Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Kheldarson]

However, when two people - possibly of different sex - end up drunk in bed together, and one part afterwards claims they didn't consent, things are far less clear - and that is where the difficult questions come up, the doubt, the... well, it's called victim-blaming, but that's really the wrong word for the beginning of an investigation. Because there isn't a victim unless it's been confirmed that a crime was committed.

Except they ask questions like "What were you wearing?" "How many other guys have you slept with?" "Are you sure you didn't lead him on?" And, of course, the ultimate favorite "How much did you have to drink?"

The issue with rape is one of consent. What does what a woman wears, or how many men she's slept with before have to do with her consenting to this man? And if she's drunk, then consent can't be had anyway right?

The problem is that the investigations and the defense lawyers end up both acting like one moment can be changed by a history of other behavior. And while the latter is understandable (but still distasteful), the former is what makes it hard to report the crime.

Fair equivalent: Kabe and I were recently robbed. Brand new lawnmower was taken from our shed. Now, yes, our bad for not having a lock. But all that changed was what kind of crime it was going to be listed. There wasn't a question of how our past behavior led to this robbery, or if we had led somebody on to rob us, or if we were sure we had put our lawnmower away.

No, we just were asked when we last saw it, if we had a serial number, and if we had any other info we could share.

If the investigators were to keep it to the relevant facts (and there is movement towards better questions and training) and with the idea that these women are in shock (because cops have been shown to change their behavior when a victim doesn't act "right"), then that would go a long way towards making rape easier to report, prosecute, and, hopefully, something that happens less often because it's harder for rapists to get away with due to their victims being shut down via victim-blaming in the investigation.

[Shangri-laschild]

First, let me say that what this young man did is beyond deplorable and disgusting. He deserves far more than the three (yes, three, according to the latest news reports) months he'll be serving behind bars. That said, I'm wondering how you all feel about the "picking up the pitchforks and going after him" crowd?

On the one hand, hearing all the voices standing up for the woman and speaking out about how rape isn't ok is amazing. Normally you get the "she is a liar who deserves it" side speaking up louder and this time it wasn't as much like that. I love that people are speaking out about all of this. Outside of the torch and pitchfork aspect though, I keep thinking about what must it be like for this woman who now probably can't watch the news or go online without seeing the face of her attacker everywhere. Mob justice is never a smart enough creature to be good about speaking out for injustice more than it is harmful to innocent people.

[Shangri-laschild]

It's just that I'm not sure that it wasn't a particularly terrible drunken mistake- in which case, a short jail sentence, and forcing him to face up to the fact that he probably shouldn't drink, and making him educate people about what can happen if you drink too much alcohol may well be sufficient.

There needs to be a balance between tossing him in jail and throwing away the key and giving him a sentence that acknowledges the fact that what he did to that woman isn't just going to go away quickly for her. I would be fine with a reasonable jail time and education and counseling for him to teach him to not do this again. But 3-6 months sends the message that what he did was no big deal and whether he maliciously did something horrible or drunkenly did something stupid, what he did was a big deal.

That, and by my read of it, it's the father making the comments justifying his kid's actions, not the kid.

The lawyers defense didn't help and the kid had to have some level of say over how much blame was going to try to be put onto the woman. Not only that but his apology letter heavily goes on about how this has effected him and how it's the fault of party culture in college. I don't know if he was trying to convey that he's sorry by stating how much this is effecting him but the result is that he sounded like he was wallowing in how much all this sucked for him basically. She got mentioned a little but mostly it was about him and how it's all the fault of party culture that when he was all alone, not surrounded by peers and peer pressure, he raped an unconscious woman.

[Canarr]

Rape culture is also in how we treat the victim during the investigation (see the questions of the attorney, the police, etc. about how she may have had a hand in her own rape), it's in how we treat and objectify women (see any commercial ever), it's in how women are trained to behave in public and are punished/insulted for not behaving as they should (see cat-calling and how women are supposed to take it as a compliment).

Cases like this just highlight the problem.

I saw a Buzzfeed video recently where a couple of women asked (mostly stupid) questions of men; something about "36 questions women want to ask men", or something like that. A couple of Youtubers posted their own videos as replies to it.

One question was: "Why can't I sleep with as many people as I want to without being judged?", and I think it was the Amazing Atheist who simply answered: "Because nobody can do anything without being judged."

Society expects things from us all the time, and it tends to punish us if we don't deliver. That goes for women, men, children, and mostly it's just part of life.

