• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rapist gets 6 months because prison sentence would have a severe impact on him

Status
Not open for further replies.

Complete

Banned
That kid is (rightly) funked.
Um.

That's kind of fucked up.

People don't choose their parents. (Nor did their parents choose their parents, and so on.) A lot of the responsibility does lie in the chain of events that lead to his parents being shitty parents which lead to him being a shitty human being. Go far enough back into the chain of causality, and you quickly realize that none of this 'blame' shit makes any goddamn sense.

Hence why I am such a proponent of the Scandinavian model. Have to break the chain. Can't keep punishing people for being raised under shitty conditions with shitty ideologies. If you really want things to get better, you have to educate people, not just punish them (which has been proven not to work for changing behavior anyway).
 
It's kinda insane to see that sentence written out because the only way I can see someone straight faced putting it down on paper in a situation like this is if they literally valued their own comfort above the well being of another human. That literally sounds like something that only an over the top cruel rich matriarch would say.

Their own comfort is all they care about. You have to remember what his father thinks about this

Brock always enjoyed certain types of food and is a very good cook himself. I was always excited to buy him a big ribeye steak to grill or to get his favorite snack for him. I had to make sure to hide some of my favorite pretzels or chips because I knew they wouldn’t be around long after Brock walked in from a long swim practice. Now he barely consumes any food and eats only to exist. These verdicts have broken and shattered him and our family in so many ways.

It all highlights the stark difference between their bullshit and just a tiny part of what the victim is going through

I can’t sleep alone at night without having a light on, like a five year old, because I have nightmares of being touched where I cannot wake up, I did this thing where I waited until the sun came up and I felt safe enough to sleep. For three months, I went to bed at six o’clock in the morning.

I used to pride myself on my independence, now I am afraid to go on walks in the evening, to attend social events with drinking among friends where I should be comfortable being. I have become a little barnacle always needing to be at someone’s side, to have my boyfriend standing next to me, sleeping beside me, protecting me. It is embarrassing how feeble I feel, how timidly I move through life, always guarded, ready to defend myself, ready to be angry.
 
He's never going to shake this. His face is plastered everywhere as a rapist/FB memes and everyone who meets him will know he's a rapist. who got away with it.
 

ANDS

Banned
Um.

That's kind of fucked up.

People don't choose their parents. (Nor did their parents choose their parents, and so on.) A lot of the responsibility does lie in the chain of events that lead to his parents being shitty parents which lead to him being a shitty human being. Go far enough back into the chain of causality, and you quickly realize that none of this 'blame' shit makes any goddamn sense.

Hence why I am such a proponent of the Scandinavian model. Have to break the chain. Can't keep punishing people for being raised under shitty conditions with shitty ideologies. If you really want things to get better, you have to educate people, not just punish them (which has been proven not to work for changing behavior anyway).

Yea. No. I blame the kid. This wasn't an ambiguous situation with two students drinking and consent becomes murky. He saw an unconscious young lady and raped her. Now fair enough I'm not a psychologist, nor do I know if this kid has any mental issues (feel free to correct me) or what his home life was. If there is some piece of the puzzle I am missing that explains why that switch didn't flick on in his head, I'm all ears.
 
Did he not?

Here's how the same judge handled a gang rape case

In 2007, a 17-year-old girl alleged that she was gang-raped by at least nine members of the De Anza College basketball team at a house party while she was severely intoxicated. Three soccer players discovered the rape in progress and broke it up; they said they discovered her unconscious and covered in vomit, and called it “clearly not consensual.” District Attorney Dolores Carr ultimately decided not to move forward with the case, which was met with criticism and protests at the time.

In 2011, the case was brought to civil trial and the victim sued for $7.5 million in damages. Judge Persky presided, and, according to a Mercury News court report from the trial, one of his evidentiary rulings was as follows:

Judge Aaron Persky ruled before lunch that Knopf can show the jury seven photos of the woman, whom the court is calling Jane Doe, partying about a year or so after the alleged gang rape. In the photos, she is scantily clad, wearing a garter belt and what appear to be fishnet stockings.
In one picture, a boy appears to be straddling her as she lies on a bed in what looks like a dorm room. Everyone in the photos is smiling and playing around, enjoying themselves. [Defendant Christopher] Knopf's lawyer says the photos are a "direct contradiction" of plaintiff's claim that she is socially isolated and socially reticent.

