Rape

Brock Turner Is a Rapist, His Dad Is Wrong, and Justice Is Elusive

A sexual assault at Stanford results in a miscarriage of justice.

|

Brock Turner
Screenshot via Associated Press / Youtube

Who is Brock Turner? He's the former Stanford University swimmer convicted of sexually assaulting an incapacitated woman behind a dumpster after a fraternity party in 2015. Turner raped her after she passed out from drinking, then fled the scene when two Swedish students caught him in the act. Turner did not get away—the Swedes chased him down, and he was arrested, charged, and convicted of three separate offenses. 

And yet Turner did get away, in a sense: he was given a mere six months in prison, and will likely serve only three. Contrast that with the 14 years he could have received. 

New York Daily News columnist Shaun King argues that Turner's privileged background helped him evade serious jail time, since the judge was worried that a longer sentence would damage Turner's aspirations. This is blatantly hypocritical, writes King: 

Do you know how many young black boys and girls, sometimes as young as 13 and 14 years old, are tried as adults in court rooms all across America and given mandatory minimums of 10 years and 20 years and even life in prison? Thousands. Tens of thousands. 

King's point is well taken. 

To be clear, this wasn't an ambiguous assault. The victim was fully unconscious, and the perpetrator ran when confronted. Turner changed his story: he initially claimed that he couldn't remember details of the encounter either, but at trial told a new story—that the woman had vocally consented to everything. Twelve jurors decided he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. 

Advocates for rape victims are glad Turner was convicted but furious about the light sentence, and it's easy to see why. The judge was unduly concerned with how the conviction would affect Turner, but Turner isn't the victim: the woman is. His privileged status shouldn't be a mitigating factor. 

Turner's father made headlines recently after a Stanford law professor, Michele Dauber, posted the man's statement in defense of his son. Critics were quick to attack the statement, which cast Brock as the victim and excused his criminal behavior. According to Jezebel

Pointedly, he barely addressed the nature of his son's crime, and instead focused on how the life of the former swimmer (and at one point a projected future Olympian) "has been deeply altered forever," and that he will "never be his happy go lucky self [sic]" again. 

I fail to see why this is newsworthy: of course a father is going to take his son's side, try to inspire sympathy for him, and aim for a lighter sentence. Dan Turner is wrong, but the fact that he advocated this view is not a scandal. The scandal is that the judge bought it. 

Yes, the criminal justice system is frustrating. It's far too harsh for some defendants, and far too lenient for others. The system needs reform. And yet, this is the only way to administer to Turner the punishment he deserves. Imagine if Stanford had tried to handle this case on its own. The worst thing that could happen to Turner is that he would be expelled. As insufficient as Turner's sentence is, months in prison and sex offender registry is still a much graver punishment than the most meaningful thing the university could do. 

Which is not to say that universities should be completely inactive. It's appropriate for Stanford to provide support to student-victims (the woman in this case was not a student). Stanford can educate its students about consent and reckless drinking. It can encourage students to watch out for each other—to practice bystander intervention, as the Swedish students did here. It can educate its future lawyers, judges, and jurors about the realities of sexual assault, so that they will not award undue sympathy to perpetrators. 

Turner's victim did not get as much justice as she deserves, and the process was, in her own words, re-traumatizing. She's very brave for sticking with it—she provided a public service by drawing attention to Turner's criminal behavior. Her case shows that the criminal justice system is in need of reform. But it's still the best vehicle for the adjudication of violent crime.

[Related: Baylor University Is a Perfect Example of Why Universities Shouldn't Police Rape]

NEXT: On Donald Trump and the Rule of Law (cont'd) -- Episode 2 of 'Celebrity President'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New York Daily News columnist Shaun King

    *facepalm*

    Please stop quoting him, Rico. This is not what you’d call helpful.

    1. And Jezebel. 0-2. Their opinions are never relevant.

      1. “And to prove my point, let’s see what Gawker has to say about it.”

      2. That’s okay, I’m sure they’ll reciprocate by quoting Robby in a positive light.

    2. Shaun King was a total interception machine.

    3. Ehh, despite his many flaws, Shaun made a very valid point in covering this same topic. The idea itself belongs in this article, and to not quote King when bringing it up would be dishonest, if not plagiarism. I’ll take honest journalism over perceived false credibility every day of the week.

      1. True, sourcing a quote is indeed better than plagiarism or lying about it. On the other hand, that is not a mitigating excuse. I mean the fuck. Posting the article upside down would also not be as bad as lying, but this does not make it therefore helpful.

        I cannot believe the entire internet closed after hours. Is Elizabeth mad at Robby and not taking his calls? He could have found a relevant, credible source. He chose Shaun King, known lying liar and exploiter of others’ pain, both real and imagined.

        And that is not okay.

    4. My neighbor’s half-sister got paid $18590 last month. she been working on the internet and moved in a $397900 home. All she did was get blessed and apply the instructions uncovered on this website..

      browse this site…. Go Here._______________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. Of course his dad is wrong. It is his dad. I can understand why his dad would have a hard time facing the fact that his son did this. The problem is not the dad. There has always been and will always be parents who can’t see or appreciate the gravity of their kids’ crimes.

    The problem here is the judge or the jury who gave him sentence. Rather than hold up the kid’s dad as a villain, who is guilty of the crime of being biased in favor of his children, why don’t we hold up the judge or jury who were charged with doing justice but then refused to do so as the villain?

    1. That is exactly what Rico said. Good job repeating him.

      1. If it’s not in the headline, it doesn’t count.

      2. And I can’t agree with him? When I rip on Robby I am a big meany Republican shill. When I agree with him and restate his points, I am wrong then too as well. I guess.

        1. It is known.

        2. No, you become a plagiarist.

          1. No. Plagerism is taking his language word for word not his arguments.

            1. Lighten up, St Francis.

            2. Pugelist?

        3. When I agree with him and restate his points, I am wrong then too as well. I guess.

          No, it just means you like being redundant…

      3. READING TEH ARTICKLES IZ 4 FAGZ! /sarc

        1. look, based on the proofreading effort applied to the paragraphs that show up on the blog, I’m pretty sure I couldn’t make it through a whole article.

      4. Didn’t you know this is how you use the Internet?

        1. Read the headline
        2. Post a comment
        3. Read the prior comments (optional) and berate the commenters (mandatory).
        4. Read the article (entirely optional).

        1. I have a lot of opinions about click bait headlines that are worthless if you read the article! Never-step 4!

          1. the whole point of clickbait is to trick people into step 4, which is exactly why you don’t do it.

    2. I, uh, think Robby said as much, above:

      I fail to see why this is newsworthy: of course a father is going to take his son’s side, try to inspire sympathy for him, and aim for a lighter sentence. Dan Turner is wrong, but the fact that he advocated this view is not a scandal. The scandal is that the judge bought it.

    3. Fuck that, my dad would’ve beat the shit out of me, and he was a degenerate. “My baby dindoo nufffin!”

    4. You know, I’ve got 2 teenaged boys (16 and 13 years old respectively) and if one of my sons pulled this shit and admitted it to me I’d be a witness for the prosecution.

      Yeah I love my sons and am “on their side” but sometimes that means making them take their medicine, I sure as hell wouldn’t be writing letters asking for leinency if they made a mistake like this, I’d be writing letters begging for forgiveness for failing so spectacularly to teach them to be men and not animals.

      1. I’d be writing letters begging for forgiveness for failing so spectacularly to teach them to be men and not animals.

        This. While I’ve never been one to hold anyone other than the perpetrator responsible for their crimes, I do sometimes wonder if we should have some kind of punishment for parents who fail so spectacularly at raising their kids to be decent human beings.

        Nothing too severe, just maybe an afternoon or two in pillories in the “public square.”

      2. “You know, I’ve got 2 teenaged boys (16 and 13 years old respectively) and if one of my sons pulled this shit and admitted it to me I’d be a witness for the prosecution.”

        And so they probably wouldn’t do anything like that.

        My uncle used to be a P.E. teacher and he said that the students with the fathers who called and said “let me be the first to know if they are a problem” were always the most well-behaved.

    5. Rather than hold up the kid’s dad as a villain, who is guilty of the crime of being biased in favor of his children,

      While I agree that the problem is the judge, I think the dad is fair game in this case. It isn’t that he’s defending his child, it’s the words and thoughts that he chooses to do so: “20 minutes of action” is like “the officer’s weapon ejected a projectile which proceeded through the victim”. It’s not just defending his kid, it’s a removal of agency from the perpetrator that is insulting to the victim, and to the intelligence of anyone with a brain. And calling rape an “action”, just like going to the store, eating breakfast, or changing a tire is just the icing on the responsibility-avoidance cake.

      He says that his son has never done anything violent, even that night. How completely in denial about the nature of the crime do you have to be to claim that unwanted sexual penetration is not an act of violence? Do you not see how rape victims and advocates might see that as minimizing the harm of rape?

      He then goes on to entirely blame it on the alcohol. Basically, “The Devil made him do it”.

      I expect a father to defend his son- but there is a way to do that without downplaying the severity of the crime and using every word to imply that his kid wasn’t really responsible for his “action”.

      1. Rape is generally considered a crime of violence. This was abuse, but not violence. a lesser sentence is reasonable. Presumably the women went outside with him willingly and it only becomes rape after she passes out. It is even possible she passed out during sex to which she had given consent. She was certainly too drunk to remember. As for him running away, you can be innocent and run away when you are drunk and confused. He definitely abused the women having sex with her while she was unconscious. He deserves his sentence. I do not think the evidence says he deserves more. He might, but I don’t think you could prove it under the circumstances.

    6. This is asinine. His dad is not a dad. IT IS HIS DADS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD HIS KID ACCOUNTABLE. You hold your kid accountable for their heinous mistakes, so they learn. It is no one else’s job to hold his child accountable. If he loved his kid, he would hold it accountable. That’s called being a father.

    7. I’m sure hitlers parents should have sided with him. Moron. It’s his parents who made the mistake of having him. It is their JOB to hold their children responsible for their crimes. It is their job to punish them. It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY. Caring about your kid is holding them responsible.

  3. I understand why Shaun King is quoted – the victim and the perpetrator are white, like Shaun King. But why does Shaun always bring up black people? Must be like feminists always bringing up penises or something…

    1. feminists always bringing up penises

      We all have goals in life.

