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

Grasshopper. But her intoxication did have relevance as he was charged with sexual assault of an intoxicated individual.

 

I've been looking for details of how they ended up at the dumpster to no avail. Can't even find Brock's side of that story.

How is it relevant in any way at all?

 

I'm not familiar enough with California penal code to know if rape of an intoxicated person vs. non-intoxicated person carries any significant difference in terms of punishment. Do you?

It's hard to imagine that it would.

 

I don't know, but why would there exist such a distinction? And if the victim's behavior can determine the charge against the defendant then why should that behavior not be considered in the sentencing of such a conviction?

 

Because getting drunk is not an excuse to be raped?

FYI the distinction likely exists because the notion of consent as it relates to someone's state of being.

 

I tend to agree, but in theory, it would go into the consent argument (he argued she was conscious and consented). But if the charge is that she was passed out already, then her intoxication seems less relevant.

 

I'm pretty sure she wasn't going out to find someone to rape her. Unless you have another opinion.

 

If this is the norm I'm gonna start steal drunk people's wallets and phones. That should allow me to get a lighter sentence since their intoxication has SOME impact on me violating them.

 

That's what I'm wondering. Is there reasonable doubt that resulted in the lighter sentence?

No news or bloggers seem to be investigating any evidence. Everyone on social media is just ready to jump to conclusions and lynch people.

 

That's true. In that case is does turn into he-said she-said.

It also turns into a game of who-knew-what-and-when.

 

There shouldn't be. If there's reasonable doubt, then he should be found not-guilty. Mitigating circumstances should affect sentencing, but not reasonable doubt.

 

At least they finally put his mugshot in the paper, like they typically do.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/06/3785310/brock-turner-mug-shot/

 

Ideally, yes. But I could see a situation where all jurors don't agree so they trade votes on certain charges. That's why I'm curious as to what charges were faced and found not guilty of. I'm wondering how concrete the evidence was as to whether it was a he-said-she-said. I mean, I believe there has to be a reason the punishment was light other than white male privilege.

 

She can't remember anything. How does she know what happened was not consensual?

 

I can't believe people are actually dancing around, trying to find a reason why this fellow shouldn't have the book thrown at him.

 

An intoxicated person cannot give consent.

That's practically sex law 101.

 

I think it's legitimate to consider his prior record (or lack of) as well as his likeliness to commit another offense or become a productive member of society in determining his sentence.

How much the girl had to drink, what she wore, how fast he swims, etc, are not even remotely applicable to determining his punishment.

 

Nice post. I actually agree with that. I have to admit to being really angry at the comment the father made, which is coloring my opinion, I'm sure.

 

His father and friend basically put both their feet in their mouths with their letters to the judge.

 

If her behavior is applicable to determining the crime, then why and how is not applicable to determining his sentence?