• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Stmt by His Father

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
MrPickins said:
So as long as it's legal, it's acceptable to you? I'm not sure I can roll my eyes any harder...

And no, I don't think the law should be changed. I'm all for discretion in sentencing, but I think it's idiotic to never second guess a judge that uses their power to impose an extremely lenient sentence (well below the suggested minimum) for unbelievably dubious reasons.




I suppose there is no point, it's just that sometimes I'm so disgusted with a post(er) that I feel the need to call them out.
Click to expand...


Yes it's acceptable, that's why we're a nation of laws rather than some Alice in Wonderland judicial system where the sentence gets declared first and it's always "off with their head." There's a reason why things like sentencing guidelines get decided in advance and it's exactly to stop hotheads like you from getting caught up in the moment and making up shit as you go along to express how outraged you are. Again, if you dislike the existing guidelines the means already exist to change them. Or the victim can bring a civil suit against him and perhaps get the justice she seeks like what what happened with the OJ Simpson murders after he was found not guilty.
 
glenn1 said:
Yes it's acceptable, that's why we're a nation of laws rather than some Alice in Wonderland judicial system where the sentence gets declared first and it's always "off with their head." There's a reason why things like sentencing guidelines get decided in advance and it's exactly to stop hotheads like you from getting caught up in the moment and making up shit as you go along to express how outraged you are. Again, if you dislike the existing guidelines the means already exist to change them. Or the victim can bring a civil suit against him and perhaps get the justice she seeks like what what happened with the OJ Simpson murders after he was found not guilty.
Click to expand...

You realize that the Judge went against the established sentencing guidelines in this case, right?

The suggested minimum was something like 2 years in the state pen.

Do you really think the circumstances of this case were so extraordinary that the judge should give 1/4 of that minimum?
 
MrPickins said:
You realize that the Judge went against the established sentencing guidelines in this case, right?

The suggested minimum was something like 2 years in the state pen.

Do you really think the circumstances of this case were so extraordinary that the judge should give 1/4 of that minimum?
Click to expand...

If I wanted to be a judge and make those decisions I would have gone to law school. And honestly I don't care what you think the appropriate sentence is, people get sentences less than they probably deserve all the time. Do you whine like this when people succeed in getting the guilty spared from death row and avoiding execution despite that being in the sentencing guidelines and the person having committed the most heinous crimes imaginable?
 
in one breath, he proclaims the virtues of sentencing guidelines, and in the next breath says it's totally ok for the judge to not give a fuck about said sentencing guidelines.
 
glenn1 said:
If I wanted to be a judge and make those decisions I would have gone to law school. And honestly I don't care what you think the appropriate sentence is, people get sentences less than they probably deserve all the time.
Click to expand...

Just because it happens doesn't make it right.

Do you whine like this when people succeed in getting the guilty spared from death row and avoiding execution despite that being in the sentencing guidelines and the person having committed the most heinous crimes imaginable?
Click to expand...

No, because they're still imprisoned for life...
 
Ns1 said:
in one breath, he proclaims the virtues of sentencing guidelines, and in the next breath says it's totally ok for the judge to not give a fuck about said sentencing guidelines.
Click to expand...

I was talking about death penalty opponents doing anything and everything to get people spared from the death penalty sentence already imposed and the person is sitting on death row, not whether a judge or jury imposes it in the first place.

And you'll be happy to know that California has now changed the law to remove judicial discretion. Enjoy.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/polit...conscious-intoxicated-brock-turner/index.html
 
justoh said:
It's stated in this book simply that he raped her, instead of "convicted of..." Isn't that like saying OJ didn't kill his wife?
Click to expand...

Not really. If we assume "beyond reasonable doubt" means, say a 90% probability of guilt in the minds of the jurors, then that's what a conviction would mean, while an acquittal means only that the chances of your guilt are less than 90%.

A better criticism, actually, is that Turner wasn't convicted of rape. Those charges were dropped. He was convicted of sexual assault. The caption, however, says, "he raped and assaulted an unconscious female student...." The first of those two allegations has not been legally established to any degree of certainty.
 
