prosecutors could appeal a sentence if the judge imposed one outside his statutory authority or based on a miscalculation of the sentencing range, but not simply on the basis they think it's too lenient.
From what I've been able to find, the normal sentencing range in the Stanford swimmer's case was between two and 14 years in prison. However, the laws but there was an exception (which the judge obviously took advantage of) that allows something lighter if the court finds special circumstances exist.
It's sickening to think that - even under special circumstances - one can be convicted of rape in California yet only have to serve 6 months behind bars but in Illinois it's 6 years. It's not often I can say that I'm glad I live in Illinois.
-
It's sickening to think that - even under special circumstances - one can be convicted of rape in California yet only have to serve 6 months behind bars but in Illinois it's 6 years. It's not often I can say that I'm glad I live in Illinois.
Well, not to get too technical, but a plain old rape in Illinois would just be criminal sexual assault, which carries a 4-15 year sentence. Aggravated criminal sexual assualt requires an "aggravating factor" such as use of a weapon, a threat against the victim's life, an elderly or minor victim, it taking place during the commission of another felony (such as a robbery), etc.
But yeah, unless he cut a deal to plead to something that didn't involve penetration (i.e. criminal sexual abuse), Brock Turner would be required to serve time in prison had he been been convicted of the same thing in Illinois.
-
Scathing comments by Mike Golic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-golic-brock-turner_us_5756d7aae4b0b60682dee524?cps=gravity_2425_-602206996891735510
-
OK. Blame the victim.
She probably shouldn't have dressed so provocatively either.
You're being intentionally obtuse. A person who willfully consumes enough alcohol to be 3x the legal limit is engaging in stupid, self destructive behavior that can result in dire consequences. There is a far greater chance that you will do things to hurt yourself or others when you are intoxicated x 3. She owns the fact that she put herself in that state. For that she deserves blame.
But she doesn't deserve blame for being raped. Nobody deserves blame for that except the rapist. Her being drunk (or his being drunk) doesn't mitigate his guilt.
I will, however, reserve the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people. If a guy steals your car that's on him. He should go to prison regardless of the circumstances. And you'll be the victim no matter the circumstances. But if you left the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition I'll view your behavior and lack of responsibility differently than if the guy broke into your locked car and hot wired it.
Finally, comparing engaging in behavior which leaves one totally defenseless with fashion choices is disappointing and unworthy of one with your intellect
-
You're being intentionally obtuse. A person who willfully consumes enough alcohol to be 3x the legal limit is engaging in stupid, self destructive behavior that can result in dire consequences. There is a far greater chance that you will do things to hurt yourself or others when you are intoxicated x 3. She owns the fact that she put herself in that state. For that she deserves blame.
But she doesn't deserve blame for being raped. Nobody deserves blame for that except the rapist. Her being drunk (or his being drunk) doesn't mitigate his guilt.
I will, however, reserve the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people. If a guy steals your car that's on him. He should go to prison regardless of the circumstances. And you'll be the victim no matter the circumstances. But if you left the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition I'll view your behavior and lack of responsibility differently than if the guy broke into your locked car and hot wired it.
Finally, comparing engaging in behavior which leaves one totally defenseless with fashion choices is disappointing and unworthy of one with your intellect
Nobody deserves any blame for "making themselves vulnerable towards bad people." Because you went out and drank too much doesn't mean you're just putting yourself out there and begging to be raped. That is beyond absurd.
If she got so drunk she blacked out, fell down and broke her ankle because she couldn't see straight and couldn't walk straight then that's on her. Her being raped while she is passed out is not on her one bit, and it's disgusting to suggest otherwise.
-
You're being intentionally obtuse. A person who willfully consumes enough alcohol to be 3x the legal limit is engaging in stupid, self destructive behavior that can result in dire consequences. There is a far greater chance that you will do things to hurt yourself or others when you are intoxicated x 3. She owns the fact that she put herself in that state. For that she deserves blame.
But she doesn't deserve blame for being raped. Nobody deserves blame for that except the rapist. Her being drunk (or his being drunk) doesn't mitigate his guilt.
I will, however, reserve the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people.
Someone should be careful with alcohol consumption because they shouldn't want bad things to happen to them. I get that. We preach it here all of the time.
But to be less sympathetic to them because they did it anyway and were the victim of a violent crime? I find this to be pretty reprehensible. And the problem is it should be irrelevant anyway - but it isn't.
-
You're being intentionally obtuse. A person who willfully consumes enough alcohol to be 3x the legal limit is engaging in stupid, self destructive behavior that can result in dire consequences. There is a far greater chance that you will do things to hurt yourself or others when you are intoxicated x 3. She owns the fact that she put herself in that state. For that she deserves blame.
But she doesn't deserve blame for being raped. Nobody deserves blame for that except the rapist. Her being drunk (or his being drunk) doesn't mitigate his guilt.
I will, however, reserve the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people. If a guy steals your car that's on him. He should go to prison regardless of the circumstances. And you'll be the victim no matter the circumstances. But if you left the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition I'll view your behavior and lack of responsibility differently than if the guy broke into your locked car and hot wired it.
Finally, comparing engaging in behavior which leaves one totally defenseless with fashion choices is disappointing and unworthy of one with your intellect
You realize, of course, that there's no such thing as a legal limit for intoxication, right?