No other types of cases presumes the victim asked for the crime to happen to them.

"You got hit by a drunk driver? Were you going too fast? Were you on the wrong side of the road? Well, you must've ignored a sign then to get hit."

Well... "You were mugged? Well, what were you doing, walking around Central Park at night???". But I concede your point: it does tend to happen more with sexual assault than with any other crimes. Mostly, I'd say, because sexual assault cases are rarely as clean-cut as this one.

When a woman is found half naked behind a dumpster, covered in abrasions, dirt and debris, the idea that she consented to this becomes pretty farfetched. It's my guess that this is the main reason the victim doesn't complain about invasive questioning by the police: it was open and shut.

However, when two people - possibly of different sex - end up drunk in bed together, and one part afterwards claims they didn't consent, things are far less clear - and that is where the difficult questions come up, the doubt, the... well, it's called victim-blaming, but that's really the wrong word for the beginning of an investigation. Because there isn't a victim unless it's been confirmed that a crime was committed.

I agree. I hate Internet justice mobs.

Glad to hear it

[Kheldarson]

I disagree. Rape, along with practically any other violent crime, has been on the decline for decades, well before the introduction of "affirmative consent" or the increased discussion about college culture in the recent years.

This tells me that people, on the whole, are mostly decent and will mostly do the right thing. The existence of criminals, or the occasional insensitive asshole in a position of power, does not change that, and does not constitute a rape culture.

Rape culture is also in how we treat the victim during the investigation (see the questions of the attorney, the police, etc. about how she may have had a hand in her own rape), it's in how we treat and objectify women (see any commercial ever), it's in how women are trained to behave in public and are punished/insulted for not behaving as they should (see cat-calling and how women are supposed to take it as a compliment).

Cases like this just highlight the problem.

You mean, like driving drunk and killing people?

Except there's a reason why the outrage was over his sentencing and not how we treat the crime. The sentencing there was so far out of the statistical norm that it called attention to how differently wealth gets you treated.

The issue in this case is that his sentence, while light, isn't unusual. Just not usually with so much hard evidence against him.

What's also disconcerting about the case is the language the rapist uses to apologize for his actions (he keeps blaming alcohol) and the language the judge uses in his sentencing. This is not language with any care or concern for the victim. Which is also typical for rape cases. There is still an underlying idea that "She must have asked for it somehow".

No other types of cases presumes the victim asked for the crime to happen to them.

"You got hit by a drunk driver? Were you going too fast? Were you on the wrong side of the road? Well, you must've ignored a sign then to get hit."

I find it despicable. Public shaming is wrong, and not just because sometimes it may catch an innocent person who just happens to share the name of whoever the mob really wanted to hit. It's wrong because it takes the punishment out of the hands of the legal system, where it belongs, and puts it in the hands of whoever just felt like picking up a pitchfork that day.

It simply shouldn't be done.

I agree. I hate Internet justice mobs.

[Canarr]

I'm not dismissing their efforts. But their effort is part of the growing counter culture, the culture of consent.

I disagree. Rape, along with practically any other violent crime, has been on the decline for decades, well before the introduction of "affirmative consent" or the increased discussion about college culture in the recent years.

This tells me that people, on the whole, are mostly decent and will mostly do the right thing. The existence of criminals, or the occasional insensitive asshole in a position of power, does not change that, and does not constitute a rape culture.

I'm glad that this is getting attention and I'm glad that we have positive examples of what to do around rape. But it doesn't change that we had a judge basically say that "It's ok to rape if you're drunk". Or rich. Or an athlete. That's a repeated theme in rape/sexual assault cases and that’s a large part of what is meant by rape culture. The crime itself isn't treated like any other crime.

You mean, like driving drunk and killing people?

Being rich and/or successful has always meant special consideration before the law. The word "privilege" goes back to two latin words basically meaning "special right". It's not a good thing, it's not the way it should be in an ideal world, but it's where we are.

Honestly, the US justice system could actually do with a little more consideration of the effect long prison sentences have on first-time offenders. But the judge IMO went too far in the other direction here.

First, let me say that what this young man did is beyond deplorable and disgusting. He deserves far more than the three (yes, three, according to the latest news reports) months he'll be serving behind bars. That said, I'm wondering how you all feel about the "picking up the pitchforks and going after him" crowd?