As it so often happens in sexual-assault cases, especially when alcohol is involved, the perception of the victim influences how juries convict accused rapists. Allowing photos in the courtroom in which the victim is “scantily clad” unfortunately plays into the bogus yet age-old argument that a woman who’s dressed provocatively is “asking for it.”

The jury ultimately found the men accused of the gang rape not guilty and did not award the victim any damages.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turner-judge-aaron-persky-controversial-history.html
 

ANDS

Banned
For cash? I mean they downsized their house it seems to pay tuition. After the fact? Doubt it.



I'm not sure what this demonstrates? IANAL or Judge, but it sounds like the defense went after the character of the victim. How should the judge have ruled there?

These parts are key

Judge Aaron Persky ruled before lunch that Knopf can show the jury seven photos of the woman, whom the court is calling Jane Doe, partying about a year or so after the alleged gang rape. In the photos, she is scantily clad, wearing a garter belt and what appear to be fishnet stockings.

As it so often happens in sexual-assault cases, especially when alcohol is involved, the perception of the victim influences how juries convict accused rapists. Allowing photos in the courtroom in which the victim is “scantily clad” unfortunately plays into the bogus yet age-old argument that a woman who’s dressed provocatively is “asking for it.”

It's just like when judges allow a victims sexual history to be made available to the court. It serves one purpose and that's to try to paint the victim as someone that wanted it.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Here's how the same judge handled a gang rape case

(relevant details repeated below)

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turner-judge-aaron-persky-controversial-history.html

I don't think this is as indicative of judicial bias at it has been made to sound.

District Attorney Dolores Carr ultimately decided not to move forward with the case, which was met with criticism and protests at the time.

In 2011, the case was brought to civil trial and the victim sued for $7.5 million in damages.

No criminal charges were brought. Usually this means there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction. And anyhow, that's on the DA, not the judge.

So we had a civil trial. A civil trial is about liability for damages, and it differs from a criminal trial in many ways. The standard of proof is lower (being on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt), the burden of proof is different (being on whatever party is asserting a claim rather than on the state), and the laws of evidence are different too.

Judge Aaron Persky ruled before lunch that Knopf can show the jury seven photos of the woman, whom the court is calling Jane Doe, partying about a year or so after the alleged gang rape. In the photos, she is scantily clad, wearing a garter belt and what appear to be fishnet stockings.
In one picture, a boy appears to be straddling her as she lies on a bed in what looks like a dorm room. Everyone in the photos is smiling and playing around, enjoying themselves. [Defendant Christopher] Knopf's lawyer says the photos are a "direct contradiction" of plaintiff's claim that she is socially isolated and socially reticent.

It is not at all unusual in a civil case to have evidence admitted from after the event. That's because it goes as evidence toward the amount of damages claimed.

To take an extreme example: if someone claims as the result of the defendant's negligence to be confined to a wheelchair for life then video of the plaintiff running a marathon six months later will be admissible. That's obvious.

Here, the plaintiff claimed to have become socially isolated and reticent as a result of the alleged rape, and evidence to the contrary was admitted.

As it so often happens in sexual-assault cases, especially when alcohol is involved, the perception of the victim influences how juries convict accused rapists. Allowing photos in the courtroom in which the victim is “scantily clad” unfortunately plays into the bogus yet age-old argument that a woman who’s dressed provocatively is “asking for it.”

This is where the civil v criminal distinction gets muddled. This was not a trial for conviction of an alleged rapist. The pictures were brought in as evidence of damages not caused rather than of lack of guilt.

The jury ultimately found the men accused of the gang rape not guilty and did not award the victim any damages.

It wasn't a criminal trial. The jury didn't pronounce on guilt or innocence.


I don't see anything here to indicate judicial bias. And really, we don't do ourselves or worthy causes any good by pouncing on bad evidence and waving it around.
 