    2. Because the ONLY people that ever get harsh sentences are black people. I find an interesting parallel with the Ross Ulbricht case in regards to “privilege” affecting sentencing. This rapist got a light sentence, purportedly because of his privilege. While Ross Ulbricht got an unduly harsh sentence precisely because of his privilege. Privilege, apparently, giveth and also it taketh away.

      1. Turner’s victim was a lowly peasant, whereas Ulbricht’s victim was none other than the United States of America, whose kingly prohibitions he violated brazenly and indifferently.

      2. Ulbricht offended the government. This little shit just raped some lowly peasant.

      3. Crimes that have a tangible victim are so yesterday.

      4. Right? I got stopped for no reason, searched for no reason despite being well dressed, polite, and sober, then arrested on felony cocaine possession for tiny amounts of residue stuck to the sides of an empty ziploc, and wound up paying for it with 1 year locked up, 2 years on house arrest, 1.5 years on probation, and a felony conviction, because of extremely minor probation violations that weren’t new crimes and were fabricated or beyond my control. It was my first charge besides speeding tickets and I was a middle class white kid who 1 month earlier graduated from a good university and hired a well-reviewed private attorney. Cost me a $150k a year job and my fiancee. Thank god for my white privilege amirite?

  4. And to pick on nit, Robby needs to learn what the terms “sexual assault” and “rape” actually mean and then use them appropriately. Rape is forced sexual intercourse. Sexual assault is unwanted touching done for the purpose of sexual gratification. To put it in simpler terms, did this guy have penetrative sex with the victim or did he just grope her? If he had sex with her, then call him a rapist in the article and not just in the headline. If he didn’t have sex with her, he is not a rapist full stop and the headline is false.

    1. Isn’t the criminal charge for a rapist usually called “sexual assault”? Pretty sure it is in my state.

      “Caught in the act” suggests that it was properly “rape”.

      I do agree that in a time when there are a lot of people trying to conflate lesser sexual assaults with rape to juice up statistics it would be good to make a finer distinction.

      1. No. The terms are terms of art. I can’t give you ever state’s law but the standard is the American Law institute’s Model Penal Code. It defines the offenses as

        Section 213.1. Rape and Related Offenses

        1. Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if:..

        Assault is an unwanted touching. It is groping but not rape.

      2. Don’t know about your state, but the two are different in Pennsylvania:

        ? 3121. Rape.

        (a) Offense defined.–A person commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:

        (1) By forcible compulsion.

        (2) By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.

        (3) Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring.

        (4) Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant’s power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance.

        ? 3124.1. Sexual assault.

        Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape) or 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant’s consent.

    2. People do conflate the two terms. It was incredibly common during the whole Jian Ghomeshi trial, when none of the stories contained sex, just a handjob that wasn’t really connected to the assault parts. But it does appear that the witnesses and the victim both claim it was rape.

    3. He digitally penetrated her. He was also convicted of penetrating her with a foreign object.

      1. …is there an app for that?

      2. Then he didn’t rape her. He sexually assaulted her. Rape means sex.

        1. California penal code categorizes it as rape because she was incapacitated/unconscious.

          1. No it doesn’t. California law defines rape as

            (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
            person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
            circumstances:

            http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-…..le=261-269

            Sexual intercourse means any penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or genitalia by the penis.
            Penetration Defined. California Penal Code, ? 263

            The finger penetration doesn’t cut it. Rape is sex.

            1. This is quite the hill to die on, John.

              1. Words mean something. I said at the front, I was picking a nit. But sexual assault is not rape and the headline in this article is dead wrong.

                Why the rest of these retards decided to die on that hill is beyond me. The terms are what they are. If Bobarian and SF don’t understand that and wanted me to give them a lessen in basic criminal law, well hopefully they learned something.

                1. OK, not rape. But you were originally picking the nit over penetration vs. groping. It was more than groping.

                  1. Sorry I was not clear. I meant penetrative sex. I did not mean any penetration. I should have been more clear about that.

    4. He was convicted of ‘Sexual Assault’ which, by definition, can include rape, or some lower form of unwanted sexual contact. He did have sex with the unconscious victim.

      So mixing the terms in this case is fully appropriate.

      1. It is appropriate if you don’t know what the terms mean. Sexual assault is the lower form of sexual contact. Rape is the higher form. The elements of rape necessarily include include the elements of sexual assault but not vice versa. He was convicted of sexual assault not rape.

        Once again, it is not appropriate at all. Sorry but it is a serious pet peeve of mine. If people are going to write about this subject, they should make some effort to understand the technical terms involved.

        1. “technical terms involved”

          /Legal/ terms involved.

          The word’s been around FAR longer than the law, “rape” was originally defined as “act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both” or “seduce (a man)”, though the latter has fallen far out of use, as has the “abduction” use. Rape, understood is still as “sexual violation”, though the definition has been expanded to include male victims.

          But overall, the definition of the word “rape” has, in the English language, included lesser forms of “defilement” and “ravishment” since the early 1500’s!! This is not a legal paper, it is an article, and should not be limited by legal language. Just because a spade isn’t /LEGALLY/ a spade doesn’t mean it is wrong to call a spade a spade. By 500 years worth of common use, this IS rape, you’re incorrect, and Brock Turner is a rapist.

          And honestly, the title of the article is probably using “Brock Turner is a Rapist” because it’s already too fucking long and is in no way improved by saying “Brock Turner is a Perpetrator of Sexual Assault”. Just fucking call the spade a SPADE.

          1. “Rape” has always meant sex.

            Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will.

            See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr…..XQgK8.dpuf

            I don’t know where your are getting the idea that rape ever included activities other than sex and I am a bit of a fanatic about legal history and English legal history in particular. Were there other crimes for doing things that didn’t involve intercourse? Sure. But those crimes were not rape. I have never heard of or seen a common law definition of rape that did not include sexual intercourse as an element.

            And Robby can define terms however he wants to define them. If he is going to write about the law, however, he needs to learn how the law defines the terms and use them properly. The guy isn’t a rapist and the headline is wrong. As far as coming up with a pithy truthful headline, that is Robby’s problem not mine.

    5. Rape is forced sexual intercourse. Sexual assault is unwanted touching done for the purpose of sexual gratification.

      But the PC tardos have spent the last 20+ years defining rape down and using the terms interchangeably so much that very few people actually know or understand the difference. I’d think it was deliberate, if I were enough of a cynical assho… oh wait.

      1. “But the PC tardos have spent the last 20+ years defining rape down”

        Not like it’s a recent thing. The language has been changing for a long while now. ORIGINALLY the act of abducting a woman was /rape/. Any form of “defilement” or “ravishment” was rape. It’s been pretty much commonly and culturally accepted that forcing someone into sexual acts is rape. Now the SJW crowd is hell-bent on calling stupid shit like being called hurtful names “rape”. That’s stupid, but equally stupid seems to be the /reactionary/ call to restrict the use of the word to the strictly /legal/ definition. That’s also stupid. Just because people want to expand the definition of “rape” to beyond the common, culturally accepted “forced sexual acts” doesn’t mean the solution is to RESTRICT the definition to “forced penile penetration”. That’s dumb.

        You don’t solve the issue of people taking words and trying to twist them in one direction by twisting them in the other.

        1. “ORIGINALLY the act of abducting a woman was /rape/. Any form of “defilement” or “ravishment” was rape”

          No it wasn’t, you’re wrong on both.

  5. Twelve jurors decided he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Juries can be idiots. I don’t trust any narrative anymore. (Come to think of it, I’d make a terrible juror.)

    1. I was on a jury. It was on a retrial. Afterwords, I read the state supreme court issue that got it sent back for a retrial. Compared to the original jury, we gave the guy a slap on the wrist (we joked that with time served, he was going to beat us to the car). I am guessing that they thought they went light on him too, since they found him not guilty of rape, so 3 felonies isnt bad. We found him guilty of 2 misdemeanors (Rape wasnt an option, obviously, as he had already been found not guilty).

    2. Welcome to postmodernity.

  6. “to practice bystander intervention, as the Swedish students did here.”

    I doubt that “bystander intervention” classes actually encourage students to run after a rapist, tackle him, and hold him for the police.

    They probably teach about how to blow your rape whistle until the rapist runs away, then report the matter to the Dean of Diversity.

    1. “One of the students, Lars Peter Jonsson, testified…that he tripped Turner and held him down with the help of his friend after Turner got up and tried to run away.”

      All right, I would challenge Rico to find a single university in the country, not run by “fundamentalists,” which would encourage students to engage in such “vigilante violence” toward criminals.

      1. I mean, imagine if Turner had been black. Imagine the headlines – “Swedish vigilantes attack black ‘gentle giant.”

        1. “Two white Swedish Swedes of whiteness tackled an unarmed black man, causing [description of Turner’s injuries]. The white Swedish whites became angry when they witnessed the black man having sex with a white woman. They accused the black man of being a rapist.”

          1. Not a chance. Europeans enjoy a privileged status in the progressive hierarchy. Their status as visiting dignitaries from the People’s Republic of Europe would be buried eight paragraphs in.

  7. One of the Baylor football players, Sam Ukwuachu, was convicted of 2nd Degree sexual assault and was also sentenced to 6 months.

    1. Two of the four Vanderbilt players have not gone to trial yet.

      1. Geez. Wasn’t that rape, 3-4 years ago?

      2. Meaning,”why is it taking so long to go to trial”?

        1. There was a mistrial for two of them. The one was recently convicted, the other is going to trial soon again, I believe. My point in sharing that was to piggyback on what I think your point was, which is that the criminal justice system is the problem.

          These cases – the ones where the rapes almost surely took place – deserve a spotlight, not cases that involve a crazy person carrying around a mattress on her back.

          1. Precisely!

            1. Let’s get an apartment together.

              1. Don’t accept that offer, PBR, it’s a trap! A trap leading to Warty’s dungeon.

  8. Do you know how many young black boys and girls, sometimes as young as 13 and 14 years old, are tried as adults in court rooms all across America and given mandatory minimums of 10 years and 20 years and even life in prison? Thousands. Tens of thousands.

    King’s point is well taken.

    Not his point isn’t well taken. King makes a mawkish point and doesn’t bother to explain why it matters. Let’s assume that those sentences King refers to here are unjust. Okay, what does those sentences have to do with this case? Does King want this guy slammed to make up for that injustice? I hope not.