The legal limit is merely the presumed state of intoxication for a person driving a vehicle. It has no meaning otherwise.
Except, I suppose, as a means to blame someone for being the victim of a crime. And, wouldn't you know it, almost exclusively female victims of sex assault. I've never heard anyone make an issue of a robbery victim's blood-alcohol level, have you?
Again, her state of intoxication is irrelevant here.
Your analogies continue to be atrocious, I'm afraid. Drunk women are akin to unlocked cars?
She left her vagina running with the door wide open. It's only natural that some guy would come along, hop in and take her for a joy ride?
-
In every jurisdiction of which I'm aware, a judge has sentencing discretion within a set of statutory parameters set out by the legislature. For example, in Illinois, the legislature has made aggravated criminal sexual assault a Class X felony with a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years in prison without the possibility of probation. The judge has discretion to sentence anywhere within that range, but can't go above or below (unless the legislature allows it for additional aggravating factors, such as use of a firearm).
Much has been made over the years about federal sentencing guidelines, especially in drug cases, that are so narrow that they essentially strip the judge of sentencing authority.
Does that explanation make sense?
Prosecutors could appeal a sentence if the judge imposed one outside his statutory authority or based on a miscalculation of the sentencing range, but not simply on the basis they think it's too lenient.
From what I've been able to find, the normal sentencing range in the Stanford swimmer's case was between two and 14 years in prison. However, the laws but there was an exception (which the judge obviously took advantage of) that allows something lighter if the court finds special circumstances exist.
Sentencing guidelines have been deemed by SCOTUS to be discretionary on the Federal Level. Most states have followed that and made their guidelines discretionary as well.
The prosecution can and make an affirmative appeal that this sentence was an abuse of judicial discretion. That, however, is a very big hurdle to overcome.
-
Sentencing guidelines have been deemed by SCOTUS to be discretionary on the Federal Level. Most states have followed that and made their guidelines discretionary as well.
Well, not exactly. Booker gave federal courts more discretion to consider factors that might allow them to stray from the guidelines under certain circumstances, but it didn't remove the guidelines.
-
She left her vagina running with the door wide open. It's only natural that some guy would come along, hop in and take her for a joy ride?
Actually, a vagina that's running is probably more of a deterrent than an invitation.
-
Well, not exactly. Booker gave federal courts more discretion to consider factors that might allow them to stray from the guidelines under certain circumstances, but it didn't remove the guidelines.
Correct, hence my statement that they are now discretionary
-
Your analogies continue to be atrocious, I'm afraid. Drunk women are akin to unlocked cars?
She left her vagina running with the door wide open. It's only natural that some guy would come along, hop in and take her for a joy ride?
My analogy was about personal responsibility or the lack thereof, not about vaginas, drunk women and unlocked cars. Given your analogy that drunk women are like old people, I shouldn't have expected you to understand.
Look, we both agree that victims are victims and perps are perps. And that victims need to be protected by the system and perps need to be prosecuted.
I think that victims who engage in irresponsible behavior that radically increases their chances of some kind of (accidental or criminal) horrible consequence are not without responsibility. You disagree. C'est la vie.
-
You realize, of course, that there's no such thing as a legal limit for intoxication, right?
The legal limit is merely the presumed state of intoxication for a person driving a vehicle. It has no meaning otherwise.
Except, I suppose, as a means to blame someone for being the victim of a crime. And, wouldn't you know it, almost exclusively female victims of sex assault. I've never heard anyone make an issue of a robbery victim's blood-alcohol level, have you?
Again, her state of intoxication is irrelevant here.
Your analogies continue to be atrocious, I'm afraid. Drunk women are akin to unlocked cars?
She left her vagina running with the door wide open. It's only natural that some guy would come along, hop in and take her for a joy ride?
What Lenny is trying to say makes sense to me. Of course the rapist is the guilty party and of course nobody should have to endure what she endured and she didn't deserve it and she didn't ask for it. None of that is what Lenny is saying. But logic dictates that if she didn't get blackout drunk this wouldn't have happened to her (or at least it would be exponentially less likely). So her behavior had a direct correlation to her gut-wrenchingly awful attack. I have total and complete sympathy for her and that jerk should rot in jail for a lot longer than 6 months.
Lenny's analogies make more sense to me than the ones you guys provided. Of course the big difference is the degree of the crime and the consequences to the victim. Lenny is not saying that what happened to that girl was not devastating or deserved. He is saying that she put herself in a position where something bad might happen to her, and unfortunately, something horrific did.
The fact that she was intoxicated to the point that she doesn't remember what happened does not cause me personally to feel less sympathy for her, but I would not be too quick to condemn someone who, as Lenny puts it, "reserve(s) the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people."
If my child had to be carried into the house because he/she was so drunk that he/she could not stand on his/her own, I would be relieved that no harm came to the kid and would also be disappointed in his/her behavior, as I imagine would all of you.
-
What Lenny is trying to say makes sense to me. Of course the rapist is the guilty party and of course nobody should have to endure what she endured and she didn't deserve it and she didn't ask for it. None of that is what Lenny is saying. But logic dictates that if she didn't get blackout drunk this wouldn't have happened to her (or at least it would be exponentially less likely). So her behavior had a direct correlation to her gut-wrenchingly awful attack. I have total and complete sympathy for her and that jerk should rot in jail for a lot longer than 6 months.
