Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    In true internet fashion, the public are lighting their torches, sharpening their pitchforks, and making petitions. Why? Brock Turner of Stanford University was recently sentenced to 6 months in prison for raping a girl behind a dumpster. You'll have to Google it because I'm not tech-savvy enough to copy and paste links on my cellphone.

    A petition asking for the ruling judge to step down has already reached tens of thousands of signatures. Six months is far too lenient, apparently.

    What do you think - is six months enough for rape? Are you angry that he didn't get more time? I've been thinking about it, and I don't have a problem with it. Something I've noticed about myself when it comes to these matters is that I like to put myself in the shoes of the perpetrator. What if it was me? What was going through my mind when I did it? What would be enough for me to learn my lesson, to do penance? People don't often so this, I find. Imagine yourself in prison for six months. And yes, imagine being raped (while unconscious). Is it even the true purpose of imprisonment to provide equivalent suffering, or is it to rehabilitate? Which is most important?

    The controversy is also a race issue now, don't forget. Suddenly this is a case of 'white privilege.' Never mind OJ Simpson getting away with murder. Or that white guy on Making a Murderer being put away for life. I mean, imagine if he'd been black - that whole show would have been about how he was a victim of racism. "This doesn't happen to white people," we'd say, somehow forgetting that it does. Similarly, a white OJ Simpson getting off Scott free would've been held up as an example of 'white privilege.'

    I've gone off topic...
    The main problem is that the sentence was below the minimum sentencing guideline. Even so six months for rape would be laughable if it wasn't such a sad incident.

    Also you clearly don't know much about the OJ case. A racist detective refusing to say he didn't plant evidence is enough for reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person, particularly where the police force in question has a history of systemic racism.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If you think 3 months in jail, 3 months probation is enough time, just read the victim's statement:
    'The pain became so bad that I had to explain the private details to my boss to let her know why I was leaving. I needed time because continuing day to day was not possible. I used my savings to go as far away as I could possibly be. I did not return to work full time as I knew I'd have to take weeks off in the future for the hearing and trial, that were constantly being rescheduled. My life was put on hold for over a year, my structure had collapsed.

    I can't sleep alone at night without having a light on, like a five year old, because I have nightmares of being touched where I cannot wake up, I did this thing where I waited until the sun came up and I felt safe enough to sleep. For three months, I went to bed at six o'clock in the morning. I can't sleep alone at night without having a light on, like a five year old, because I have nightmares of being touched where I cannot wake up, I did this thing where I waited until the sun came up and I felt safe enough to sleep. For three months, I went to bed at six o'clock in the morning.

    I used to pride myself on my independence, now I am afraid to go on walks in the evening, to attend social events with drinking among friends where I should be comfortable being. I have become a little barnacle always needing to be at someone's side, to have my boyfriend standing next to me, sleeping beside me, protecting me. It is embarrassing how feeble I feel, how timidly I move through life, always guarded, ready to defend myself, ready to be angry.'
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Judging from the sentence I thought it would be something less serious, but after reading around the circumstances I have to say that sentence seems extraordinarily low.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    >Zero evidence she didn't give consent.

    >She admitted that she didn't remember whether or not she gave consent.

    >She was drunk.

    >He was drunk.

    So there is no case of taking advantage of a drunk person...

    >She may have passed out mid sex, at which point continuing was bad judgement (if he continued while she was passed out).


    I see no reason to prosecute him apart from possible sexual assault from continuing to have sex with a person who may or may not still be consenting.

    >Perhaps she consented at the beginning, then passed out.

    Or never resisted, so he may have interpreted it as implicit consent, in a drunken state.

    >People have sex in alley ways, on stairs in public buildings, on the street, I don't see why behind the bins indicates rape, so no need to focus on that as if it's special.

    >Indication of forceful penetration does not prove rape.


    Sentence is a bit harsh, but fair enough.

    100% probation would be better.

