Rapist Brock Turner 6 month sentence.

[yagami]

Due to the amount of bs I've been exposed to from the mainstream media I never know when something the media puts out is real or exaggerated. So the story goes this guy was found by two students raping a girl who was unconscious in an ally behind a dumpster. We was convicted of 3 counts of sexual assault and given 6 months in country jail.

 

That just sounds so freakin unbelievable I dont know what to say. But it seems pretty straight forward. Im not going to draw any stupid conclusions as to why this happened like the left does like "If he were black he'd never see the light of day again". I dont believe that at all but I want to know how someone could essentially get away with something like this. Are the courts really that corrupt? Or have I been mislead again by the mainstream media. Please spaghetti monster save us.

[Wuzzums]

I don't trust the anus of Satan known to us as the mainstream media in the slightest. There are far more important things going on in the world right now than 2 drunk people having sex.

[EclecticIdealist]

From what I understand, his story is that the sex was consensual, and at some point she passed out. He ran scared. The police and witnesses demonized him, but the nature of such a "crime" and lack of evidence either way may have something to do with the light sentence. Did you listen to the Jian Ghomeshi presentation Stef did?

Of course that's his story. It's certainly a better story than, "I took a drunk girl from a party who was barely conscious, walked her outside, took her behind a dumpster and began raping her, and continued raping her after she fell unconscious, and would have continued raping her had two Swedes riding by on their bikes not stopped me."

[EclecticIdealist]

And...?

"And despite hiring some great attorneys, I was still convicted of three counts of sexual battery. By all acocunts I should have received a 15 year sentence, but owing to the fact that the Judge presiding over my sentencing was an alumnus from my School, as well as being blessed to have European Ancestry, I got a slap on the wrist, and with good behavior, I'll only spend as much time in jail for raping a drunk girl as that Black girl will for trying to pull her friend away from the Police at a BLM rally. SWEET! Horray for White Male Privilege".

[EclecticIdealist]

Sarcastic biased speculation placed in quotes does not an argument make.

When did I say I was making an argument.  I was simply pointing out that a person caught in the act of raping someone will always claim consent. It's their only potentially viable defense. Everything else was simply sarcastic commentary. As for the bias, yeah, I tend to be biased against rapists caught in the act of engaging in intercourse with girls incapable of giving consent, and a criminal justice system that routinely gives people heavier or lighter sentences for the same crime based on their sex, the color of their skin, and any other excuse for unjustly extending special privileges to some and negatively discriminating against others.

[Lily G.]

When did I say I was making an argument.  I was simply pointing out that a person caught in the act of raping someone will always claim consent. It's their only potentially viable defense. Everything else was simply sarcastic commentary. As for the bias, yeah, I tend to be biased against rapists caught in the act of engaging in intercourse with girls incapable of giving consent, and a criminal justice system that routinely gives people heavier or lighter sentences for the same crime based on their sex, the color of their skin, and any other excuse for unjustly extending special privileges to some and negatively discriminating against others.

To be fair, there was no intercourse. His pants never came off and the medical exam confirmed that. Manual stimulation was the extent of the alleged sexual assault.

[Wuzzums]

When did I say I was making an argument.  I was simply pointing out that a person caught in the act of raping someone will always claim consent. It's their only potentially viable defense. Everything else was simply sarcastic commentary. As for the bias, yeah, I tend to be biased against rapists caught in the act of engaging in intercourse with girls incapable of giving consent, and a criminal justice system that routinely gives people heavier or lighter sentences for the same crime based on their sex, the color of their skin, and any other excuse for unjustly extending special privileges to some and negatively discriminating against others.

What if the rapist was a homeless black woman? What sentence should she have been given?

[EclecticIdealist]

To be fair, there was no intercourse. His pants never came off and the medical exam confirmed that. Manual stimulation was the extent of the alleged sexual assault.

From the report, "to be fair", it was likely only digital penetration, which, even if it was "only" digital penetration still constitutes rape and not simple sexual assault (such as groping) as far as most people are concerned; but it is at least good to know that he likely never got as far as penetrating her with any other part of his body.