Lenny's analogies make more sense to me than the ones you guys provided. Of course the big difference is the degree of the crime and the consequences to the victim. Lenny is not saying that what happened to that girl was not devastating or deserved. He is saying that she put herself in a position where something bad might happen to her, and unfortunately, something horrific did.
The fact that she was intoxicated to the point that she doesn't remember what happened does not cause me personally to feel less sympathy for her, but I would not be too quick to condemn someone who, as Lenny puts it, "reserve(s) the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people."
If my child had to be carried into the house because he/she was so drunk that he/she could not stand on his/her own, I would be relieved that no harm came to the kid and would also be disappointed in his/her behavior, as I imagine would all of you.
Thank you for understanding (and helping articulate) the intended message.
-
This boils down to whether one believes there is a "spectrum" of rape, or not.
While all rape is awful, I think we can all come up with examples that are extraordinarily heinous and should be punished moreso. Once you conceive that spectrum exists, it opens up the possibility that there are aggravating -- and mitigating circumstances -- surrounding the event that move the event along the spectrum.
Lenny's "car running with the key in" example is an example of a mitigating circumstance surrounding the event. No one should steal a car, no one deserves to have their car stolen.
-
If my child had to be carried into the house because he/she was so drunk that he/she could not stand on his/her own, I would be relieved that no harm came to the kid and would also be disappointed in his/her behavior, as I imagine would all of you.
Right, but that has nothing really to do with the legalities surrounding the case or the sentencing. That is the problem. Too often those lines are blurred.
In fact the law takes extra steps to protect those who get themselves into those situations. Look what he was convicted of.
-
If my child had to be carried into the house because he/she was so drunk that he/she could not stand on his/her own, I would be relieved that no harm came to the kid and would also be disappointed in his/her behavior, as I imagine would all of you.
Any parent would.
But if your child became so drunk he/she could not stand on his/her own and were carried behind a dumpster and sexually assaulted while unconscious, I very much doubt you would argue that he/she bears responsibility for that violation. At least I hope not.
Would it have been better for the victim of the Stanford case to have not become so intoxicated? Sure.
But the fact she was intoxicated ought not make her any less a victim (or less sympathetic) than someone raped while sober, right?
-
This boils down to whether one believes there is a "spectrum" of rape, or not.
While all rape is awful, I think we can all come up with examples that are extraordinarily heinous and should be punished moreso. Once you conceive that spectrum exists, it opens up the possibility that there are aggravating -- and mitigating circumstances -- surrounding the event that move the event along the spectrum.
Lenny's "car running with the key in" example is an example of a mitigating circumstance surrounding the event. No one should steal a car, no one deserves to have their car stolen.
Does the guy who breaks a window to get into my car and steal it deserve to be treated differently than the guy who finds it unlocked with the key sitting on the front seat?
I've never heard of a victim's behavior - outside cases in which a defendant is arguing self defense - being considered as mitigation.
-
What Lenny is trying to say makes sense to me. Of course the rapist is the guilty party and of course nobody should have to endure what she endured and she didn't deserve it and she didn't ask for it. None of that is what Lenny is saying. But logic dictates that if she didn't get blackout drunk this wouldn't have happened to her (or at least it would be exponentially less likely). So her behavior had a direct correlation to her gut-wrenchingly awful attack. I have total and complete sympathy for her and that jerk should rot in jail for a lot longer than 6 months.
Lenny's analogies make more sense to me than the ones you guys provided. Of course the big difference is the degree of the crime and the consequences to the victim. Lenny is not saying that what happened to that girl was not devastating or deserved. He is saying that she put herself in a position where something bad might happen to her, and unfortunately, something horrific did.
The fact that she was intoxicated to the point that she doesn't remember what happened does not cause me personally to feel less sympathy for her, but I would not be too quick to condemn someone who, as Lenny puts it, "reserve(s) the right to feel more sympathetic towards victims who don't conspire to make themselves vulnerable to bad people."
If my child had to be carried into the house because he/she was so drunk that he/she could not stand on his/her own, I would be relieved that no harm came to the kid and would also be disappointed in his/her behavior, as I imagine would all of you.
But aren't we all putting ourselves in that same position by getting out of bed every day?
-
Does the guy who breaks a window to get into my car and steal it deserve to be treated differently than the guy who finds it unlocked with the key sitting on the front seat?
I've never heard of a victim's behavior - outside cases in which a defendant is arguing self defense - being considered as mitigation.
Only one cause to a person being raped...a rapist
-
Does the guy who breaks a window to get into my car and steal it deserve to be treated differently than the guy who finds it unlocked with the key sitting on the front seat?
I've never heard of a victim's behavior - outside cases in which a defendant is arguing self defense - being considered as mitigation.
Good point.
Only one cause to a person being raped...a rapist
Exactly.
-
Oh boy.
-
Does the guy who breaks a window to get into my car and steal it deserve to be treated differently than the guy who finds it unlocked with the key sitting on the front seat?
I've never heard of a victim's behavior - outside cases in which a defendant is arguing self defense - being considered as mitigation.
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?
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.
These victims are equally impacted, yet the crimes are evaluated differently due to the victim's prior acts.
There's a spectrum of crime with aggravating and mitigating factors. And yes, there's a spectrum of people's beliefs on whether the victim's actions mitigate or aggravate -- and endless debate on where each event should be placed on those spectrums.
