Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, as it should be. But was the perp in the case protested until the verdict was overturned?

You're trying to compare two very different cases in two different legal systems. Just because you found one other example of a judge mishandling a sexual assault case doesn't mean they're equivalent.

[mjr]

And the verdict was overturned and the judge is probably going to be booted.

Yes, as it should be. But was the perp in the case protested until the verdict was overturned?

[Gravekeeper]

Now, before i get accused of being a rape apologist, I am not referring to the rape, but the fact that all he did was make a more-or-less standard claim of mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase.

I'm not sure it was that standard. One of the big reasons the blowback is hitting him personally is because of the level of...."affluenza"....both he and his character witnesses put on display. His defense was basically putting up victim impact statements about himself which bordered on parody.

Once you have someone up there testifying that the rapist is so sad he doesn't even like his favourite food anymore? Nevermind the infamous "20 minutes of action" line.

I mean yes, its his defense's job to defend him but the thing is this sort of shit would be detrimental to his defense in front of any other judge. It was certainly detrimental to the jury obviously. His lawyer should not have allowed it. So its a bit hard to argue that this was a standard defense.

[s_stabeler]

going back to protesting this guy for a minute, the fundamental issue I have with people protesting the rapist- rather than the judge's decision- is that, strictly speaking, the rapist had very little to do with why the protests erupted. Now, before i get accused of being a rape apologist, I am not referring to the rape, but the fact that all he did was make a more-or-less standard claim of mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase. Yes, it could well have been a load of bullshit. That's not, however, unusual, since his job, remember, is to get the lowest punishment he can. It's up to the judge to cut through the bullshit to figure out a sentence the convict deserves.

That, and my issue is that free speech can't be without any limits at all, for the simple reason that otherwise, quite a few laws become unconstitutional. (if you have unlimited freedom of speech, for example, then harassment becomes impossible.)

In short, you can't dress up vigilante justice harassment as "freedom of speech" by claiming it is a protest. By all means shun the guy, but protesting outside his house calling for him to be castrated? going a bit far.

[Gravekeeper]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

But in this case, the system worked as it was suppose to correct the judge's assholery. Canadian judges aren't elected so the onus doesn't fall on the people to try and boot him.

I don't know how true this is but I saw a thing on Facebook that the shitbag is planning to tour college campuses to talk about how drinking and promiscuity are bad, all I could think is what the fuck makes him think that's even remotely ok?! Either he's that stupid or that much of an asshole.

This is true. He does indeed want to tour and lecture and yes, he is that much of a stupid asshole.

Whether or not any college will actually accept his offer is another thing.

[Kheldarson]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

Quoth the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/...rnd/index.html

And the verdict was overturned and the judge is probably going to be booted.

[mjr]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

Quoth the article:

Camp, 64, ultimately acquitted the man charged with the crime, and then told him:
"I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women. They have to be far more patient. And they have to be very careful. To protect themselves, they have to be very careful."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/...rnd/index.html

[Sarah Valentine]

I don't know how true this is but I saw a thing on Facebook that the shitbag is planning to tour college campuses to talk about how drinking and promiscuity are bad, all I could think is what the fuck makes him think that's even remotely ok?! Either he's that stupid or that much of an asshole.

[Gravekeeper]

What Kheld said. Its not that this suddenly became a problem everyone cared about just now. It's just this was such an egregious example of every single problem people have complained about with rape cases. It's the benchmark of every single thing wrong with rape cases and the justice system.

[Kheldarson]

As for the "appalling load of bullshit" (in quotes so you know what I am referring to) why is it only now a problem for people? Making the rapist the victim and the rape victim the criminal has been the standard rape defense for decades. Why haven't people protested this before? I bet if you looked there is at least 1 rape case either shortly before or shortly after anywhere in the country where this was the defense and the person got a light sentence.

People have. People do. However, until the majority of society supports the idea that it is a problem, protests of that sort get ignored.

