Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Kheldarson]

it doesn't help that it is a serious crime- with serious consequences for someone convicted. As such, in some ways, there's no right answer. Either rapists will get away with it, or people will be wrongfully convicted of rape- which in some ways, can be as devastating as for someone raped (death threats, for example, aren't unheard of in cases where rape allegations have become widely known about.)

There may be no ultimate right answer, but we still need to start off from a better base. Which would be to treat the victims better. They shouldn't feel like they'll be disbelieved or shamed for bringing their story forward.

Even if we still have rapists going free, it'll be a great start to stopping rape because more people will be speaking out against their rapists. Because, remember, statistically speaking you are more likely to know your rapist than not.

[Canarr]

There may be no ultimate right answer, but we still need to start off from a better base. Which would be to treat the victims better. They shouldn't feel like they'll be disbelieved or shamed for bringing their story forward.

Basically, I agree with you; shaming questions, like "What did you wear?" and "How many people have you slept with?" don't belong in an investigation about assault.

However, since - more often than not - there is no evidence in sexual assault cases, only the accuser's statements, it is imperative to establish their credibility, and that can only be done through serious questioning. Otherwise, you get cases like the Jian Ghomeshi trial, where apparently the complainants were treated with kid gloves by the authorities, praised in the media - and destroyed in the courtroom:

Add to that the new culture around believing victims of sexual assault that discouraged them from being challenged outside the courtroom. The new normal, in some quarters, is to not question women, to not disbelieve them. As well-intentioned as the aim is, the witnesses appeared to go into the trial not having been tested. The first witness’s police interview, the court would learn, lasted only 35 minutes.

The fact the complainant has a huge responsibility in court—as well as agency—appeared something the witnesses didn’t seem to take seriously, even though anyone who has watched a legal procedural on TV ought to know you can’t lie on the stand about anything, or try to be cute or funny, that the law is serious business filled with procedural potholes.

The sense of sisterly solidarity outside the court undermined the women within. That two of the complainants had exchanged more than 5,000 Facebook or text messages within a year in which they vowed to “sink the prick”—in reference to Ghomeshi—gave rise to a case of possible collusion, thereby forcing the Crown to abandon an application to argue a “similar fact” case that would have required the judge to look at the three cases together, thus bolstering them collectively.

35 minutes of police interview to determine whether or not a complainant is telling the truth? I'd be willing to bet that investigating the theft of Kheldarson's lawnmover took longer than that.

[Kheldarson]

However, I'd be willing to bet that investigating the theft of Kheldarson's lawnmover took longer than that.

You'd be wrong. Unless we count the time it took the cop to get out to our house.

There is a balance that can be struck between shaming and kid gloves. And a large part of it is in police training. Detectives who investigate rape/sexual assault must be trained in how to question and handle victims in shock. And be trained to function like all victims are in some form of shock. Because one of the biggest reasons for shaming is that the victims don't act right. Too calm. Too together. Not freaking out.

If we have investigators who are trained to be compassionate rather than judging, a lot of those credibility questions wouldn't come off as judging. Particularly if we hit the accused with similar questions.

[Canarr]

You'd be wrong. Unless we count the time it took the cop to get out to our house.

I stand corrected.

The reason I suggested that: I kinda flashed back to reporting someone breaking into my car and stealing my stereo, and it took the officer more than an hour to take down all the data, fill out the forms, and inform me that they'd never ever find it, and I should just get in touch with my insurance.

Then again, that just might've been because he was so unbelievably slow at typing.

There is a balance that can be struck between shaming and kid gloves. And a large part of it is in police training. Detectives who investigate rape/sexual assault must be trained in how to question and handle victims in shock. And be trained to function like all victims are in some form of shock. Because one of the biggest reasons for shaming is that the victims don't act right. Too calm. Too together. Not freaking out.

If we have investigators who are trained to be compassionate rather than judging, a lot of those credibility questions wouldn't come off as judging. Particularly if we hit the accused with similar questions.