    So what is King’s point here? That long sentences are unjust? Maybe, but if so then maybe this short sentence is just. The point is one really has nothing to do with the other in this context. If King wants to point out the disparity as evidence of racism in the system, that is fine as far as it goes. It is certainly some evidence of racism. What pointing out the discrepancy does not do, however, is say anything about whether the sentence in this case is just. It may be that justice was done in this case while black defendants get screwed. King, and Robby since Robby thinks it is such a good point, seem to think that black defendants getting screwed is automatically evidence that this sentence was unjust. No its not.

    1. He’s attempting to point out unfair racial inequity in the American justice system. Personally, I think wealth is a much bigger factor than race, which is why OJ didn’t go to jail for murder but white moonshiners get sent to jail for 10 years. It’s obvious why he’s making that argument though, which is to call attention to what he sees as an injustice. I really don’t see what’s wrong with that.

      1. Except for the part where it’s unproven.

        To have a comparable case, you’d need a similarly situated black sex offender – affluent and in college, accused of raping a passed-out woman.

        1. Wait–you mean like that town in Ohio that covered for the black athletes who gang raped a passed out woman? Like that?

          1. FWIW, the African-American kid in Steubensville got a juvenile sentence of 12 months and the white kid got 24 months, and they both got out earlier than that. You can argue whether it’s comparable with the Stanford case – on the one hand, they’re younger, on the other hand, it went on longer and the longest sentence was for the kid who took and distributed photos.

      2. The Baylor football player that also got 6 months, is a high level athlete, African-American, attendign an expensive school. No clue if he is affluent though.

        1. Expensive school, that’s a mark against him. A male athlete, that’s another mark. A FOOTBALL athlete, no less. That’s at least four marks against him. But being black is six marks in his favor, so on net the progressive karma machine holds him in balance. More facts are required.

      3. i never bought the money argument. the resources the state has are more than a match for almost anyone. the real disadvantage is workload and the talent of the attorney’s, and while i guess you can make a case for that tying into dollars and cents, i don’t buy it.

    2. Does King want this guy slammed to make up for that injustice?

      Pretty sure that’s exactly what King and the other race hustlers want. Who was it (Angela Davis?) that basically said she’d be OK with more whites getting killed by cops in order to make up for the “injustice” of Michael Brown getting killed?

      1. I am pretty sure you are right about that.

  9. If you think this sentence was unjustly short Robby, why don’t we just make convictions for rape or sexual assault carry a minimum mandatory sentence? Understand that it was outrage over short sentences for drug offenses that created the political momentum to create minimum mandatory sentencing.

    Perhaps grandstanding and questioning jury decisions in individual cases isn’t such a good idea?

    1. John, I don’t disagree with your points and I’m not arguing, but give it a rest for a couple minutes man.

      1. Never. 😉

      2. Don’t stop him Mustang. We love to watch when he gets cranked up like this.

        Besides, he has a good point.

    2. It’s not entirely clear in the post, but it sounds like the judge passed the sentence and made statements expressing concern about the sentences effect on the convict. I think that makes it pretty reasonable to question it.

      1. So you don’t think that a judge should consider the effect of his sentence on the defendant? Really Zeb? You don’t think that defendants can ever have mitigating factors that would make it just to give a lighter sentence to one defendant than to another for the same crime?

        I don’t think you believe that. If you do, then you shouldn’t have a problem with mandatory minimum sentencing.

        1. I said it makes it reasonable to question it, not that it was definitely absolutely the wrong sentence or that such factors should never, ever be considered.

          Of course there can be mitigating factors. But I don’t think “he had a promising career ahead of him” (or whatever it was” should really be one when someone assaults someone.

          1. The fact that he had a promising career ahead of him and that is now gone means the conviction itself is a huge punishment in this case. Suppose this guy and some homeless bum are convicted of the exact same crime. This guy rightfully loses his career and his scholarship and all of that. The bum, since he has nothing to lose, losses nothing and the day he walks out of jail is in the same position he is in as the day he went into jail.

            Why is it unreasonable to consider that reality when determining how much jail time each should get? The point is to punish them for the crime. Why should the first guy be punished more because he is not a bum? I don’t think it is unreasonable to give the bum one year and this guy six months on the basis that the bum, because he has less to lose, needs to spend more time in the can to be made to understand the seriousness of his crime and to deter him from reoffending.

            I understand the counter to that. But I don’t think it is necessarily unjust or unreasonable to view it this way.

            1. Sure, it’s not unreasonable to view it that way. It’s also not unreasonable to question whether the judge’s sentence was appropriately severe given the crime that happened.

            2. “Why is it unreasonable to consider that reality when determining how much jail time each should get?”

              Something something blind justice something.

              Pretty much because therein lies the death of justice. What a great tool your standard would be for the political class!! Imagine Trump wins and does what he promised once: investigate Clinton!! And the FBI finds all the dirt on her email scandal, enough to convict under normal circumstances!!

              But by YOUR standards, the liberals can argue that she was denied the /presidency/ by the email standard. That’s surely punishment enough that she lacked a cushy job and fancy mansion.

              Your standards give Clinton a get out of jail free card, and that should be enough to show why it’s /stupid/ to consider the impact a crime has on a person’s career when determining punishment for a crime!! Sorry, John, but Clinton being denied massive amounts of power should NOT be the reason she doesn’t see jail time. She should NOT be able to enjoy the luxury of her current wealth and power just because she was denied MORE wealth and power.

              1. *email scandal

              2. Pretty much ANY crime conviction for the ruling political class means the END of that politicians career, assuming they see a conviction. THAT ALONE should not give them an excuse to avoid jail time!! You should not be able to reap the benefits of massive corruption and then get no punishment because the lack of a future political career is punishment /enough/.

              3. But by YOUR standards, the liberals can argue that she was denied the /presidency/ by the email standard. That’s surely punishment enough that she lacked a cushy job and fancy mansion.

                Sure they can and it is a valid point. It only sounds invalid here because you fail to put it in its context of the serious nature of the crimes she committed. Suppose instead of what she did, Hillary was convicted on some minor lying to the FBI charge like Martha Stewart was. I think the fact that the conviction cost her her political career and the Presidency would be very relevant factor in sentencing. If she were convicted of taking bribes and leaking classified information like she likely would be in your hypothetical, not so much.

                Taking into account the nature of the defendant, what kind of a person they are, what effect this has already had, how much remorse they show, how likely they are to do this again is called justice. “Justice is blind” doesn’t mean every defendant gets the same sentence for a given crime. If you think it means that, then be honest and endorse minimum mandatory sentences.

                Sorry but you don’t understand very much about how sentencing is supposed to work and you are substituting your lack of knowledge with your emotions.

                1. Jesus Christ, can we all just stop talking to John now that he’s gone full troll?

                  1. Jesus Christ, can we all just stop talking to John now that he’s gone full troll?

                    He’s making good faith arguments, whether or not your agree with them is another matter but that’s not trolling. Don’t you have a Trump rally to riot outside of or maybe a Black Lives Matter rally to attend?

                2. “If you think it means that, then be honest and endorse minimum mandatory sentences.”

                  Kay. The only thing BAD about minimum mandatory sentences is when you get into stupid laws. I think people’s complaints about minimum sentences are misdirected, they only become bad when combined with bad laws. But maybe, yeah, for a violent murder, tying a number of mandatory years to that makes fucking sense.

                  “what effect this has already had,”

                  To consider that is not just. The process should ~never~ be the punishment, and the system needs to be changed to deal with that. The “effect this has already had” is dealt out on the accused REGARDLESS of their guilt. It victimizes the innocent. Nothing about making the process the punishment is /just/.

                  “how much remorse they show,”

                  Yeah, no, I don’t approve of lessening a person’s sentence based on a successful Bluff check. Honest remorse doesn’t bring back the dead or unrape people. A /truly/ remorseful person would think they deserve the appropriate punishment for the crime. All considering “remorse” does is open up the doors to allow the habitually dishonest and skilled liars to game the system and gain lighter sentencing.

                  “how likely they are to do this again”

                  Relevant to increasing the punishment, maybe, not decreasing it. Restitution.

                  1. “is called justice”

                    That’s not just. You have spelled out a system where if I am more wealthy a skilled liar and unlikely to commit my crime a second time, I get a lighter sentences, and it is expected that the process contributes to the punishment. Well that system’s probably great for rich truly guilty liars. Not the brand of justice I’d like to be associated with.

                    Crimes should have set punishments equal to the damage done. Always. Regardless of your status, tears, or effect on your reputation. And only acts that harm others should be crimes. Maybe a person likely to do crime again should be locked up longer, but it should not be a case of a person UNLIKELY to do the crime again being locked up for a lesser time, so minimum sentences, yes.

                    1. If the punishment should always be set to the damage done, then why not let victims alone determine the punishment? Are not they in the best position to judge the damage done?

                      You are just giving a long rationalization for mindless vengeance.

    3. You can think this sentence is too light and still be against mandatory minimums,

      1. Sure you can. But if you are, then what difference does it make and what is the point of making a public issue out of it? Either the jury gets the final word or it doesn’t. If it does, then that is how it goes. What does Robby want to change because of this case? If nothing, then why make a big deal about it?

        Juries sometimes give light sentences. They sometimes give harsh ones too. Who is Robby or you or me to say they are wrong? We didn’t sit through the evidence and bear the responsibility of sending someone to prison, they did. Talk is cheap when you don’t bare any actual responsibility.

        1. Not sure if you would say it matters, but I think the judge did the sentencing in this case.

          1. It was the judge. He like the jury was there and we were not.

  10. I’m beginning to question where Soave gets his news. It’s not good when the most trustworthy and least slanted source linked in your article is the New York Daily News.

  11. You know this guy is guilty because Swedes had to attack him over this. When you get Swedes mad enough to tackle you, you know you did something wrong

  12. “Do you know how many young black boys and girls, sometimes as young as 13 and 14 years old, are tried as adults in court rooms all across America and given mandatory minimums of 10 years and 20 years and even life in prison? Thousands. Tens of thousands.”

    Wow. Thousands of 13-year-old black girls get slammed with 20-year federal sentences? Did not know that.

    I worked in a federal court for years and that never happened. Many many folks convicted, sure, but not a single African American female aged 14 or under was tried or sentenced for anything. Granted, my evidence is anecdotal and roughly 15 years old. Perhaps these shocking cases are concentrated in certain districts.

    Or maybe he’s tossing together facts to create a false impression.

