Brock Turner on the ugly underbelly of Stanford's "party culture"

[Tom McAndrew]

I hadn't been following this saga all that closely of late, but it appears that the judge in the case is facing a recall vote. In advance of that, he has broken his silence about the case. You can access an article and a video of him speaking at THIS LINK

Just an update on this situation. Judge Aaron Persky, who was up for recall due to his sentencing in the rape case that involved the former Stanford swimmer, was recalled in yesterday's California election. CLICK HERE for an article about the recall.

 

[Art]

Just an update on this situation. Judge Aaron Persky, who was up for recall due to his sentencing in the rape case that involved the former Stanford swimmer, was recalled in yesterday's California election. CLICK HERE for an article about the recall.

Fvcking little piss ant deserved it.

 

[Grant Green]

Fvcking little piss ant deserved it.

But just imagine how it would have ruined little Brocky's life.

 

[Art]

But just imagine how it would have ruined little Brocky's life.

Another little piss ant.

 

[DandyDonII]

If you grow a few marijuana plants in your basement, your house will be raided and you'll likely get at least a couple years in jail. If you rape an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and claim you were somehow the victim, you'll get six months in jail. I'm looking for a good explanation of that. He tried to run away from the scene which proves he knew he was doing something wrong. If it wasn't for the two grad students who detained him until the police arrived, he probably would have gotten away with it.

First, he wasn't convicted of rape, what he was convicted of doing was horrible, but it wasn't rape.
Second, while the judge's sentence was low, it wasn't like he was looking at life. He got six months which is what probation recommended. A normal sentence for a first time offender is probably between a year of county jail plus probation, and 2 years prison. So yes, he got a low sentence, but it wasn't that obscene. Third, this judge is known as a light sentencer in general, and this county is full of judges just like him. If the people of this county knew what was going on a regular basis, I think they would really flip out.
A couple of things about race in the system. I don't think race is the deciding factor in the justice system, however, I think that money does have an influence. I don't think it has much influence with prosecutors in this area, but I do think judges can become intimidated by very good defense attorneys...Second, I also think the backlash that has occurred because of who the victim was....It is becoming more and more common in our new utopia that child molestors are being released on low bail or even no bail currently, in those cases the victims are often poor, or not here legally so there is no one to fight for them.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

First, he wasn't convicted of rape, what he was convicted of doing was horrible, but it wasn't rape.
Second, while the judge's sentence was low, it wasn't like he was looking at life. He got six months which is what probation recommended. A normal sentence for a first time offender is probably between a year of county jail plus probation, and 2 years prison. So yes, he got a low sentence, but it wasn't that obscene. Third, this judge is known as a light sentencer in general, and this county is full of judges just like him. If the people of this county knew what was going on a regular basis, I think they would really flip out.
A couple of things about race in the system. I don't think race is the deciding factor in the justice system, however, I think that money does have an influence. I don't think it has much influence with prosecutors in this area, but I do think judges can become intimidated by very good defense attorneys...Second, I also think the backlash that has occurred because of who the victim was....It is becoming more and more common in our new utopia that child molestors are being released on low bail or even no bail currently, in those cases the victims are often poor, or not here legally so there is no one to fight for them.

All that aside, Turner only ever copped to drinking too much. Never took responsibility for his actions. F him and the judge.

 

[demlion]

First, he wasn't convicted of rape, what he was convicted of doing was horrible, but it wasn't rape.
Second, while the judge's sentence was low, it wasn't like he was looking at life. He got six months which is what probation recommended. A normal sentence for a first time offender is probably between a year of county jail plus probation, and 2 years prison. So yes, he got a low sentence, but it wasn't that obscene. Third, this judge is known as a light sentencer in general, and this county is full of judges just like him. If the people of this county knew what was going on a regular basis, I think they would really flip out.
A couple of things about race in the system. I don't think race is the deciding factor in the justice system, however, I think that money does have an influence. I don't think it has much influence with prosecutors in this area, but I do think judges can become intimidated by very good defense attorneys...Second, I also think the backlash that has occurred because of who the victim was....It is becoming more and more common in our new utopia that child molestors are being released on low bail or even no bail currently, in those cases the victims are often poor, or not here legally so there is no one to fight for them.

