Stanford rape verdict

[Lennys Tap]

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).

[wadesworld]

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...

[Pakuni]

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?

[Benny B]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[brandx]

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?

[wadesworld]

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.

[Pakuni]

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 ....

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Coleman]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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."

[jesmu84]

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

[Benny B]

Hey - you're a smart guy when you're serious.

Who woulda known?

Well, I can't be that smart if I keep using this place as my mental dumping ground.