    1. Also, federal courts are probably not where a lot young defendants would end up. I have no idea if those numbers are at all accurate, but I think you’d need to look at state courts.

      1. + state courts with 10 & 20 year mandatory minimums

        1. He may well be full of shit about that (like I said, I don’t know), but you still need to look at state courts to see if lots of black children are being charged as adults.

          1. So far, my state court research is NOT finding thousands of African American girls under age 14 sentenced to 10- and 20-year mandatory minimum prison terms, but there’s a lot of data to consult and some of it may be sealed. Perhaps these are the types Hillary calls super predators?

            1. Shaun King is probably full of shit, at least in part. All I was saying is that experience in federal courts is probably not terribly relevant.

    2. Shaun King is nothing but a low-rent con artist. Nothing that comes out of his mouth can be trusted.

    3. maybe he’s tossing together facts feelings to create a false impression.

      FTFY.

  13. Turner raped her after she passed out from drinking, then fled the scene when two Swedish students caught him in the act. Turner did not get away?the Swedes chased him down,

    Why, in this entire story, does no one question the motives of the Swedes?

    1. Upon skimming the thread, I see Irish was the only one with the balls to at least call the Swedes out.

      1. Swedes are black, right? That’s the only reason I assume they’re guilty of this and framed that poor blonde man

        1. I just assumed you were angry at them because they are not white enough.

    2. I would presume they were cross-examined at the trial, but the jury believed them anyway.

      If the defendant were black, we’d hear more about this part of the case, I’m guessing.

      (So long as we’re doing racial comparisons with black defendants)

      1. Why? Black people go on trial for violent crimes every day and we hear nothing about almost all of them.

        1. Yeah, but if the defendant was black, Shaun King’s column would be completely different–particularly if it’d been Aryans who caught him.

          1. There we go.

            “A couple would-be George Zimmermans assumed that the black guy they saw having sex with a white woman must be a rapist, so they attacked.”

          2. Yeah, maybe. I don’t know anything about Shaun King.

  14. Why do I have this disturbing feeling that the biggest reason that judge Aaron Persky went soft on this dirtbag is because he’s a fellow Stanford athlete? Persky was the captain of the Stanford lacrosse team years ago.

    I love sports, but sometimes it has the unfortunate aspect of turning otherwise sane and rational people into blind and unthinking lunatics. The way many Penn State alumni reacted to the Sandusky/Paterno revelations and the way many Ravens fans reacted to the Ray Rice assault are just two recent events that come to mind.

    1. I invite you to examine the Trump article earlier regarding judges and their affiliations having any influence on their rulings.

      1. For some reason, a lot of Americans have this weird notion that judges are practically sacred beings, like the political version of the clergy or something.

        Nothing could be further from the truth. Judges are just another flavor of politician, and a lot of them are just as big a bunch of slimy and corrupt shitheads as senators and representatives.

        1. ^THis x 10

  15. It can encourage students to watch out for each other?to practice bystander intervention, as the Swedish students did here.

    In a civilized country, as opposed to the People’s Republic of California, that bystander intervention would have involved a gun and sane people could be reading articles about a hero passer-by blowing a rapist’s brains all over that dumpster.

    1. I can’t disagree.

    2. No, I don’t think so. The guy ran. I’m pretty sure that even rapists shouldn’t be shot in the back. And you should probably be really, really, really sure that what you are seeing is a rape before shooting anyone.

      I think they did exactly the right thing. Using violence beyond what is necessary to stop the assault and subdue the rapist is not good or civilized.

      1. I’m pretty sure when you walk up on somebody having sexual intercourse behind a dumpster with a completely incapacitated and blacked-out woman, you can start making assumptions as to what’s happening.

        1. To grab him and stop him maybe. To shoot him dead, I still say you need more. Maybe they are in a kinky relationship and she digs getting banged behind a dumpster while black-out drunk. Probably pretty unlikely, but you’d better be damn fucking sure before you kill someone. Especially if you can stop the crime by less violent and final means.

          Sorry, you aren’t the fucking angel of retribution. If shooting someone is the only way to stop an attack, fine. But that evidently wasn’t the case here because they did stop it without killing anyone. Shooting him would have been murder, full stop.

        2. He was just sexually assaulting her, sloopy. Geez.

          1. Sorry, are you saying that they should have killed him even though it was obviously possible for them to just as effectively stop the assault without killing anyone?

            Also, there is the little fact that they stopped him running away. Is it OK to shoot people in the back now when it’s perfectly possible to stop them?

            1. No, I’m making fun of all the minimization of what he did going on in the rest of the thread.

              No biggie.

              1. Yeah, the guy’s a fucking rapist (or whatever if you want to split hairs with John) who deserves severe punishment. But lets gather a few facts before executing him.

        3. Considering that most people are idiots and it was in a darkened alley, I’d like to not leave my destiny to the average person’s split-second decision making skills.

          I have no idea what this actually looked like in the moment of the act, but everyone else seems to know. How do you know you won’t mistake someone actually trying to help a blacked-out friend and you blow them away?

          1. Eyewitnesses can easily get things very wrong. I’m sure Sloopy never misinterprets any situation, but not everyone is so reliable.

            Even if it was obvious to anyone with a pulse that he was raping her, I’m still going to say that shooting him would not be the right move morally or practically.

      2. What about kicking them in chest and breaking 4 or 5 ribs and sending them to the hospital with a punctured lung? A guy I knew in college once caught 2 scumbags raping a woman. The one who was holding her down got up and started to come at him. Something like this happened, only to the guy’s chest instead of inanimate wood boards.

        1. If he’s coming at you and not running away, then yeah, have at it. Self-defense, and I won’t hold it against anyone for giving a little extra ass-wupping because you just caught him raping someone.

  16. It’s only hypocritical if THIS judge had handed out harsh sentences to 13 year old blacks. I’m in no way condoning this asshat’s behavior but he was twice the legal limit drunk and the girl did herself no favors by becoming pass out drunk at a college party.

    1. Why does how drunk he was matter? I’ve been that drunk on plenty of occasions and committed 0 rapes

      1. If you’ve ever had sex with a drunk girl you might have.

    2. I’m in no way condoning this asshat’s behavior but I am going to excuse it.

      If he’d gotten drunk and then mugged someone who did themselves no favor by also being drunk, would that mitigate anything?

      1. It’s an explanation not an excuse.

        1. Nothing in what you said was causal, so it’s not an explanation. Rape isn’t caused by being drunk, unless you’re one of those people currently presiding on a Title IX board calling all drunk sex rape. She’s still a victim, whether she was asleep or had gotten a concussion or drunk herself silly. Why don’t people understand that when they say stuff like “she wasn’t doing herself any favors”, it’s entirely irrelevant information, so their motives in even mentioning are suspect?

          1. If the bitch hadn’t passed out behind a dumpster she wouldn’t have been molested. She was so drunk she didn’t wake up until hours later in the hospital.

    3. Not to go all SJW on you, but this does sound a bit like blaming the victim in a case where the guy is completely at fault.

      Getting drunk and making poor decisions is one thing.

      Assaulting someone while they’re passed out, regardless of what they were doing, is clearly over the line.

      1. Assaulting someone while they’re passed out and the attacker is also drunk happens all the time. Alcohol is a hell of a drug.

        1. What’s your point?

          1. Alcohol makes people do things they normally wouldn’t.

        2. Prohibition Party 2016??

    4. Why does it matter how drunk she was? There are plenty of girls who get as drunk or more who don’t get raped.

      1. It matters because she was apparently (or supposedly) unconscious.

        1. Unconscious Lives Don’t Matter!

        2. Which means that she had no way of giving consent, so a rape conviction is pretty clear-cut.

          1. I think I misunderstood the direction of your question.

      2. There are plenty of girls who get as drunk or more who do get raped.

  17. I guessing his old man really wishes his son had been a football player at Baylor instead…

  18. Just wondering: how intoxicated was he at the time?

  19. Nobody would be here, right down to and including me, if that vapid c#nt had not drunk so goddamned much alcohol that she could not even control her own body or entertain even a fleeting awareness of where she was or who she was with.

    She abdicated control of her body and will to complete strangers, and now she’s sadz because they didn’t give her body the respect she should have shown it her damned self.

    Yes, rape exists. Yes, women (and sometimes men) are attacked and penetrated against their will. And a lot fewer rapes would occur if people would be aware of their surroundings and their company, and be responsible for their own bodies, safety, and appetites for alcohol and drugs.

    I’ll readily admit Brock Turner is an asshole, and that his sentence was a slap on the wrist. But what I said earlier is also true: Brock Turner could have gone right on being an asshole to somebody else, and this whiny woman could have got right on with her life, if she hadn’t guzzled enough liquor that night to flamb? an aircraft hangar.

    1. I agree. Every college student who gets really drunk deserves to get raped. Smart take

      1. Wait…. I don’t get to do whatever I want to unconscious people?… aww fuck.

      2. No, let me explain that to you again, since you have some sort of problem parsing logic:

        Every person who gets really drunk puts themselves at risk for attack. Or accidental injury. Or a lot of things.

        If someone rapes you, it is still rape, and it’s still an attack. But you’re partially to blame. If you hadn’t been that drunk, it’s a lot less likely that the attack or injury would have occurred. Sorry-not-sorry if I actually expect women to be responsible for their own bodies and choices.

        1. But you’re partially to blame.

          Only in a dumbfuck world like yours where passing out = getting raped.

          What you’re essentially saying is that I’m responsible for what other people do to me. Accidents are one thing, initiating force (assuming that’s what happened), is another.

          1. What you’re essentially saying is that I’m responsible for what other people do to me.

            Hilarious, how you can’t seem to draw a bead on this personal responsibility thing. I know, it’s tough, if you’ve never thought you had a responsibility to meet your own needs before.

            If nothing you ever do to increase your risk of attack or injury is your fault, then why don’t you weave back and forth on the highway when you drive? (Hell, maybe you do, I don’t know.) Why don’t you operate a chainsaw drunk and one-handed? Why don’t you eat that old meatloaf that’s been sitting in the back of your fridge since January? Why don’t you show up to work drunk and high, and meet with your boss and your customers while you’re shitfaced drunk?

            Because you know these things would increase your risk of injury, illness, unhappiness, job or privilege loss, paying an assload of money in insurance, etc. You don’t do these things because you’re not even tempted to, because it would be ridiculous to take risks like that. Because it’s possible nobody could save you from the consequences, and you know it.

