Stanford student gets six months for rape

[TheHuckster]

I believe a good portion of this rests on a very skilled attorney who knew exactly what to say in court, partnered with a dipshit judge who really shouldn't be on the bench.

As Gravekeeper said, in even a half-way decent legal system the "affluenza" defense should have been laughed out of court. It's a defense that, had you asked an uninformed person about it, would have probably asked if it was a reference to some Onion article. But, I don't think the defense came from the family.

The facts are the family is upper class. They can hire a very expensive and good attorney, and they did. The attorney did his homework, possibly pulled some strings to get the judge he wanted, and played a perfect chess match. The attorney looks at the case, and as defense attorneys often do, they'll first convince the family of their son's "innocence" or at least his "deserving" of a light sentence. Chances are this asshat family didn't need much, if any, convincing. Then, he knew the judge's weaknesses. He probably served many cases with this judge, and knew where his biases lie, and thus he came up with the "affluenza" defense, knowing full well that while the majority of judges would have considered that to be the stupidest closing argument, this judge would actually think it to be a worthwhile defense.

As for the family, of course they're going to go with it. They don't want their son in jail, and while they have horrible morals and ethics, and are unapologetic assholes who don't deserve the sentence they got, the only reason they got what they wanted was thanks to an equally immoral and unethical attorney and judge. It was truly the perfect storm of horrible judgement by everyone involved.

Protesting the family for exploiting the flaws in the system the way they did is understandable, but fruitless and unproductive. As people here have said, there's nothing the family can do to satisfy the protesters unless they self-destruct themselves in some way, and they aren't going to do that. The only "good" I can see coming from these protests is that they do at least continue to expose the problem and possibly might lead to some positive change in the legal process, especially in cases of rape where the perpetrator is given a pass due to some bogus circumstances like "the defendant didn't know what he/she was doing" or "the defendant is too wealthy and good looking to go to jail".

Now, while their protests are unproductive, I have a hard time with the notion that much of their activity should be criminalized, at least in such a way that they aren't trespassing on their property or making direct threats of violence. I think the "castrate yourself" and such probably would cross the line, but simply holding and posting signs shaming them for what happened is something I'd consider to be legal, albeit pointless.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think you're idealizing ultimately.

All court is supposed to provide ultimately is a place where both sides can make whatever valid legal argument they can that survives legal scrutiny. Legal scrutiny and public scrutiny aren't necessarily the same thing. The legal system itself can only police favortism so much (and frankly, my personal favorite way we should do it is statistically) because ultimately the cognitive biases at play are hard to prove in an individual case but much easier when there's a pattern. And if you're saying judges should have 0 discretion, then they really serve no purpose.

"Now, while their protests are unproductive, I have a hard time with the notion that much of their activity should be criminalized, at least in such a way that they aren't trespassing on their property or making direct threats of violence. "

Again, depends what those effects ultimately are. I can intimidate and harass without ultimately doing something illegal in isolation. It's the pattern where something can become intimidation and harassment. No one has to criminalize anything IF the family gets to the point that they actually attempt to use the legal remedies available to them IF protestors are stepping over the line. The laws already exist. My guess is they would be assault (for perceived threat), battery (for actual attack), and stalking laws (if he and his family cannot get away.) If protestor behavior causes financial injury, there's plenty of tort law for that too. But the entire case would be where does the protest end/intent to injure begin.

[TheHuckster]

All court is supposed to provide ultimately is a place where both sides can make whatever valid legal argument they can that survives legal scrutiny. Legal scrutiny and public scrutiny aren't necessarily the same thing. The legal system itself can only police favortism so much (and frankly, my personal favorite way we should do it is statistically) because ultimately the cognitive biases at play are hard to prove in an individual case but much easier when there's a pattern. And if you're saying judges should have 0 discretion, then they really serve no purpose.

I'm not saying that at all. Judges should certainly have discretion. I would even go as far as to say it's fine for a judge to use his/her personal views objectively when considering a case (wherein the letter of the law and constitution does not explicitly provide such guidelines and allows such discretion). But there are still limits.

As far as I'm concerned the "affluenza" defense isn't a valid argument. It's not at all relevant to how severe the sentence should be, and is a textbook case of favoritism and bias. And that's why I believe the judge was absolutely out of bounds with the sentencing in this case.

