Stanford swimmer convicted of rape only gets 6 months b/c it would have a severe impact on him,

[CTRLZero]

Quote

“I absolutely don’t understand what you are talking about,” Justice Franklin D. Elia told Multhaup, the Mercury News reported.

....

At Tuesday’s oral argument, the three justices reminded Multhaup that the purpose of an appellate court is not to question the jury’s verdict retrospectively.

I imagine the justices, once they unroll their eyeballs from the back of their heads, will issue some sort of "crawl back under your rock" order.  I bet they wish they could re-sentence Turner to a longer sentence, though!  Why would Turner, his parents, his attorney,* and whoever is involved in the appeal, want his name out in public again.  It shows a real failure of the whole taking responsibility concept.

*I'm sure the attorney is being paid well, but it's still a stupid appeal IMO.

Edited July 26, 2018 by CTRLZero
Spelling.

[Glasgowghirl]

Brock and his parents are narcissistic,  everything is about the impact his actions have had on him and his family, nothing is ever about the impact on his victim, her family or on the people that rescued her that night. He was fortunate only to serve 3 months in jail, he should be grateful the judge was so lenient. I can see him committing another crime and his parents excusing his actions again. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Brock Turner loses appeal in sexual assault case"

Spoiler

(CNN)A California appeals court rejected the appeal of Brock Turner, the former Stanford swimmer who sought to overturn his convictions stemming from a 2015 sexual assault of an unconscious woman.

In 2016, Turner was convicted of assault with intent to rape, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. As a result of the sentence, he must also register as a sex offender for life.

Last month, his lawyer, Eric Multhaup had argued before the 6th District Court of Appeal that there was "a lack of sufficient evidence to support three convictions" against Turner.

In arguing for overturning the convictions, Multhaup took issue over when the victim, known as Emily Doe, became unconscious. The defense also contended that because Turner was "fully clothed and engaged in forms of sexual conduct other than intercourse," it would "negate an inference of intent to rape."

"We are not persuaded," the justices wrote in response to the attorney's arguments.

In the ruling issued Wednesday, the three justices unanimously upheld the judgment against Turner.

"Defendant argues none of his convictions is supported by sufficient evidence. That argument lacks merit," according to the ruling.

The case captured the national spotlight after the victim penned an emotionally searing letter that she read to Turner at his sentencing.

It then caused an uproar when Judge Aaron Persky, who oversaw the trial, sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, of which he served three months, because the jail was overcrowded. Prosecutors had asked for a six-year sentence.

The sentence drew an outcry as too lenient and resulted in the recall of Persky by Santa Clara voters in June.

 

[violynn]

On 7/26/2018 at 5:36 PM, CTRLZero said:

 Why would Turner, his parents, his attorney,* and whoever is involved in the appeal, want his name out in public again.  It shows a real failure of the whole taking responsibility concept.

*I'm sure the attorney is being paid well, but it's still a stupid appeal IMO.

It's never mentioned what Turner was majoring in at Stanford, only his swimming athletic scholarship, but whatever career he'd thought of pursuing, it's fair to bet it is difficult to get hired with felony convictions on your record, your face on national news and spending the rest of your life on the sexual offenders list.  I'm thinking probably they're working to get these convictions overturned so he can live that life his Daddy said was ruined now for "20 minutes of action". 

 muttering to myself...fucker

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

The young woman who survived a sexual assault by Brock Turner has gone public with her identity. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757626939/victim-of-brock-turner-sexual-assault-reveals-her-identity

She was interviewed by 60 Minutes, and it is set to air on September 22. Also:

Quote

Now Miller is telling her story in a new book due out on Sept.24 called Know My Name.

I greatly admire her bravery. 

[unsafetydancer]

I admire her bravery too. Her abuser reminds me a lot of a particularly creepy guy from my past in that his parents also excused every single damned thing he did. I hope that Chanel continues to get support from her family and can walk away knowing that she has the respect of many thousands of women.

[Glasgowghirl]

Chanel is a brave and inspirational woman to go public and discuss what happened.

Brock, his family and the people who defended him need to just shut up and go away. What Brock did wasn't just 20 minutes of madness or whatever excuse they used. He made a choice to rape someone who was vulnerable and whose to say what else would have happened if those cyclists hadn't intervened. So what if Brock's swimming career is ruined or that he can't enjoy a steak dinner or had to spend a whole three months in jail. Chanel has had to suffer the trauma of being raped, see the man responsible only get a slap on the wrist and is now having to rebuild her life Brock is not and never will be a victim in this. I hope he never reoffends but given how little time he served and his attitude since, I think he will. 

[Briefly]

On 9/6/2019 at 4:38 AM, Glasgowghirl said:

Chanel is a brave and inspirational woman to go public and discuss what happened.

Brock, his family and the people who defended him need to just shut up and go away. What Brock did wasn't just 20 minutes of madness or whatever excuse they used. He made a choice to rape someone who was vulnerable and whose to say what else would have happened if those cyclists hadn't intervened. So what if Brock's swimming career is ruined or that he can't enjoy a steak dinner or had to spend a whole three months in jail. Chanel has had to suffer the trauma of being raped, see the man responsible only get a slap on the wrist and is now having to rebuild her life Brock is not and never will be a victim in this. I hope he never reoffends but given how little time he served and his attitude since, I think he will. 

He may well reoffend.  Obviously, he didn't see anything wrong with what he did in the first place.  He is a disgusting cowardly piece of filth. And he was raised to think that his actions were ok, or at least that he could do anything he wanted to.  Which makes me think his parents are just as bad as he is.  They need to go away and stay away.