            This young woman drank. And drank. And drank. And thought, latently or no, that she’d just magically get home to her own bed that night, because somebody else would make sure of it. Real talk? The sooner women stop thinking it’s somebody else’s job to look out for their bodies and be aware of their surroundings, the sooner these attacks will decline.

            1. It’s like she spun around in a public park, blindfolded and firing a machine gun.

            2. consider a scenario where she was drunk but didn’t pass out, and ended up happily incoherently knob-bobbing behind the dumpster. no harm no foul. or maybe she went home and found someone to hold her hair while she puked.

              it’s the same logic as leaving your car unlocked with a stack of $20s in the back seat. maybe nothing happens, and if the money is taken you’ve been robbed, but you should take some responsibility for putting yourself in that situation.

              no one’s saying drunk people *deserve* anything… just that putting yourself in that condition changes your ability to handle things that while sober you’d be able to handle. this kid probably doesn’t assault someone looking for sex – just looking for someone who won’t say no. what colleges really need – rather than the support groups and believing the “victim” – is to have real life demonstrations of how alcohol affects un-similarly sized men and women (hint: most women get tanked on a lot less booze). find a volunteer to do 6 shots in 10 minutes in front of a live sober audience and watch the hilarity. better than anything out there now.

              1. Really, ALL supposed “victims” of crimes are at fault. Partially at fault that is. If they had simply lived as hermits away from all civilization and potential criminals, then no crimes would ever have happened to them.

                Now, no one’s saying non-hermits DESERVE anything… just that living with people who chose to live alongside other people need to take some responsibility for putting themselves into that situation. No one’s MAKING you live with other people!!

            3. Look, man, she took safety measures. She decided she wanted to get blackout drunk and did so in a relatively safe environment. In the proximity of two vigilante Swedes.

              You know, fuck it. Anyone who gets raped outside of the proximity of vigilante Swedes clearly was personally responsible at least in part. I mean, vigilante Swedes are clearly good rape deterrents, so going without a pair of burly blonde foreigners is the EXACT SAME as leaving your entire bank savings in an unlocked car!!

        2. When I break into your vehicle later, it’s your damn fault for buying such a valuable vehicle!! If people didn’t BUY nice things, I wouldn’t be tempted to steal ’em now would I??

          Now, of course, theft is wrong and I’m to blame,

          But you’re partially to blame. If you hadn’t bought that thing, it’s a lot less likely that the theft would have occurred. Actually the probability drops to zero. Sorry-not-sorry if I actually expect people to be responsible for their own property and choices.

          Also if people took the time to make themselves fatter and uglier, then their chances of rape would be greatly reduced. People who don’t make themselves fat and ugly are partially to blame for any rapes they get.

          People who also failed to learn martial arts and own a gun are also partially to blame for their rapes. Because learning martial arts and owning a gun would greatly reduce such a thing.

          Also, people who drink ANY alcohol at all or do ANY drugs at all, both increase the chances of you being targetted by an assailant!! Also people who live, work, or enter sketchy neighborhoods!! And people who fail to plug their orifices with glue are partially to blame for their rapes. And people who fail to live as hermits in the wilderness far away from any other human/potential rapist!!

          1. Exactly. I mean, that 9 year old kid carrying that fake gun at the playground near the police station is partially to blame for getting shot 37 times in the back because the cops thought he was armed and dangerous. He should have known better than to play with toy guns near cops. Amirite shitforbrains, er I mean, Paper Twat..Wasp. Paper Wasp?

      3. Every college student who passed out drunk in public should be kicked out off college and charged with a misdemeanor unser current law my yes, even the women.

      1. I think there should be designated rapists on every college campus who randomly plow passed out college kids. That way it will teach college students to be more intelligent in the future.

        How hot is my take?

        1. STEVE SMITH LIKE YOUR THINKING!!!

        2. I think there should be designated rapists on every college campus

          There are, shitlord. They’re called frat boys.

          -Jezebel

    2. There it is. The dumbest thing I’ve read today.

      1. C’mon man, she gave up her right to her own body when she drank too much. Don’t you know anything? If I have narcolepsy and pass out in the street, it’s totally cool if you take a dump in my mouth. It was my own fucking fault for forgetting to take my meds that day.

      2. The best thing for him is to get raped the next time he gets drunk.

        1. Or, the best thing is for him to get raped in jail when completely sober. That way there is no chance he could one day forget about it. Then he gets out of jail and becomes a raging alcoholic who is enabled by all the free steaks and booze his dad can feed him.

          1. I’m talking about Paper Wasp. He thinks drunks have it coming.

            1. Dude tried to have it coming but was interrupted.

            2. Ah, pardon my mistake.

              I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Paper Wasp couldn’t get raped if he wanted to, drunk or not.

      3. Yeah…so far. There is a lot of today left.

    3. Yes, only vapid cunts ever get too drunk.

      I’ll readily admit Brock Turner is an asshole

      Well, you clearly know whereof you speak.

    4. THIS HERE FUCKIN HORE GOT WUT SHE DSERVD

      1. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the SJWs just want to kill all men. This guy shouldn’t have raped her, but she shouldn’t have been drunk! Like, she has to have part of the blame, y’know? I don’t think she should be punished, and my point has basically no relevance. I’m really just farting in the wind. Basically, I just don’t want the asshole who raped her to take 100% of the blame, because fuck the SJW’s, right? Hold on, the drugs are kicking in.

        – Paper Wasp

        1. I appreciate that this dipshit gave me someone appropriate to use the toothless hillbilly voice on, though. I was feeling a little bit bad about using it so much on the self-pitying Trump supporters.

      2. Lock Wasp and Longtorso in a room with a handle of tequila and see what happens.

    5. It’s good advice not to get blackout drunk at a frat party without a very clear and sober wingman, but a crime is still a crime. I wouldn’t cut a mugger a break on sentencing if she only mugged drunks or even if she only mugged while drunk.

    6. “She abdicated control of her body and will to complete strangers”

      Ya have proof they were “complete strangers” brah or are ya just expectin’ me to “listen and beleeeve” ‘Cuz if you’re gonna get blackout drunk, it’s safest to do it with a friend (or Swede, apparently) nearby, and ya’ve offered no proof that these people were all strangers.

    7. The thing with the “responsibility” argument is the degree by which getting blackout drunk increases your chances of being raped.

      It all boils down to if the increase in chance is statistically significant. LOTS of people get blackout drunk and DON’T get raped.

      The example of “leaving a car unlocked with valuables in it” is stupid, because not a lot of people do it. The person there is obviously culpable because the chances of getting your shit stolen by leaving it in an unlocked car in a sketchy neighborhood DRASTICALLY increases the chance it will be stolen.

      Getting blackout drunk doesn’t increase the chances of you getting raped /very much/. It does increase the chances, but most people can REASONABLY assume that they can get blackout drunk without getting raped.

      It’s like martial arts. Learning martial arts will reduce the chance of you being raped, or assaulted, or mugged. However, the chances of you being raped, assaulted, or mugged WITHOUT learning martial arts is low enough that one can REASONABLY expect to not be raped, assaulted, or mugged without going through a training montage. Thus, we wouldn’t say that everyone who fails to learn martial arts is partially responsible for their rape. That’d be dumb.

  20. You know, it’s really sad in a way. This sounds like an honest, straightforward, case of rape. And to the extent it is, I’d agree that the little prick deserves a hell of a lot more than six months.

    The thing is, all of the abuse of the term rape by the feminists has left a sliver of uncertainty in my mind. I’m left wondering if I know for certain it was rape and not the case of a drunken hook-up gone wrong.

    I’ve said before that if everything is rape nothing is rape. I wish that weren’t the case.

    1. You can think for yourself without letting feminists make you automatically contrary.

      …says the feminist. Maybe I just want you to not think for yourself. You’ll never know!

      1. You can think for yourself without letting feminists make you automatically contrary.

        It isn’t automatically contrary. It’s just skeptical of accusations in the extreme.

        …says the feminist. Maybe I just want you to not think for yourself. You’ll never know!

        Of course you don’t want me to think for myself. You’re a feminist you don’t want anyone to think for themselves.

    2. Considering the sources are Jezebel and Shaun King I’m waiting for it to come out as another BS story. You’re not alone in being a cynic.

  21. There seems to be some confusion in this comment section, so allow me to clear it up

    Drinking too much could put you in danger, so don’t get so drunk you pass out =/= blaming the victim

    That stupid bitch had this coming. Drunk whore = blaming the victim

    1. Agreed. She shouldn’t have drunk so much. But that’d be true regardless of what this putrid dipshit did to her.

    2. Which assumes there’s something wrong in apportioning blame to the victim. There isn’t, but that’s your assumption. You haven’t explained why we should all assume that. Maybe you’ll do us the honor of explaining, but I’m guessing your explanation is nothing more than “BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMYN AND WOMYNZ AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR BODIES UNTIL IT’S TIME FOR ‘BORSHUN RIGHTS AND THEN THEY SUDDENLY ARE!!!11!!!”

      Brock Turner is responsible for raping her. She is responsible for getting so fucked-up drunk that she could not control her own body or be aware of her surroundings and potential threats. Yes, I partially blame her, and it sounds like the judge does, too.

      1. The difference is that the woman committed no crime (or at least nothing that should be considered a crime), whereas Turner took something that wasn’t his, and initiated force against her. There’s a big fucking difference, and if you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t be on a libertarian website.

      2. Are you so completely bereft of logic to understand that the woman didn’t do anything to “deserve” being raped?

        This wasn’t “hey let’s go back to my room” and then “whoops I woke up the next morning hung over and regretting it therefore rape!”.

        This was – passed out woman carried to a secluded area (behind a dumpster! Classy!) and completely taken advantage of, = rape. There is ZERO blame to go in her direction.

        1. He’s either a troll, or a typical fake tough guy who thinks he’d never find himself in a compromising position – y’know, ’cause he’s awesome at this “life” shit.

      3. Are you so completely bereft of logic to understand that the woman didn’t do anything to “deserve” being raped?

        This wasn’t “hey let’s go back to my room” and then “whoops I woke up the next morning hung over and regretting it therefore rape!”.

        This was – passed out woman carried to a secluded area (behind a dumpster! Classy!) and completely taken advantage of, = rape. There is ZERO blame to go in her direction.

        1. Your point is so correct it had to be said twice, cause this idiot wouldn’t get it the first time. Even the squirrelz know it was rape.