Again, depends what those effects ultimately are. I can intimidate and harass without ultimately doing something illegal in isolation. It's the pattern where something can become intimidation and harassment. No one has to criminalize anything IF the family gets to the point that they actually attempt to use the legal remedies available to them IF protestors are stepping over the line. The laws already exist. My guess is they would be assault (for perceived threat), battery (for actual attack), and stalking laws (if he and his family cannot get away.) If protestor behavior causes financial injury, there's plenty of tort law for that too. But the entire case would be where does the protest end/intent to injure begin.

No argument from me there. But, let's face it, the public have a low attention span. It will only be a matter of time before they either get bored and move onto something else or find another poster child for injustice. I'm not going to feel too bad about their lives being a little distraught from people yelling at them from a distance and shaming them publicly for a little while before everyone forgets about this case.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not going to feel too bad about their lives being a little distraught from people yelling at them from a distance and shaming them publicly for a little while before everyone forgets about this case.

Indeed.

Which is kind of my central issue with this discussion. We're almost at a sort of anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, but you should completely shielded from the court of public opinion. The idea that you should be held legally accountable for your behaviour in court but not publicly accountable doesn't sit well with me.

It's almost a sort of "Don't hate the playa, hate the game" argument.

[mjr]

We're almost at a sort of anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law, but you should completely shielded from the court of public opinion.

The problem though, at least here in the States, is that the "court of public opinion" is often times judge, jury, and executioner at a level far beyond where they need to be (and sometimes far beyond the legal system). In the "court of public opinion" someone is almost always guilty, and the punishment almost never severe enough.

There's also a bit of a double standard. If we're ok with "publicly shaming" someone through protest, and the "court of public opinion", why aren't we OK with someone being "publicly shamed" with a sandwich board sign on a busy street corner for a couple of weekends (or whatever)? Wouldn't that provide similar effect?

And, in theory, couldn't this particular protest be considered a form of bullying?

I'm not sticking up for the guy. What he did was horrible. I'm just asking a few questions.

[s_stabeler]

I should make one thing completely clear- you can consider Turner to be the scum of the earth. You can even- though I disagree- think Turner is as bad as Hitler or Stalin. You can treat him as a social leper all you want. What you cannot do is dress up harassment- and I'm talking civil harassment here, not criminal, I used the term illegal as shorthand for "breaking the law defining harassment" not "breaking a criminal law" ( at most, they are guilty of breach of the peace)- as a protest, and then it is magically acceptable. It doesn't work that way,

So sure, there will be social consequences for Turner, and I'm fine with that. Buit all but hounding someone out of their own home- particularly when it's (understandably) difficult for a convicted sex offender to find somewhere to live anyway- is going way too far.

[Gravekeeper]

The problem though, at least here in the States, is that the "court of public opinion" is often times judge, jury, and executioner at a level far beyond where they need to be (and sometimes far beyond the legal system). In the "court of public opinion" someone is almost always guilty, and the punishment almost never severe enough.

Oh it can undoubtedly go horrible wrong especially if its *before* a trial ( Nancy Grace ). But this is after a trial and this is all a matter of court record now. His guilt or lack thereof aren't up for debate.

And, in theory, couldn't this particular protest be considered a form of bullying?

Perhaps, but bullying isn't exactly illegal either.

What you cannot do is dress up harassment- and I'm talking civil harassment here, not criminal, I used the term illegal as shorthand for "breaking the law defining harassment" not "breaking a criminal law" ( at most, they are guilty of breach of the peace)- as a protest, and then it is magically acceptable.

And I'm not saying that. What I'm objecting too is this idea that he should somehow be shielded from the legal social consequences of his behaviour simply by virtue of the fact he is an individual or that you're suppose to do whatever it takes to win in a court of law. Regardless of how deplorable.

That wades into some pretty nebulous territory in terms of free speech and if there's one thing US law enforcement is awful at its utilizing laws that are open to interpretation. Because inevitably they get interpreted in such a way as to be favourable to people like Brock who are already privileged in society.

There's already a legal line to cross for something to become harrassment. I'm objecting to the suggestion that there should be another legal line before that to protect you from public opinion.

[mjr]

His guilt or lack thereof aren't up for debate.

True. But as I said, the "court of public opinion" that is protesting him are doing so because they believe that his punishment wasn't severe enough. Many people think his punishment wasn't severe enough, and of course they are very upset by that. But again, court of public opinion being what it is...

Perhaps, but bullying isn't exactly illegal either.

It isn't, no. Though you could probably theoretically argue it's some form of assault. But if we, as a society, are supposed to be "anti-bully", we're not being consistent, and saying it's OK to bully people we don't like, and bully people in certain situations. Just seems like there's inconsistency there, at least in this case.