The judge in this case (we don't know, but) may have been swayed by the circumstances of alcohol and the victim's actions. -- I think most of us believe the judge was too far to one side of that spectrum, including myself.
-
Any parent would.
But if your child became so drunk he/she could not stand on his/her own and were carried behind a dumpster and sexually assaulted while unconscious, I very much doubt you would argue that he/she bears responsibility for that violation. At least I hope not.
Would it have been better for the victim of the Stanford case to have not become so intoxicated? Sure.
But the fact she was intoxicated ought not make her any less a victim (or less sympathetic) than someone raped while sober, right?
One more time. The rapist, car thief, murderer, etc. doesn't (IMO) deserve leniency because the victim's behavior was stupid, reckless or careless. And I'm still sympathetic towards the victim regardless.
However, to me, on a purely PERSONAL level, a victim who was not stupid, reckless or careless - a woman raped in her locked apartment, a person whose car is broken into and stolen, a child killed by a stray bullet while she sits on her porch - is more sympathetic than a blacked out drunk woman who is raped, a car theft victim who left the keys in the car or a gang member murdered by a rival. The latter aren't unsympathetic victims, just not as sympathetic as the former. I believe (and always taught my children) that people have a responsibility to themselves to not make it easy for the bad guys. You disagree. That's OK, I'm not offended. If you want to feel the same amount of sympathy towards all victims regardless of their own responsibility or lack thereof you are certainly entitled. I don't.
-
If we're going to get into arguments of principle, great, let's do that.
Is this appropriate of police?:
1) Person A's car is vandalized. The service door the garage was locked, but the perps gained access. The doors of the vehicle were locked, but they broke in.
2) Person B's car is vandalized. The service door was not locked. The doors of the vehicle were not locked.
Many police will brush off 2) with "lock your stuff up" and do little to no investigation.
Is Person B more responsible for the crime committed against them or are the police wrong?
----------
Let's look at one fairly close to home. Former MU player is convicted of felony assault after he goes up to a female who was a stranger to him, tries to pull down her pants. She grabs her phone to call for help and he punches her face. She finds the phone on the ground, reaches for it again. He punches her again and rides off on a bike. The victim requires reconstructive surgery of her face.
The perp is found guilty of felony assault. No time. Probation only.
While on probation, the perp is found guilty of misdemeanor harassment of another woman. Felony crime = still no time.
Subsequent, while still on probation, perp is found guilty of DUI. Warrant issued for his arrest for the violation of felony assault probation. Goes to court. Walks free with only more probation.
---------------
So, you're convicted of felony assault for trying to pull down a woman's pants, then break her face with multiple punches. You get probation. Then, commit and are found guilty of more crimes while on probation. And just get more probation and community service.
Indeed, criminals get off easily with regularity in the United States.
But this Stanford jagoff's case has key boxes checked for outrage by the masses.
---------
Outrage for Chicago gun violence? Where is it?
-
I'm going to take a different tack on this with a story from my youth.
A fairly large group of guys, myself included, headed to a Brewer's tailgate, game and post game festivities one night. When the caravan of cars showed up to pick me up, I learned that my then girlfriend had joined the group previously unbeknownst to me. No biggie. It was a 'guy's night' but there were a handful of girls along. All good, but it's important to note that neither of us considered it a 'date'. We were each simply part of a larger group. Bottom line, I certainly didn't feel obligated to hang with, or more importantly, watch her.
Anyway, by the end of the night she had been significantly over-served. And 3 super honorable guys (including me) took active responsibility to get her home safely. I think we had to pull over 2-3 times on the drive home so she could step out of the car with assistance to 'get some air'. When we arrived at her house we physically 'carried' her up the stairs to her room and got her safely into bed with a bucket. As one might expect, the noise woke her parents and I caught absolute hell in the hallway for 'doing this' to her while my friends scurried down the stairs. I apologized as best I could and got the heck out.
The next day notwithstanding a bit of a headache I went back over. And her dad stopped me the moment I walked in the door, apologized to me, and thanked me for getting her home safely. I remember him saying that the 'problem' was still asleep upstairs.
I've reminded each of my kids that they are always their sister's keeper. Every time. Stranger, acquaintance or friend. That 3a confrontation in the hallway really sucked. But nothing had happened to her other than one heck of a hangover the next day and for me that tongue lashing was a small price to pay.
-
Especially after a jury of his peers recommended the max, 14 year, sentence.
so what did the judge think? that the jury was all full of chit err something?
-
I'm going to take a different tack on this with a story from my youth.
A fairly large group of guys, myself included, headed to a Brewer's tailgate, game and post game festivities one night. When the caravan of cars showed up to pick me up, I learned that my then girlfriend had joined the group previously unbeknownst to me. No biggie. It was a 'guy's night' but there were a handful of girls along. All good, but it's important to note that neither of us considered it a 'date'. We were each simply part of a larger group. Bottom line, I certainly didn't feel obligated to hang with, or more importantly, watch her.
Anyway, by the end of the night she had been significantly over-served. And 3 super honorable guys (including me) took active responsibility to get her home safely. I think we had to pull over 2-3 times on the drive home so she could step out of the car with assistance to 'get some air'. When we arrived at her house we physically 'carried' her up the stairs to her room and got her safely into bed with a bucket. As one might expect, the noise woke her parents and I caught absolute hell in the hallway for 'doing this' to her while my friends scurried down the stairs. I apologized as best I could and got the heck out.
