It does not apply because there were no unusual circumstances so it should not factor into the sentence.
There all judgement calls, that is why they are being done by a judge. Just because Turner did not think he assaulted the girl, does not mean he does not regret that it happened.
I do not see any mention of what weight the judge is supposed to give to each criteria. However, if the damage done to the victim was the only criteria to be considered than there would be no need for the other criteria.
What I object to is calling a man a rape apologist despite the fact that he never did anything remotely close to that.
It is possible to have a different opinion about the length of the sentence and whether he deserved parole, but this is not about a difference of opinion. This is about slandering someone for doing their job, then punishing him based on that slander.
These parents do not sincerely believe that their children are in danger around him, or that he would let drunken college boys rape them during tennis practice. It is about punishing him for doing his job and following the law. This is a threat to the independence of the judiciary. It is not about “technically legal”, the best kind of legal, but the keystone of the judicial system, having a system that treats everyone equally before the law.
Parents are free to register their displeasure in this way if they wish. This is just another tool society has available to punish the powerful when we think they’re out of line.
As has been cited in this thread, he most certainly did. Giving an unrepentant rapist who won’t even take responsibility for his actions or admit that an unconscious person cannot give consent a slap on the wrist of a sentence because you don’t think the trauma he chose to inflict on the victim is as bad as his possible difficulty getting a job certainly qualifies someone as a rape apologist in my book. Saying that rape is no big deal, accepting an obviously insincere ‘repentance’, and sticking to that decision in spite of public outcry is not just ‘close to that’.
Also, since this is a thread where legal specifics keep getting tossed around, I will note that everything I’ve posted here is written, not spoken, so if it was both untrue and defamatory it would be libel, not slander. If you’re going to be big on whether things are technically legal, please get your legal terms right when you throw them at other posters.
So you think that they are lying when they state that they do believe that their children are in danger around him, notably when they state that they believe that, as a mandated reporter, he would be hesitant to report instances of drunken sexual assault (using a similar justification to what he used in the trial)? What do you base this assertion that they’re lying on, exactly, and what would their motivation for wanting to punish him be? You’re issuing a bold claim of a mass amount of outright dishonesty which doesn’t make sense, with no justification whatsoever.
The bit about ‘let drunken college boys rape them during tennis practice’ is some nonsense that you made up yourself, it’s not actually in the petition or any of the parents claims, so of course they don’t believe it. Stating that people don’t believe claims they’ve never made and that they likely would disagree with if asked doesn’t add anything useful to a discussion - I’m sure the parents don’t sincerely believe he’d call in the Yakuza to steal their organs, but it’s silly to say it since they didn’t state such a thing.
Again - cite, please. Where exactly do they say that they wish to punish him ‘for doing his job and following the law’? If they don’t say so, where exactly are you getting this from? As has been cited in this thread, there was absolutely no law mandating that he rule as he did. There were factors that he was supposed to consider, but nothing mandating that he reach the conclusion that he did.
True. He got caught, after all. He almost certainly regrets winding up all over the news, in court, and, however briefly, in jail.
That’s not in the least the same thing as recognizing that he did something wrong. And recognizing that he did something wrong is far more likely to stop him from doing it again than just recognizing that getting busted isn’t fun – especially if he now expects a light sentence even if he gets caught a second time.
Aside from disagreement as to how many of those are actually favorable to Turner: You’re the one adding up factors as if the only thing that matters about any of them is how many checkmarks there are on one side or the other. Bad impact of crime on victim? Check. Bad impact of sentence on perpetrator? Check. Aha, that’s one check on each side, they must cancel out!
No. It’s not right to just add up the number of checkmarks as if that’s all there is to it.
How on earth would you know that?
And the question isn’t whether he’s going to rape them on the tennis court, or openly encourage somebody else to do so. The question is whether he’s going to advise girls that they shouldn’t report boys/men who harass them because doing so might mess the boys’ lives up, or to advise boys that it’s no big deal if they try to have sex with unwilling girls.
An athletic coach for teenagers is in a particular sort of position of trust. And immediate physical danger isn’t the only sort of danger teenagers can be in.
Point number !. Actions speak louder than words and based on the sentence and the Judge’s deference to Turner I believe he put it in for purely legal reasons but did not consider it.
