Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Canarr]

Side note: some of the protesters apparently chose to exercise their right to open carry during their protest in front of the house.

[Canarr]

And that's entirely within the rule-of-law. As a matter of fact, the US system of electing judges instead of appointing a suitable candidate always struck me as funny.

[Greenday]

Even in a case such as this, where almost everyone agrees that Turner got off ridiculously easy, it's still wrong. Because this is the rule-of-law principle; and we either accept that, then we have to acceot it for everybody (even those we don't like), or we basically live in anarchy where the biggest mob rules.

I'll go with option C, change the system so vigilante justice doesn't even need to be considered. If we have judges who refuse to hand out appropriate punishments, disbar them. There should be no system where people can't easily be eliminated from their position when they royally screw up.

There's always an option besides a complete BS system and anarchy.

[Canarr]

Is it? I'm not disagreeing, but that's a point that warrants further discussion. Vigilante justice (or stalking) is how the affluenza teen is behind bars where you had bystanders acting as proxy probation officers.

Yeah, it is.

Don't get me wrong: people reporting crimes to the authority - or violations of probation - isn't vigilante justice. Watching someone isn't a crime.

But protesting outside a released felon's house, harassing them and their family? That's vigilante justice. People are essentially saying, "we don't think the official punishment they received is enough, so we're taking it upon ourselves to extend it as we see fit!" and that is wrong.

Even in a case such as this, where almost everyone agrees that Turner got off ridiculously easy, it's still wrong. Because this is the rule-of-law principle; and we either accept that, then we have to acceot it for everybody (even those we don't like), or we basically live in anarchy where the biggest mob rules.

And maybe that's just me, but I'd rather live in a world where the occasional Brock Turner slips through the net, than in a world where mob justice is a good thing.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Vigilante justice is indefensible.

Is it? I'm not disagreeing, but that's a point that warrants further discussion. Vigilante justice (or stalking) is how the affluenza teen is behind bars where you had bystanders acting as proxy probation officers.

In general, I don't think people are opposed to vigilantes (now less than ever). There's massive disagreement between what is and isn't justice which means someone's always got "cause" and there's probably a sympathetic jury out there. It always comes down to whether or not people are willing to cede justice to the justice system. Part of that is dealing with an outcome you don't like.

And at some point, extra-legal behavior is going to have to be looked at. You can't bloody well say you are punishing "within a system" if people are coming out of it while dealing with "the system" and "the public." If you're seeing that, then that's actually an indication of a lack of faith in the system (or lack of discipline" in the public) and in either event it results in two punishments (one the state is not accounting for in sentencing).

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate fear. Just that they seem surprised no one likes their precious child who just made a totally honest mistake raping a women behind a dumpster.

[Canarr]

What s_stabeler says. Vigilante justice is indefensible.

Honestly, it's a good idea for him to leave the state, and live out his probation somewhere else. Or is there anyone really benefitting from him being forced to stay in his hometown? Who wants him there?

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, those fears may actually be legitimate. It's not uncommon for people convicted of sexual crimes- particularly rape- to face people being at best hostile. I agree that it is unsurprising that people are protesting outside their house, but that doesn't mean his fears for his safety are unwarranted- and he does still retain the right to live without being in fear for his life, regardless of your opinion on if people convicted of serious crimes lose some of their rights on conviction.

[Gravekeeper]

His parents are afraid for his safety now. Turns out (gasp) that people in their town and neighbourhood don't like him or having to live next to him. So there's protesters outside his parents house ( where he's staying ). His parents who, as you may recall, defended his "20 minutes of action".

But no worries, they let him transfer his probation to Ohio so he can move out of the state. =p

[Greenday]

Well, this case has inspired new legislation that has been passed by the California assembly and just needs the governor's signature to be law.

Basically, if you sexually assault someone who is unconscious or too drunk to consent, it's mandatory prison time. No suspended sentences. No probation. Actual prison time, not just county jail.

[Hanzoku]

Well... yes. It means he didn't start fights or do anything stupid while in prison. It's not a commentary on his behavior before he went into the jail.

It's also completely standard in America - if you don't screw up royally in jail, you can get out at the halfway point in your sentence. I suspect that's a big reason why, when they want to throw the book at someone, sentences for each charge are scheduled to run consecutively.

[Kheldarson]

He's scheduled for release 3 months early:

http://ktla.com/2016/06/09/ex-stanfo...-jail-records/

Because there's always a deeper layer to sink too.

For good behavior even. Excuse me while I go scream.

[Canarr]

Apparently, that's typical for this county.

[Gravekeeper]

He's scheduled for release 3 months early:

http://ktla.com/2016/06/09/ex-stanfo...-jail-records/

Because there's always a deeper layer to sink too.

[Canarr]

You'd be wrong. Unless we count the time it took the cop to get out to our house.

I stand corrected.

The reason I suggested that: I kinda flashed back to reporting someone breaking into my car and stealing my stereo, and it took the officer more than an hour to take down all the data, fill out the forms, and inform me that they'd never ever find it, and I should just get in touch with my insurance.

Then again, that just might've been because he was so unbelievably slow at typing.

There is a balance that can be struck between shaming and kid gloves. And a large part of it is in police training. Detectives who investigate rape/sexual assault must be trained in how to question and handle victims in shock. And be trained to function like all victims are in some form of shock. Because one of the biggest reasons for shaming is that the victims don't act right. Too calm. Too together. Not freaking out.

If we have investigators who are trained to be compassionate rather than judging, a lot of those credibility questions wouldn't come off as judging. Particularly if we hit the accused with similar questions.

Well, I'm definitely with you there. I can always get behind better training for law enforcement officers - as long as it's not with riot gear...