Yeah, not buying the idea that somehow what probation says lets him off the hook. You probably know more than me, but wasnt the prosecutor asking for SIX YEARS? In prison? Are you saying the prosecutor did not understand the law under which BT was convicted? Confusing.

 

[demlion]

Whoa. Wait a minute. Turner was convicted of 3 FELONY sexual assaults. He was apparently inserting his fingers AND foreign objects into an unconscious woman, outside, near a dumpster. He ran from the scene.

You know who inserts foreign objects into a woman in the dark on the ground when she has in no way consented? Serial killers. Did he plan to kill her? Thats at least as valid as anything the judge said.

Those bystanders just may have saved her life.

 

[DandyDonII]

Yeah, not buying the idea that somehow what probation says lets him off the hook. You probably know more than me, but wasnt the prosecutor asking for SIX YEARS? In prison? Are you saying the prosecutor did not understand the law under which BT was convicted? Confusing.

No, she definitely understood the law...And the judge could have given it to him in theory...However, under the usual standards, a judge is not going to give 6 years under those circumstances....
Probation definitely gave the judge cover to do what he did tho....

 

[L.A.Lion]

Whoa. Wait a minute. Turner was convicted of 3 FELONY sexual assaults. He was apparently inserting his fingers AND foreign objects into an unconscious woman, outside, near a dumpster.

Those bystanders just may have saved her l

The California statute prohibiting sexual penetration of an unconscious person defines "foreign object" to "include any part of the body, except a sexual organ." He admitted at trial that he had fingered her but claimed it was consensual. The jury didn't buy it and convicted him of fingering the victim, not of going all Fatty Arbuckle on her.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

It appears that Brock Turner is still appealing his conviction. In a recent appeal hearing, his attorney used a word that I don't think I've ever hear before -- "outercourse." I realize the duty of an attorney is to represent their client, but this seems to be stretching things a bit. CLICK HERE for the article.

 

[sluggo72]

It appears that Brock Turner is still appealing his conviction. In a recent appeal hearing, his attorney used a word that I don't think I've ever hear before -- "outercourse." I realize the duty of an attorney is to represent their client, but this seems to be stretching things a bit. CLICK HERE for the article.

I think 'outercourse' would be called 'dry humping' in Schuylkill Co. (or at least it was when I lived there)

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I think 'outercourse' would be called 'dry humping' in Schuylkill Co. (or at least it was when I lived there)

lol, I haven't heard that phase in many years, but I've heard it in many locations other than Schuylkill Co.

My non-lawyer thinking is that if a victim is unconscious, and as such can't consent, that it doesn't matter what type of "course" someone attempts on them. However, that may be a more modern take on things. I'm not sure what the CA statutes are. @DandyDonII is, I believe, far more versed in the legal aspects in CA, so hopefully he'll comment on this.

 

[wbcincy]

I lived in Ohio for 7 years. I spoke to my wife about this yesterday. And maybe I'm going to get too deep into the weeds with this. But there really seemed to us to be a difference in the way that women are treated there. I won't get into the root causes and get the board into an uproar. But it just seemed like women were more second class citizens. We noticed it with the way boys treated our daughters. Noticed it with the way husbands treated their wives.

This is just a small anecdote, but....I've never seen so many women who cut the grass in their yard. Growing up, that was always seen as a "guy job", right? In that area, the guy would be inside drinking beer and watching TV while the wife was outside cutting the grass. Like a mule. I don't know. Just one example, but it rubbed me the wrong way.

Just my opinion.....

I didn't see this post 2 years ago...yikes.