Well, I'm definitely with you there. I can always get behind better training for law enforcement officers - as long as it's not with riot gear...

[Gravekeeper]

He's scheduled for release 3 months early:

http://ktla.com/2016/06/09/ex-stanfo...-jail-records/

Because there's always a deeper layer to sink too.

[Canarr]

Apparently, that's typical for this county.

[Kheldarson]

He's scheduled for release 3 months early:

http://ktla.com/2016/06/09/ex-stanfo...-jail-records/

Because there's always a deeper layer to sink too.

For good behavior even. Excuse me while I go scream.

[Hanzoku]

Well... yes. It means he didn't start fights or do anything stupid while in prison. It's not a commentary on his behavior before he went into the jail.

It's also completely standard in America - if you don't screw up royally in jail, you can get out at the halfway point in your sentence. I suspect that's a big reason why, when they want to throw the book at someone, sentences for each charge are scheduled to run consecutively.

[Greenday]

Well, this case has inspired new legislation that has been passed by the California assembly and just needs the governor's signature to be law.

Basically, if you sexually assault someone who is unconscious or too drunk to consent, it's mandatory prison time. No suspended sentences. No probation. Actual prison time, not just county jail.

[Gravekeeper]

His parents are afraid for his safety now. Turns out (gasp) that people in their town and neighbourhood don't like him or having to live next to him. So there's protesters outside his parents house ( where he's staying ). His parents who, as you may recall, defended his "20 minutes of action".

But no worries, they let him transfer his probation to Ohio so he can move out of the state. =p

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, those fears may actually be legitimate. It's not uncommon for people convicted of sexual crimes- particularly rape- to face people being at best hostile. I agree that it is unsurprising that people are protesting outside their house, but that doesn't mean his fears for his safety are unwarranted- and he does still retain the right to live without being in fear for his life, regardless of your opinion on if people convicted of serious crimes lose some of their rights on conviction.

[Canarr]

What s_stabeler says. Vigilante justice is indefensible.

Honestly, it's a good idea for him to leave the state, and live out his probation somewhere else. Or is there anyone really benefitting from him being forced to stay in his hometown? Who wants him there?

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't a legitimate fear. Just that they seem surprised no one likes their precious child who just made a totally honest mistake raping a women behind a dumpster.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Vigilante justice is indefensible.

Is it? I'm not disagreeing, but that's a point that warrants further discussion. Vigilante justice (or stalking) is how the affluenza teen is behind bars where you had bystanders acting as proxy probation officers.

In general, I don't think people are opposed to vigilantes (now less than ever). There's massive disagreement between what is and isn't justice which means someone's always got "cause" and there's probably a sympathetic jury out there. It always comes down to whether or not people are willing to cede justice to the justice system. Part of that is dealing with an outcome you don't like.

And at some point, extra-legal behavior is going to have to be looked at. You can't bloody well say you are punishing "within a system" if people are coming out of it while dealing with "the system" and "the public." If you're seeing that, then that's actually an indication of a lack of faith in the system (or lack of discipline" in the public) and in either event it results in two punishments (one the state is not accounting for in sentencing).

[Canarr]

Is it? I'm not disagreeing, but that's a point that warrants further discussion. Vigilante justice (or stalking) is how the affluenza teen is behind bars where you had bystanders acting as proxy probation officers.

Yeah, it is.

Don't get me wrong: people reporting crimes to the authority - or violations of probation - isn't vigilante justice. Watching someone isn't a crime.

But protesting outside a released felon's house, harassing them and their family? That's vigilante justice. People are essentially saying, "we don't think the official punishment they received is enough, so we're taking it upon ourselves to extend it as we see fit!" and that is wrong.

Even in a case such as this, where almost everyone agrees that Turner got off ridiculously easy, it's still wrong. Because this is the rule-of-law principle; and we either accept that, then we have to acceot it for everybody (even those we don't like), or we basically live in anarchy where the biggest mob rules.

And maybe that's just me, but I'd rather live in a world where the occasional Brock Turner slips through the net, than in a world where mob justice is a good thing.