    Not sure if he was actually charged with rape, but if so, a sexual assault charge would suffice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (edit: ALSO TO THE COMMENT ABOVE ME **** YOU)

    Read about this last night. The victim was unconscious throughout the whole ordeal and the perpetrator acted like he had no idea she was unconscious, since it was dark - but the witnesses, two swedes in the distance DID notice she was not moving and tackled him. That was how the rape was stopped. Even worse the rapist feels little to no remorse since he is insistent on the fact that she gave her consent (but in an earlier statement he claimed it her was consent was suggested when her unconscious body "rubbed his back"). The VICTIM of the rape has said she would rather him UNDERSTAND the far reaching consequences of his actions and feel remorse for her. But nope. No remorse from him. If you want to see the full letter she wrote:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7069111.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Considering that he tried to run away when the two witnesses saw him, I think he perfectly knew that what he was doing was wrong.


    I agree with the rest of your post though. I think that alcohol is much to blame as it makes victims more vulnerable and potential rapists bolder. Hopefully marijuana will replace alcohol in youth parties as it is a less destructive way to get high. Universities should also appoint a "sober staff" to look after people who are drinking too much in parties.
    I think you missed my point. Firstly, I said he didn't know he was wrong to begin with. I agree, by the end he knew, otherwise he wouldn't have run. A lot of crimes like this start out as something that seems innocent enough, but then transforms into something sinister. Secondly, I meant to imply that alcohol should not be blamed for this. We all know what happens when we drink too much, and yes, we're not always rational thinkers, however, I believe that no matter how drunk someone is (assuming they are still conscious), we all have an alarm inside which recognises when we are going to do something truly dangerous or wrong. I bet Brock sobered up very quickly when those two guys restrained him. Alcohol affects our decisions, it doesn't make them for us. We are responsible for our actions, regardless of the amount we've had to drink. Plenty of people get completely wasted and don't hurt other people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arima)
    (edit: ALSO TO THE COMMENT ABOVE ME **** YOU)

    Read about this last night. The victim was unconscious throughout the whole ordeal and the perpetrator acted like he had no idea she was unconscious, since it was dark - but the witnesses, two swedes in the distance DID notice she was not moving and tackled him. That was how the rape was stopped. Even worse the rapist feels little to no remorse since he is insistent on the fact that she gave her consent (but in an earlier statement he claimed it her was consent was suggested when her unconscious body "rubbed his back". The VICTIM of the rape has said she would rather him UNDERSTAND the far reaching consequences of his actions and feel remorse for her. But nope. No remorse from him. If you want to see the full letter she wrote:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7069111.html
    Swedes tackled him when she was unconscious.

    No evidence she was unconscious throughout the whole ordeal.

    Maybe she rubbed her back before she was unconscious.

    Also, maybe he continued to engage with her sexually after she'd passed out, which is when the Swedes tackled him.

    No need to insult me, perhaps I should get some petitions signed for this Hate Crime
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    More or less he didn't say that, and more or less you're being intellectually dishonest.
    For real?

    He most certainly implied it.

    To me it looks like the only one being intellectually dishonest here is you. Ironic that you'd accuse the other user of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Armpits)
    >Zero evidence she didn't give consent.

    >She admitted that she didn't remember whether or not she gave consent.

    >She was drunk.

    >He was drunk.

    So there is no case of taking advantage of a drunk person...

    >She may have passed out mid sex, at which point continuing was bad judgement (if he continued while she was passed out).


    I see no reason to prosecute him apart from possible sexual assault from continuing to have sex with a person who may or may not still be consenting.

    >Perhaps she consented at the beginning, then passed out.

    Or never resisted, so he may have interpreted it as implicit consent, in a drunken state.

    >People have sex in alley ways, on stairs in public buildings, on the street, I don't see why behind the bins indicates rape, so no need to focus on that as if it's special.

    >Indication of forceful penetration does not prove rape.


    Sentence is a bit harsh, but fair enough.

    100% probation would be better.

    Not sure if he was actually charged with rape, but if so, a sexual assault charge would suffice.
    This completely highlights my view on this matter. You mentioned consent several times, saying 'maybe she consented...'. This is the point I want to make: people don't know what consent is.