My wife cuts our lawn, because she enjoys it. Of course, I do most of our cooking, because I enjoy it. But if you were my neighbor, you'd just lump me into your assumption of a typical Ohio male pig. Frankly, defining the roles of men and women and then judging people based on their adherence to them sure seems like you have mixed up who the misogynist here is.

I lived all across Pennsylvania over the course of 23 years, Ohio for 11, and Texas for 1. I've also been all around the country. I've seen shitty men everywhere, with no greater proportionality. Oh, and when the Ashley Madison breach happened, Ohio was in the bottom half of the states for money spent per capita on the site (PA was multiple spots ahead of Ohio). But, you've got an anecdote or two, so why not generalize Ohio men inaccurately.

 

[jrd23psu]

Brock Turner was never convicted of rape. That's the problem with this whole thing, people are upset that he wasn't sentenced according to guidelines for a crime he was never convicted of.

And now there is this false narrative out there that is based on misinformation that people keep piling onto.

 

[sluggo72]

I didn't see this post 2 years ago...yikes.

My wife cuts our lawn, because she enjoys it. Of course, I do most of our cooking, because I enjoy it. But if you were my neighbor, you'd just lump me into your assumption of a typical Ohio male pig. Frankly, defining the roles of men and women and then judging people based on their adherence to them sure seems like you have mixed up who the misogynist here is.

I lived all across Pennsylvania over the course of 23 years, Ohio for 11, and Texas for 1. I've also been all around the country. I've seen shitty men everywhere, with no greater proportionality. Oh, and when the Ashley Madison breach happened, Ohio was in the bottom half of the states for money spent per capita on the site (PA was multiple spots ahead of Ohio). But, you've got an anecdote or two, so why not generalize Ohio men inaccurately.

what they say in WV (which btw, shares a boarder with Ohio)
In the house, around the house, or can be seen from the house, its women's work!!!


tic

 

[demlion]

Nobody. Seeks. "Outercourse." That is the dumbest f#cking thing I ever heard.

 

[83wuzme]

Just an update on this situation. Judge Aaron Persky, who was up for recall due to his sentencing in the rape case that involved the former Stanford swimmer, was recalled in yesterday's California election. CLICK HERE for an article about the recall.

BBC article. Guess they don’t feel this is newsworthy in Palo Alto.

 

[L.A.Lion]

Brock Turner was never convicted of rape. That's the problem with this whole thing, people are upset that he wasn't sentenced according to guidelines for a crime he was never convicted of.

And now there is this false narrative out there that is based on misinformation that people keep piling onto.

He was convicted of 2 counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious woman who was too drunk to know what was happening, and 1 count of assault with intent to commit rape. All three counts are felonies which call for 3-8 years in prison. He wasn't sentenced to anywhere near the normal time for the three crimes he was convicted of.

 

[DandyDonII]

lol, I haven't heard that phase in many years, but I've heard it in many locations other than Schuylkill Co.

My non-lawyer thinking is that if a victim is unconscious, and as such can't consent, that it doesn't matter what type of "course" someone attempts on them. However, that may be a more modern take on things. I'm not sure what the CA statutes are. @DandyDonII is, I believe, far more versed in the legal aspects in CA, so hopefully he'll comment on this.

I haven't read the defense's appellate brief, and really don't have any desire to. Defense appellate briefs (especially those with money) tend to make outlandish claims....

The Central Park 5 seems to be a much more interesting scenario these days. I am hoping that I can delve through the recently released information......

 

[jrd23psu]

He was convicted of 2 counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious woman who was too drunk to know what was happening, and 1 count of assault with intent to commit rape. All three counts are felonies which call for 3-8 years in prison. He wasn't sentenced to anywhere near the normal time for the three crimes he was convicted of.

