First of all, the judge would not necessarily known in advance that he would be “vilified on the national stage.” There are hundreds of criminal sentencing hearings every day. How many of them are vilified on the national stage? Internet outrage tends to be random.
Second, by insisting that this must be caused by some sort of individual corruption completely lets off the hook the actually societal problem that this illustrates—that we live in a culture that goes easy on rapists and we live in a culture that goes easy on white people and we live in a culture that goes easy on rich people.
That’s the problem here and that’s what people are justifiably outraged about. Insisting that it has to have happened because the judge took a bribe is basically dismissing the actual social context of this whole incident.
Which again supports the argument for broader appeal rights for the prosecutor on sentences. Relying on random, arbitrary internet outrage as a way to send a message about a sentence is not particularly effective to change the system.
Giving the prosecutor a broad power to appeal, so that there can be regular review of sentences that don’t fit sentencing guidelines whether or not there is internet outrage, is a more effective systemic response.
Why are they not attempting to appeal the sentence? It seems like the kid lied about some stuff. Plus it’s clear he didn’t own his actions, or save the state the cost of a trial, which revictimized the victim in court, etc. Isn’t there even a little wiggle room there?
Who said anything about “in advance”? Hell, if I’d had all the evidence that he had, before I’d made the same ruling, I’d have realized my batshit crazy sentencing was going to make people want to come after me with tar and pitchforks. It ain’t rocket science.
Why? Being corrupt and playing into rape culture isn’t mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I’d almost guess there’s bound to be almost a majority overlap. Apparently, YMV.
It doesn’t matter a damn but what I personally “insist” on. It’s just speculation on my part because I understand that I’m 100% powerless to effect any change in this particular instance. But I feel I’d be playing the fool if I ignored certain connections and the evidence that has come to light. You feel otherwise.
You are playing the fool now by leaping to an unfounded suspicion of individual corruption with no evidence based on nothing other than disagreeing with a ruling.
Your evidence of “connections” is nothing more than evidence of favoritism that is endemic in our society, not evidence of bribery.
Why? You do realize (I hope) that nothing we say on one message board out of the entirety of the Internet has absolutely zero influence, right? No one is listening to me, you or anyone else on here. Or are you one if those who truly does fall for the “hippest and brightest” moniker? I’m not debating this anywhere else, I’m not so wedded to my world view over that I give a damn and, no matter what, my unsubstantiated opinion (as that’s all this is) are not nuggets of gold dropping from my ass for everyone to savor and consider gospel. But you keep tilting at windmills, Quixote, and I’m backing away. Because as stated, I really don’t care, nor feel the need to ‘win an argument’ over this.
I’m just responding to the notion that it is immoral and indefensible to try and get a lighter sentence for your son regardless of whether he is a rapist or a murderer… by writing a letter.
Why would you cross Stanford off the list? Are you under the impression that Stanford condones or ignores rape on camps?
She’s a good writer. She does a very good job of humanizing the victims of rape. If this is the letter she wrote to the judge when he handed down that 6 month sentence, it should be exhibit 1 on any attempt to recall him.
Of course it matters that he is the father. He is myopic and focused only on the impact this has on his son but his letter is hardly unethical or immoral. You think the father’s letter was bad, you shoud read the moms letter. It gives you an insight into why their son might have turned out the way he did. Tiger moms ain’t got NOTHING on white parents like this, and there are a lot more of them than you think.
First of all, society hasn’t agreed on legal ethics, the legal profession has agreed on legal ethics.
Second of all, in what way is a father less obligated to his son than his attorney?
[quote]
It is possible to plea for mercy without denigrating the person your loved one has already victimized. By dragging this thru the court for a year, where was the entire Turner family’s consideration for the victim? Brock Turner was guilty; instead of accepting his guilt, they’ve done nothing but deflect and deny. /QUOTE]
I don’t see the denigration in the letter unless you are saying that almost ignoring her completely is a form of denigration. What moral or ethical obligation does the Turner family have to consider the welfare of the victim during the sentencing phase of the trial? Do they have to bury their loved one under the prison?
No, not “anything at all is fine if it’s done in defense of a loved one” (I don’t recall saying that it was, or were you just beating the shit out of straw men?) but writing a letter (no matter how bad) is almost certainly OK. There are two or three sentences in his letter that offend me but I don’t think that the letter or the act of trying to get your son a lighter sentence is immoral or unethical.
No straw. Just some weird outrage at a father trying to get a lighter sentence for his son. Some of the stuff he says offends my sensibilities but nothing immoral or unethical about it.
I don’t think the parents are rich. The dad works on a military base and the mom seems to be a stay at home mom.
This is not the result of having rich parents. This is the result of having white parents. This is an expression of white privilege not an expression of the privilege of wealth. A wealthy black student would be spending years in jail because the judge would only see a defendant rather than someone that they can relate to.
So wait, you would cross Stanford off your list because of the writing ability of a Freshman that was recruited for their swimming team? What next? Cross off the entire Pac 10 and Big 10 and SEC conference because some of their football players can barely spell their names when they are admitted to the school?
Indeed. But also, it emphasizes the facts of what was done to her: That she was manhandled in a way that left her bruised, filthy and vulnerable. That she continues to be haunted by the pain of that night. That the victim’s insistence that she consented to her injuries contributes to her trauma.
The victims are not the ones who need humanizing. Typically, it’s the defense who tries to humanize the defendent, by giving the jury some way to sympathize with the guilty party. It’s only in rape trials that the victim has to work to earn the jury’s sympathy.
As we see here - the judge had no interest in her suffering, even though the jury was unimpressed by Brock Turner’s swim times or Stanford connections.
Rights of appeal are created by statute. I asked in a different thread whether prosecutors in the US can appeal against sentence. The answer I got was that the appellate rules for sentence appeals vary from state to state, and that in California, the only right to appeal in a sentencing matter is “imposition of an unlawful sentence.” Here, the sentence was apparently in the range, although at the low end, and therefore would not qualify as an “unlawful sentence.”
It isn’t just being white. Its being white - which does get you more points than the rest - from a well off family, being a “good kid” who gets good grades, being an athlete, being famous, being good looking. All of those things add advantage points - and this kid hit most of the buttons (he’s kind of funny looking and his parents are REALLY wealthy, just well off, nor was he famous - but he gets lots of points for white Stanford athlete.)
When our son was in middle school he got caught - with four other boys - with weed. He’s Asian, the other boys were white. He was the only one suspended.
I understand quite well, especially since it would undoubtably result in a black defendant having the book at him. But just because it’s privilege and bias, doesn’t also mean it can’t be corruption too. One doesn’t preclude the other.
And as far as writing that letter goes, perhaps I grew up with a different class of people. No one I know would’ve written a letter that 1) absconds the guilty of responsibility, 2) lies like a dog, and 3) shows no concern whatsoever for the victim.
As a white woman’s from a previously lower-middle class life, I definitely would’ve submitted something to a judge on the behalf of my much step-son if he’d have gotten himself in trouble and was facing serious jail time. However, I’d have wanted to make it absolutely clear that he should pay his debt to society, make amends if at all possible and focus on how gravely sorry he would and should be. I’d actually want my kid to take a lesson or four away from his crimes, not just blow the consequences off. My late husband felt the same way, as evidenced by many a teacher-parent conference.