The next day notwithstanding a bit of a headache I went back over. And her dad stopped me the moment I walked in the door, apologized to me, and thanked me for getting her home safely. I remember him saying that the 'problem' was still asleep upstairs.
I've reminded each of my kids that they are always their sister's keeper. Every time. Stranger, acquaintance or friend. That 3a confrontation in the hallway really sucked. But nothing had happened to her other than one heck of a hangover the next day and for me that tongue lashing was a small price to pay.
that is a nice story. but ya can't leave us hangin here...so tell us, did she become mrs. glow?
-
that is a nice story. but ya can't leave us hangin here...so tell us, did she become mrs. glow?
No.
-
No.
oh shoot! that's right. you're the mrs. ya do have to admit though, if that were my daughter, i would have given mr. glow at least a couple of goats, a chicken and the back forty for him to marry her-hein'er hey?
-
that is a nice story. but ya can't leave us hangin here...so tell us, did she become mrs. glow?
Nope. But perhaps the scariest realization is that one of that 'large group of 20-30 guys' (not one of the 3) has become quite infamous in recent years. So you can never be too careful.
-
If we're going to get into arguments of principle, great, let's do that.
Is this appropriate of police?:
1) Person A's car is vandalized. The service door the garage was locked, but the perps gained access. The doors of the vehicle were locked, but they broke in.
2) Person B's car is vandalized. The service door was not locked. The doors of the vehicle were not locked.
Many police will brush off 2) with "lock your stuff up" and do little to no investigation.
Is Person B more responsible for the crime committed against them or are the police wrong?
Person B is NOT more responsible. Yes, the police are wrong.
In my case, my van was broken into twice - both times a window was broken to gain entry. Thereafter, I left the van unlocked. I just made sure nothing of value was inside.
The police said "we'll write up a report. You can pick it up tomorrow to send to your insurance company". That WAS the entire investigation.
-
Person B is NOT more responsible. Yes, the police are wrong.
In my case, my van was broken into twice - both times a window was broken to gain entry. Thereafter, I left the van unlocked. I just made sure nothing of value was inside.
The police said "we'll write up a report. You can pick it up tomorrow to send to your insurance company". That WAS the entire investigation.
+1.
When someone drinks too much they should have to expect a hangover, not to be raped. It's really that simple.
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13332777_1151980981519325_2177203313262081833_n.jpg?oh=49512f273b1281fc831e420668ab195c&oe=57CCE398)
-
+1.
When someone drinks too much they should have to expect a hangover, not to be raped. It's really that simple.
Not to mention that the law protects people who drink too much.
-
Just want to throw this in the mix: getting the sex offender label differs from state to state.
Article from two years ago, but look at the discrepancies then:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_offender_registry_laws_by_state_mapped.html
And there's no federal database, just shared information between states: https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Registry?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
"States apply differing sets of criteria dictating which offenders are required to be listed on public databases. Some states use scientific risk assessment tools to determine the future risk of the offender and exclude low-risk offenders from public database. In some states, offenders are categorized according to the tier level related to the listed offense. Duration of registration vary usually from 10 years to life depending on the state legislation and tier/risk- category. Some states exclude low tier offenders from public registries while in others, all offenders are publicly listed.[34] Some states offer possibility to petition to be removed from the registry under certain circumstances."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry#United_States
-
I'm going to take a different tack on this with a story from my youth.
A fairly large group of guys, myself included, headed to a Brewer's tailgate, game and post game festivities one night. When the caravan of cars showed up to pick me up, I learned that my then girlfriend had joined the group previously unbeknownst to me. No biggie. It was a 'guy's night' but there were a handful of girls along. All good, but it's important to note that neither of us considered it a 'date'. We were each simply part of a larger group. Bottom line, I certainly didn't feel obligated to hang with, or more importantly, watch her.
Anyway, by the end of the night she had been significantly over-served. And 3 super honorable guys (including me) took active responsibility to get her home safely. I think we had to pull over 2-3 times on the drive home so she could step out of the car with assistance to 'get some air'. When we arrived at her house we physically 'carried' her up the stairs to her room and got her safely into bed with a bucket. As one might expect, the noise woke her parents and I caught absolute hell in the hallway for 'doing this' to her while my friends scurried down the stairs. I apologized as best I could and got the heck out.
The next day notwithstanding a bit of a headache I went back over. And her dad stopped me the moment I walked in the door, apologized to me, and thanked me for getting her home safely. I remember him saying that the 'problem' was still asleep upstairs.
I've reminded each of my kids that they are always their sister's keeper. Every time. Stranger, acquaintance or friend. That 3a confrontation in the hallway really sucked. But nothing had happened to her other than one heck of a hangover the next day and for me that tongue lashing was a small price to pay.
+1. When in battle, traveling overseas on business or out in groups partying, never leave anyone behind....
-
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13332777_1151980981519325_2177203313262081833_n.jpg?oh=49512f273b1281fc831e420668ab195c&oe=57CCE398)
Do you believe drinking yourself into a blackout state makes you more susceptible to bad things happening to you? "Oh, I've been blackout drunk like 7 times... let's party!"... it SHOULD BE a fine idea.. there is no guilt in doing so.