I admire her so much, she was judged to wrongly by so many people.  She may well have been dosed with a date-rape drug, but even if she had "just" had to much to drink - she did not deserve to be raped.  It is in no way her fault.  But so many people seem to think that she was at fault, when in reality it was that filth that chose to do what he did. I hope that she can go on and rebuild her life, she deserves to be able to live the way she wants to and not have to be judged for being assaulted.

[Ozlsn]

On 9/23/2019 at 8:48 AM, Briefly said:

even if she had "just" had to much to drink - she did not deserve to be raped.

So. Much. This.

It shits me to tears that her having drunk alcohol is used as an excuse for him raping her - he still chose to act, and he chose a victim he thought he would have a good chance of getting away with it to abuse. 

If he had - just for an example here - king hit and mugged a young, drunk man do you think the victim being drunk would be being brought up as a mitigating factor in the assault? Oh hell no - but it was certainly brought up as a mitigating factor for Brock, his judgement was "impaired" so making the choice to rape someone wasn't really his fault - the booze made him do it! He had no control over his actions! (It also led to one of the worst character references of all time where one of his referees basically said "in vino veritas" - um so your character referee is admitting you are a rapist at heart then?)

I am apparently still angrier than I realised about this.

[hoipolloi]

I hadn't read her full court statement before seeing the latest news about her 60 Minutes appearance, and it is incredible. Chanel is an unbelievably brave and wise young woman. I wish her & her family nothing but the best.

Re: Alcohol as a factor of guilt vs. mitigation. As always, using alcohol damns the victim but absolves the criminal-perpetrator.

I hope that Chanel's open & articulate willingness to confront this heinous double standard will bring change.

 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

Shoot. I forgot to record her 60 Minutes interview. I guess I'll go see if I can find it online anywhere. 

[Bobology]

It seems to me that alcohol and drugs used as an excuse or reason for a criminal act would make any penalty more severe due to the likelihood of crimes being repeated under those circumstances.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

4 minutes ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Shoot. I forgot to record her 60 Minutes interview. I guess I'll go see if I can find it online anywhere. 

Found it. It seems to have the video of her full interview, and a written transcript of it below.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chanel-miller-full-60-minutes-interview-know-my-name-author-brock-turner-sexual-assault-survivor-2019-09-22/

4 minutes ago, Bobology said:

It seems to me that alcohol and drugs used as an excuse or reason for a criminal act would make any penalty more severe due to the likelihood of crimes being repeated under those circumstances.

Yeah, if your defense for a crime is that you were impaired by alcohol or some other substance, maybe you should never be allowed to even have one single sip of alcohol, ever again. If it was all the alcohol's fault. (Mostly sarcasm, partly anger.)

[Ozlsn]

1 hour ago, Bobology said:

It seems to me that alcohol and drugs used as an excuse or reason for a criminal act would make any penalty more severe due to the likelihood of crimes being repeated under those circumstances.

Where I live intoxication isn't a defence, it was removed after protests and pressure. In the neighbouring state it still is, although a couple of notorious cases are leading to pressure for that to be changed. I'm not sure if it's still considered as a factor in sentencing or not to be honest.

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Re: Alcohol as a factor of guilt vs. mitigation. As always, using alcohol damns the victim but absolves the criminal-perpetrator.

It depends on who the victim is. A young man who is drunk and assaulted while walking home doesn't attract the same level of blame as a young woman doing the same thing.  An older white man will absolutely not be blamed for being intoxicated and a victim of crime - for some reason public commentators don't feel the need to tell the world about how they should have dressed differently, been aware of their surroundings, etc etc. 

[Glasgowghirl]

I watched a clip of her interview on twitter and while most of the comments were saying how brave she was, people were still blaming her and accusing her of using her situation to make money. Lots of college students get drunk and while for a number of reasons people should avoid drinking too much all the time, health and safety reasons, rape is not one of them. No one should rape another person full stop. It doesn't matter if the person is drunk or on drugs that doesn't give anyone the excuse to rape them. The same way it doesn't matter if a person is covered head to toe or naked, what they are wearing doesn't give you right to rape them.

Some of the people on twitter critising Chanel are also defending Brock, I hope to god these people are just trolling for attention and don't actually believe this because otherwise whose to say these people won't go out and do what he did or have already done it. 

[Glasgowghirl]

Last night at work I witnessed a situation where a woman who was between 18 and 20 came into the Taco Bell I work in for food with her friend's just before I started at 11pm with friends after a few drinks and she began to be violently sick a few times and we let her and her friend's use the disabled toilet to be sick in and next minute one of her friends said she was passing out and they had suspected she had been spiked by a man she had been talking to for a while but she had still decided to leave the bar with her friend's. If she hadn't done that I dread to think what would have happened, an ambulance was phoned but they said it could take a couple of hours because it wasn't a priority case and her friend's waited in the disabled toilet for almost two hours until she was able to get up and walk with the aid of her friend's they left then and said they would wait outside for an ambulance. 

 

[Howl]

On 9/26/2019 at 6:13 AM, Glasgowghirl said:

an ambulance was phoned but they said it could take a couple of hours because it wasn't a priority case

Just to be clear, people do die of alcohol poisoning + nobody knew if she had been drugged. Sounds pretty priority to me.  So glad you all gave her refuge. 

[Glasgowghirl]

6 hours ago, Howl said:

Just to be clear, people do die of alcohol poisoning + nobody knew if she had been drugged. Sounds pretty priority to me.  So glad you all gave her refuge. 

They were busy and that was why they said they would need to wait but to call again if things changed.