Stanford Rape Case

Why are people more willing to excuse rape while drunk than causing mayhem while driving drunk? Because it sure seems to me that many are. 

For me, drunk driving is horrible and should carry serious penalties but it's not on the same planet as rape. Rape is a crime of violence and intent. It can and should carry a much higher prison term than drunk driving. Just because it didn't work out that way in these individual cases doesn't mean much.

Drunk driving is a crime of stupidity and addiction. the penalty for drunk driving should be (is) loss of license, fines and possibly a short amount of jail time. Five years seems excessive and pointless to me for drunk driving without injury to another. I'd rather see a person like that lose their license for life and be given addiction help.

bramzzoinks said:

Why are people more willing to excuse rape while drunk than causing mayhem while driving drunk? Because it sure seems to me that many are. 

Seems like that to me too... 

conandrob240 said:

For me, drunk driving is horrible and should carry serious penalties but it's not on the same planet as rape. Rape is a crime of violence and intent. It can and should carry a much higher prison term than drunk driving. Just because it didn't work out that way in these individual cases doesn't mean much.

Drunk driving is a crime of stupidity and addiction. the penalty for drunk driving should be (is) loss of license, fines and possibly a short amount of jail time. Five years seems excessive and pointless to me for drunk driving without injury to another. I'd rather see a person like that lose their license for life and be given addiction help.

DWI is a lesser offense.  Lisat's story was about someone that has committed several violations.  And as someone whose life has been impacted by driunk drivers I will tell you that it is a serious crime and that repeat offenders are merely a homicide waiting to happen.  

no one was arguing that point- that it is a serious offense. But it's not rape.

BTW, I just read this morning that when the lawyers were discussing sentencing, both sides did, indeed, say that Turner's drunkenness should be taken into account as a mitigating factor in his favor. So the double standard is there, even in the legal considerations of how severe the crime is. I am appalled. They ask both the victim and the offender how much they drank, but in the case of the woman they hold it against her... In the case of a rapist, being drunk DOES translate into a lighter sentence, in the eyes of the court.

In what world is that real justice?

Related to attitudes about sexual assault:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/reports--baylor-board-to-vote-on-bringing-back-art-briles-133358293.html

Even though he apparently didn't tell his players that sexual assault is something that would end their football careers.

There have been numerous articles written about college athletes getting deals when it comes to crime.  and the better the athlete the better the deal.  

here is one:  http://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/09/08/athletes-crime

And the NFL is a joke - it takes a high profile crime for something to happen (Ray Rice).  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/what-the-numbers-show-about-nfl-player-arrests.html?_r=0

Or of course if you let the air out of a football, you will be suspended for 4 games and have your name dragged thru the mud no  matter how good you are.  Brady would have been better off raping someone in the locker room in the eyes of the NLF commissioner.  

What if he wasn't drunk but on a raging meth high, and had no clue at all what he was doing?  Should that be taken into consideration at sentencing, differentiating his crime from a perfectly sober and calculating predator lying in wait for an hour and luring a woman into an alley at night?  Is there a difference?  Some might argue there is-- albeit not distinguished via the verdict (guilty in both scenarios) but upon sentencing.  I seem to recall that general intent crimes (including rape) can't claim a voluntary intoxication defense, so no lesser charge permitted I assume, but can that be considered at sentencing?  Seems like it can?

I read today that he texted titty pics to teammates that night...

Jesus.   

Lot's of men play this trophy hunting game.  Addressing this sort of thing could prevent some rapes, I think.  If this was known at the time of the sentencing, it should have been a factor in recommending a longer sentence.

The pre-sentencing evaluation that was presented to the judge, recommended a lenient sentence. This included a statement from the victim that she did not want to see the rapist sentenced to a long prison term. 

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

The per-sentencing evaluation that was presented to the judge, recommended a lenient sentence. This included a statement from the victim that she did not want to see the rapist sentenced to a long prison term. 

Is that true?  I had heard that but also heard that she denied saying that.

The per-sentenceing report was released two weeks ago. It was discussed on Michael Smerconish radio program.

She obviously changed her feelings from the time of her interview to the time she spoke at the actual sentencing. There is nothing wrong with that but it puts a different light on judge's sentence.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

The per-sentenceing report was released two weeks ago. It was discussed on Michael Smerconish radio program.

