I think it’s clear from the judge’s statement that this was exactly his thought. He didn’t want to ruin a rich, white kid’s life over just his first rape.
What a douchebag. Rather than take responsibility for his own decision, he tries to blame the law. But, as he says, the law only obligates him to consider it. The decision was entirely his own.
He has to defend the decision. And his defense before was really bad, considering how the kid would be affected rather than whether the punishment would be enough to keep him from reoffending, or whether he had paid his debt to society.
Which is a real thing–that debt is the debt of all rapists. It is what tells a rape victim that it’s worth it to come forward, knowing the person who raped them will have to pay.
Quite right. He was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault.
:rolleyes:
Here is a :rolleyes: back at you jackass.Per wiki
He was charged with two counts of rape; charges which were dropped due to a lack of evidence. He was convicted of the other three charges; after a full trial. As per the law as laid down in the jurisidiction he was in, he was not convicted of rape. Whch is what I said.
Now kindly go spread your ass cheeks and sit down on a cactus.
This is a meaningless nitpick. It’s felony sexual assault. That along with the actual description of what he did is legitimately described as rape in casual conversation, even if that’s not what the formal criminal charge is titled.
I don’t know why you use that tone of exasperation. It’s not like what he did or what he was charged with is significantly less reprehensible than what “rape” signifies in your mind, whether defined by law or not.
He is an actual rapist, for fuck’s sake.
Yeah, and we also shouldn’t talk about someone drunk driving, because the technical legal offense was Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol!
Like I care about the opinion of a rape apologist.
Does it count if he touched her with his penis?
Sounds like the distinction is fuzzy.
And regarding papa’s “twenty minutes of action” from some months ago, I’d like to move a broomstick in and out of his ass for twenty minutes just to see if he changes his mind. I’d render him unconscious first, if he likes.
No, we shouldn’t talk about drunk driving when someone is convicted of texting whilst driving. Different crime, different punishment, different law in general despite the effect being somewhat similar for the victim.
Thank you for joining the conversation on page 14 to make this incredibly helpful observation. You might be interested to know that we had this discussion about a year ago, all the way back on page 8.
And in that discussion some of us pointed out that common or vernacular usage is not constrained or limited by legal usage. Many people believe that it is reasonable to refer to this guy as a rapist, and to his actions as rape, even if that’s not exactly how it was defined for the purpose of his court case. Basically, for me, if you jam a foreign object into a non-consenting woman, it’s not much different from using a penis, and i’ll still see you as a rapist.
Its not a nitpick when the question being discussed is the propriety of a judicial ruling which is what you do in your post. It was not about “casual conversation”. And the fact that you insist upon using it (besides once again displaying your proclivity for jumping onto every trendy bandwagon, leaving your otherwise considerable sense behind) means that you are not discussing the issue in its proper context.
Also, rape (which he was not convicted for) is absolutely more reprehensible than assault; same way causing Grievous Bodily Harm is more reprehensible than simple battery despite both being very properly crimes, with the attendant differences in sanctions.
It absolutely is when the question is whether a Judicial Officer exercised his discretion properly according to the law. Which is the exchange which led to the present posts. The issue with respect to the Judge is not common or vernacular usage, it absolutely is legal usage.
To take a real world example, many people would be comfortable with calling the actions of the Rosenbergs treasonous and them traitors. However, what they were actually convicted of was espionage. If the merits of the case is being discussed, then the legal definition should be the one which is used.
When the question is whether the judge appropriately exercised his discretion in this case, the appeal to the distinction between the offense titled rape and the offense titled felony sexual assault is absolutely apologist nitpicking.
The kid jammed something into the bodily orifice of a woman who was incapable of consent. The judge’s discretion should have been used to acknowledge that this is exactly as reprehensible as using his penis.
This is rape in every sense except for the purposes of defining the specific charge by the prosecution.
This is absolutely not a meaningful distinction when talking about what is the reasonable exercise of the judge’s discretion.
I am sorry, but what you are saying is that the Judge should have decided the sentence as if the Accused had been convicted of a higher offense, not according to what a jury actually found him guilty for?
So for a manslaughter conviction, the sentence should be awarded according to what the criteria for a sentence for murder should be, since killing is killing?
For theft, the Court should treat the Accused as if he had been convicted of armed robbery, since hey, he took property belonging to another regardless
For every class of offense, the accused should be punished according to the criteria laid down for the highest crime in that class, because hey they basically are the same?
And this is before we even consider the issue of mitigating circumstances that the Judge may by law consider.
This is nonsense. The judge has discretion to impose a penalty for the charge A at minimum X and at maximum Y. At that point, the relevance of the titled definition of charge A ends. I am not saying the judge should impose a penalty for charge B, which is what your nonsensical nitpick implies. Whether we in casual conversation are using the same word for A and B is a silly thing to quibble over.
Actually, what most of us have been saying in this thread—as you would know if you had bothered to read it—is that the judge should have properly decided the sentence based on what a jury actually found him guilty for. The prosecution asked for a 6-year prison term, and this was within the judge’s discretion based on the three felony counts of which Turner was convicted. And this would have been a much more appropriate sentence.
It is also appropriate, in my opinion, to refer to Turner as a rapist because one of the charges of which he was convicted was “Assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman.” If you’re found legally guilty of assault with intent to rape, then you can reasonably be described as a rapist, even if the intervention of two good samaritans prevented you from carrying out your nefarious intent.
The mitigating circumstances were that he was a rich white male.
Had the evidence of genital contact been present, the rape charges not dismissed, and the conviction taken place, would the Judicial Officer still have had the same discretion to exercise?