Is it a risky behavior? Absolutely. There are many people and situations which show getting obliterated, blackout drunk is a risky behavior. You should be able to do so, and you can, but please remember there are dirty criminals out there who may seize an opportunity.
But...
If we are going to tell girls who like to go out and get black out drunk "oh, it's fine.. go ahead"... should we not say the same to those who leave their doors unlocked?
-
Do you believe drinking yourself into a blackout state makes you more susceptible to bad things happening to you? "Oh, I've been blackout drunk like 7 times... let's party!"... it SHOULD BE a fine idea.. there is no guilt in doing so.
Is it a risky behavior? Absolutely. There are many people and situations which show getting obliterated, blackout drunk is a risky behavior. You should be able to do so, and you can, but please remember there are dirty criminals out there who may seize an opportunity.
But...
If we are going to tell girls who like to go out and get black out drunk "oh, it's fine.. go ahead"... should we not say the same to those who leave their doors unlocked?
Plenty of people are sexually assualted without any drugs or alcohol in them. Just like plenty of people are robbed without any drugs or alcohol in them (myself included), plenty locked cars (my sister's included) and homes are broken into, etc.
The victims share the exact same amount of blame in any of those circumstances, intoxicated or not. Zero.
-
Do you believe drinking yourself into a blackout state makes you more susceptible to bad things happening to you? "Oh, I've been blackout drunk like 7 times... let's party!"... it SHOULD BE a fine idea.. there is no guilt in doing so.
Is it a risky behavior? Absolutely. There are many people and situations which show getting obliterated, blackout drunk is a risky behavior. You should be able to do so, and you can, but please remember there are dirty criminals out there who may seize an opportunity.
But...
If we are going to tell girls who like to go out and get black out drunk "oh, it's fine.. go ahead"... should we not say the same to those who leave their doors unlocked?
Do you feel that criminals who victimize those who open the doors to victimization should be punished less because they committed a simpler crime?
Because if not, I'm not sure of the point you're making
-
What it boils down to is this:
Should an assailant receive a lesser sentence because the victim deliberately put herself into a vulnerable position? No.
Does the victim deserve a few rounds of "I told you so" for putting herself into a vulnerable position? Probably not.
Should this be held out as an example of what not to do if you'd prefer to avoid having something bad happen to you? Absolutely.
-
What it boils down to is this:
Should an assailant receive a lesser sentence because the victim deliberately put herself into a vulnerable position? No.
Does the victim deserve a few rounds of "I told you so" for putting herself into a vulnerable position? Probably not.
Should this be held out as an example of what not to do if you'd prefer to avoid having something bad happen to you? Absolutely.
Yes. That should be universally be agreed upon
-
What it boils down to is this:
Should an assailant receive a lesser sentence because the victim deliberately put herself into a vulnerable position? No.
Does the victim deserve a few rounds of "I told you so" for putting herself into a vulnerable position? Probably not.
Should this be held out as an example of what not to do if you'd prefer to avoid having something bad happen to you? Absolutely.
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."
-
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."
True. But those aren't mutually exclusive (i.e., that's a strawman). As a father of three teenage daughters (and as a decent human being), I am firmly in agreement with those arguing against blaming the victim (but I don't think anyone here is taking the contrary position). But you can be damn sure I'm going to teach my daughters that it can be a dangerous world out there when you're overly intoxicated. That's good parenting, and doesn't mean for a second that I'd blame them if they were raped while overly intoxicated.
-
Right, but that has nothing really to do with the legalities surrounding the case or the sentencing. That is the problem. Too often those lines are blurred.
In fact the law takes extra steps to protect those who get themselves into those situations. Look what he was convicted of.
As far as legal ramifications and sentencing, I agree with you 100%. The fact that the victim was more vulnerable should not be a mitigating factor when determining the punishment of the offender.
-
Any parent would.
But if your child became so drunk he/she could not stand on his/her own and were carried behind a dumpster and sexually assaulted while unconscious, I very much doubt you would argue that he/she bears responsibility for that violation. At least I hope not. - I would not blame him/her for being violated, but I would understand that he/she was responsible for the poor decisions that made him/her vulnerable. This does not mean that the perpetrator is somehow less responsible.
Would it have been better for the victim of the Stanford case to have not become so intoxicated? Sure.
But the fact she was intoxicated ought not make her any less a victim (or less sympathetic) than someone raped while sober, right? To me personally? No. But I understand the reasoning why someone would. I think everybody basically agrees about this, and this is an argument about not much. I think we all agree that the vulnerable state of the victim in no way excuses or mitigates the actions of the rapist and he is solely responsible for the crime. I think we all also agree that its probably not a good idea to get blackout drunk and that (though it shouldn't) increases your chances of harm to you or caused by you. How you describe that in terms of "blame" is just semantics.
-
True. But those aren't mutually exclusive (i.e., that's a strawman). As a father of three teenage daughters (and as a decent human being), I am firmly in agreement with those arguing against blaming the victim (but I don't think anyone here is taking the contrary position). But you can be damn sure I'm going to teach my daughters that it can be a dangerous world out there when you're overly intoxicated. That's good parenting, and doesn't mean for a second that I'd blame them if they were raped while overly intoxicated.
