Stanford student gets six months for rape

[TheHuckster]

All court is supposed to provide ultimately is a place where both sides can make whatever valid legal argument they can that survives legal scrutiny. Legal scrutiny and public scrutiny aren't necessarily the same thing. The legal system itself can only police favortism so much (and frankly, my personal favorite way we should do it is statistically) because ultimately the cognitive biases at play are hard to prove in an individual case but much easier when there's a pattern. And if you're saying judges should have 0 discretion, then they really serve no purpose.

I'm not saying that at all. Judges should certainly have discretion. I would even go as far as to say it's fine for a judge to use his/her personal views objectively when considering a case (wherein the letter of the law and constitution does not explicitly provide such guidelines and allows such discretion). But there are still limits.

As far as I'm concerned the "affluenza" defense isn't a valid argument. It's not at all relevant to how severe the sentence should be, and is a textbook case of favoritism and bias. And that's why I believe the judge was absolutely out of bounds with the sentencing in this case.

Again, depends what those effects ultimately are. I can intimidate and harass without ultimately doing something illegal in isolation. It's the pattern where something can become intimidation and harassment. No one has to criminalize anything IF the family gets to the point that they actually attempt to use the legal remedies available to them IF protestors are stepping over the line. The laws already exist. My guess is they would be assault (for perceived threat), battery (for actual attack), and stalking laws (if he and his family cannot get away.) If protestor behavior causes financial injury, there's plenty of tort law for that too. But the entire case would be where does the protest end/intent to injure begin.

No argument from me there. But, let's face it, the public have a low attention span. It will only be a matter of time before they either get bored and move onto something else or find another poster child for injustice. I'm not going to feel too bad about their lives being a little distraught from people yelling at them from a distance and shaming them publicly for a little while before everyone forgets about this case.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think you're idealizing ultimately.

All court is supposed to provide ultimately is a place where both sides can make whatever valid legal argument they can that survives legal scrutiny. Legal scrutiny and public scrutiny aren't necessarily the same thing. The legal system itself can only police favortism so much (and frankly, my personal favorite way we should do it is statistically) because ultimately the cognitive biases at play are hard to prove in an individual case but much easier when there's a pattern. And if you're saying judges should have 0 discretion, then they really serve no purpose.

"Now, while their protests are unproductive, I have a hard time with the notion that much of their activity should be criminalized, at least in such a way that they aren't trespassing on their property or making direct threats of violence. "

Again, depends what those effects ultimately are. I can intimidate and harass without ultimately doing something illegal in isolation. It's the pattern where something can become intimidation and harassment. No one has to criminalize anything IF the family gets to the point that they actually attempt to use the legal remedies available to them IF protestors are stepping over the line. The laws already exist. My guess is they would be assault (for perceived threat), battery (for actual attack), and stalking laws (if he and his family cannot get away.) If protestor behavior causes financial injury, there's plenty of tort law for that too. But the entire case would be where does the protest end/intent to injure begin.

[TheHuckster]

I believe a good portion of this rests on a very skilled attorney who knew exactly what to say in court, partnered with a dipshit judge who really shouldn't be on the bench.

As Gravekeeper said, in even a half-way decent legal system the "affluenza" defense should have been laughed out of court. It's a defense that, had you asked an uninformed person about it, would have probably asked if it was a reference to some Onion article. But, I don't think the defense came from the family.

The facts are the family is upper class. They can hire a very expensive and good attorney, and they did. The attorney did his homework, possibly pulled some strings to get the judge he wanted, and played a perfect chess match. The attorney looks at the case, and as defense attorneys often do, they'll first convince the family of their son's "innocence" or at least his "deserving" of a light sentence. Chances are this asshat family didn't need much, if any, convincing. Then, he knew the judge's weaknesses. He probably served many cases with this judge, and knew where his biases lie, and thus he came up with the "affluenza" defense, knowing full well that while the majority of judges would have considered that to be the stupidest closing argument, this judge would actually think it to be a worthwhile defense.

As for the family, of course they're going to go with it. They don't want their son in jail, and while they have horrible morals and ethics, and are unapologetic assholes who don't deserve the sentence they got, the only reason they got what they wanted was thanks to an equally immoral and unethical attorney and judge. It was truly the perfect storm of horrible judgement by everyone involved.