For example, marital rape used to be legal in this country. It wasn't until the 1980's that laws began to be struck down as unconstitutional and it wasn't until 1993 that all 50 states had removed exemptions for marital rape from the law.

Why did it take so long to change? Why did it take so long to change once it started changing?

Because societal pressure wasn't high enough. Politicians don't like rocking the boat because that endangers their election chances. Society has to prove that the majority want the change because most politicians aren't going to react to a few protests.

And media coverage is varied depending on how big the case is and its sensationalism. Why you're still hearing more about Turner and not about Persky is because Turner is big news and recognizable. "Stick it to the crook". But protesting a judge is regular business.

Or should we start protesting every rapist who got a lighter sentence or no sentence using the "I was the victim" defense?

Maybe we should. It would definitely send a message. However, part of the issue with most rape cases is that they're not seen as clear cut as this case was. It should have been an open and shut case. He was caught. There are sober eyewitnesses who can say that the victim was unable to give her consent. There is no question that he committed the assault as he was on top of her when the witnesses caught them.

That's part of why people are pissed. We say that when people get caught doing the crime they should get the punishment they deserve. When there's questions and doubt, we're a bit more lenient on what the punishment should be: obviously we don't want to really punish an innocent person. So to see someone so obviously guilty pretty much walk? When most rape cases get cast as a "he said/she said" with the victim being put on the defensive for not having "enough evidence" or having "maybe given consent but regretting it now"? It's a bit tough to swallow.

[jackfaire]

The light sentence is only half the problem. The defendant ( and his family's ) behaviour during the trial and the entire trial in general are the other half. Its not that we saw a trial then got surprised by a light sentence. We saw a trial where the defense shoveled out an appalling load of bullshit, flipped it around so that the rapist was the victim and the judge went along with it.

I apologize everyone has been presenting this including the news media as if the only one being protested is Brock Turner. Your saying something is the first mention I have seen anywhere that people are actually protesting the right people.

As for the "appalling load of bullshit" (in quotes so you know what I am referring to) why is it only now a problem for people? Making the rapist the victim and the rape victim the criminal has been the standard rape defense for decades. Why haven't people protested this before? I bet if you looked there is at least 1 rape case either shortly before or shortly after anywhere in the country where this was the defense and the person got a light sentence.

That's part of what confuses me I guess. I have read many articles where this was reported as an appalling problem but there were never any protests or anything no matter how many editorials pleaded with people to take to the streets. No attempts to change legislature. People were apathetic. And again as I said in the other thread I may be reading the wrong news outlets.

I also don't think every single protester is out for attention but I have to admit that the fact the protest is only about the one time the very same situation that goes on all over the country all of the time makes National news instead of just local news is the time people finally want to say something? It feels like at least some people are just "Look I care man" and not I care.

So I guess my question is should we leave Brock Turner alone and get the news media to turn their focus to attempts at real change (He's the more visible factor in this case most likely why I haven't heard of a lot of actual action)

Or should we start protesting every rapist who got a lighter sentence or no sentence using the "I was the victim" defense?

[Gravekeeper]

But that shouldn't be the point. That's the problem with protesting the individual and not the system.

Let me stop you right there. You're presenting this as an either / or when the majority did and are protesting the judge and the system. Some people in front of Brock's house is in no way negating or undermining the main protest against the judge and the system. No one has taking their eyes off the judge in favour of Brock.

Sure let's make Brock Turner's life hell. Let's make the next guy who gets too light of a sentence's life hell let's keep doing it because they are going to get too light of a sentence.

The light sentence is only half the problem. The defendant ( and his family's ) behaviour during the trial and the entire trial in general are the other half. Its not that we saw a trial then got surprised by a light sentence. We saw a trial where the defense shoveled out an appalling load of bullshit, flipped it around so that the rapist was the victim and the judge went along with it.

We're not talking about a case where someone did something horrible, showed remorse, did the time, got out and is being targeted and harassed regardless. We're talking about a case where someone had no remorse, blamed the victim, acted entitled to get away with the crime and then essentially did get away with it. So now he has some angry people outside his house with signs.