Absolutely bad things can happen when you are overly intoxicated and it's smart to know your limit. But in my opinion there is ever a case of someone being raped where you should use it "as an example of what not to do if you prefer to avoid having something bad happen to you." Blacking out while drinking does not cause rape. The fact that someone was raped while they were blacked out was not because the victim was blacked out. The only example that should be held up is not to be the scum that rapes someone. Don't be Brock Turner is the only example that should be held up. Otherwise if we tell people, "If you want to avoid being raped then don't get black out drunk," and someone gets raped without drugs or alcohol in his or her system, is he or she going to think that they somehow opened up the opportunity for someone to rape them that wasn't involving alcohol? I don't think sending the message, "This action opens up the possibility of someone raping you" is a good example, ever.
-
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."
-
Absolutely bad things can happen when you are overly intoxicated and it's smart to know your limit. But in my opinion there is ever a case of someone being raped where you should use it "as an example of what not to do if you prefer to avoid having something bad happen to you." Blacking out while drinking does not cause rape. The fact that someone was raped while they were blacked out was not because the victim was blacked out. The only example that should be held up is not to be the scum that rapes someone. Don't be Brock Turner is the only example that should be held up. Otherwise if we tell people, "If you want to avoid being raped then don't get black out drunk," and someone gets raped without drugs or alcohol in his or her system, is he or she going to think that they somehow opened up the opportunity for someone to rape them that wasn't involving alcohol? I don't think sending the message, "This action opens up the possibility of someone raping you" is a good example, ever.
Colleges and universities focus awareness on three things.
1. Don't put yourself in bad situations.
2. Watch out for your friends who get into bad situations or if you see something bad about to happen, try to prevent it from happening.
3. Don't rape people.
Very simplistic I know but what works is a multi-pronged approach. You just can't tell potential victims "don't get drunk because bad things might happen to you." You just can't tell potential rapists not to rape.
-
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"?
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
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.
No, a girl blacking out at a frat party is not instigating someone to rape her. Nobody ever said any such thing.
What you're really having an insanely hard time with is logic and concepts (like spectrum).
-
No, a girl blacking out at a frat party is not instigating someone to rape her. Nobody ever said any such thing.
What you're really having an insanely hard time with is logic and concepts (like spectrum).
...he brought up a 5 year old being killed in crossfire vs. a 25 year old with a gun instigating a shootout being killed...
-
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?
How is this relevant to the case at hand?
-
How is this relevant to the case at hand?
It's not. It's was a demonstration in response to the lunacy that there is no spectrum as to how the average person reacts to two different victims given the respective circumstances.
...he brought up a 5 year old being killed in crossfire vs. a 25 year old with a gun instigating a shootout being killed...
Read the above, and go back and re-read the rest.
EDIT: It seems that people are having problem with there being two parallel discussions going on here:
1) The so-called "sympathy scale," and
2) The verdict in the Stanford case referenced.
Some people are apparently bashing these two concepts together and then arguing against the mushy mess they've fabricated. No one has said or implied that the element of sympathy - or even the victim's actions - should have had any influence over the sentencing.
Consider this off-season Scoop training... most of the good threads on Scoop are going to have several different conversations going on. You'll be much better prepared when the season starts if you can keep these discussions separate in your head. If not, enter at your own risk.
-
It's not. It's was a demonstration in response to the lunacy that there is no spectrum as to how the average person reacts to two different victims given the respective circumstances.
Read the above, and go back and re-read the rest.
Right, they are 2 different crimes.
-
Right, they are 2 different crimes.
Not exactly... it's the same crime (homicide via firearm) committed under two different sets of circumstances.
Again, there's the spectrum.
-
It's not. It's was a demonstration in response to the lunacy that there is no spectrum as to how the average person reacts to two different victims given the respective circumstances.
Read the above, and go back and re-read the rest.
EDIT: It seems that people are having problem with there being two parallel discussions going on here:
1) The so-called "sympathy scale," and
2) The verdict in the Stanford case referenced.
Some people are apparently bashing these two concepts together and then arguing against the mushy mess they've fabricated. No one has said or implied that the element of sympathy - or even the victim's actions - should have had any influence over the sentencing.
Consider this off-season Scoop training... most of the good threads on Scoop are going to have several different conversations going on. You'll be much better prepared when the season starts if you can keep these discussions separate in your head. If not, enter at your own risk.
Hey - you're a smart guy when you're serious.
Who woulda known? 8-)
-
Not exactly... it's the same crime (homicide via firearm) committed under two different sets of circumstances.
Again, there's the spectrum.
Yes, but homicide via firearm and sexual assault are two different crimes.
Of course people are going to have different feelings about different crimes or different situations. People aren't going to react the same when a basketball player accidentally gets scratched and cut by his defender as they are when ISIS beheads a person.
That doesn't mean there has to be a spectrum of sympathy to rape victims. To me, it doesn't matter if a person consents up to a point and then the perpetrator takes it beyond that point, if the victim is unconscious, if the perpetrator used a weapon, whatever. When someone is raped I'm not sitting there thinking, "Well, she was super drunk so that's on her so now I don't feel as bad about it." The girl was raped. She shouldn't have been raped. It's a horrible, horrible thing.
-
It's not. It's was a demonstration in response to the lunacy that there is no spectrum as to how the average person reacts to two different victims given the respective circumstances.