Protesting the family for exploiting the flaws in the system the way they did is understandable, but fruitless and unproductive. As people here have said, there's nothing the family can do to satisfy the protesters unless they self-destruct themselves in some way, and they aren't going to do that. The only "good" I can see coming from these protests is that they do at least continue to expose the problem and possibly might lead to some positive change in the legal process, especially in cases of rape where the perpetrator is given a pass due to some bogus circumstances like "the defendant didn't know what he/she was doing" or "the defendant is too wealthy and good looking to go to jail".

Now, while their protests are unproductive, I have a hard time with the notion that much of their activity should be criminalized, at least in such a way that they aren't trespassing on their property or making direct threats of violence. I think the "castrate yourself" and such probably would cross the line, but simply holding and posting signs shaming them for what happened is something I'd consider to be legal, albeit pointless.

[HYHYBT]

What was he supposed to do? Request a longer sentence for himself? Decline the chance to get out early?

[NecCat]

The key problem with the protests- at least as far as they are at Turner's house- is that there is literally nothing- apart from possibly self-castration or suicide- Turner can do to satisfy them.

I totally agree with that. I was just pointing out the reason why I don't think that there is any reason to compare possible protesting in the Canadian case vs the current protesting in Brock Turners case.

[s_stabeler]

They are extremely different in one very important aspect. The Canadian rapist was acquitted in a court of law. Until the acquittal was overturned it would be illegal to protest the rapist in a way that accused him of rape, that would be slander. Even during the crown appeal process he is considered innocent in all ways until judgement. The US rapist had been found guilty in a court of law. In (Canadian at least, not sure about US) law, stating the truth can never be considered slander, so protesting against him because he's a rapist is legal.

it's not slander, but that doesn't make it legal. The key problem with the protests- at least as far as they are at Turner's house- is that there is literally nothing- apart from possibly self-castration or suicide- Turner can do to satisfy them.

To put it another way, with actual protests, if the protest is intolerable, the protestee can take some action to satisfy the protesters to end the protest. (reverse a decision, resign from a position, you get the idea.) Brock Turner- if he is not able to cope with the protests- is completely incapable of doing anything to satisfy them. As such, the "protests" are merely an attempt to punish Turner outside the judicial process, which by definition is vigilantism..

[Rusty Shackleford]

But, what the people are protesting is his sentence. Did Brock Turner have anything to do with what the judge gave as a sentence outside of being a swimmer?

[NecCat]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

further, it is, in fact, not disingenuous to compare the cases between Canada and the US, because the basic principles ( freedom of speech / harassment being banned) are largely the same. ( to the extent that it's possible- though unlikely- for a US court to cite a canadian - or even UK- judgement as precedent. It's basically never done- there's usually US precedent to cite- but it does not invalidate the judgement.)

They are extremely different in one very important aspect. The Canadian rapist was acquitted in a court of law. Until the acquittal was overturned it would be illegal to protest the rapist in a way that accused him of rape, that would be slander. Even during the crown appeal process he is considered innocent in all ways until judgement. The US rapist had been found guilty in a court of law. In (Canadian at least, not sure about US) law, stating the truth can never be considered slander, so protesting against him because he's a rapist is legal.

[mjr]

And asking where the protests are or were in another culture that has different views on what constitutes free speech and the right to petition is disingenuous?

Liberals and Conservatives have different views on what constitutes "free speech".

Additionally, Native Northeasterners and Native Southerners are culturally different. Heck, some states in the south are Culturally different within that culture.

The midwest has a culture of it's own, as does the left coast.

So there are cultural differences all over the place.

[Kheldarson]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

I believe it was as I did note that both are being protested. Maybe the real question is why the convict is being covered more, and that's ratings.

[s_stabeler]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

further, it is, in fact, not disingenuous to compare the cases between Canada and the US, because the basic principles ( freedom of speech / harassment being banned) are largely the same. ( to the extent that it's possible- though unlikely- for a US court to cite a canadian - or even UK- judgement as precedent. It's basically never done- there's usually US precedent to cite- but it does not invalidate the judgement.)

[Kheldarson]

Indeed. And?

And asking where the protests are or were in another culture that has different views on what constitutes free speech and the right to petition is disingenuous?

[mjr]

You’re still comparing the reactions of people in two different cultures.

Indeed. And?

[Kheldarson]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether or not the perp in the Canadian case was protested as vociferously before his verdict was overturned as this Stanford guy is.

You’re still comparing the reactions of people in two different cultures.

[mjr]

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.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether or not the perp in the Canadian case was protested as vociferously before his verdict was overturned as this Stanford guy is.