She obviously changed her feelings from the time of her interview to the time she spoke at the actual sentencing. There is nothing wrong with that but it puts a different light on judge's sentence.

She not wanting a "long" sentence does not mean she wanted him to spend 3 months in jail. There is a difference. Perhaps she did not want the max but I am sure she wanted more than the 3-6 months he got. 

I too read that she said that. But I think the probation officer and the judge seized upon that as an excuse to give him a ridiculously short sentence.  Who knows? Maybe they asked her leading questions, like, "Do you want him to have a long sentence?" or "Do you want him to be in jail for most of his adult life?" Then naturally she responded, "I don't want him to have a long sentence." We need the entire context. But one thing is for certain: She did not mean that anything longer than three to six months is a "long sentence."

If you read her statement you would see that she addressed the sentencing very clearly. 

"Now to address the sentencing. When I read the probation officer’s report, I was in disbelief, consumed by anger which eventually quieted down to profound sadness. My statements have been slimmed down to distortion and taken out of context. I fought hard during this trial and will not have the outcome minimized by a probation officer who attempted to evaluate my current state and my wishes in a fifteen minute conversation, the majority of which was spent answering questions I had about the legal system. The context is also important. Brock had yet to issue a statement, and I had not read his remarks.
My life has been on hold for over a year, a year of anger, anguish and uncertainty, until a jury of my peers rendered a judgment that validated the injustices I had endured. Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move our lives forward. Instead he took the risk of going to trial, added insult to injury and forced me to relive the hurt as details about my personal life and sexual assault were brutally dissected before the public. He pushed me and my family through a year of inexplicable, unnecessary suffering, and should face the consequences of challenging his crime, of putting my pain into question, of making us wait so long for justice.
I told the probation officer I do not want Brock to rot away in prison. I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars. The probation officer’s recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time­out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, an insult to me and all women. It gives the message that a stranger can be inside you without proper consent and he will receive less than what has been defined as the minimum sentence. Probation should be denied. I also told the probation officer that what I truly wanted was for Brock to get it, to understand and admit to his wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, after reading the defendant’s report, I am severely disappointed and feel that he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of “promiscuity.” By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can’t even see that distinction.
The probation officer factored in that the defendant is youthful and has no prior convictions. In my opinion, he is old enough to know what he did was wrong. When you are eighteen in this country you can go to war. When you are nineteen, you are old enough to pay the consequences for attempting to rape someone. He is young, but he is old enough to know better.
As this is a first offence I can see where leniency would beckon. On the other hand, as a society, we cannot forgive everyone’s first sexual assault or digital rape. It doesn’t make sense. The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error. The consequences of sexual assault needs to be severe enough that people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be preventative.
The probation officer weighed the fact that he has surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. How fast Brock swims does not lessen the severity of what happened to me, and should not lessen the severity of his punishment. If a first time offender from an underprivileged background was accused of three felonies and displayed no accountability for his actions other than drinking, what would his sentence be? The fact that Brock was an athlete at a private university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency, but as an opportunity to send a message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class.
The Probation Officer has stated that this case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication. It felt serious. That’s all I’m going to say.
What has he done to demonstrate that he deserves a break? He has only apologized for drinking and has yet to define what he did to me as sexual assault, he has revictimized me continually, relentlessly. He has been found guilty of three serious felonies and it is time for him to accept the consequences of his actions. He will not be quietly excused."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.yg86RN9A9D#.eg7ZRwW7W0

WOW.  That's one hell of a letter.

Lesson learned: A victim has to tell the probation officer and judge that she wants the perpetrator to serve the longest sentence allowable by law. Otherwise they will take your remarks out of context.

I can't quite understand why the defense attorney thought a jury trial as a good idea given the details of the crime - two sober witnesses for the prosecution, among the details.

shoshannah said:

Lesson learned: A victim has to tell the probation officer and judge that she wants the perpetrator to serve the longest sentence allowable by law. Otherwise they will take your remarks out of context.

I can't even quite understand why the victim has a say in the sentencing. It's one more way that the system is so backwards. I mean, what if she felt pressure to request for leniency? What if she's emotionally scarred and just wants it to be over? What if - of all things - SHE feels guilty if she says she wants him to spend his life in prison?