[shirgall]

The View just talked about how the judge being a Stanford alum may have biased him in the case... I'm sure Trump gets the same consideration.

[EclecticIdealist]

I didn't know if you were trying to make a point besides simply revealing your biases. Guess not.

I admit I'm biased. I'm biased towards  supporting the weak and the few who are oppressed and victimized by the many and strong. I'm biased against the guilty who show no evidence of remorse for the harm they caused, but only the consequences of being caught doing something wrong. I make no apologies for those biases. You seemed to be revealing a bias yourself with your first post in this thread; but maybe I'm mistaken in that regard.

[EclecticIdealist]

What if the rapist was a homeless black woman? What sentence should she have been given?

The prosecution was recommending 6 years. Assuming the homeless woman wasn't mentally ill or otherwise incapable of making moral distinctions, and 6 years is a fairly consistent sentence for crimes of this severity and seriousness, I'd abide by that recommendation.

[EclecticIdealist]

I am here seeking objective truth. Uncovering and questioning biases would fall under that, I think. What do you suppose is my bias in this case? If I have one, I'd like to figure out where it lies and what I can do to compensate for it (since it would potentially be standing in the way of determining the objective truth). 

From the way you posted the convicted criminal's story, and the way you depicted the police and witnesses to the sexual assault as demonizing him, the way you referred to his sexual assault in quotes suggesting you did not consider what he did to be a crime but that is was simply being called a crime, and the fact that you referenced a man (Jian Ghomeshi) who was exonerated of sexual crimes suggested a bias against the victim and possibly in favor of the perpetrator.  As I said, I might be mistaken in this regard, but that is what suggested to me that you may have a bias if not in favor of the perpetrator, at least against the victim and the perpetrator's accusers.

 

I'm not asking you to share your answers to the following questions, just use them to check yourself for bias in this instance...

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever engaged in sexual activity with someone who was highly intoxicated to the point that they were cognitively impaired? Did they remember what happened afterward?

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever engaged in sexual activity with someone while highly intoxicated to the point that you (or they) were cognitively impaired or don't remember details afterward? To the point of not remembering anything?

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever been accused of sexual assault? Convicted?

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever been sexually assaulted? 

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever been falsely accused of sexual assault? Convicted?

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever falsely accused someone of sexual assault, or any other crime? Were they convicted?

 

Have you or anyone you know or respect ever done something which you judged them less harshly than you judged another because of how well you know them? More harshly?

 

Do you believe people of specific socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to commit crimes than others?  Less likely?

 

Do you believe people of specific intelligence are more likely to commit certain crimes than others? Less likely?

 

Do you believe people of specific race are more likely to commit certain crimes than others? Less likely?

 

Do you believe people of specific age are more likely to commit certain crimes than others? Less likely?

 

Do you believe people of a specific sex are more likely to commit certain crimes than others? Less likely?

 

Do you believe authorities such as police officers are more reliable, about equally reliable, or less reliable than the average person in telling the truth? In being fair? In being impartial?

 

Do you believe witnesses are generally more reliable than forensic evidence, about as reliable, or less reliable?

 

Do you believe the people you know personally are generally representative of persons of that race, age, sex, socio-economic background, etc., or are they generally exceptional in a positive way?  in a negative way?

 

Have you or anyone you know and respect ever done something which, if it were know, you would be convicted of a felony? a serious felony?

 

Have you or anyone you know been a victim of a felony crime that went unpunished?

 

 

These questions are not meant to be accusatory in any way. I don't expect you or anyone to answer these questions, especially if they feel uncomfortable doing so. They are only meant for self-reflection to determine if you are conscious of any biases you might have, or possibly unconscious of biases you might have.

[EclecticIdealist]

EI I'm not reading that. You have no idea what you're talking about. I cited the Jian Ghomeshi podcast because it talks about the due process and legal considerations of proving sexual assault. Did you listen to it? I read the criminal complaints (did you?) and the bias of the police and witnesses was apparent. They were white-knighting. This is not a system biased in favor of the alleged perpetrator. I put crime in quotes because we don't know for fact what happened that night, but perhaps those quotes were misplaced. I'll own that error, seeing as he was convicted of a crime.