Read the above, and go back and re-read the rest.
EDIT: It seems that people are having problem with there being two parallel discussions going on here:
1) The so-called "sympathy scale," and
2) The verdict in the Stanford case referenced.
Well, I suppose there is a sympathy spectrum for some people. I just don't include "being drunk in college" as something that slides a person downward on my sympathy scale. There but by the grace of God ....
-
To me, the message is more, "Be careful. At all times. There are bad people out there." Not, "Be careful not to black out."
I'm not trying to wade into the comparative "victim sympathy" discussion, but I want to address this comment and some others you have made. I think part of the disconnect I have with you on this issue (i.e., what to way to our kids -- I think we agree on the other) might simply relate to my current experience with four teenagers. In my opinion, the appropriate message is somewhere between these two. I can tell you with certainty that my kids (maybe they're slow...I don't know) don't comprehend what "be careful" means. I suspect most kids don't. More specifics are needed. Perhaps not, "don't black out." But something more than, "Be careful."
I can think of a dozen examples that I'd give - probably many more if I thought about it. "Don't walk alone at night...call an escort." "Don't leave a friend alone - or let them leave you alone - at a party." "Don't carry too much cash." All of those are things that, believe it or not, most of us had to learn in order to understand what it meant to "be careful." There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying them to our kids, even though the implication is, "Don't walk alone at night...or you might get mugged." "Don't let a friend leave you alone at a party...or you might get raped."
I consider it one of the most important jobs I've ever had to teach my kids how to "be careful." I'm not sure that's possible without some specificity in both the conduct to avoid and the potential consequences of such conduct.
One great example of this - although I hesitate to use examples because they're never "perfect" - occurred when my son was 16. Like with all kids, we told him to drive safe speeds and leave enough distance between him and the car in front. When I arrived at the scene of his accident, with our totaled car still physically attached to the pickup truck he had rear-ended, the first words out of his mouth were, "I left enough distance." Apparently not. Kids need specifics. I hope to never have one of my kids say to me, "I didn't realize 'be careful' meant..." I may fail in that, but it won't be for lack of trying. And this has absolutely nothing to do with my sympathy level for victims or how harshly I blame criminals.
-
Well, I suppose there is a sympathy spectrum for some people. I just don't include "being drunk in college" as something that slides a person downward on my sympathy scale. There but by the grace of God ....
Some people? I would say anyone who thinks about it. There's even a sympathy scale for bad outcomes on just "being drunk in college". Those who regularly get black out drunk in college wouldn't find themselves at the same point as those who occasionally or even regularly have one too many.
-
Best comment I've seen on this...
"Have you ever noticed that alcohol makes a man less responsible for rape, yet a drunk woman is somehow more responsible?"
Let that sink in.
-
Best comment I've seen on this...
"Have you ever noticed that alcohol makes a man less responsible for rape, yet a drunk woman is somehow more responsible?"
Let that sink in.
Right.
-
I'm not trying to wade into the comparative "victim sympathy" discussion, but I want to address this comment and some others you have made. I think part of the disconnect I have with you on this issue (i.e., what to way to our kids -- I think we agree on the other) might simply relate to my current experience with four teenagers. In my opinion, the appropriate message is somewhere between these two. I can tell you with certainty that my kids (maybe they're slow...I don't know) don't comprehend what "be careful" means. I suspect most kids don't. More specifics are needed. Perhaps not, "don't black out." But something more than, "Be careful."
I can think of a dozen examples that I'd give - probably many more if I thought about it. "Don't walk alone at night...call an escort." "Don't leave a friend alone - or let them leave you alone - at a party." "Don't carry too much cash." All of those are things that, believe it or not, most of us had to learn in order to understand what it meant to "be careful." There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying them to our kids, even though the implication is, "Don't walk alone at night...or you might get mugged." "Don't let a friend leave you alone at a party...or you might get raped."
I consider it one of the most important jobs I've ever had to teach my kids how to "be careful." I'm not sure that's possible without some specificity in both the conduct to avoid and the potential consequences of such conduct.
One great example of this - although I hesitate to use examples because they're never "perfect" - occurred when my son was 16. Like with all kids, we told him to drive safe speeds and leave enough distance between him and the car in front. When I arrived at the scene of his accident, with our totaled car still physically attached to the pickup truck he had rear-ended, the first words out of his mouth were, "I left enough distance." Apparently not. Kids need specifics. I hope to never have one of my kids say to me, "I didn't realize 'be careful' meant..." I may fail in that, but it won't be for lack of trying. And this has absolutely nothing to do with my sympathy level for victims or how harshly I blame criminals.
All very true. Children need guidance and hopefully parents and other adults in their lives do a good job of teaching them what is a good decision and what is not.
-
petition launched to oust da judge-over 600,000 signatures so far. was aaron persky was a stanford grad-gooooo cardinals-hein'er?
"In his ruling, Persky, who also attended Stanford, cited Turner's age, no "significant" prior legal problems and said he carried "less moral culpability" because he was drunk the night of the attack.
Persky also said that state prison could have a "severe" impact on Turner's life -- a statement that has ignited national outrage."
-
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."
Boom
-
Hey - you're a smart guy when you're serious.
Who woulda known? 8-)
Well, I can't be that smart if I keep using this place as my mental dumping ground.