If you read the California sentencing guidelines you'll find out that the judge followed them. You don't have to like the sentencing guidelines in place, but it doesn't change the fact that he is not a convicted rapist. Rape sentences follow a different set of guidelines for sentencing in California. If people want this rectified they should fight to change the laws in California, not get upset when the laws that are currently on the books are enforced the way they are written.

 

[Judge Smails]

If you read the California sentencing guidelines you'll find out that the judge followed them. You don't have to like the sentencing guidelines in place, but it doesn't change the fact that he is not a convicted rapist. Rape sentences follow a different set of guidelines for sentencing in California. If people want this rectified they should fight to change the laws in California, not get upset when the laws that are currently on the books are enforced the way they are written.

He's required to register with wherever he lives as a sexual offender for the rest of his life. Not sure what fine line you are trying to straddle.

 

[jrd23psu]

He's required to register with wherever he lives as a sexual offender for the rest of his life. Not sure what fine line you are trying to straddle.

I understand that. There is no fine line here. I don't like the kid but the outrage that there has been since his conviction and sentencing has revolved around the fact that people falsely believe a convicted rapist was given a sentence of 3 months. He is not a convicted rapist and the original post in this thread is a graphic of "convicted rapist Brock Turner."

They even ousted the judge because people don't understand the facts here. He could not have been sentenced under rape conviction guidelines because he was never convicted of rape. This is an example of people seeing red and never taking the time to learn what actually happened. If people want to work to change California laws in regards to how sentencing guidelines for people convicted of sexual assaults that's fine, they can work to do that. They may not like the consequences if they do get them changed, but they can certainly do that.

He will have to register as a sex offender, yes. That comes with any conviction of sexual assault.

 

[Judge Smails]

This is an example of people seeing red and never taking the time to learn what actually happened. If people want to work to change California laws in regards to how sentencing guidelines for people convicted of sexual assaults that's fine, they can work to do that.

He was convicted of three felony counts which call for 3-8 years in prison each. Not sure what you are talking about.

 

[jrd23psu]

He was convicted of three felony counts which call for 3-8 years in prison each. Not sure what you are talking about.

No, they don't. California has a pretty wide range for sentencing guidelines. What he was convicted of did not call for 3-8 years in prison. If they did the judge would have sentenced him to at least 3 years.

They called for anywhere between up to a year, or in some cases 2, 3, or 4 years. Then you also have mitigating circumstances which also affect the sentence. Some sexual assault convictions have guidelines of up to 8 years in prison, but no minimum. One of the convictios for Turner fell under this but again, carried no minimum sentence, so anywhere from 0-8 years is the guideline. He was sentenced to 6 months and released in 3.

Since the Turner case, however, California has changed their laws to include a minimum sentence for some sexual assault convictions.

 

[joeparules]

Brock Turner was never convicted of rape. That's the problem with this whole thing, people are upset that he wasn't sentenced according to guidelines for a crime he was never convicted of.

He was convicted of 2 counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious woman who was too drunk to know what was happening, and 1 count of assault with intent to commit rape. All three counts are felonies which call for 3-8 years in prison. He wasn't sentenced to anywhere near the normal time for the three crimes he was convicted of.

Not a lawyer here ... you telling me there is a difference between "rape" and "sexual penetration of an unconscious woman"? Is it because she was too drunk to say the word 'no'? If so, I have another reason to hate the state of California!

 

[jrd23psu]

Not a lawyer here ... you telling me there is a difference between "rape" and "sexual penetration of an unconscious woman"? Is it because she was too drunk to say the word 'no'? If so, I have another reason to hate the state of California!

Sexual penetration with a foreign object (not the genitalia) is different, yes. They are separate charges in California and are subject to different sentencing guidelines. Rape carries a harsher sentence.

 

[L.A.Lion]

Not a lawyer here ... you telling me there is a difference between "rape" and "sexual penetration of an unconscious woman"? Is it because she was too drunk to say the word 'no'? If so, I have another reason to hate the state of California!