      4. LOL, you’re the one who shouldn’t be here. What part of “personal responsibility” is difficult for you to spell or define?

        Did I say, anywhere, that she committed a crime? Where did I say that? Please point that out to me.

        I said she was partly to blame because she was so inebriated, by her own personal choice, that she passed out and left her body–and her responsibility to protect it–in the hands of dog-knows-who.

        This is just like an acquaintance of mine who left a brand-new iPhone on the front seat of her car while parking in downtown Chicago a few years ago. Unsurprisingly, someone broke the window and stole the phone. Is she the thief? No, and the thief deserves to go to jail. But that phone would never have been stolen if she hadn’t left it there on the front seat, now would it? And it’s a hell of a lot less likely that anyone would have broken into her car.

        1. Riiiight. Ok. So what should we do about your friend who had her phone stolen? Nothing? oh, ok. Shut the fuck up then.

          1. LOL, gosh, yeah. Maybe we should make a LAW!! Oh, wait. It’s already against the law to steal. I know! Let’s make a mandatory minimum sentence of a gazillion years against thieves who steal stuff that’s really nice and in plain sight! Maybe a law that says if you steal something worth a certain amount of money, it’s a more serious crime! Oh, wait, already got that law, too. Well, gosh darn, what would completely and totally prevent stuff from getting stolen, for all time? Hmm.

            Maybe rape will totally stop altogether if we make sure all the rapists get the ‘lectric chair! And nobody will ever have to be careful how much they drink, ever again. That’ll work. Er…all right, not.

            Do you…do you actually know what “libertarian” means, son? Doesn’t sound like it.

            1. Are you fucking high? I’m saying that your point is totally irrelevant to anything. We all agree that she shouldn’t have drunk so much, but that’s a far cry from “it’s partially her fault too.” You’re a fucking wacko.

              Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, son (fuck you, by the way, you total gasbag piece of shit), but we also believe that it’s the initiation of force against people that is wrong. I’m not the one saying your friend who had her phone stolen did anything wrong. You are. Did your friend do something somewhat unwise? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that she was “partially to blame” as you were implying.

              You’re a total fucking weasel who wants to victim-blame (only a little though! /derp). Should the girl have been more wise and not end up passed out drunk? Yes – but that’s true in and of itself, regardless of what ended up happening. Do you get it yet?

    3. “Drinking too much could put you in danger” isn’t victim blaming when we tell people how to not lose their wallets/phones, so it follows it isn’t necessarily victim blaming in a rape case. It’s kind of factual that drinking too much could put you at risk. And I’ve seen people go off the rails anti-victim-blaming about good advice like stay with friends, keep an eye on your drink, etc. I have employed tactics like this to stay safe and keep my friends safe while having a good time.

      But when people bring up “yeah, but she shouldn’t have drunk so much” when it has nothing to do with the rest of the conversation about sentencing, that’s just subtle victim blaming. Some people get really hung up on “why can’t I say this fact/good advice??? Why are you persecuting me for speaking the truth?”

    4. Learning martial arts reduces the chance of getting raped, so learn martial arts =/= blaming the victim

      Therefore, I should be able to tell every raped non-martial artist they were TOTES partially responsible for their rape, right??

  22. So the guy was drunk and he groped and penetrated a passed out girl. He is guilty of sexual assault no doubt.

    So if you guys are outraged by him only getting six months and a felony conviction what do you think would be a proper sentence? And why do you think the harsher sentence is appropriate?

    Deterrence? Do you really think that someone not deterred by the prospect of a felony conviction and six months in jail is going to be deterred by the prospect of 10 years or some harsher sentence? A few no doubt but it is hard to imagine there are that many people who are not deterred by 6 months but would be by some greater amount.

    Public safety? Is this guy more likely to do this again if we let him out in six months versus say five years? Again, we can’t know for sure but I doubt it. My guess is that he has ruined his life and regrets doing this even if it is for the wrong reasons and knowing that if he ever gets caught again he will be a two time loser and likely never see the light of day will probably make it pretty unlikely he molests some passed out girl again.

    So what reason does anyone have for a harsher sentence? What purpose would a harsher sentence serve beyond revenge?

    1. People are going to balk at a sentence described in months, and a judge openly worrying about the defendant’s academic career certainly doesn’t help matters.

      1. Sure and maybe they should. But if they do, they owe it to themselves and the justice system to at least try and explain why beyond “t’aint fair!!”.

        Criminal justice reform is rightfully a big issue. And the truth is we sentence too many people to prison for too long of sentences in this country, and that is more than just the drug war. I think most Libertarians would agree with that. So, if people want a harsh sentence here, they should have to explain why.

        I don’t like this guy either. But I don’t necessarily think he deserves to go away forever. And judges should consider the defendant and the effect getting a conviction at all has on their lives when determining sentence. The conviction and the record of it is part of the punishment. So if the conviction does all kinds of damage to this guy’s life, maybe you do give him less time in jail. You certainly don’t if you think he is a threat to society. But this guy doesn’t seem to be. So the reason you send him to jail is punishment and deterrence. As I say above, the marginal gains in deterrence and damage to this guy’s life of giving him a few extra years seem pretty small.

        1. You certainly don’t if you think he is a threat to society. But this guy doesn’t seem to be.

          He’s a rapist. He took an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and had sex with her. You don’t think he’s a future threat to society? You feel fine taking him at his word that he will never do it again?

          Shit, then why even sentence him? HE HE SAID HE WAS SORRY AND HE HASN’T HAD A STEAK IN LIKE TWO WEEKS!!!

          Jesus John, come on man.

          1. He’s a rapist.

            No he is not, at least by the legal definition of the term.

            He’s a rapist. He took an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and had sex with her. You don’t think he’s a future threat to society? You feel fine taking him at his word that he will never do it again?

            After we convict him of a felony and stick him in jail for six months and let him out knowing that if he is ever convicted again he likely won’t see the light of day for a decade or more? No, I don’t he is likely to do it again. Why do you? And if he is likely to do it again, what reason is there to believe that 10 years in jail will make him any less likely than six months? I don’t see any.

            There needs to be more of a reason to sentence someone than emotional rage. And that is all you are offering. Why not put him in jail for life? Or just shoot him?

            1. But at a certain point, shouldn’t there be a place for judgement. And, at a certain point, I think it’s fair to say that 6 months for rape shows an error in judgement. And it’s not only fair, it’s right to criticize that error.

              1. It is not six months for rape. He didn’t rape her. Sticking his finger inside her, while certainly a crime, is not rape and for good reason. It is just not as serious of a violation of her as actually raping her.

                Second, sure you can second guess the judgement. But you should have to come up with some reasoning why the judgement was bad other than “I don’t like it”. I gave some reasoning why this sentence isn’t outrageous. You don’t have to agree with my reasoning Bill but you have to be able to explain why you would do it differently. No one here seems to be able to do that.

                1. You don’t have to agree with my reasoning Bill but you have to be able to explain why you would do it differently.

                  Valid point. I’d say, first of all, I’d argue that the fact that this punishment is so incongruous with other sentences suggests special treatment. It strikes me that saying having been to jail is a more life-destroying penalty for some people than others, even if true, is beside the point. If you believe in equality before the law, it’s not something that should be taken into account. Moreover, I disagree with you on the extent of a deterrent effect. Six months sends the message that it isn’t a serious crime. People literally get longer sentences for drunk driving.

                  Whether you want to consider this rape, or legalistically cite sexual assault, I think we can agree that what he did was more serious than driving home after having a couple of beers.

                  1. If you can show me where this judge has sentenced other people to significantly longer terms for similar crimes, then I think you have a point. Cases involving other judges, not so much. Maybe this guy is a lenient judge.

            2. I thought there was intercourse? If not then yeah, technically he’s not a rapist. Semantics aside, he’s a rapist.

              The length of the sentencing may or may not be worthy, but it’s the way the judge stated that he was concerned about how this would affect the defendants career that is the most troubling. In cases where the conviction is unanimous like this I would tend to err on the side of a harsher sentence that would then be reduced on appeal as opposed to a comparatively light one that has no chance of being increased.

              You say you don’t think it is likely that he will do this again, yet I don’t see what makes you so confident about this. A brief google search shows statistics pretty much all over the place about sexual assault repeat offenders (from high 50%’s to low single digits) so neither of us can argue scientifically what he is more likely to do.

              What I am absolutely sure of is that unless his victim forgives him no one else can, and that’s what it sounds like the judge and his family are doing.

              1. “In cases where the conviction is unanimous like this”

                They all have to be unanmous. Its not possible to convict him otherwise.

                So, now that it’s clear you know not even the most basic facts of the process, and your analysis is immediately flawed as a result, can we just tell you to fuck off until you’re less ignorant?

        2. Confining first-time offenders with little likelihood of reoffending is kinda dumb in any event. I vote for victim compensation and probation.

        3. You certainly don’t if you think he is a threat to society. But this guy doesn’t seem to be.

          This attitude is *exactly* what the problem is. A guy murders someone, or blows up a car bomb, or stabs someone with a knife, you wouldn’t say “he’s sorry, he learned his lesson, his life’s ruined anyway, it was his first crime, he was never violent, so what’t the point of further punishment.” That statement is appropriate for stuff like shoplifting or driving with expired tags.

          Hint: rape is a lot more like murder than shoplifting.

          1. Some crimes are so bad that justice demands a harsh punishment no matter. No one gets one free car bomb or murder and then are allowed to say they are sorry. Other crimes, however, are not that serious and the person’s likelihood to reoffend becomes very relevant to sentencing.

            I don’t think this is one of those crimes. Sorry but finger banging a passed out girl behind a dumpster, while certainly a serious crime, is not the same as murdering someone or even engaging in a violent rape or assault. It is just not and no one with any sense is going to think it is.

            And no one is saying this guy should be let off. He is going to be a convicted sex pervert, a felon and do six months in jail. I seriously doubt he thinks he got away with anything here or looks at the experience as being worth it.

            1. Sorry but finger banging a passed out girl behind a dumpster, while certainly a serious crime, is not the same as murdering someone or even engaging in a violent rape or assault.

              Would it have been a more serious crime if those two men who stopped him had arrived a few minutes later? The inclusion of his dick makes the crime more serious? Also, she was unconscious, so he did not have to get violent or forceful.

