Stanford student gets six months for rape

[Gravekeeper]

Now, before i get accused of being a rape apologist, I am not referring to the rape, but the fact that all he did was make a more-or-less standard claim of mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase.

I'm not sure it was that standard. One of the big reasons the blowback is hitting him personally is because of the level of...."affluenza"....both he and his character witnesses put on display. His defense was basically putting up victim impact statements about himself which bordered on parody.

Once you have someone up there testifying that the rapist is so sad he doesn't even like his favourite food anymore? Nevermind the infamous "20 minutes of action" line.

I mean yes, its his defense's job to defend him but the thing is this sort of shit would be detrimental to his defense in front of any other judge. It was certainly detrimental to the jury obviously. His lawyer should not have allowed it. So its a bit hard to argue that this was a standard defense.

[mjr]

And the verdict was overturned and the judge is probably going to be booted.

Yes, as it should be. But was the perp in the case protested until the verdict was overturned?

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, as it should be. But was the perp in the case protested until the verdict was overturned?

You're trying to compare two very different cases in two different legal systems. Just because you found one other example of a judge mishandling a sexual assault case doesn't mean they're equivalent.

[mjr]

You're trying to compare two very different cases in two different legal systems. Just because you found one other example of a judge mishandling a sexual assault case doesn't mean they're equivalent.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether or not the perp in the Canadian case was protested as vociferously before his verdict was overturned as this Stanford guy is.

[Kheldarson]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing whether or not the perp in the Canadian case was protested as vociferously before his verdict was overturned as this Stanford guy is.

You’re still comparing the reactions of people in two different cultures.

[mjr]

You’re still comparing the reactions of people in two different cultures.

Indeed. And?

[Kheldarson]

Indeed. And?

And asking where the protests are or were in another culture that has different views on what constitutes free speech and the right to petition is disingenuous?

[s_stabeler]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

further, it is, in fact, not disingenuous to compare the cases between Canada and the US, because the basic principles ( freedom of speech / harassment being banned) are largely the same. ( to the extent that it's possible- though unlikely- for a US court to cite a canadian - or even UK- judgement as precedent. It's basically never done- there's usually US precedent to cite- but it does not invalidate the judgement.)

[Kheldarson]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

I believe it was as I did note that both are being protested. Maybe the real question is why the convict is being covered more, and that's ratings.

[mjr]

And asking where the protests are or were in another culture that has different views on what constitutes free speech and the right to petition is disingenuous?

Liberals and Conservatives have different views on what constitutes "free speech".

Additionally, Native Northeasterners and Native Southerners are culturally different. Heck, some states in the south are Culturally different within that culture.

The midwest has a culture of it's own, as does the left coast.

So there are cultural differences all over the place.

[NecCat]

I notice that my point- why is the convict being protested when it was the judge's screwup- has not been addressed.

further, it is, in fact, not disingenuous to compare the cases between Canada and the US, because the basic principles ( freedom of speech / harassment being banned) are largely the same. ( to the extent that it's possible- though unlikely- for a US court to cite a canadian - or even UK- judgement as precedent. It's basically never done- there's usually US precedent to cite- but it does not invalidate the judgement.)

They are extremely different in one very important aspect. The Canadian rapist was acquitted in a court of law. Until the acquittal was overturned it would be illegal to protest the rapist in a way that accused him of rape, that would be slander. Even during the crown appeal process he is considered innocent in all ways until judgement. The US rapist had been found guilty in a court of law. In (Canadian at least, not sure about US) law, stating the truth can never be considered slander, so protesting against him because he's a rapist is legal.

[Rusty Shackleford]

But, what the people are protesting is his sentence. Did Brock Turner have anything to do with what the judge gave as a sentence outside of being a swimmer?

[s_stabeler]

They are extremely different in one very important aspect. The Canadian rapist was acquitted in a court of law. Until the acquittal was overturned it would be illegal to protest the rapist in a way that accused him of rape, that would be slander. Even during the crown appeal process he is considered innocent in all ways until judgement. The US rapist had been found guilty in a court of law. In (Canadian at least, not sure about US) law, stating the truth can never be considered slander, so protesting against him because he's a rapist is legal.

it's not slander, but that doesn't make it legal. The key problem with the protests- at least as far as they are at Turner's house- is that there is literally nothing- apart from possibly self-castration or suicide- Turner can do to satisfy them.

To put it another way, with actual protests, if the protest is intolerable, the protestee can take some action to satisfy the protesters to end the protest. (reverse a decision, resign from a position, you get the idea.) Brock Turner- if he is not able to cope with the protests- is completely incapable of doing anything to satisfy them. As such, the "protests" are merely an attempt to punish Turner outside the judicial process, which by definition is vigilantism..

[NecCat]

The key problem with the protests- at least as far as they are at Turner's house- is that there is literally nothing- apart from possibly self-castration or suicide- Turner can do to satisfy them.

I totally agree with that. I was just pointing out the reason why I don't think that there is any reason to compare possible protesting in the Canadian case vs the current protesting in Brock Turners case.

[HYHYBT]

What was he supposed to do? Request a longer sentence for himself? Decline the chance to get out early?