He wasn’t rich. He was a middle class dudebro attending Stanford. You don’t have to be rich to benefit from white privilege, if you did, we would call it wealth privilege.
I see it all the time. White kid acts out and everyone is like “what’s wrong little dudebro, what is going on in your life that makes you behave this way?” Black kid acts out and everyone thinks they already know everything they need to know about the kid and the reason the low impulse control black kid is acting out.
This keeps happening all the way through their mid 20’s when the white kid grows out of it and the black kid gets out on parole.
If I shot a gun at you with the intent of murdering you but missed and they charged and convicted me of attempted murder. Would you really call me a murderer when no one was actually murdered?
Rape under California law is punishable by up to 8 years in prison. Whether or not a Judge has discretion in the matter is not clear, but obviously there would have been different consideration for what was a different crime.
Is someone in this thread asking for the judge to impose a punishment not available for the crime of which he has been convicted? If not, your nitpick is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that if we and the judge consider the facts underlying the conviction to be the moral equivalent of rape, and we choose to call it rape and rape appropriately encompasses those acts as a matter of public opinion, then that is a valid argument for the expectation that the judge should impose a penalty—within the legally permitted range—that is as close as possible to the punishment for the more serious crime.
This is, indeed, exactly why the judge has the discretion to impose such a penalty on the first place.
So, you are calling for the judge to do exactly what you denied you were calling for in your earlier post.
And, my reply was to Kylasdad99, who had asked a different question.
No. I am calling for the judge to impose a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the crime within the range of discretion given to him for the crime of which the defendant was committed. Show me where I said anything different.
You said that he should sentence him as close to the level for rape as possible.
Even if for the sake of argument I accept what you say is true…
The Judge’s discretion is this matter was not unfettered. He was bound by law to consider certain aspects, including age, the accused’s own intoxication and the level of violence used. if he had failed to do so, he would have been reversed on appeal on that point alone.
What you are suggesting is that the judge abandons a dispassionate assessment of the circumstances at hand and instead awards the lengthiest sentence he was able to give, because, well fuck Brock Turner (an entirely understandable sentiment). That’s the very definition of capricious.
Just because, you or I*, would have ruled differently, does not make the Judge’s decision incorrect or liable to be set aside, or perverse, unless you can show some abuse of discretion.
*If I was the judge, considering the circumstances, I would have given him a longer custodial sentence.
Its one case. But apparently there was a significant difference in how a white Stanford swimmer was treated over sexual assault and a similar case of a Salvadorian immigrant by the same judge with a similar violation.
And Ramirez said from the start that he was sorry and he understood what he did was wrong.
The victim was awake and specifically refusing consent and he persisted for 10 minutes
Further to point 2, the fact the victim was awake meant under California law was a different crime under law than what Turner was charged with and one which under sentencing laws gave judges less discretion.
Unlikely, since those aspects DO NOT justify such leniency as he granted.
What is being suggested is that the judge weigh the prosecution’s recommendation along with the aspects you mention above. AIUI, the prosecution tends to take the same aspects into account when they make their recommendations (well, since they don’t invariably ask for the maximum sentence, I presume they take SOMETHING into account).
There is nothing capricious about making sure the punishment you give is actually proportionate to the crime. The entire point of having discretion is to make sure that the greater crime is given a higher punishment, and that a lesser crime is given a lesser one.
We have on record why the judge chose what he did, and that was because he didn’t want to ruin the guy’s future. He also admitted that him going to the same college that the judge had attended had something to do with it, since he brought that up in sentencing. The reason he did what he did was that he had sympathy for the convict, rather than the victim.
There is no way giving the recommended sentence by the jury would have resulted in him losing at appeal, and, if it somehow did, so what? He wouldn’t be punished. And so it would not have hurt to try to make sure he got a just punishment.
But the judge was not interested in justice. He was interested in giving a break to the white kid from his alma mater. And, because of that, the good people who actually care about making sure rape (under whatever legal statute) is punished properly are trying to make an example of him so no judge thinks they can get away with this miscarriage of justice again.
The guy gave him the sentence of someone who copped a feel, not someone who attempted rape and achieved penetration. Of a fucking unconscious woman. It is our societal duty to try and make sure this is does not become acceptable (again).
Kylasdad99, what is your experience in prosecuting or trying sex crimes cases? And also specifically why do you think that the mitigating circumstances that the judge applied, should not have been applied or could not be applied and the relevant case law supporting your claim.
You might want to think about all the other cases where prosecution is legitimately bad and the appeal is warranted, for that or other reasons; do you really want to raise the risk/reward ratio for those defendants?
Another way to phrase the question: is it possible for people to maintain rational thinking while foaming over about a particular villain?
Why would he appeal after he has already served his time? I heard on the news that he is asking for a new trial. I don’t understand the rationale behind this at all. Sure he might be acquitted and will no longer be a registered sex offender, but given his notoriety, it seems more likely that he’ll be convicted again and probably given a longer sentence (since the original judge was strongly ridiculed for being too lenient). Seems like a very foolish risk to take imo.
Because he’s a stupid, arrogant, spoiled little brat who’s incapable of understanding just how insanely lucky he is? And if it’s a foolish risk, that’s his problem! Maybe he’ll get that new trial and end up getting a longer sentence in some state pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Why? they are two separate things. An accused’s right to appeal shouldn’t come with the risk of a greater sentence as a punishment for exercising that right.
If the prosecution has the right to appeal sentence, they can do so, whether or not the accused chooses to appeal.
However, my recollection from a thread I started on this point when this was a live case was that the prosecutor under California law had very limited powers to appeal a sentence.