I am a lawyer. Your "is it because" question is only semi-coherent, so I'll just offer up this semi-brief explanation: criminal law in most states was inherited from common law created by medieval English judges. State legislatures, including both California and Pennsylvania, have codified and tinkered with the definitions of common law crimes over the years. California could have redefined the crime of "rape" broadly to include sexual penetration with something other than a penis, but they didn't. Instead they enacted statutes defining those acts as felonies separate and apart from traditional "rape." The California sexual penetration statute under which Turner was convicted carries the same 3, 6, or 8 year sentence that the rape statute does.

Had Turner been caught in University Park rather than on Stanford's campus, he would have been prosecuted for "aggravated indecent assault" under Pennsylvania law, not "rape." Aggravated indecent assault is a felony in PA, but it's not "rape."

I now return you to your regularly scheduled hate of California, but it looks like you're going to have to add Pennsylvania to that list, too.

EDIT: it just occurred to me that you may not know that Turner was convicted of penetrating his unconcious victim with his finger(s), not his penis. His pants were on when he was seen by the two grad students who interrupted his act and tackled him when he ran. Had he used his penis he would have been tried and convicted for rape. The California sexual penetration statute explicitly includes body parts other than a penis in the definition of "foreign object."

 

[jrd23psu]

The California sexual penetration statute under which Turner was convicted carries the same 3, 6, or 8 year sentence that the rape statute does.

It doesn't, though (or at least didn't when he was sentenced). This has been my point. People keep getting upset and asking themselves why a "convicted rapist" didn't get sentenced to years in prison. The answer is simply that he is not a convicted rapist.

"Forcible penetration is a violent felony that is punishable by up to 8 years in prison. Those convicted may be required to register as a sex offender with the state of California, be subject to restraining orders, and be ordered to pay fines and restitution. Forcible penetration is a strike under California’s three strike laws."

https://www.aerlawgroup.com/sex-crimes/understanding-california-sexual-assault-laws.html

Under those guidelines somebody can be sentenced to anywhere from 0-8 years. With mitigating circumstances (age, prior convictions, and alcohol) people have their answer as to why he was sentenced to 6 months.

People may not agree with the sentence, but it was within the guidelines of sentencing in California at the time. And like I said earlier, California has changed their law regarding minimum sentencing since this.

 

[L.A.Lion]

If you read the California sentencing guidelines you'll find out that the judge followed them. You don't have to like the sentencing guidelines in place, but it doesn't change the fact that he is not a convicted rapist. Rape sentences follow a different set of guidelines for sentencing in California. If people want this rectified they should fight to change the laws in California, not get upset when the laws that are currently on the books are enforced the way they are written.

California Penal Code Section 289:
(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(1) Was unconscious or asleep.

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

Turner was convicted of one count under 289(d)(1) and one count under 289(e). Those 3, 6, or 8 year terms were on the books when Turner committed his crimes and was sentenced; they were not added by the legislature in response to Turner's sentence.

Title 4 of the California Rules of Court, where the sentencing "guidelines" are found, are actually vague in laying out how they should be applied. The judge in Turner's case exercised a great deal of discretion in coming to the sentence that he did; that outcome was not compelled or even driven in any way, shape, or form by some imperative found in the felony sentencing rules. The prosecution applied those very same rules and asked for 6 years imprisonment. Here's their sentencing memorandum.

 

[jrd23psu]

California Penal Code Section 289:
(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(1) Was unconscious or asleep.

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

Turner was convicted of one count under 289(d)(1) and one count under 289(f). Those 3, 6, or 8 year terms were on the books when Turner committed his crimes and was sentenced; they were not added by the legislature in response to Turner's sentence.

Title 4 of the California Rules of Court, where the sentencing "guidelines" are found, are actually vague in laying out how they should be applied. The judge in Turner's case exercised a great deal of discretion in coming to the sentence that he did; that outcome was not compelled or even driven in any way, shape, or form by some imperative found in the felony sentencing rules. The prosecution applied those very same rules and asked for 6 years imprisonment. Here's their sentencing memorandum.