Pardon my French but tough shit. Part of being a functional society is having a list of things we all realize are terrible and the faith that when those things happen, justice will be served. When something undermines that faith, especially with a terrible crime like sexual assault, then we have a right to be upset at both the system and the perpetrator.

Yes, the perpetrator should not be physically attacked, harassed or his property vandalized or anything of that nature which also breaks the law. But protesting is not illegal. Its a central feature to free speech and saying when we can and cannot do it is always a worrisome precedent. Especially in a case like this.

If we try to set some sort of threshold for when it is and is not okay to protest an individual you can damn well be sure it will be used not as a shield but as a weapon against free speech.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You are correct, Jack. Turner's involvement in this is over. He did the time he was told to, let the guy get back to as much of a "normal" life any ex-convict can.

[jackfaire]

He had the power to not rape a woman. He had the power and privilege of his family to get a cushy sentence from a judge who was an alumni from the same school. He had the power to not make this case totally about how the rape affected *him* instead of his victim. He had the power and money to afford a good legal team.

But that shouldn't be the point. That's the problem with protesting the individual and not the system. Do you know what the aftermath of Cecil the Lion was? The local government changed a bunch of laws and said "see ya next week" the protesters followed the dentist the local government changed the laws back and no one noticed nor cared.

Sure let's make Brock Turner's life hell. Let's make the next guy who gets too light of a sentence's life hell let's keep doing it because they are going to get too light of a sentence. Or instead we could protest the system and get the system changed and make sure it stays changed and make sure that there isn't a next time.

There are minimum sentencing laws that prevent a judge from being able to grant leniency for personal bias. Sure he can still give someone the minimum but if it's something the citizens can live with something that still punishes the perpetrator. We can even tailor them to the nature of the Rape.

Which we absolutely should do as some rapes are "guy and girl who later get married had sex while she was underage and her parents pressed charges" And I have personally seen it happen so not just being "I heard stories"

But instead what's going to happen is the lawmakers are going to laugh their assess off Brock Turner's going to have hell until we all suddenly forget and move on with our lives. Then the next guy's going to rape a girl get a light sentence and if it doesn't get nearly as much publicity as this one no one will care.

[Gravekeeper]

Where I think you're wrong Gravekeeper is this - I think the true point of protest is in the expression of emotion from the less powerful towards the more powerful.

That's sort of moot as we're not here to debate what you think the true spirit of protesting is.

Brock Turner has 0 power. None. Protesting him specifically serves no purpose other than injury.

He had the power to not rape a woman. He had the power and privilege of his family to get a cushy sentence from a judge who was an alumni from the same school. He had the power to not make this case totally about how the rape affected *him* instead of his victim. He had the power and money to afford a good legal team.

This entire case is about power and privilege. We're not talking about a case where the attacker was repentant and remorseful then was just surprised to get a pass from a judge. We're talking about a case where the defendant showed no remorse whatsoever, made himself out to be the victim here and basically acted as if he was entitled to get away with raping an unconscious woman. Which he effectively did thanks to a biased judge.

So if a bunch of people want to go out and exercise their right to free speech to tell him that he is a terrible human being ( which he is ) that is completely understandable. Its also not even remotely vigilantism and equating the exercising of free speech as vigilantism is a little worrisome.

Now, if they start crossing the line into harassment or vandalizing his home or something than sure. That's unacceptable. But the act of protesting is not in and of itself somehow wrong because its directed at an individual.

If I organized the "Debbie is a horrible human being" protest with me and 30 other people and we picketed outside Debbie's house for 30 days because she's just rather shabby towards other people, ultimately there isn't a jury in the world that isn't going to come after me.

Sure, because Debbie might have a slander case against you as whether or not she is "shabby towards other people" is a subjective opinion. But what Turner did and said are matters of court record. He *is* a rapist and showed no remorse for it.