Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Shangri-laschild]

It's just that I'm not sure that it wasn't a particularly terrible drunken mistake- in which case, a short jail sentence, and forcing him to face up to the fact that he probably shouldn't drink, and making him educate people about what can happen if you drink too much alcohol may well be sufficient.

There needs to be a balance between tossing him in jail and throwing away the key and giving him a sentence that acknowledges the fact that what he did to that woman isn't just going to go away quickly for her. I would be fine with a reasonable jail time and education and counseling for him to teach him to not do this again. But 3-6 months sends the message that what he did was no big deal and whether he maliciously did something horrible or drunkenly did something stupid, what he did was a big deal.

That, and by my read of it, it's the father making the comments justifying his kid's actions, not the kid.

The lawyers defense didn't help and the kid had to have some level of say over how much blame was going to try to be put onto the woman. Not only that but his apology letter heavily goes on about how this has effected him and how it's the fault of party culture in college. I don't know if he was trying to convey that he's sorry by stating how much this is effecting him but the result is that he sounded like he was wallowing in how much all this sucked for him basically. She got mentioned a little but mostly it was about him and how it's all the fault of party culture that when he was all alone, not surrounded by peers and peer pressure, he raped an unconscious woman.

[Shangri-laschild]

First, let me say that what this young man did is beyond deplorable and disgusting. He deserves far more than the three (yes, three, according to the latest news reports) months he'll be serving behind bars. That said, I'm wondering how you all feel about the "picking up the pitchforks and going after him" crowd?

On the one hand, hearing all the voices standing up for the woman and speaking out about how rape isn't ok is amazing. Normally you get the "she is a liar who deserves it" side speaking up louder and this time it wasn't as much like that. I love that people are speaking out about all of this. Outside of the torch and pitchfork aspect though, I keep thinking about what must it be like for this woman who now probably can't watch the news or go online without seeing the face of her attacker everywhere. Mob justice is never a smart enough creature to be good about speaking out for injustice more than it is harmful to innocent people.

[Kheldarson]

However, when two people - possibly of different sex - end up drunk in bed together, and one part afterwards claims they didn't consent, things are far less clear - and that is where the difficult questions come up, the doubt, the... well, it's called victim-blaming, but that's really the wrong word for the beginning of an investigation. Because there isn't a victim unless it's been confirmed that a crime was committed.

Except they ask questions like "What were you wearing?" "How many other guys have you slept with?" "Are you sure you didn't lead him on?" And, of course, the ultimate favorite "How much did you have to drink?"

The issue with rape is one of consent. What does what a woman wears, or how many men she's slept with before have to do with her consenting to this man? And if she's drunk, then consent can't be had anyway right?

The problem is that the investigations and the defense lawyers end up both acting like one moment can be changed by a history of other behavior. And while the latter is understandable (but still distasteful), the former is what makes it hard to report the crime.

Fair equivalent: Kabe and I were recently robbed. Brand new lawnmower was taken from our shed. Now, yes, our bad for not having a lock. But all that changed was what kind of crime it was going to be listed. There wasn't a question of how our past behavior led to this robbery, or if we had led somebody on to rob us, or if we were sure we had put our lawnmower away.

No, we just were asked when we last saw it, if we had a serial number, and if we had any other info we could share.

If the investigators were to keep it to the relevant facts (and there is movement towards better questions and training) and with the idea that these women are in shock (because cops have been shown to change their behavior when a victim doesn't act "right"), then that would go a long way towards making rape easier to report, prosecute, and, hopefully, something that happens less often because it's harder for rapists to get away with due to their victims being shut down via victim-blaming in the investigation.

[mjr]

The issue with rape is one of consent.

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

However, If person A consents to sex with person B, and the act commences, and then person A decides that they no longer want to have sex with this person during the act, can they withdraw consent during the act?

My understanding is that a person can withdraw consent at any time, and the other person must cease immediately, or it's considered rape.

Again, I am not sure if this is a law or what. My understanding is that it is (though I forget where).

Which can really put someone at a disadvantage, knowing that the other party can withdraw consent at any time.

[Akasa]

I saw this on FB:

Rape culture is victim shaming because she was too drunk, then defending the male because his actions were influenced by alcohol.

[BrenDAnn]

This morning's news: USA Swimming has now banned Brock Turner for competing. For life. That, in itself, is more punishment than he's already had, and I greatly applaud it! Link here.

[s_stabeler]

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

It depends- at least, i'm pretty sure it does. Basically, if you have reason to believe your partner has told you to stop, you stop.

as for the kid blaming party culture- I think he was more referring to the fact that the culture encouraged him to drink.

To be honest, the vibe I get from the kid's statement is what the judge seems to think- that he wishes he could make it that he had never raped the girl- meaning he does in fact feel remorse for the crime- and he blames the culture that led him to drink to the point he did something that stupid for how he got into the situation, and wants to help prevent other kids making the mistakes he did. (by he blames the culture, what i mean is he raped the women because he was too drunk to think straight- the culture was why he drank so much. He wants to help make up for the crime by, essentially, using what happened as a warning about what can happen if you drink too much. Him going on about how it sucks for him was an- admittedly badly worded- attempt to show he does feel remorse for what he did.