My citation is for 289(a)(1) but does list things (like being unconscious) as things taken into consideration but does not mention that if they are true then another statute (289)(d)(f) would apply. I stand corrected.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Nobody. Seeks. "Outercourse." That is the dumbest f#cking thing I ever heard.

The California Court of Appeals did not buy Turner's, or his lawyer's, argument, either, and Turner lost his appeal of his conviction. CLICK HERE for an article with more details.

 

[demlion]

The California Court of Appeals did not buy Turner's, or his lawyer's, argument, either, and Turner lost his appeal of his conviction. CLICK HERE for an article with more details.

Well, thank God for small favors.

 

[nittany dave]

His dad said that he is being penalized for just 20 minutes of activity.

Hey, Charles Manson got penalized for only 2 bad nights.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Appears that the victim is publicly identifying herself, and is also coming out with a book later this month. CLICK HERE for more information.

 

[cntblvitsbutter]

I wonder who the 2 grad students were that involved. Gotta applaud them for their actions.

 

[DandyDonII]

Will add a little context for you all-
Defendant's Trial Attorney- One of the most respected defense attorneys in the county. He is good, but unlike so many others, is ethical. Have tried a case against him (hung it 6-6, if his client did not testify, she would have been acquitted, but in all fairness to me, I did convict the other two defendants in the case)… Having him as the attorney didn't hurt the defendant at trial and at sentencing. The guy knew how to play in the system.

the Judge- First off, a very decent guy, I personally like him. However, he was a softie when it came to sentencing...It did not just occur in this case, it was prevalent in his courtroom, no matter what ethnicity or gender you were. Of course, he was in the Palo Alto Courthouse, that part of the county typically gives the most lenient sentences.

The Sentence- The sentence itself was definitely low, although he did follow the Probation Department's recommendation. And while it was low, it wasn't as if a normal defendant would do 5 years or more on this case, probably a few (you have to remember he was no convicted of rape, basically convicted of using a finger). Hell, the typical defendant probably would not have been out of custody during the pendency of the trial and very likely would have credited out without ever having to go to prison.

The aftermath- If the public really knew how quickly criminals get back on the streets, I suspect there would be an uprising. That's the part that is kind of difficult to fathom for me, knowing how quickly home burglars, robbers and other violent criminals get out, it was hard to get seriously outraged by this.

white privilege etc.- This is an interesting discussion piece. Him getting less jail/prison time was definitely a function of him being at Stanford. I don't think it was white privilege as much as privilege in general. If he was any other race with those same credentials I suspect the sentence from the judge would have been the same. While he definitely lucked out in not serving prison time, I suspect that the lifetime registration as a sex offender will have a much deeper impact on him than most people convicted of this crime.

 

[Waltwam]

I am amazed with what my daughters tell me and am glad they are that open about today's world. I asked the high school one the other day how her boyfriend was(had been dating a few weeks) ... her answer was, we broke up... I said oh I am sorry... she said don't be, with what he wanted from me sexually I told him no way and he said he was moving on since there were plenty of other girls who would give him sex..... Was so proud of her but it's what our kids face daily. So much pressure to have sex/ do drugs etc... It's everywhere, kids in middle schools having sex party's after school at kid's houses whose parents work etc. These are in up scale neighborhoods and suburbs. It's a whole new world out there.

Don’t be amazed!! Just read all the “pornograhic statements and pictures” on our own board, and you can see that men everywhere think that way!

 

[jrd23psu]

Don’t be amazed!! Just read all the “pornograhic statements and pictures” on our own board, and you can see that men everywhere think that way!

I have never understood why so many people on this board have the pictures they have in their signature.

 

[Woodpecker]

I have never understood why so many people on this board have the pictures they have in their signature.

Mine's the schedule poster