[jackfaire]

But if we, as a society, are supposed to be "anti-bully",

Kind of speaks to the mindset behind Court of Public Opinion actually. If a person was bullied as a child, not picked on, but bullied routinely and systematically made to feel worthless and destroyed personally and socially there are usually two different segments of childhood and two different causes.

In Elementary school if you're bullied it's almost never by the kid whose having a cruddy home life, comes from an impoverished home, or anything like that.

Most bullies in Elementary school are typically the most popular kid in class everyone likes them and even adults seem to fall under their spell. They then bully the "loser" kid the kid who there is no seeming reason to hate. He doesn't go around kicking puppies, he isn't mean, he isn't smelly. But he does something different, he likes to read, he cares more about school, he dresses different. Whatever it is he isn't like the tribe.

In a smaller school like this he doesn't have a great shot of meeting people who are different just like him but he will in junior high. So 1st through 5th grade the bully will pick on him beat on him and generally ostracize him from the group because the Elementary School Court of Public Opinion has decided "You are wrong and you need to get right" (sadly most kids elementary school don't take the time to explain how)

It's later in middle school and high school when you get the socially unacceptable bully the kid whose been shit on his whole life and rather than find his own tribe now turns his ire on those weaker than himself sometimes this can even earn him a ticket into the "in Crowds" Typically not.

Meanwhile the Bullies who kept the "loser" kid out are now in a much bigger pond and they jump to ignoring the kid. Memory is a fickle thing and by mid to late high school no one remembers this "Swell Kid" was ever a horrific bully that destroyed another child's life. It's hard to see because the damage is gradual.

That's not the bullying our country has an issue with the Court of Public opinion is bullying absolutely. Targeted abuse psychological or physical intended to alter who the target is and what they do. Bullying to "help them fit in" It's in offices, military, churches, families.

It's a type of bullying that's reframed as "Helping" The only place we have expressed an issue with it is online. Thank god for small favors.

But we bullied a woman who said a shitty joke by getting her fired.

We bullied a group of adults who aren't pedophiles by calling them pedophiles (This one Yahoo got rid of Adult Rooms for Adults who didn't want a bunch of teens in their chatrooms however a news report was released pointing out that some teens are preyed on in Teen Rooms by adults. The parents response was to bully Yahoo and it's Advertisers with the demand "Get rid of Adult Rooms so that our teens will be safe"

So we absolutely should acknowledge that Court of Public opinion is Bullying. Really we don't like to admit it is if we like what it's trying to accomplish. If we agree with the goal of the group then we want to frame it positive terms and talk about how we are the righteous.

So when it comes to taking part in the behavior you have to question am I cool with this method because I approve of the ends or do I not like the method and should find a different way?

[s_stabeler]

And I'm not saying that. What I'm objecting too is this idea that he should somehow be shielded from the legal social consequences of his behaviour simply by virtue of the fact he is an individual or that you're suppose to do whatever it takes to win in a court of law. Regardless of how deplorable.

That wades into some pretty nebulous territory in terms of free speech and if there's one thing US law enforcement is awful at its utilizing laws that are open to interpretation. Because inevitably they get interpreted in such a way as to be favourable to people like Brock who are already privileged in society.

There's already a legal line to cross for something to become harassment. I'm objecting to the suggestion that there should be another legal line before that to protect you from public opinion.

and I don't disagree- though barring interfering with the evidence, I generally accept that it is the prosecutor's job to show up the defendant's bullshit for what it is. The public can be as pissed off as they like with how the defendant conducts his case. However, in my opinion, these "protests" step over the harassment line. To whit: you can think he is an asshole. You can avoid associating with him as much as possible. You cannot show up outside his house and demand he be castrated.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I generally accept that it is the prosecutor's job to show up the defendant's bullshit for what it is. The public can be as pissed off as they like with how the defendant conducts his case.

Exactly. The job of the defense is to figure out a way out of it whether they did it or not, period. If bullshit works, that is not the Defense's fault. That is either a jury problem, a judge problem, or prosecutor incompetence. That's not a fault with the defense or the perpetrator. It's engaging the adveserial judicial system exactly as its designed. It is not nor will it ever be the job of the defense to incriminate itself no matter how obvious their guilt and expecting that is the basis of a lot of unjust judicial systems.

That wades into some pretty nebulous territory in terms of free speech and if there's one thing US law enforcement is awful at its utilizing laws that are open to interpretation. Because inevitably they get interpreted in such a way as to be favourable to people like Brock who are already privileged in society.