              1. Maybe Crusty but we don’t know that. We can only sentence the guy for the acts he was convicted of doing. You can’t sentence someone for acts you think they might have committed.

            2. Yes. I just don’t like the idea of the state or agents of the state being beneficiaries of the legal process. I think it gives too much inducement to impose laws more numerously and stringently than they need be. A system that awards damages to victims or at least incentivizes convicts to work toward a goal other than surviving in a rape cage for a period of time, with all the crap that attends that exposure, seems to me like a superior manner of punishment.

              After the summary judgement is set, firms would bid on how much of the award they’re willing to pay in exchange for securing title to the convict’s labor; obviously, there would be a great deal of heterogeneity from convict to convict in terms of skillset, etc. The judgement of course belongs to the victim, so the victim would decide to whom she sells. Perhaps the convict’s family would offer to pay the judgement, or perhaps she sells it to a third party workgang. Workgangs would need to incentivize the convicts over whom they hold title, and would have to compensate them reasonably well: enough to ensure the convict wishes to complete his sentence as quickly as possible, and yet still make a profit off his labor. Thus the victim enjoys some monetary compensation for her suffering, convicts aren’t sitting in prison cells for years, and we can reserve a truly terrible system of punishment for the most recidivist and impossible felons.

              1. So the guy would go to prison under your system and work to give compensation to the victim?

                That is an interesting idea but isn’t there a bit of a moral hazard to creating a system where individuals benefit from people being convicted of crimes and receiving harsh sentences?

                1. That is an interesting idea but isn’t there a bit of a moral hazard to creating a system where individuals benefit from people being convicted of crimes and receiving harsh sentences?

                  You mean prosecutors?

                  I’m mostly spitballing, really. I’ve brought it up before but haven’t given it too much thought since then. If you have a resource for radical legal theories, I’d love to read it. As for undue beneficiaries, well, that would have to be handled under anti-corruption laws. But let’s consider this: as it stands, a wealthy man can bribe a judge. It’s illegal, but it can happen. All that changes in my system is that someone who stands to earn from restitution can attempt to sway the judge or jury. It’s still corruption or conspiracy or whatever.

                  More to the point, it takes victimless crimes off the books, or at least reduces the state’s incentive to criminalize vices. Who is the victim if I smoke pot? Who am I going to restitute? If I bang a prostitute, who is the victim? Me, for solicitation, or her, for accepting the money? I’m sure that are really obvious examples where this won’t work (ie if I murder a homeless man with no family, who am I meant to compensate?), but it doesn’t have to be perfect to be better.

                  1. If I bang a prostitute, who is the victim criminal?

                  2. And I realize how blue sky this is. We have prisons full of hardened no-shit lunatics, but they are in part the product of a system that engenders black markets, encourages lawlessness and gangsterism, then punishes offenders by sticking them in a toxic morass where they’re concentrated and, frankly, radicalized. So, yeah, there are tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of no-shit recidivists for whom work gangs would never have a use. But we could start by eliminating the bad policies and breeding grounds that gives rise to this shit.

            3. One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body.

              “finger banging” in John’s world. Fucking joke.

              1. Correct. And he also assumes this is the first time Turner has ever done anything like this.

            4. Sorry but finger banging a passed out girl behind a dumpster, while certainly a serious crime, is not the same as murdering someone or even engaging in a violent rape or assault.

              See, again, just like the dad, you are refusing to admit that rape is inherently violent. Do you really think there is such a thing as a non-violent rape?

              On the list of punishment lengths, murder should be first. Assault and rape should be tied for second, even those mythical “non-violent rapes” that you somehow believes exists.

              1. You would punish any assault more than say serious theft and fraud cases? You think what this guy did is worse than someone who steels someone’s retirement savings and leaves them pennyless? Or a judge who takes bribes?

                Really? I don’t think so. Life isn’t as simple as you think.

              2. “See, again, just like the dad, you are refusing to admit that rape is inherently violent. ”

                Well, you’re refusing to admit that it isn’t, even in the case of rape by coercion, which is an actual crime.

                So, in the face of the existence of an actual crime that irrefutably demosntrates that you are wrong, you continue to insist, like a true SJW, that something is a thing that it clearly is not.

                Tell me why to care about what you think when you’re wrong but insist you aren’t?

      2. ^This. How often do you hear judges remarking that the defendants future academic/professional career is a factor in the sentencing? How the fuck does that matter at all?

        1. “You know, son, I’m a Stanford man myself.”

    2. I don’t know if there should be a harsher sentence or not. I think a lot of people would just prefer some consistency. Here we have an actual case of rape and the sentence seems light compared to the other bullshit cases Robby presents us with regularly.

      The judge’s reasoning and the dad’s response don’t help to keep emotions in check either.

      No, I don’t have a cite.

      1. If you want consistency, then go with minimum mandatory sentences. Of course, those are often very unjust. You can have consistency or you can have justice in each case but you can’t have both.

        1. Fair point.

          I see where you’re coming from and I’m of the opinion that the public crucifixion of both the father and the son will be a pretty harsh sentence.

          Frankly I’m more outraged at numbnuts up above who thinks that a person who is passed out drunk is just asking for it.

          1. I do and I understand it. It sucks. But it is the price we pay for having a fair justice system. If you are not willing to live with the case where someone gets less punishment than they deserve, then you better be willing to live with cases of people getting more. There is no perfect system.

            I would rather live with people getting less than just hammering everyone.

    3. Part of incarceration is punishment. Call it revenge, or whatever, but this guy has committed an act that will have severe negative ramifications in the victim’s life for many years; he should be punished accordingly for that.

      Not to mention, that his father’s letter indicates that he was raised to not take responsibility for his actions and is, indeed, a public threat.

      1. but this guy has committed an act that will have severe negative ramifications in the victim’s life for many years;

        Really? How do you know that? I don’t see any facts in the article that say anything about the victim. What if the victim got up on the stand and said she forgave him?

        1. Your research on the subject stands without peer.

          1. The article says the rape activists are furious about the sentence but I don’t see anything about what the victim thinks. Maybe she is furious too. I don’t know. Even if she is, the victim doesn’t get the final say on sentencing. Moreover, her being angry about this sentence doesn’t mean that it will effect her for years.

            You know who did hear from the victim? The judge. He saw the whole trial and concluded six months was appropriate. So how exactly are people who didn’t see the trial in a position to second guess him?

            1. The victim read part of her twelve page letter to the judge in front of the courtroom. The letter is included in the link.

              Then Turner was sentenced. Then there was outrage. Then the father’s letter was released. Then there was more outrage.

              1. Again, the judge was there. He heard the letter and saw the trial. You and I and the rest of the people on here didn’t. For whatever reason, he didn’t find the letter to be compelling. Maybe it is because he is an evil guy who hates women and thinks the woman got what she deserved. I don’t know, but I don’t see any evidence of that or any reason not to give the judge the benefit of the doubt here.

                Would I have given this guy six months? Probably not, but I am hard ass and would no doubt be a hell of a hanging judge in these sorts of cases if they ever made me a judge. Other people look at things differently and even I might look at it differently had I been there.

                I don’t know the whole story, the letter may not be as convincing as it appears to be. There may be some things about the credibility of the victim we don’t know about. Why do you assume the victim is telling the whole and complete truth here? Because she put it in a letter?

                the point is not whether this sentence is just. No one here is in a position to say that since they didn’t see the trial. The point is what a bad idea it is to start joining in with the outrage mob every time someone gets anything less than a draconian sentence from a judge or jury.

                1. Why do you assume the victim is telling the whole and complete truth here?

                  There were witnesses, John. She was unconscious.

                  1. Sure. And who is to say that what they saw matched up to the details she is giving? I am not saying the guy is innocent. He clearly did it. But that doesn’t mean every detail the victim gives is true either.

                    Again, neither one of us know and that is the point.

                    1. She was repeating what was told to her.

                    2. “She was repeating what was told to her”

                      This is supposed to be evidence FOR the accuracy of her testimony?

        2. There are orange words in the article that are actually links to other stories. The victim’s statement to the offender is included.

          This was a brutal and brazen attack; the victim was bloody and had deritus stuffed in her vagina. Just because she forgives, doesn’t mean that she’ll not be traumatized.

          1. The judge viewed it differently. If you don’t like that, then embrace minimum mandatory sentencing.

            Lets not forget, this was a letter to the judge. It wasn’t under oath. Do you really think that sentences should be based on the unsworn statements of victims?

      2. Eventually incarceration’s got to be rethunk. This is among the myriad problems I have with criminal law.

        I just don’t see much value in keeping anybody penned up for more than about 90 days at a time. That should be long enough for any acutely agitated person to cool off. After 90 d., if they’re still hot up, OK then, another 90 & so on. But usually much less than even 90 d. should be enough.

        If the purpose is punishment as a deterrent, there’ve got to be faster, more efficient, & in some regards more humane ways to do it. Like infliction of pain, for instance. A week of torture should easily be sufficient for just about anything; if not, you’re not doing it right.

        If the purpose is restraint, there must be better ways to do that too, like crippling surgery. If in the future they no longer need restraint, then rehab surgery.

        If you think the person is likely to be such a danger to society that you can say in advance that 90 days is not enough, then by all means kill hir.

    4. Yeah, I’m not nearly so trusting when it comes to people with demonstrated extremely poor impulse control and complete sociopathic disregard for the rights of their fellows. But conveniently, there is one penalty which carries with it a recidivism rate of exactly 0%.

      Hang the bastard and have done.

  23. Do you know how many young black boys and girls, sometimes as young as 13 and 14 years old, are tried as adults in court rooms all across America and given mandatory minimums of 10 years and 20 years and even life in prison? Thousands. Tens of thousands.

    Wait, so King is saying there are tens of thousands of young black rapists across America rotting in prisons? Or is he conflating several issues and making this idiotic statement about a wide range of criminal acts on a story about a specific act?

    King’s point is well taken.

    Only if you’re an idiot that takes his word that there are tens of thousands of violent black rapists in prison for “10, 20 years and even life” in prison without a single cite as to the disparities in overall sentencing between blacks and whites for violent crimes such as rape.

    Way to abandon journalistic integrity and basic principles of research, Rico, just to get a sweet headline.

    Oh, and then to top it off, you double down by quoting Jezebel rather than doing your own research and quoting the father yourself so the context isn’t manipulated.