I find it despicable. Public shaming is wrong, and not just because sometimes it may catch an innocent person who just happens to share the name of whoever the mob really wanted to hit. It's wrong because it takes the punishment out of the hands of the legal system, where it belongs, and puts it in the hands of whoever just felt like picking up a pitchfork that day.

It simply shouldn't be done.

[Kheldarson]

His apology, btw: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...campus-culture

[BrenDAnn]

First, let me say that what this young man did is beyond deplorable and disgusting. He deserves far more than the three (yes, three, according to the latest news reports) months he'll be serving behind bars. That said, I'm wondering how you all feel about the "picking up the pitchforks and going after him" crowd? The first thing I saw when I got on Facebook yesterday morning, was this article calling for everyone to make Brock Turner's life a living hell, basically, by smearing his name all over and doing nothing short of harassing Brock, his father, and anyone supporting him. While I do agree, as I said, he deserves far more punishment than he received, I have a big problem with the sort of movement in the article there. That problem is that the wrong people get harassed, by virtue of simply having the same name as someone involved. It's already happened. A college professor became the victim of online harassment, because people mistook her for a friend of Brock's who stood up for him. I, myself, feel this sort of thing, while done with good intentions can go too far. I'm just interested in all of your opinions.

[s_stabeler]

If you drink and then in your impaired state, decide to drive, you're still held accountable. The fact that he shows no remorse and understanding of what he did wrong. He may have been drunk at the time, but after sobering up he seems to still see nothing wrong with having sex with an unconscious woman. Really, her being drunk shouldn't factor in really. She was passed out. If she had been a heavy sleeper or on sleep meds and he was drunk, would it make a difference? If she was sober and he was drunk would it change things? If she was sober she would be able to tell about how she didn't consent but unconscious women can't consent so it still adds up the same.

I get that the lawyer has to put up a defense but if I stole something, lawyer would not be considered to be incompetent or not doing is job if he neglected to argue "but she really really really wanted it." Some arguments shouldn't be considered reasonable to make. Granted that's a problem with our legal system rather than this specific lawyer but either she couldn't remember because she was unconscious (or so drunk she was soon to be unconscious) and couldn't consent or she was sober enough to consent. "She can't say she didn't consent because she was too drunk to consent" shouldn't be a valid argument. Especially when the whole "they were equally drunk and both drunkenly went for it" doesn't even close to apply.

actually, it was the fact HE was drunk i was factoring in. And I agree that what he did wasn't acceptable- note that i still called him a rapist. It's just that I'm not sure that it wasn't a particularly terrible drunken mistake- in which case, a short jail sentence, and forcing him to face up to the fact that he probably shouldn't drink, and making him educate people about what can happen if you drink too much alcohol may well be sufficient.

Then again, I consider jail not really to be retributive as much as to keep criminals away from the rest of the populace while efforts are made to make them productive members of society. (that, and for particularly dangerous offenders, to keep them away from society) and I'm not sure that the kid in this case actually is a danger to most women as long as he stays off the alcohol. I fully support the consequences he's suffered- I don't have sympathy for the rapist suffering- I just think that this was closer to a drunken mistake- that he still should be punished for- than someone who doesn't care about what his actions so.

That, and by my read of it, it's the father making the comments justifying his kid's actions, not the kid.

[Kheldarson]

I'm not dismissing their efforts. But their effort is part of the growing counter culture, the culture of consent. But the problem still is that those in power, those with the final say as to the weight of our law, a law which said that for his convicted crimes this criminal deserved several years worth of jail time, found the rapist's situation more important than the victim. His feelings are more important than hers.

The fact that he would be severely impacted by his punishment is being weighed against the severe impact he caused the victim and his has been judged to be greater.

I'm glad that this is getting attention and I'm glad that we have positive examples of what to do around rape. But it doesn't change that we had a judge basically say that "It's ok to rape if you're drunk". Or rich. Or an athlete. That's a repeated theme in rape/sexual assault cases and that’s a large part of what is meant by rape culture. The crime itself isn't treated like any other crime.

[Canarr]

He's only apologized for being drunk too.

This case is the perfect example of how rape culture exists. This was a slam dunk case. Two eyewitnesses, a solid rape kit, a victim who could in no way, shape, or form give consent.

And the establishment is worried about the harm to the male perpetrator.

Yes, let's keep teaching our youth that there's no real punishment for horrendous crimes that will affect the victim for the rest of her/his life.

