Stupid Privileged White Kid Gets 6 Months for Rape, Father describes it as "20 minutes of action"

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@asahi

Your opinion assumes that he should feel remorse, as though the judge perpetrated a crime or behaved unethically. I know he rendered a judgment that many people did not like, but show me where he acted unethically and illegally.

Who are you challenging on this? AFAIK no one here has charged that the judge acted unethically or illegally.

@asahi

Again, “doubling down”…for fucks sake, he wasn’t trying to goad anyone; he was saying that if he had been presented with the same sets of facts, with the same recommendations from the parole board, it’s probable that, as a legal expert, he would have rendered the same decision.

Aye; that’s why the public has said “you don’t get it”; he clearly doesn’t.

@asahi

But #metoo.

? :dubious:

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Tim_T-Bonham.net

People seem to be forgetting that the Judge had two recommendations available to him: the probation department (not parole) and the prosecutor. (Additionally, he could have chosen to sentence anywhere in between them.) He chose to go with the very lenient one, to the outrage of the public, and paid the price for that. Had he just ‘split the difference’ and given a 3-year sentence, most of us never would have heard of this case.

Aye; that was the point of my post that you quoted: had he chosen differently, this unintended outcome might not have happened.

[septimus]

I missed the first 800 posts but I won’t let that stop me.

@Northern_Piper

…
The message that the recall sends is that judges should err on the side of more severe sentences if they want to keep their jobs.

No. The message is that sentences should be commensurate with the crime. An affluent white rapist should serve much more time than a poor black in a possession of a small quantity of crack cocaine.

@Morgenstern

Bullshit. This judge slapped reason in the face. If he was too clueless to know that, he is too clueless to be a judge.

@Bricker

My argument (or, more accurately, the argument of the writers whose works I have linked above) is that it will have a disproportionately chilling effect on poor and minority population. It’s unclear to me why you’d emphasize the chilling effect you hope it will have on affluenziatic Stanford boys, except that this is the effect you desire and you don’t wish to confront the potential effect you don’t desire – or don’t wish to acknowledge you desire, or to which you are indifferent.

For Bricker.

[Bricker]

@Banquet_Bear

…if you don’t trust the people to be able to make decisions like this: then the only remedy is to remove the option to recall. Is that the outcome you are hoping for?

Well, I’m more channeling the the writers of the various pieces I have quoted than expressing a personal view here, but in that spirit I’d point out that the federal judiciary is insulated from recall from the public; they may be removed for bad behavior only by Congress.

That seems to be the preferred approach for the writers.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Bricker

Well, I’m more channeling the the writers of the various pieces I have quoted than expressing a personal view here, but in that spirit I’d point out that the federal judiciary is insulated from recall from the public; they may be removed for bad behavior only by Congress.

That seems to be the preferred approach for the writers.

…oh for fucks sakes.

I don’t give a fuck what the writers have said.

Would you prefer they remove the recall? Yes or no.

[AK84]

@Northern_Piper

r on the side of more severe sentences if they want to keep their jobs. As ** Bricker** notes upthread, how often is there public outcry that a sentence is too harsh and the judge should be removed for being too hard on the accused? “Tough on crime” keeps judges in office.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/judge-aaron-persky-recall-attempt-brock-turner/index.html

Yeah, the day is fast coming when we’ll have to append all our advice to clients with "unless this goes viral on social media, in which case you are fucked/saved <delete as appropriate>".

Justice should be cold and rational made by disinterested and impartial judges. Not by modern-day Roman Emperors deciding whether a gladiator lives on the whims of the crowd.

[Leaper]

One could argue that judges could also be emboldened to apply their personal prejudices if they knew that their position was untouchable.

[DigitalC]

@AK84

Justice should be cold and rational made by disinterested and impartial judges. Not by modern-day Roman Emperors deciding whether a gladiator lives on the whims of the crowd.

If this was the case the judge would still be sitting and rapey mcraper would be in jail. This concern trolling that holding judges responsible for going easy on rich white kids is going to make them tougher on poor minorities is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard.

[Bricker]

@DigitalC

If this was the case the judge would still be sitting and rapey mcraper would be in jail. This concern trolling that holding judges responsible for going easy on rich white kids is going to make them tougher on poor minorities is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard.

Publications like the Washington Post and Mother Jones are not exactly known for concern trolling to benefit rich white people, though. Why do you imagine they decided to forgo their liberal creds and do so here?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Lawyer Guy: “See, it wasn’t really rape; like, not rape rape. This was just, ya know, 2 kids having fun because there was no intercourse; none. Just outercourse. So it’s not that bad, see?”