[Kheldarson]

I agree, but when can consent be withdrawn? I mean, just being around someone isn't consent, I agree.

Consent can be withdrawn at any point. Of you continue after somebody has told you no, then it is rape.

Great video on consent: https://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ

And I'd argue that the fact that the other party can withdraw consent at any time is only an issue if you don’t really care about your partner. Even hardcore BDSM scenes have safe words so the sub or dom can withdraw consent if things get too rough. And they know to stop immediately if it's called.

If you're not in a position to care about whether or not your partner is happy and fully consenting to what's going on, maybe you shouldn't be having sex.

[Lachrymose]

Which can really put someone at a disadvantage, knowing that the other party can withdraw consent at any time.

How would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

Edit: Just to add a little more to this. Try looking at it another way. It gives every party an *advantage* to have the option to withdraw consent at whatever point they may feel uncomfortable. That's a good thing. A very good thing.

[Akasa]

how would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

thank you!!!!!!

[Canarr]

If the investigators were to keep it to the relevant facts (and there is movement towards better questions and training) and with the idea that these women are in shock (because cops have been shown to change their behavior when a victim doesn't act "right"), then that would go a long way towards making rape easier to report, prosecute, and, hopefully, something that happens less often because it's harder for rapists to get away with due to their victims being shut down via victim-blaming in the investigation.

I agree with you that there is certainly a lot of room for improvement in the handling of rape investigations by law enforcement.

One obvious first step in the US, I'd say, would be to change the legal definition of rape again - since, right now, it requires being penetrated in some way to fultill the definition. That means being made to penetrate someone else - like, a woman having sex with a man without his consent - is... something else, but not rape.

Consent can be withdrawn at any point. Of you continue after somebody has told you no, then it is rape.

How would it ever be okay to continue if someone says stop?

Edit: Just to add a little more to this. Try looking at it another way. It gives every party an *advantage* to have the option to withdraw consent at whatever point they may feel uncomfortable. That's a good thing. A very good thing.

@mjr: What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

You are always allowed to change your mind about any kind of activity you're engaged in; just have to let the other party know about it.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

I think the problem is it's such a specifically hypothetical one. Mid-progress consent withdrawl is such a unique thing that it can actually conjure up a game of mid-coital red-light/green-light and it throws people off. In practice you're generally talking about one party getting physically hurt, bored, or emotionally running into something while it's happening. In the current legal environment it would make no sense to play "you did/did not rape me" games with it which is what I think people envision the problem is.

That said, legally speaking that's all true because of the presumption of innocence under the law (which is universal.) The idea that someone could play a legal game by the withdraw of consent actually becomes very real if people default to what some people are vocally demanding at this point and that is believing the victim (which by extension actually means the presumption of guilt). It's very hard to prove a negative and were that the legal environment, THEN I think you would worry about bizarre game playing because sociopaths do exist (although though most are men, not all are.)

Re: the Judge - I think the more practiceable take away from this case should be (I understand whether or not the recall fails, that guy has to get reelected and probably won't) is that perhaps Judges that have too much in common with the accused or the defendant should be forced to recuse themselves. As much as I love the ideals of the enlightenment, we're now pretty conclusively proving through statistics that tribal impulses are too big a thing. I'm not sure if that's because people don't actually internalize those ideals or because you can't get away from impulse, but regardless of reason the numbers don't hold up to scrutiny.

[s_stabeler]

That, and it's rarely made clear in such cases about how obvious a withdrawal of consent can be, so if you're already wondering about games being played about withdrawing consent, then it's not a big step from there to wondering about fictitious claims of withdrawal of consent mid-act, which would be hard, at least, to disprove.

[mjr]

@mjr: What these two said. Withdrawing consent cannot be used to "disadvantage" a party, since it requires clearly stating your withdrawal, so they know that you're no longer consenting. Then, if they continue having sex with you, they're breaking the law.

You are always allowed to change your mind about any kind of activity you're engaged in; just have to let the other party know about it.

One word: "Entrapment". And don't tell me it couldn't happen.

Additionally, as s_stabler points out, what is "clear withdrawal of consent"? Take the phrase "Don't Stop". Written out, its meaning is clear.

However, "Don't stop" is different than "Don't, stop."

[s_stabeler]

or- to answer a question raised by Keldarson earlier in the thread about why investigators and defence attorneys ask the questions they do: rape is, in some respects, an odd crime, in that
ultimately, it is inherently he said-she-said about the issue of consent. (that is, ultimately, only the victim and the alleged rapist know exactly what happened.) As such, the victim is always a key witness. In any crime, it's the defence attorney's job to discredit the credibility of the witness- to make it look like the victim is at best misremembering what happened. The problem is, those very same arguments are close to those used to blame the victim for being raped.

All in all, I have no doubt lawyers roundly hate rape cases. Why? because it's all but impossible to look good defending an alleged rapist. In murder cases, you can prove the accused couldn't have killed the victim. In rape, either you fail to defend your client, or you look like scum for attacking the victim.