So he got off lightly, but now he wants to clear his record completely. Which I can understand he would. But at the same time is again evidence that to him, he is the wronged party in this whole incident. Whats next, sue Google so searches for his name don't bring this up?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Heeeees baaaaaack.

apparently they are appealing the requirement to register as a sex offender to life.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4430614
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it says. If you read the article, it actually says he is appealing the entire conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

FYI, that is a near impossible ground to get a conviction overturned. It's basically saying, "the jury was wrong." Courts of appeal give lots of deference to a jury's decision. You can get a conviction over turned if the Judge made errors say in rulings on whether certain evidence is admissible or not, but arguing that the jury's conviction based on the facts presented was incorrect is almost always a non-starter.
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, that's not what it says. If you read the article, it actually says he is appealing the entire conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

FYI, that is a near impossible ground to get a conviction overturned. It's basically saying, "the jury was wrong." Courts of appeal give lots of deference to a jury's decision. You can get a conviction over turned if the Judge made errors say in rulings on whether certain evidence is admissible or not, but arguing that the jury's conviction based on the facts presented was incorrect is almost always a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant to put as well in there...

Mea culpa.
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, that's not what it says. If you read the article, it actually says he is appealing the entire conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

FYI, that is a near impossible ground to get a conviction overturned. It's basically saying, "the jury was wrong." Courts of appeal give lots of deference to a jury's decision. You can get a conviction over turned if the Judge made errors say in rulings on whether certain evidence is admissible or not, but arguing that the jury's conviction based on the facts presented was incorrect is almost always a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Question: If he somehow wins the unlikely appeal that means he gets a new trial, right? And with a new trial, if found guilty, he could possibly face much much stiffer punishment?
 
woolfe9998 said:
No, that's not what it says. If you read the article, it actually says he is appealing the entire conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

FYI, that is a near impossible ground to get a conviction overturned. It's basically saying, "the jury was wrong." Courts of appeal give lots of deference to a jury's decision. You can get a conviction over turned if the Judge made errors say in rulings on whether certain evidence is admissible or not, but arguing that the jury's conviction based on the facts presented was incorrect is almost always a non-starter.
Click to expand...

what an idiot.
 
Darwin333 said:
Question: If he somehow wins the unlikely appeal that means he gets a new trial, right? And with a new trial, if found guilty, he could possibly face much much stiffer punishment?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. He does potentially increase his sentence by asking for a new trial.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes and yes. He does potentially increase his sentence by asking for a new trial.
Click to expand...

Without going back and reading about the last trial didn't the judge give him a ludicrously easy sentence versus what he could have gotten? So his upside is not being on the sex offender list but his downside is going to jail, potentially for a rather long time? Is he guaranteed to get the same judge who took it easy on him or something that I'm missing?
 
Darwin333 said:
Without going back and reading about the last trial didn't the judge give him a ludicrously easy sentence versus what he could have gotten? So his upside is not being on the sex offender list but his downside is going to jail, potentially for a rather long time? Is he guaranteed to get the same judge who took it easy on him or something that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

IIRC he got six months, a light sentence. But unlike rape, sexual assault usually means about 1-2 years. A lot of people were comparing this sentence to the 5-10 years you might get for rape, which is why so many people saw the sentence as highly unusual. If he ends up with a 2 year sentence, between parole and credit for time served, he'd serve at most a year, probably less.

On the other hand, the lifetime sex offender registry thing is a very big deal. At least I think it is.
 
shortylickens said:
BUMP!


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-judge-in-stanford-campus-sexual-assault-case

The judge in the case has been recalled. But nothing different will happen with Brock Turner.
Click to expand...


To be honest, I didn't previously know of this case. But that linked report does illustrate a real dilemma when it comes to holding the judiciary to account. It's quite _obviously_ biased, it has its prejudices and blind-spots, mostly based on the demographic of the people who become judges. In this case, it sounds like its no bad thing he got his marching orders.

But the electorate is biased as well, so giving the public power to choose and fire judges doesn't seem likely to solve the problem, at most it means you get a different set of different biases. I suppose it's a very old dilemma.
 
pmv said:
But that linked report does illustrate a real dilemma when it comes to holding the judiciary to account.
Click to expand...

It has only happened one other time in 87 years, so I would say that it is not being used to unduly influence the judiciary. What it comes down to is that the judges forgot that while they are less directly tied to the electorate then other politicians they are still ultimately answerable to them, and I think that is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top