Stanford rape verdict

[Pakuni]

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.

[naginiF]

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.

[jficke13]

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."

[Pakuni]

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?

[Blackhat]

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?

[naginiF]

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. 

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[jesmu84]

The Onion, as always, get it right.

http://www.theonion.com/article/wealthy-teen-nearly-experiences-consequence-2551

[jficke13]

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

[MerrittsMustache]

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!

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[jficke13]

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...

[MerrittsMustache]

Some people might enjoy that kind of punishment...

Well played.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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

[Pakuni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Benny B]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Benny B]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.