Stanford rape verdict

[jesmu84]

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

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Skatastrophy]

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.

[jesmu84]

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

[StillAWarrior]

That quote, from the rapist's father, makes me irrationally angry

I don't know if you've read the victim's statement.  If not, give it a read.  But I suspect you'll feel even angrier.

[Jay Bee]

Especially after a jury of his peers recommended the max, 14 year, sentence.

You sure about these 'facts'?

[Skitch]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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. 

[Jay Bee]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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

[jficke13]

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.

[GGGG]

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. 

[Jay Bee]

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?

[brandx]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Jay Bee]

For rape?

I guess so - as long as it's someone else's daughter.

Family, not family. Stunningly "small" punishments are handed out to convicts with great regularity.

[brandx]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.