You're so certain I don't know what I'm talking about, really? It seems pretty clear from the podcast and various media reports that there was some question as to whether or not Jian Ghomeshi did what he was accused of doing, especially in light of the lack of any bystander witnesses and no physical evidence of a violent assault. Things which, incidentally, were present in the case of Brock Turner.  As to your charges of "white-knighting" on the part of the Swedes, I really don't understand what your complaint is. It almost sounds as if you think they were "too noble" in their intervention. Some clarification is in order I think, lest one think you actually believe Brock's 2nd BS stories about what actually happened (which asks the question, which of his two stories do you believe, the one he told the cops the night he was arrested or the one he told his probation officer?) As to the charges that the police are biased against the alleged perpetrator, that is a given. Why would they not suppose that the person is guilty of the charges leveled against them. It is the Judge and Jury who are obligated to presume the innocence of the accused, not the officers who arrive on scene to detain the alleged perpetrator of a crime. 

 

I'll summarize your bias as I see it: guilty until proven innocent.

Then I suggest you get your "vision" checked, or better yet, take a remedial course in reading comprehension and more importantly, check your own bias against me. 

[Catalyst]

From my understanding (from media, friends, and other alternative news), the guy had seen the girl before. She got very drunk and blacked out and stumbled behind a trash can. Brock sexually assaulted her through groping and finger penetration. He reported that she had been rubbing his back as he was fingering her, but once two bicyclists found him he ran.

 

From this I do think he is guilty and that he knew what he was doing was wrong. But I think 6-months for sexual assault is reasonable since I do not feel it is a convincing malicious assault, closer to a misunderstanding. The behind a trash can does seem off. I also heard after a week of being in jail he has been relieved of 3 months of the total sentence for good time. That does feel ridiculous to serve 3 months for sexual assault because I do feel he knew what he was doing (again, possibly not to the extent).

 

Would love to see a truth about since most of my information has come from mainstream and having a hard time finding counter evidence.

[EclecticIdealist]

I do have a bias against you based on our previous interactions. I am sure you don't know what you're talking about based on your questions that are in complete ignorance of my history and background.

 

I don't care that the police were biased against him, nor the swedes. And I don't 'believe' any story from him. If his story is plausible, however, and there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove it, then that would make a conviction on more serious charges more difficult, and sentencing lighter as well. Seriously, stop preaching to me and listen to the Jian Ghomeshi podcast. I'm thoroughly annoyed at your blind lecturing and will not be responding further.

I did listen to approximately the first hour of the Jian Ghomeshi pod cast, and it was as I expected from what I'd read in other sources; the witnesses against him all appeared to have made false claims and their testimony impeached by evidence proving they lied and directly implying they lied about the claims as well. This supports the notion that you might have been influenced to be biased against the witnesses against Brock Turner. You indicate you don't care that the police and Swedes were biased against him, and yet i don't believe you based on your terming what they did as "white-knighting" in what seemed to be a pejorative way.

 

You say that if his story is plausible, and there's insufficient evidence to disprove it then it would make a conviction on more serious charges more difficult, and the sentencing lighter; and yet the jury did not find his story plausible, and the judge did not vacate the jury's verdicts or find the verdicts unwarranted. The prosecution felt that the seriousness of the charges for which he was convicted warranted at least 6 years and potentially as much as 14 years or more, but it looks like he may only serve 3 months because the Judge was extremely lenient... so much so it's a wonder he didn't sentence him to probation and time served. Was the judge biased? Why yes, I think he was, as do so many others.

 

As to the questions about bias, again you presume way too much.  These are simply the types of questions one might find on a prospective juror questionnaire. I never suggested, nor meant to suggest that many, and certainly not all of the questions applied to you. I simply tried to provide some questions that might reveal a person's potential bias in such a case. So yes, the questions were in complete ignorance to your history and background. I know very little about you, and I suspect you know as much or less about me. I never pretended or presumed to know your history or background. My estimation of your bias was based on that single post you made.