    If a girl doesn't explicitly say 'no', does that mean she consents? If she doesn't fight it, does that mean she consents? If she fights at first, but then gives up, does that mean she consents? How about if she consents, but then passes out? Can you assume it's still okay to continue because she said you could earlier? What happened in this case was sexual assault. At the time the other guys found them, Brock was making sexual contact with an unconscious woman. This is sexual assault. Also, just because he was drunk does not mean he is not able to take advantage of someone who is also drunk. That is exactly what he did. Continue to have sex with an unconscious person isn't 'bad judgement', it's a crime. Finally, I agree with you that the location can't necessarily indicate sexual assault, and if this had happened in a bed, chances are the victim wouldn't have even reported anything. The point here is that he was caught by two men who got a bad enough impression of the situation that they called the police. We all need a clearer idea of what consent is and is not, so that situations similar to this might be avoided in future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nerol)
    This completely highlights my view on this matter. You mentioned consent several times, saying 'maybe she consented...'. This is the point I want to make: people don't know what consent is.

    If a girl doesn't explicitly say 'no', does that mean she consents? If she doesn't fight it, does that mean she consents? If she fights at first, but then gives up, does that mean she consents? How about if she consents, but then passes out? Can you assume it's still okay to continue because she said you could earlier? What happened in this case was sexual assault. At the time the other guys found them, Brock was making sexual contact with an unconscious woman. This is sexual assault. Also, just because he was drunk does not mean he is not able to take advantage of someone who is also drunk. That is exactly what he did. Continue to have sex with an unconscious person isn't 'bad judgement', it's a crime. Finally, I agree with you that the location can't necessarily indicate sexual assault, and if this had happened in a bed, chances are the victim wouldn't have even reported anything. The point here is that he was caught by two men who got a bad enough impression of the situation that they called the police. We all need a clearer idea of what consent is and is not, so that situations similar to this might be avoided in future.
    Great post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whitetack)
    an idiot judge made a stupid decision...lets not make this about race, theres enough of that going around as it is
    But it is about race. Someone some posts back linked to a similar story, same situation a black student raped an unconscious girl and he got 15-25 years.

    There are deep-rooted double standards within the US society and the way police and judges treat blacks shows this.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well as is nearly always the case, I think this guy's nearly on the money/makes some pertinent points

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjN...asDdRoD9J6X-sw

    It seems sometimes that people think that a need for justice is the position of thinkers, of those with a rational outlook on the world, and mercy the position of feelers, of those who are too soft. Frankly, I think it is quite the opposite. The hunger for justice is more often than not a longing for some sort of cosmic equilibrium that is utterly impossible to attain, generated by childish feelings of "that's not fair!". Intuitively, it feels to me that such a short sentence is a bit strange and not "in proportion". But what actual good does punishing him do in the first place anyway? All it does is increase the suffering in the world. It would be entirely understandable if prison actually helped turn individuals like this into people who would never re-offend, and made them realise the utter horror of what they inflicted on someone else. I don't think that a longer sentence would do this, if anything the environment of prison seems more liable to worsen the obvious flaws in these people.
    I agree that prison is pretty ineffectual in rehabilitating people, but that's a separate argument. You can't say "Ah there's no point in prison" and justify giving him 6 months but allow giving other sexual offenders decade sentences. Either the whole system changes or nothing does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ye, also thought what his dad said about him never being cheerful etc again was disgusting. when you have that level of psychological effect on someone that is irrelevant. this is perpetrator sympathising at its best
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    But it is about race. Someone some posts back linked to a similar story, same situation a black student raped an unconscious girl and he got 15-25 years.
    How much money did they have?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Armpits)
    Swedes tackled him when she was unconscious.

    No evidence she was unconscious throughout the whole ordeal.

    Maybe she rubbed her back before she was unconscious.

    Also, maybe he continued to engage with her sexually after she'd passed out, which is when the Swedes tackled him.

    No need to insult me, perhaps I should get some petitions signed for this Hate Crime
    >Likewise there is no evidence to say she was conscious during the ordeal.
    >Rape is rape and there are no excuses for it.
    >The only response the rapist reported was what he thought was a "back rub". She did not give her consent. Doesn't matter if he was drunk. He raped her and i doubt there was any way he couldn't have realised she was unmoving "because of the dark" while the two swedes in the distance could see she was unmoving. She may have explicitly consented before the rape, but if you even looked at her statement and her letter you would see plainly that she would not have given consent even in the event that she was sober.
    >What hate crime are you banging on about?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    But it is about race. Someone some posts back linked to a similar story, same situation a black student raped an unconscious girl and he got 15-25 years.

