I haven’t seen any of the sentencing materials, but it’s possible that such community service is actually a condition of the sentencing. He could (again, potentially—I don’t know the details) be in violation of probation if he doesn’t perform to those conditions, which could lead to further jail time.
Actually, I suspect that if he does try to schedule any talks like that, they’ll be extremely well attended. By people outraged by his sentence and his actions, who will verbally abuse him mercilessly as soon as he arrives until he leaves. One of the few cases where I’d support shouting down the speaker.
California’s Attorney General has spoken out criticizing the judge for the ridiculously light sentence. She said in order to impose a sentence below mandatory sentencing guidelines, there would have to be extraordinary mitigating circumstances. And there weren’t. The judge used the fact that the assailant had consumed alcohol as a mitigating factor, which has been highly criticized because he has now set precedent that alcohol consumption can be used as a mitigating factor against rape.
Community service was not a condition of his sentencing. Both Brock Turner and his father suggested in their letters to the court (asking for probation & no jail time) that he could go around to schools and lecture other students about 'college drinking culture and promiscuity".
The victim herself, in the letter she read to the court said that if he does set up a program and go around to speak to college students about “campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that” (rather than the crimes he was convicted of), that she would follow him to every school and give a follow up presentation about sexual assault.
There were witnesses who said they knew instantly that something was wrong, since she looked dead and he was moving a lot.
He also stood up over her body and took a picture of her exposed breast (seen by another witness) & he sent the photo in a group chat to friends with the caption “Who’s tit is this???”.
If you truly think he did not realize she was unconscious, then you don’t know the facts of this case. 12 jurors found him guilty as charged.
Joe Biden wrote a compelling letter to the victim that is worth a read.
Per the parts of the sentencing report which was released, he himself was pretty drunk when the act happened.
Now, the law is clear, drunkenness is not a defence to rape or sexual assault as it is, say for murder; however, situations like this have always made me uncomfortable. Two people drink. They both get extremely drunk. They have sex.She is too drunk to consent. He is guilty of raping he (or in this case sexual assualt), an action he might not even remember.
He was sober enough to photograph her naked, unconscious body and send it in a group text to his friends with the caption of “Who’s tit is this???”.
He was also sober enough to RUN when he was caught red handed, and gave a coherent statement to the police that night.
I do not usually feel strongly about ‘date rape’ cases due to the he said/she said gray area, but this case is black & white imo & I’m glad that 12 jurors saw it that way too.
Regarding alcohol: His consumption is used as an excuse to mitigate his criminal actions, while HER consumption was used to blame HER for his actions. That is fucked up.
:dubious:
His use of alcohol was expressly not used for mitigation as per the sentence report. (the only mitigating circumstance was first offence). Her drunkenness was not used as an aggravating point, solely sinceit was already an element of the charge.
I was referring to the trial. Her use of alcohol was most definitely used against her by his attorney. It was the old typical and offensive line of questioning to a rape victim that has so many people irate. Thankfully, it didn’t work on the jury.
From Joe Biden’s open letter to the victim:
"We will speak to change the culture on our college campuses—a culture that continues to ask the wrong questions: What were you wearing?
Why were you there? What did you say? How much did you drink?
Instead of asking: Why did he think he had license to rape?"
How is it old, typical and offensive? Unless you are asserting that defence has should have no right to cross examine witnesses? In his case her drunkenness was an element of the offence charged and the defence attorney would have been extremely negligent if s/he did not cross her on this particular issue.
If you are sincerely not familiar with the old, offensive tactic of blaming the victim, then I’ll refer you to the wiki definition.
And regarding the defense attorney’s cross exam, he never should have been in a position to cross examine this witness at all. Unlike most rapes, there were WITNESSES to this rape, who pretty much sealed the deal and his client should have plea bargained. But he was arrogant and thought that blaming the victim would get him off scott free. Thankfully he was WRONG, just as you are.
As Joe Biden so eloquently phased it, YOU are part of the problem. Please read his letter in full to hopefully fight your own ignorance.
[QUOTE=Enola Gay]
If you are sincerely not familiar with the old, offensive tactic of blaming the victim, then I’ll refer you to the wiki definition.
[/QUOTE]
He was charged with
i)assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person,
ii) penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object
iii) penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.
Bringing up her intoxication and unconsiousness is not “victim blaming” in this case. It is an element of the offence charged. It has to be brought on record. If its not, he walks. You might be able to feel satisfied about avoiding “victim blaming”, but each of the elements of the crime has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the only way is to bring it on record.
FYI, the defence attorney does not decide which prosecution witness are put on the stand; s/he only gets to cross-examine a prosecution witness if said witness is first put on the stand and examined in chief by the prosecution (Nothing in the record that I have seen indicates that she was called as a hostile witness by the defence and you generally need permission for that anyway. If she is on the stand than the defence attorney has a right to cross examine her like any other witness.
I can see why the prosecution decided to put her on the stand. Without her own testimony, there is great difficulty in establishing that she was unconscious or even drunk. I have not read the trial transcripts, but from the information that has been released, the Swedish bikers were not nearly as crucial witnesses as has been claimed (their main role here was catching him and calling the police); they did not see any penetration at all, nor could they testify her drunkenness.
The medical report could show her BAC, but that can also be attacked, how many hours later was it taken, it might have been compromised by the treatments given to her at the hospital. It cannot also further establish whether she was unconscious at the time of the act, nor could the paramedics; who can establish only that she was unconscious when they tended to her, not that she was unconscious when the penetration occurred.
Individually, none of these is sufficient for a conviction, Its only when the are taken cumulatively that they establish Mr Turner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s how real cases generally turn;they are not decided on a single major of evidence like in the movies, they are composed multiple pieces of evidence which on their own prove nothing; but together are links in a chain which leads to conviction, or otherwise.
Brock Turner is a turd who deserved a much harsher punishment. But I can think of many black athletes who committed assault, battery or rape and either weren’t arresed or received minimal punishment.
Brock Turner was treated no more leniently than Quintin Dailey, and was treated worse than Lawrence Phillips.
I can’t help thinking that the coverage given to this story is related to the Haven Monahan fiasco at UVA.
The witnesses were not drunk and so were in a better state to see that the victim was unconscious.
I have not read that anyone saw him standing over her body taking pictures, only that some people claimed a picture of the victim’s breast was sent to them. From what I have read there is no way to know if the victim was conscious or not at that point. If you have facts that have not been shared to this point you should link to them.
It is my understanding that it does not matter criminally if he knew she was passed out or not. Fingering an unconscious women is a crime regardless of whether the perpetrator is aware of her condition. So while the jury in the case seems to be correct on the facts the judge who heard all the facts of the case and the probation officer who monitored the defendant both agreed that the sentence was appropriate.
What’s baffling is that, in 1997, Persky joined the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office. In this position, he prosecuted criminal offenses which included violent sex crimes and hate crimes.