Point number 2. Can you truly be remorseful if you do not take ownership of your actions? Is it your believe that merely typing “I’m sorry my actions hurt you.” is sufficient to show genuine remorse? Hell, he didn’t even say “I hurt you.” it was “my actions”
As splinternews wrote
Apparently you give all deference to a sentence or two. I prefer to base my judgement on whole documents and the actions of people.judgement on the whole document. I notice you ignored (like the judge did) the lies and contradictions in his letter. Why don’t you look at those critically?
I keep being told by fans of at-will employment that my boss can fire me any time for any reason that’s not a protected class, so I need to suck it up if I’m fired, e.g., for a twitter post made on my personal time. Last time I checked, being a judge wasn’t a protected class. If the question were re-phrased “should an employer be allowed to fire this person for these reasons” I’d hope for a consistent answer from any fans of at-will employment, just on that principle, and regardless of whether or not it’s “unfair”. If you are the employer, you can make a different decision.
This is plain dishonesty. He never said anything remotely like rape is no big deal. In fact he said the opposite.
The parents have no rational fear. There is almost no chance a tennis coach will be the only guy these players choose to confide in if they are sexually assaulted, and if that ever happened he would be much more likely to report it given his notoriety.
Dude. Given the recent and not so recent revelations about sexual abuse of minors in sports, you’re going with this?
It’s not enough to go “Eh, he’s probably fine, and if the girls do get assaulted there are probably going to be other adults around.”
This former judge isn’t being punished. He’s just not getting a job coaching these underage girls in tennis, because the parents don’t trust him. There are plenty of other jobs out there that don’t involve underage girls, maybe he should get one of those.
Coming back to this thread because I’m wondering why so many people are focusing specifically on the fact that the students he would have coached are girls.
I don’t get the impression that people are worried that he himself would rape them. And I can see that people are concerned that if they know his history, girls might not want to approach him to report rape or harassment; and that he might not react properly if they did. But isn’t anyone else concerned that, if he were coaching boys, he might give them the impression that active consent’s not necessary, or is only necessary because they might get in trouble? or that he might encourage the cultural tendency to consider male athletes as Very Important People who ought to be given considerable leeway in their behavior towards others?
I do believe that accusing other posters of dishonesty is against board rules, and it’s incredibly stupid to accuse someone of ‘dishonesty’ when they have direct quotes supporting their position already posted and linked to in the thread. “I have also considered the fact that he was legally intoxicated at the time of the incident… . And I think it is a factor that, when trying to assess moral culpability in this situation, is mitigating.” Just the fact that he thinks some jock getting drink mitigates his culpability for rape qualifies him as a rape apologist in my book, and that’s not the worst of what he said. While it’s certainly possible for someone to disagree with my position, your claim that I’m being ‘dishonest’ in some way for it is completely unsupportable and serves only to show the lack of support for your own position.
You keep repeating this bald claim that the parents have no rational fear, but utterly fail to actually support it. Coming up with really specific scenarios that the parents did not actually name in their objection then using the fact that scenarios you invented are unlikely is nothing but a good demonstration of straman arguments are considered logical fallacies.
People are focusing on that because it’s the real-world example that prompted the discussion; he got a job coaching a girls team, and parents objected to him in that job. I can’t see what considering the specific hypothetical of him coaching a boy’s team would add to the discussion; I think this set of parents would still object and their objections would be equally justified or unjustified in that case, so examining it doesn’t really change the arguments.
Let’s take the judgeship issue out of the question.
A high-school girls’ coach tweets, “Despite a history of underage drinking that he was once cited for, a boy who rapes a girl should get a lighter sentence because he is not as responsible for his actions when drunk.”
Would you have a problem with the parents not wanting him to be the coach?
the point is the law doesn’t (or shouldn’t!) accept “I was drunk” as an excuse or mitigating circumstance. You are responsible for getting yourself drunk, ergo you are fully responsible for whatever you do while in that condition.
Well, see, that’s not a perfect analogy because people do accidentally kill people while driving, drunk and sober, and in that case those who do the deed while sober do tend to get less severe sentences than those who drink and drive. But then we’re not talking about an “accidental” rape, here. So, perhaps to frame this analogy better, we should consider how it would compare to intentionally driving one’s car into people while stone cold sober. In that sense, I would absolutely say the sober driver should be punished more severely.
Responsible for one’s actions while drunk? Absolutely. The same kind of danger to society as the sort of person who would do such a thing clear-headed, without the influence of alcohol? Yeah… I don’t know about that.