Everyone else: :dubious::mad::rolleyes:

That’s the argument being taken by the rapist’s lawyers tho in their newest bid to reduce his sentence, even tho he only served 3 months of his 6 month sentence in an actual jail.

Brock Turner wanted nothing more than ‘outercourse,’ not intercourse, lawyer...

A lawyer for a former Stanford swimmer whose conviction on sexual assault charges led to the extremely rare recall of a judge tried to convince an appellate court Tuesday to overturn his client’s conviction — on the novel grounds that the athlete wanted “outercourse” with his intoxicated victim, not intercourse.

“Outercourse,” his lawyer Eric S. Multhaup explained to the three poker-faced justices, is sexual contact while fully clothed. Turner had his clothes on when he was caught by two Swedish graduate students making thrusting motions on top of a half-naked, intoxicated, unconscious woman, his lawyer noted.

“I absolutely don’t understand what you are talking about,” Justice Franklin D. Elia said, adding that the law “requires the jury verdict to be honored.”

“We are not in a position to say (of the jury), you should have gone a different way.”

Justice Adrienne Grover tried to clarify Multhaup’s argument. “You’re saying (the jury) made unreasonable inferences?”

“Yes!” Multhaup said. ”They filled in the blanks.”

But Elia didn’t seem to buy it.

“Intent is rarely proved by direct evidence,” he said, noting that it’s typically based on circumstantial evidence. “You can’t surgically remove things and look at them separately.”

At least one person simply wasn’t having it:

Assistant Attorney General Alisha Carlile didn’t mince words. She argued that Multhaup had presented a “far-fetched version of events” that didn’t support the facts of the case.

The Stanford law school professor who led the campaign to recall Judge Aaron Persky said Turner had a chance to make that argument at trial, but did not.

“Now, he has a brand new story,” Michele Dauber said in a phone interview Tuesday, contending that Turner, who testified in his own defense, lied on the stand. “It’s inappropriate to ask the appeals court to substitute its judgment for the jury.”

I hope someone is looking at a possible perjury charge; I especially hate when rich people lie and get away with things.

[Procrustus]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Lawyer Guy: “See, it wasn’t really rape; like, not rape rape. This was just, ya know, 2 kids having fun because there was no intercourse; none. Just outercourse. So it’s not that bad, see?”

Everyone else: :dubious::mad::rolleyes:

That’s the argument being taken by the rapist’s lawyers tho in their newest bid to reduce his sentence, even tho he only served 3 months of his 6 month sentence in an actual jail.

At-1-10 , Wizards fire coach Jordan – The Mercury News least one person simply wasn’t having it:I hope someone is looking at a possible perjury charge; I especially hate when rich people lie and get away with things.

Perjury by whom?

[Dewey_Finn]

What is the point of appealing the sentence now, when he’s already served the time?

[silenus]

Trying to get him off the sex offenders list, most likely.

[MrDibble]

I don’t know the law on this - is there *any *possibility that, as a result of this appeal, a judge might go “You know what, you’re totally right, we were wrong about that sentence - I’m making it 10 years” (like what happened to Oscar Pistorius, kind of, except that was the State appealing the sentence)

[Eonwe]

@asahi

Authorities estimate that the victim’s [BAC] were approaching .20, which is seriously drunk. I want to be clear: in no way does that justify sexual assault, which I believe Turner committed. But what I would say is that it’s a mitigating factor.

Wait, what? The victim’s state of drunkenness is a mitigating factor? Lighter sentences if you rape a drunk girl than if you rape a sober girl?

[Monty]

WTF is “outercourse”? Look, I don’t mind attorneys representing their clients to the utmost of their immediately and with zeal; after all, they’re supposed to do that. But making up stuff should not be countenanced.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@MrDibble

I don’t know the law on this - is there *any *possibility that, as a result of this appeal, a judge might go “You know what, you’re totally right, we were wrong about that sentence - I’m making it 10 years” (like what happened to Oscar Pistorius, kind of, except that was the State appealing the sentence)

Only if new mitigating evidence comes forward. Such as the alleged images of the naked victim the defendant texted to friends but has since been deleted and wasn’t used in the main trial.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Aaaand the LATimes is calling him “former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner” instead of “convicted rapist Brock Turner”. Why?

[Monty]

I meant “to the utmost of their ability”.

[Ike_Witt]

@Monty

WTF is “outercourse”?

And if it what the rapist was after to begin with, why was it not mentioned at the trial?