Actually... I think this case is the perfect example against the concept of rape culture. Here's why, from the victim's statement:

To conclude, I want to say thank you. To everyone from the intern who made me oatmeal when I woke up at the hospital that morning, to the deputy who waited beside me, to the nurses who calmed me, to the detective who listened to me and never judged me...[SNIP] Most importantly, thank you to the two men who saved me, who I have yet to meet.

It goes on a bit, but the "establishment" is basically mentioned in this part, and that's the reason why I feel talking about rape culture, and how the establishment failed her, is monumentally unfair to all the people she expresses gratitude towards for helping her.

From the two swedish cyclists who stopped the rape, pursued and tackled her fleeing rapist, through the nurses who did the rape kit and documented her injuries, the cops who took her statement without judging or humiliating her, all the way to the jury who delivered a guilty verdict to the "nice" college kid: none of them failed her, all of them did the right thing in trying to bring a rapist to justice.

They're not part of some supposed rape culture, and they deserve better than to have their efforts dismissed like that. It's not their fault the judge ruled as he did.

[mjr]

and couldn't consent or she was sober enough to consent. "She can't say she didn't consent because she was too drunk to consent" shouldn't be a valid argument.

There is a flip-side to this. To my understanding, there is a law and/or rule somewhere that says if sex is consensual, and one person withdraws consent in the middle of sex the other party must stop immediately, or it's rape.

I don't necessarily see how, in some cases, "I changed my mind" is a valid argument, either. So if a woman consents to have sex with a man, then partway through decides that she actually doesn't want to have sex with him, she can tell him to stop, and he has to -- immediately. At least that's my understanding.

But as far as this guy goes, I haven't really been keeping up with the case, so I don't know really what happened.

Where did this incident take place? My understanding from the bits and pieces I've heard is that she was "sleeping" (or passed out) behind a dumpster.

Hey college kids...don't drink in college. It'll benefit you greatly if you don't.

[Shangri-laschild]

If you drink and then in your impaired state, decide to drive, you're still held accountable. The fact that he shows no remorse and understanding of what he did wrong. He may have been drunk at the time, but after sobering up he seems to still see nothing wrong with having sex with an unconscious woman. Really, her being drunk shouldn't factor in really. She was passed out. If she had been a heavy sleeper or on sleep meds and he was drunk, would it make a difference? If she was sober and he was drunk would it change things? If she was sober she would be able to tell about how she didn't consent but unconscious women can't consent so it still adds up the same.

I get that the lawyer has to put up a defense but if I stole something, lawyer would not be considered to be incompetent or not doing is job if he neglected to argue "but she really really really wanted it." Some arguments shouldn't be considered reasonable to make. Granted that's a problem with our legal system rather than this specific lawyer but either she couldn't remember because she was unconscious (or so drunk she was soon to be unconscious) and couldn't consent or she was sober enough to consent. "She can't say she didn't consent because she was too drunk to consent" shouldn't be a valid argument. Especially when the whole "they were equally drunk and both drunkenly went for it" doesn't even close to apply.

[s_stabeler]

I'm going to say something that will probably be controversial, but I don't think the sentence was nessecarily unduly lenient. the rapist- and I agree it is rape- hadn't committed any previous offences, and they were both drunk. Specifically, considering that I know I generally don't think particularly well after drinking alcohol, he probably wasn't actually thinking when he raped the fellow student.

as for the unconcern for the victim, a) that is the father- there's no sign in either article of the actual rapist's feelings. b) yes, a rape investigation requires an invasive exam. that is because one of the things that must be proven in a rape case is that someone has had sex. c) as for why the questions were asked? well, if it as asked by the defence, remember that a lawyer is required to defend their client as well as they can. If that requires putting the victim through the wringer, the lawyer can actually be sued for not doing so- and, incidentally, the rapist could then appeal on the basis that had the lawyer put the victim through the wringer, they would have got off( and yes, they would win- the standard is what a reasonably competent attorney would do)

Granted, at no point do I think the rapist is justified. However, he may deserve some slack since he's not as much of a threat as your typical rapist- if he stays off the booze, he probably won't reoffend.

[Talon]

Prison would have a “severe impact on him”, the judge said.

Oh for fuck's sake, play the little rapist shitbag the world's smallest violin!

He should have thought of "severe impacts" before he chose to violate another human being. Oh wait that's right, he doesn't have to worry right?

Six months for rape, no concern for the victim. It's absolutely outrageous.