Ex-Stanford Swimmer gets 6 Months in Assault of Unconscious Woman

I thought you were referring to the story of the black 'activist' who posted fake threats online towards the black population at Keane State in order to propagate a certain narrative.

 

Why? Because it doesn't do any good to keep him in prison, unless he poses a danger to society (time will tell if he does). His life is damaged forever and that is his fault, though he has perhaps become unfairly the face of white privilege and light sentencing, though there are many more cases similar or even worse than his.

I'm sorry this has to continue to be said, but just because people who are poor minorities get treated poorly by our justice system, doesn't mean we need to treat others poorly as well. We need to be worried about what the justice system does to everyone.

 

Here's a recent example of what I'd consider a far more disturbing incidence of a light sentence.

http://www.13wmaz.com/ext/news/nati...to-prison/93/nationnow/4YGWldfvdC0m8AEK6IoOEa

 

I guess I don't understand, you are now saying that the story is not fake?

 

Horrible. These judges really need some sort of check and balancing of their authority.

This extends all the way up from family court, where many men get screwed in custody hearings depending on a judge's mood, all the way up to criminal court.

They need a better system.

 

The bolded is exactly why it does do others good to send him to jail for a violent crime. You should get locked up for rape. You shouldn't get a slap on the wrist for violent crimes based on trust that you won't do it again.

 

I could answer that but rather than answer that ridiculous question lets refer back to the fact that I gave two examples but you guys are focusing on the one with the priors. So let me get this straight... its OK to rape a woman as long as its your first time but if you've been in trouble with the law before you should get a longer sentence than a rapist for stealing candy? Is that the ridiculous point of view you're pedaling here? You guys aren't even ashamed of thinking this way I feel like I'm talking to the worst people in the world every time I come on this site, lol.

 

Your problem here is, the other example was never sentenced because he died before his case was over while waiting for a bed to open up at the state hospital. That example can be used to show the need for increased spending on mental health issues, but doesn't really work as an indictment of sentencing practices because he was never sentenced. You gave one example of someone that was actually sentenced, and you picked a career criminal with eight felony priors.

The way the law works generally speaking is there is an increase in penalties when you have more and more priors. It is meant to be a mechanism to fight against recidivism. There are different schools of thought on the efficacy of such a system, but the basic idea makes sense. The alternative is you treat every criminal like a first time criminal and thieves will simply be returned to society without significant penalty over and over again, remaining a constant menace.

Setting aside for the moment that Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, so your entire premise is flawed, you issue is with the way penal codes are written. You think that prior offenses should not carry more time, apparently. Most every jurisdiction, especially in the US, disagrees with you. Anti-recidivism laws like Three Strikes are incredibly popular. Most people can get behind the idea that there is a difference between committing one crime and committing crimes over and over again, even in the face of serious consequences.

Will Brock Turner ever commit another crime? No one knows, but we hope not. What we do know is that recidivism rates increase with increased number of prior arrests, so someone with one prior is less likely to reoffend, all things be equal, than someone with two priors, and so on. That is the background for anti-recidivism legislation. To look only at the current offense when considering sentencing is to ignore that reality.

Most people think that Turner should have received a harsher sentence, myself among them. Maybe the judge was privy to more information about the case than we are, I don't know. Maybe the judge found his testimony that he had received her consent more compelling than her testimony that she had not consented, given her inability to remember everything that happened. I don't think probation can never be appropriate in a sexual assault case. Given what I know of the case, I think he should have gotten a longer sentence, but I wasn't the judge. I think comparing a first time offender to a career criminal is apples to oranges though.

 

Guess when you got the white complexion for protection you get those type of sentences.