I just saw clarification of this on the news, treis, and here is the root of the confusion:
Brock Turner was convicted on 3 counts, 2 of which fall under California penal code 261, which is the rape statute. So technically he is guilty of 2 counts of rape, and one count of assault with intent to rape.
That is why news outlets are correct in saying he was convicted of rape.
His father did not deny guilt and described it as “20 minutes of action”. Because of course, “action” is so totally consensual that when caught you run like hell and leave your unconscious partner face-down on the pavement behind a dumpster. Let’s sit down and unpack that mindset for a moment.
Here is the complaint against Brock Turner:
He was charged with:
220(a)(1):
and 289 (d) and (e)
He was charged with 261 (a) (3) and (4) (Rape) but these were later dropped because no intercourse occurred.
If that last post is correct, why can’t the DA appeal the sentence as it did not follow the law of 3, 6 or 8 years?
The middle one is the “normal” sentence while the shorter/longer ones required the Judge to find specific mitigating/aggravating circumstances. This was found unconstitutional in Cunningham v. California because it requires Judge’s to make a determination about facts. Only juries are allowed to make factual determination under the 6th amendment.
In these cases, the middle sentence would require a factual determination of no mitigating factors while the maximum requires a factual determination of aggravating factors. Thus, the maximum permissible sentence is the minimum one listed in the law because it is the only one that doesn’t require the judge to make a factual determination.
It seems to be a complicated area and I might be talking out of my ass here. Here’s a decent site with further reading:
Another source I read said that by law the MINIMUM time for the crime committed was 2 years. Therefore this sentence is unlawful; can’t the DA do something on those grounds? Apparently they are trying to get rid of the judge.
With his family wealth, do you believe that he is going to have to go out and find a job like everyone else, or is he going to be placed as a vice president of something, or that using family connections he is going to have his record expunged.
You obviously think otherwise, I don’t.
The kid was on track for easy street and this was just a speed bump.
Declan
Concidering the water at Rio, like I said, maybe we should have allowed him to compete.
Declan
But he was convicted of crimes that in other states, would be “rape”. The California code apparently make a distinction between “sexual intercourse” and “sexual penetration”, and only “sexual intercourse” is covered under 261. Apparently (since I couldn’t find a definition in the code) sexual intercourse means only penis in vagina. Anything else in vagina is sexual penetration.
From your very own post beforehand, Batey was convicted of “Count 1: aggravated rape, penetration of vagina with fingers; guilty of aggravated sexual battery”, which is exactly what Turner did as well. Had Turner been tried in the same jurisdiction, he would have been convicted of “rape” as well.
TLDR: By the letter of the California statute, Turner was not convicted of rape because they couldn’t prove he put his penis inside her. By any colloquial or rational definition of rape, it was rape.
I think along with this we need to educate our young people about the dangers of binge drinking. to the point where maybe even teach them how to get drunk. Far too many young people go away to college not knowing this and learn the hard way. Ask any college admin.
Truthfully in the real world a young woman should be able to get so drunk she passes out and be able to wake up fully clothed and safe outside a bar beside a dumpster. However that is not the real world. Men, also drunk off their butt, lose all their self control and values and do incredible stupid things. Both of these “adults” are crazy.
Lesson learned - dont get so damn drunk you pass out and have no control over yourself. At least have friends along who will keep you safe and from doing stupid things.
There are lots of good reasons not to binge drink. The danger that someone might have an easier shot at raping you ought to be pretty far down the list. And even lower on the list is the danger that you might rape someone else. If all it takes is some alcohol for you to rape a barely conscious woman behind a dumpster, then I think rape was probably in your future either way.
Moreover, the victim in this case didn’t set out to get extremely drunk. According to her, she went to have a few drinks at a party and inadvertently drank too much based on her previous alcohol tolerance. So your impulse to use this incident to talk about the dangers of drinking is a bit like using 9/11 as an opportunity to talk about the dangers of air travel. Sure, technically speaking, choosing to travel by airplane puts you at risk of hijacking. But you’re sort of missing the point!
I agree, it does not matter whether you are Black/ White/ Hispanic, if you are a Stanford student or any other university you deserve leniency, why should you have your future ruined for a simple rash decision.
You consider raping someone “a simple rash decision”?
Men get drunk ALL THE TIME and manage not to rape people. I agree with Richard Parker that rape was in this guys future. Normal men do not rape unconscious women, regardless of how much they’ve had to drink.
Perhaps because you ruined someone else’s future?
I really really hope that’s sarcasm. :dubious:
I think you and Enola Gay need to reset your sarcasm detectors. Pretty sure Mickle was just pointing out the minimization of the crime and the shameless preferential treatment being advocated by a Stanford University student’s father. He (the father) basically came out and said “my son has a bright, opportunity-laden future ahead of him, so his twenty minutes of action shouldn’t receive the harsh sentence you would give to a high-school dropout for committing such a horrible crime.”
Based on Mickle’s (albeit brief) posting history, I’m not convinced it is sarcasm. Perhaps she will return to the thread to clarify.
I believe many criminals do receive unfairly harsh sentences. I think there are many folks sitting in prison for years and years, when really their crimes warrant months and months.
But I’m frustrated over the fact that it seems like the harshness of the criminal justice system only seems to be discussed when it is a certain type of person’s life is at question. I really don’t have a problem with us collectively deciding–after a sober analysis of empirical research–that a first-time rapist shouldn’t rot in prison for longer than six months. I honestly don’t.
But it’s sad that it always takes a white middle-class poster child to humanize criminals. If folks want to make the criminal justice system less “life ruining”, that’s fine. But you can do that without giving Brock special treatment. Shove his ass in prison just like we do all the other thugs and THEN change the sentencing laws.
No kidding, although I think that this guy deserves to spend years sitting in prison.