Jobbs

Banned
I can only hope this piece of shit is never allowed any semblance of a normal life outside of his family's walls for the rest of his worthless life
 

Zakalwe

Banned
If this is true (pics) and you still have any doubts he'd be a danger, I wouldn't know what to say to you.

I wouldn't want to say anything to you.

I hope it isn't true for the victim's sake.
 

megalowho

Member
It's just like when judges allow a victims sexual history to be made available to the court. It serves one purpose and that's to try to paint the victim as someone that wanted it.
I remember when I served on a jury a couple years back, a questionable relationship gone bad resulting in harassment and a physical attack, there was a point where the defense showed us a bunch of pictures of the victim in revealing outfits taken at his apartment. They spent a ton of time on it, grilling her on all sorts of details, and all I could think about in my head was this is straight up character assassination to try and turn us against her.

Granted the victim had denied that they ever had a sexual relationship, and while in deliberation many doubted that part of her story we at least agreed the lawyer was being a slimeball and it was a gross misdirection from the actual charges. Found him guilty on 4 of the 7 counts. Don't think the judge pulled a Persky either, he was visibly annoyed with the defense council as well throughout the trial.
 
Let's remember the real victim in all this...

Brock's Mom. Who is finding it hard to decorate her new house.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article82960947.html

Damn, the whole family is a cesspool of narcissism. Everyone is at fault but themselves.

“We were shocked, and stunned by the outcome and left to the only thing we could do — hold each other and cry. We still are in disbelief,” Turner’s grandparents, Carolyn and Richard Bradfield, wrote. “Brock is the only person being held accountable for the actions of other irresponsible adults.”

Brock Turner’s sister, 22-year-old Caroline Turner, also blames alcohol for the sexual assault. She also does not mention the victim, but says her brother “put himself in a situation and willingly participated in it.”

“Think of the extraordinary potential he has to be a voice in society and speak out against the binge drinking and sexual promiscuity that defines culture on college campuses,” Caroline Turner wrote. “His dreams were shattered in the course of an evening, but every action he took could have been prevented.”
 

Zakalwe

Banned
Ok, I get that the rapist's family will be damaged by this too. Of course it's going to have impact on them.

It's also okay to discuss this impact, but put some fucking thought into it.

Nothing says "we're not aware of our privilege" more than talking about being put off steaks and decorating your home.
 

Hagi

Member
The whole "WHY? WHY? WHY HIM?" is all kinds of fucked up. She clearly is positioning him to be the victim in this scenario. The whole family is. Your son fucking raped someone get some bloody perspective.
 

Sai-kun

Banned
“Brock is the only person being held accountable for the actions of other irresponsible adults.”

my mouth is hanging open

i cannot believe what i've just read
 
Damn, the whole family is a cesspool of narcissism. Everyone is at fault but themselves.

The sister at least acknowledges that he made a choice to rape an unconcious woman. Her letter seems like she's towing the family line, but slipping in some reference to his responsibility where she can get it past them.
 

Symphonia

Banned
Well that's just not true. Not that alone. People from a wide variety of economic backgrounds attend Stanford.
Oh, come on, just look at Stanford's alumni. Can you honestly tell me that your everyday Joe Bloggs from the wrong side of the tracks could/would attend such a prestigious university?
 

Tigress

Member
I'm less annoyed at the mom than then the dad. The mom sounds like she's just in denial about her kid (not my precious kid, he'd never do anything like that). Still annoying and I want her to wake up and stop turning a blind eye but as some one said, I can at least understand it's hard to view your own kid as evil.

The dad on the other hand sounds not like he's in denial but that he thinks this whole thing is overblown or at least that he doesn't care enough to think his own should be affected by it. He does sound like he just thinks its boys partying too hard (and well what was that chick doing there, obviously she's not so innocent, look what she tempted my boy to do).
 

ANDS

Banned
Oh, come on, just look at Stanford's alumni. Can you honestly tell me that your everyday Joe Bloggs from the wrong side of the tracks could/would attend such a prestigious university?

If the kid is smart or athletic and the entire family makes less than 125K? Yes. Majority of undergrads don't pay tuition.