    There are deep-rooted double standards within the US society and the way police and judges treat blacks shows this.
    i dont disagree that some cases in the us have race issues but this one is just a stupid judge making a stupid decision. as someone said earlier in the thread what about OJ simpson, or the making a murderer guy, race issues happen on all sides, maybe some are more publicised doesnt mean it doesnt go on both ways.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well as is nearly always the case, I think this guy's nearly on the money/makes some pertinent points

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjN...asDdRoD9J6X-sw

    It seems sometimes that people think that a need for justice is the position of thinkers, of those with a rational outlook on the world, and mercy the position of feelers, of those who are too soft. Frankly, I think it is quite the opposite. The hunger for justice is more often than not a longing for some sort of cosmic equilibrium that is utterly impossible to attain, generated by childish feelings of "that's not fair!". Intuitively, it feels to me that such a short sentence is a bit strange and not "in proportion". But what actual good does punishing him do in the first place anyway? All it does is increase the suffering in the world. It would be entirely understandable if prison actually helped turn individuals like this into people who would never re-offend, and made them realise the utter horror of what they inflicted on someone else. I don't think that a longer sentence would do this, if anything the environment of prison seems more liable to worsen the obvious flaws in these people.
    It's an incredibly unpopular opinion. Read the comments on this thread and look at the rep disparity, for example.

    But the reactions here seem to be more emotional than anything. "He won't suffer enough!" "Other people get longer!" Well, so what? What would a 5 or even 10 year sentence, for example, actually do? Provided he doesn't do it again, I think he'd be more worth to society out of prison than in it. But people don't like to think like that; people prefer retribution and proportional suffering (or more).

    Let's not also forget that the prison time isn't the only thing he'll experience. This guy will be lucky to get a job at all once he gets out. His whole life has been derailed. Maybe that's enough?

    Anyway, my opening post was mostly a late night thought experiment that doesn't seem to have gone down well with the TSR masses...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    But what actual good does punishing him do in the first place anyway?
    It depends if prison is purely a place for rehabilitation or also acts as a deterrent. If you are given short sentences for what are serious crimes, there might be less reason not to act. For example if you knew murder would only get you 3 years of rehab, you could quite easily feign remorse and kill an enemy. Where as if it gets you 20 years or more...suddenly it's not as appealing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Only in America could this happen. Good thing we have EU minimum sentencing that we have to adhere to. Seems like a much better system than America's varying state laws.

    This case was clearly cherry picked out of a huge number. I could find about 15 cases from my city alone, through news sites and my local police force, mostly within the last year, that did get lengthy jail sentences. Yet no one wants to talk about those simply because they were not committed by VIPs. People are only enraged by this one because he's wealthy. Also even if they did give him a longer sentence the general public would react in the usual way they do on the Facebook pages of police forces and news sites whenever a convicted sex offender is brought up with their usual cry of 'BUT X NUMBER OF YEARS ISN'T LONG ENOUGH!' or 'CASTRATE HIM!' or even 'BRING BACK HANGING!'
    Where do you draw the line? Even if he got 10 or 12 years they would still be unhappy.

    Also if you look at the reaction from feminists, they are so quick to jump on the case when an athlete is committing the crime compared to when it's anyone else whether they're a VIP (rich, celebrity) or not because they really hate sportsmen. If you look at the way Ched Evans was treated for a crime he might not have even committed, compared to how high profile sex offenders like Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, Garry Glitter, Max Clifford and (Jimmy Savile) managed to escape the same level of scrutiny from them for stuff they most definitely did do. How were they any less deserving of the same criticism? And as for sexual offenses committed by normal everyday people, they won't even get off their arse to condemn those, you might as well piss in the wind.

    Sorry chaps, rant over.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nerol)

    If a girl doesn't explicitly say 'no', does that mean she consents?
    Out of curiosity on this point what is your view?

    Suppose the flip side of it would be, if a girl doesn't explicitly say "yes", has she consented?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.