Ultimately the debate was always meant to be had (hence competing constitutional rights) so you can have cases like this were the 1st Amendment (Free Speech) goes head to head with the 14th (Equal Protection) where if I'm going to call something intimidation and harrassment if it happens to a 14 year old girl in school, I don't get to not call it that when it happens to someone you hate like Brock. Ultimately the 14th was about universal civil rights and not about protecting assholes, but that's why the law exists: everyone is an asshole to someone else.

The reason enforcement is tricky is that frankly I can't even count the number of issues caused by these competing rights and "some dude" (Trademark) making 50,000 USD as a cop obviously is not being paid to be a warrior-scholar. We're not paying enough for either job.

So we absolutely should acknowledge that Court of Public opinion is Bullying. Really we don't like to admit it is if we like what it's trying to accomplish. If we agree with the goal of the group then we want to frame it positive terms and talk about how we are the righteous.

As far as I'm concerned, probably one of the best and most bang on South Park episodes was called Butterballs and it lampoons the hell out of this concept by taking the "bullied" in Butters and basically shows him get used by everyone from his direct bully to everyone using the scenario for advantage in ways that are essentially bullying. I loved two things about it: one, Butters himself basically has to learn to reconcile his life in a world he isn't actually going to get help in. And two, it does a really funny progression with the (legal) bullying behavior up until Jesus finally shows up and bullies some guy.

[Gravekeeper]

True. But as I said, the "court of public opinion" that is protesting him are doing so because they believe that his punishment wasn't severe enough. Many people think his punishment wasn't severe enough, and of course they are very upset by that. But again, court of public opinion being what it is...

People were pissed over conduct during the trial just as much if not more than the ultimate sentence. This isn't a single issue problem. I'd be willing to bet no one would be outside his house with guns if he had, at any point, demonstrated remorse or even accepted some level of responsibility for his actions. But he blamed everything and one except himself and painted himself as the victim.

And now he wants to tour college campuses so he can continue to blame everything but himself.

Exactly. The job of the defense is to figure out a way out of it whether they did it or not, period. If bullshit works, that is not the Defense's fault. That is either a jury problem, a judge problem, or prosecutor incompetence. That's not a fault with the defense or the perpetrator. It's engaging the adveserial judicial system exactly as its designed. It is not nor will it ever be the job of the defense to incriminate itself no matter how obvious their guilt and expecting that is the basis of a lot of unjust judicial systems.

But now we're back to "don't hate the player, hate the game". If you exploit a flaw in a system you don't get to wave responsibility for choosing to use that exploit. Especially in terms of a justice system. That sort of behaviour is pretty much universally loathed by the general public when it comes to the justice system. Because it exposes where the justice system splits away from morality or ethics.

And we're not taking about self incrimination.

[s_stabeler]

except for, again, it is not a flaw in the system, or at least, the flaw isn't that defendants lie.

The way the system is supposed to work:
1. Prosecutor presents their case
2. defendant attempts to poke holes in prosecutor's case

It is not the job of the defense to allow the prosecutor to get away with an error in their case.

In sentencing:
1. the prosecutor- in arguing for a harsh punishment- makes their case for a harsh punishment
2. The defendant argues for as low a punishment as they can get.

The defendant probably will come up with bullshit during sentencing. It is the job of the prosecutor and judge to cut through the defendant's bullshit, not the job of the defense not to bring it up. The entire idea of the judicial system is that it's the prosecutor that has to prove the defense is being dishonest, because the principle is that you give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant ( " I would rather let 210 guilty men go free than see one innocent man condemned")

[jackfaire]

And now he wants to tour college campuses so he can continue to blame everything but himself.

Which I want him to do. We can have a counter speaker scheduled but a lot of people don't believe guys say the things that he says until they hear it themselves.

[amandarthegreat]

So....I'm not going to claim to be best buds with the Turners or anything, but I do know a few people in their social circle (including the one who created the Fundraising page for Brock's 'little incident'). One of the main reasons that people were protesting outside of the Turner home is due to the location. The Turners had lived just two blocks away from the University of Dayton campus (so that line of bull about Brock not understanding college culture is completely false since he grew up in the thick of it) until right before the rape. Their current house a half mile from a high school. Dan (dad) and Carleen (mom) work 9-6 every day 20+ minutes away. In short, people in this neighborhood are not happy that Brock is there unsupervised from 8-7. I do not support the people that show up there with guns--that's abhorrent, especially considering that Greene County is the site of the John Crawford murder by cop.