Stanford rape verdict

[Benny B]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[brandx]

Scathing comments by Mike Golic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-golic-brock-turner_us_5756d7aae4b0b60682dee524?cps=gravity_2425_-602206996891735510

[Lennys Tap]

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

[wadesworld]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[GWSwarrior]

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. 

[Pakuni]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[GWSwarrior]

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

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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. 

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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. 

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[wadesworld]

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?

[GWSwarrior]

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

[wadesworld]

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.

[MU82]

Oh boy.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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?