    1. If I had to take a wild, uneducated guess, I’d say that at least a few of those rapes for which the perpetrators are in prison for “10, 20 years and even life” were committed in conjunction with other violent felonies like home invasion.

      But that’s just a guess.

      1. You don’t say? It is almost like every crime is different and deserves its own sentence based upon the circumstances or something.

        1. It truly boggles the mind.

          1. If only we could have a system where both the defendant and the victim got to have their say before a group of competent people with no connection to the case and then that group would decide on a just sentence rather than just imposing one from above.

            Its so crazy it just might work.

            1. a group of competent people

              That doesn’t sound like the jury system I know.

              1. Then if you don’t believe in the jury system, abolish it. Good luck with coming up with a better one.

                1. I can be Churchillian about the legal system.

                  1. Not without sounding like an asshole.

    2. Well said.

  24. RE: Brock Turner Is a Rapist, His Dad Is Wrong, and Justice Is Elusive
    A sexual assault at Stanford results in a miscarriage of justice.

    Brock was given six months in jail.
    I wonder how many years he would’ve gotten if he was black?
    Oh wait.
    Amerika has equality among all people ever since Comrade Johnson legislated equality back in the 1960’s.
    My mistake.

    1. How many years would he have gotten if he was black?

      It depends. If he played quarterback for a national championship contender in the state of Florida, he would have gotten no time and and received an NFL contract.

  25. I need to thank my friends for all of those times I was drunk and they didn’t let me pass out behind a Dumpster.

  26. Turner’s victim did not get as much justice as she deserves

    All rise for the Right Honorable Judge Soave

  27. The arresting department refuses to release Brock Turner’s mugshot without explanation, even after conviction.

    But they do release plenty of others.

    1. So….

      ….what you’re saying is, they have a vendetta against men with facial hair?

  28. Her case shows that the criminal justice system is in need of reform.

    No. It doesn’t. It’s anecdotal. It’s not necessarily reflective of the entire system.

    Besides, I hate it when someone tosses out this statement but doesn’t bother to provide even the thinnest example of such reform. What are you looking for? Mandatory minimums? Racial sentencing standards? Other stupid shit?

    The obsessive need to try to patch every crack in the system is what helped get us to the clusterfuck Government we have now.

    1. It’s not necessarily reflective of the entire system.

      Ugh, like, go read Jezebel and educate yourself already.

    2. Exactly that MP. What the fuck does Robby want here? Either live with juries giving sentences occasionally that you think are too light or embrace minimum sentencing.

  29. I got drunk enough to black out a few times in college. On a scale of one to ten, how much did I deserve to be anally raped?

    1. On a scale of one to ten

      STEVE SMITH NOT CONFINED TO SCALE.

      1. STEVE SMITH SCALE LIKE RICHTER SCALE, INTENSITY RISES EXPONENTIALLY FROM POINT TO POINT

    2. Irish, you little dirty whore, when you drink too much your inviting little anus is fair game for my fingers and/or toes. It’s not my fault that you lack personal responsibility, whore.

    3. We’ll never know, not that you’re attractive enough for anyone to want to penetrate any of your orifices.

      But you probably increased your risk of getting raped by what, 10 times? 20 times?

      1. ^ I’d violate the NAP on this fucking twat.

      2. Bro, my ass doesn’t quit. You could bounce a quarter off this fucking thing. There are no gays in America that wouldn’t want to get up in this

    4. Too bad you didn’t get arrested. Public intoxication can be punished with up to 12 months in jail. That’s because people don’t want to have pay prosecutors and judges to figure out whether you were to drink to consent to a finger up your bum.

    5. “how much did I deserve to be anally raped?”

      10, but only for your sad attempts to make it look like someone ever said that.

  30. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BLACKS CAN’T BE GUILTY OF RAPE BECAUSE WHITE RACISM MAKES THEM DO IT, LEGACY OF SLAVERY DON’T YOU WATCH ROOTS?

  31. So, Robby is for mandatory minimums today?

    We’re gonna be against them tomorrow, still, though, right?

    Or is Robby just looking for something to be outraged about? Is every injustice a reason why we should change everything?

    Later today, is he going to write about how people on campus are overreacting to something else, too?

    1. Can’t we just mock people without needing to reform something? People can be terrible without having to use government to fix it… oh, I forgot where I was commenting.

    2. Saying ‘this particular person should have gotten a longer jail sentence’ =/= support for mandatory minimums

      1. And yet he’s quoting someone talking about mandatory minimums.

        My point was that there seems to be a lot of going back and forth.

        Especially when the outrage of the day is so often about excessive outrage.

        The point of which seems to be about jerking people’s emotions around–and having no other point, really.

      2. “Saying ‘this particular person should have gotten a longer jail sentence’ =/= support for mandatory minimums”

        Actually, sometimes it does. But please, its obvious you know what everyone in the world thinks of everything, continue making a fool of yourself.

    3. It’s possible to be upset about what seems like a light sentence and undue preferential treatment for the defendant without advocating for wholesale change. Judges are guilty of mistakes and indiscretions just like everyone else.

      1. Exactly. Of course this sentence, in this particular case, is total bullshit. But it would be a greater injustice if every single sexual assault case resulted in a 14 year sentence. There would be many cases where a conviction is warranted but a sentence like that would not be warranted. Letting judges have discretion in their sentencing maximizes potential justice and just as importantly it limits potential injustice.

    4. I thought the problem with mandatory minimums was where it was applied to victimless crimes.

      With violent crimes – the principle is OK, though in practice the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer can generally negotiate around a mandatory minimum, which since plea-bargains are how most criminal cases are resolved, means mandatory minimums only kick in if you’re daring enough to take your case to trial and then get convicted.

      1. I have always thought the problem with them is that they deprived the defendant of the ability to present his case. Who says that every violent crime is the same or deserving of some set punishment?

        1. All flexibility is subject to abuse. As you said earlier, you can’t have it both ways. Generally, the “most be reformed” attitude is the same generic Progressive mindset which dictates that every outlier is solvable via some sort of system system tweak. This is all based on the general inability to accept that SHIT HAPPENS.

          I’ll take flexibility over rigidity and assume that in general humans will deal with specific examples far better than can ever be codified into law.

          1. Me too. Juries generally do a good job and certainly do a better job than legislatures or journalists.

      2. I’ve always thought of mandatory minimums as a nasty form of central planning. It seems rather short-sighted and presumptive that legislators who are far removed from the individual cases in both space and time, should be dictating sentencing for an entire class of convictions with no insight to the heinousness in each case.

  32. Thanks for sanity. The dad’s 100% wrong, but what do you expect the dad to do? Would we really think better of him if he sided with the Twitter mob?

  33. Y’all make me proud. Sure, there were a couple of pearl-clutching tarts and Odin knows y’all drive me batty at times, but sometimes y’all make me fucking proud.

  34. This sort of thing is a perfect example of “white privilege”.

    Imagine that this guy was a black athlete, say, a basketball player.
    No. Fucking. Way. would the judge be saying boo-hoo his life is ruined.

    1. A judge in Texas did just that and gave a black Baylor football player six months for sexual assault.

      We don’t have to imagine it Hazel. It happened in the last year and played out nothing like you claim it would.

      Sometimes the facts don’t fit the narrative I guess.

      1. You heard Hazel – there’s no f-ing way that could be true. Check your sources, and burn any that try to sell you that bs. Then s your d h.

        1. I am just a troll with all of my facts and shit.

          In fairness, Hazel tries. She is just dense as a block of lead.

    2. Hazel has a real talent for making eyes roll.

  35. Hasn’t it already been decided that rapes by college students should be treated administratively by the college, rather than by civil authorities?

  36. I find it odd that Michele Dauber is discussed in this article without reference to the fact that she has previously been dismissive of using the criminal justice system in cases of sexual assaults on campus. Her own letter to the judge is as problematic as is the elder Mr. Turner’s is, and she is a professor of law.

    1. define “problematic”

      1. “But these are not advantages that justify leniency. If anything, they suggest that he is entitled to less latitude than someone who was born into poverty, gangs, and drugs and had little choice but to participate in crime in order to survive. Turner had every advantage in life and he squandered it, which only adds insult to society’s injury and the injury of his victim.” I would prefer that all remain equal in the eyes of the law.

        “He will have plenty of opportunity to finish his education, put this behind him, and have a second chance at his life.” Given what I have read about having to register as a sex offender (which I believe that he will have to do for life), she is more sanguine than I am about his future educational and employment opportunities.

        “Even if the court determines that the fact of Turner’s youth and lack of a criminal record
        makes this an “unusual case,” that does not mean that the interests of justice would best
        be served by a grant of probation or a sentence shorter than the statutory minimum.” I may be missing something, but I thought that youth/lack of a criminal record was a separate consideration versus something’s being an unusual case. Dauber seems to roll them into one category. That’s all I have time for now.

        1. Turner had every advantage in life and he squandered it, which only adds insult to society’s injury and the injury of his victim.” I would prefer that all remain equal in the eyes of the law.

          Agreed. Society isn’t owed shit, victims are.

  37. I am making $98/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    _____________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  38. It’s pretty horrible, but I understand how the blacks who cheered OJ’s getting away with it feel now.

  39. The two Swedish students did not see the girl pass out. Did she give consent before she passed out? She doesn’t remember, but would she? I think it is likely rape occurred, but from the evidence given, I am not certain. It was certainly taking advantage of someone too drunk to think straight at best, but the boy was nearly as drunk. I think the light sentence was justified because you could not, from the circumstance be certain what happen other than the girl was taken advantage of, whether rape or not.

  40. It is a stiff sentence for twenty minutes of action, even if it should have been more. The crime may have deserved more, but the young man’s punishment will be lifelong for a twenty minute crime against someone that doesn’t even remember it. Rape is generally a crime of violence, This was not. It certainly was abuse.

  41. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  42. Must be affluenza season again.

  43. HIS DAD IS DANGEROUS. That’s not being a father. It is his SOLE job to ensure his kids don’t hurt anyone else. If they do, it AGAIN is his job to punish his kid. Hold your mistake offspring accountable. You made the mistake, now show some responsibility for RAISING IT.

    My whole life my parents have made it right. If they caught me with weapons or 100 lbs of fertilizer, they’d call the cops.
    If I ever got arrested, I’d better get comfortable. I’d stay in jail for the night. That makes you a better person. That’s called responsibility. Your kids can’t just walk all over the earth like their god damn godzilla.

    Both the son and father should be arrested.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.