I'm less annoyed at the mom than then the dad. The mom sounds like she's just in denial about her kid (not my precious kid, he'd never do anything like that). Still annoying and I want her to wake up and stop turning a blind eye but as some one said, I can at least understand it's hard to view your own kid as evil.

Yea I'm not getting the mother hate at all. The letter is completely and utterly disassociated from reality.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
I'm less annoyed at the mom than then the dad. The mom sounds like she's just in denial about her kid (not my precious kid, he'd never do anything like that). Still annoying and I want her to wake up and stop turning a blind eye but as some one said, I can at least understand it's hard to view your own kid as evil.

The dad on the other hand sounds not like he's in denial but that he thinks this whole thing is overblown or at least that he doesn't care enough to think his own should be affected by it. He does sound like he just thinks its boys partying too hard (and well what was that chick doing there, obviously she's not so innocent, look what she tempted my boy to do).

It's her thoughtlessness that annoys me. Being unaware enough to talk about being put off decorating your home when the life of a young women has been so deeply affected.

It tells me shes unaware of her privilege, and she's not truly concerned the impact her son's actions have had.

I don't hate her for it, but it does repulse me.
 
“Brock will have to register at the highest tier which means he is on the same level as a pedophile/child molester. There is no differentiation,” she writes. “The public records will reflect a Tier 3 so people will wrongly assume he is a child molester. I fear for his lifelong safety.”


don't worry, lady. plenty of people know that your son is actually a rapist.
 

ANDS

Banned
It's her thoughtlessness that annoys me. Being unaware enough to talk about being put off decorating your home when the life of a young women has been so deeply affected.

What? Come on now. She's not updset that she can't pick out wallpaper. Good lord.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
What? Come on now. She's not updset that she can't pick out wallpaper. Good lord.

If you can't see how it trivialises things I'm not going to argue with you.

It absolutely does, though. Much like the father talking about the son not "enjoying his steak".
 

ANDS

Banned
If you can't see how it trivialises things I'm not going to argue with you.

Not an argument at all. I'm just curious what in this trivializes the situation:

Carolyn Turner said:
Then we got that fateful call from Brock on Sunday the 18th and our world was been spinning apart ever since. This house now reminds me of the horror of that moment. I have not decorated the house nor have I hung anything on the walls. I am a mom who loves family pictures but I haven’t had the heart to put photos around of our family being happy. How can I? We will never be happy again. Those happy family times are gone forever, replaced by despair, fear, depression, anxiety, doubt, and dread. I don’t think I have been able to take a deep breath since this happened.

It is definitely a letter than is focused on her family and her son but why wouldn't it. Just don't see how the above you are reading as her literally being upset that she can't do the act of decorating.

When we've seen black people given sentences twice as long for simply having drugs in there possession? yea I'm inclined to believe it's about race

There isn't a single researcher who would compare those two cases.
 

legacyzero

Banned
God, this whole thing is fucking disgusting.

What?

Hell yes it's about race.

I mean, if you stack it against other cases involving other races, yes. But I dont think this is exclusive to white privilege. Hell, we're dealing with MULTIPLE levels of privilege at this point. Male, White, Social, Wealth, etc.

But you're right in that if he were any other race, this would have been different.
 

ANDS

Banned
I mean, if you stack it against other cases involving other races, yes.

Uh. No. Why not compare this case to a one involving a black men who murdered his mom. Higher sentence!

But I dont think this is exclusive to white privilege. Hell, we're dealing with MULTIPLE levels of privilege at this point. Male, White, Social, Wealth, etc.

Still don't get where we are getting the wealth bit.
 

Tigress

Member
They have a daughter and they still lack any empathy is the scary part.

But their daughter would never put herself in that situation. She'd never be some slut who goes to partys and gets drunk around boys.

And yet they have no problem with their boy doing that... (Or at least the dad. The mom sounds like she is insisting on believing this whole thing is just a lie that never happened).

And people say sexism/double standard doesn't exist.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
Look at the sentence between the parts you've bolder.

The emphasis is insulting to the other victims of Brock's rape.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom