Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Look at this.

If you don't know what's happening, or can't access the link, basically, this guy called Brock Turner found a young woman who was unconscious. (I think she was drunk.)  He then took advantage of her, sexually assaulting her. Two people walking by, saw this, and thought it was wrong, because she wasn't moving, but he was.

So now, he has been sentenced to six months in prison. Six months. The reason he wasn't given more time, is because he's rich.

It makes me upset that, people like this, think they can get away with anything. What Brock's dad said, is the most stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

Sorry, just feel as if this needs to be brought to attention.

He's an early-twenties kid, and a skinny athlete. With any luck, 6 months is as long as it needs to be for the exact same thing to happen to him in prison.

Not that it shouldn't be longer, but if there are any particularly sick individuals with a taste for vengeance, he'll get what he deserves...

I hadn't read anything about this guy until I randomly browsed through it while scanning the news. His mother was whining about how he's not capable of withstanding the torments of jail or prison and that their family has suffered enough. Then I heard about ace dad's wonderful letter.

And he has an excellent point. Twenty minutes isn't very long compared to twenty years. So I have a wonderful solution. Let's put Papa and Jr. in a small room with all of that poor girl's male family members, armed with baseball bats. Then we'll see just how insignificant twenty minutes can be.

But I doubt he would like that idea very much.

Ridiculous propositions aside, the absolute blatant stupidity that some people are capable of spewing from unholy orifices is disgusting. They should be thanking God or Allah or whoever they care to pray to that the young man wasn't sentenced to 10-15 years. Six months is a joke compared to what 99% of what rapists receive, and it appears he will get early release to boot.

The body that governs professional USA Swimmers banned him for life though, so someone had the good sense to dish out a reasonable punishment within their powers.

I think what disgusts me the most about this case is the fact that the Turner family has the audacity to openly list the negative ramifications on his son and declare that they are the victims in this tragedy. In his mother's letter, she goes on to say that 'His life is forever impacted and drastically altered by the ramifications of these guilty verdicts,' and then to list all the consequences that will negatively impact on Brock's life.

Perhaps he should have considered that before he sexually assaulted a girl. Perhaps his family should consider who the real victim in this case is. Not your son. Perhaps they should consider that the life of the victim has also radically changed for the worse - but for her, she didn't choose this for herself. He was the one who forced himself upon an almost unconscious girl - he was the one who threw away his own dreams of Stanford and swimming. Or did he think that sexually assaulting a girl would have no ramifications? Certainly, his mother and father seem to think so. They point to alcohol and they even go so far as to accuse her of wanting it when she was clearly not able to give consent. When will it occur to people like this, that a girl does not have to pass out for you to realise that perhaps you should not proceed. The Turners stand back and have the audacity to list how this will negatively impact on their son, when in reality, your son chose to go down this path, and the victim didn't. No other drunk person in the building decided to become a rapist. No other person in the building would have decided that a backrub meant that you could hump and shove pinecones into an unconscious girl in a back alley with her head scraping on the floor.

This sexual assault was due to no other factor than your son having the intentions to sexually assault the victim (and I will say to rape this girl, had the two bikers not discovered them). Everything about this case disgusts me. The judge who declared that this bright, smart, athletic, young boy would not be a danger to society should be sacked and forced to reconsider what his definition of 'danger to society' is. Because if a rapist is not a danger to society, then I hope that he realises that he has given a slap to the face to all women out there, and I hope he does not have a daughter.

Victim mentality has to stop. Yes, going out late at night by yourself in revealing clothes is not smart. Of course it isn't. But by telling your daughter or friend 'Don't go by yourself' or 'You need to dress more appropriately' with the best intentions, is ultimately, if we strip it down, 'I don't want you to get raped tonight. Let someone else get raped.'

Think about it like this: if someone is killed whilst walking down a street by themselves late at night, of course it wasn't smart, but do we turn to that person's family and say 'Well why was he walking down that street by himself? What sort of clothing was he wearing? I'll guarantee, right now, that he was being provocative. I'll bet that he wanted it... Look at the guy who stabbed him! He'll be traumatised for life! He was a very kind and polite young boy, who had so many opportunities ahead of him. Now that this has happened, do you know how that will negatively affect him??' This is a slap in the face to the victim, who not only has to prove that this has been traumatising for her (because, yes, apparently sexual assault can be not traumatising), but who has to sit through sessions after sessions of being accused of liking it, of listening to people say how this will negatively impact on him as if he had been forced to sexually assault her.

 

EDIT:

Eh, I think people are shitting on the dad too much. I mean, if you found out your kid, who you love more than anything and have an incredible strong bond with his kid. I'd imagine finding out your kid did something so undeniably evil as raping a girl would immediately send him into a spiral of denial whilst he attempts to justify it. I can't fault the man for trying to give his kid the benefit of the doubt, even if that extends beyond all reason.

As for the kid himself, he's a prick, yeah. On one hand, clearly six months is too little and will just teach the kid "Eh, sometimes you get in trouble, but only a little because you're rich", which sadly is true. Then again, the people who are like "I hope the kid (or worse, his family as well) get killed or raped seem to be going down the emotional and barbaric route of "Hurt those who hurt people!", which I think does more harm then good. I mean, we seem to have gotten to a point where we think prison is a place to punish bad people, which is not only a dangerous belief, but quite plainly, stupid.

Interesting point at the end. Technically prisons aren't supposed to be punishment. They're to protect citizens from dangerous folk and function as "rehabilitation centers," in theory anyway. Though I'm not certain that the system even believes that itself.

Personally, I think chopping off a few fingers of a thief's hand would be a better deterrent than any length of jail or prison time. And to me, a few lost fingers is less cruel and unusual than living in a tiny cell for several years. Good ol' Stannis Baratheon style gelding of rapists would serve in this matter. Hardly much of a threat to anyone in... swordplay, once you wind up like poor Theon. Then everyone's happy. Punishment served. People protected. Mama gets to keep her boy out of prison. Huzzah!

Modern day American prisons are rehabilitation centers as much as North Korea is "the people's". The system's been capitalized to fuck.

Genuinely, at least if you chopped off one or two of a thief's fingers, at least you're not wasting loads of resources imprisoning him, and not punishing his family who no longer have a provider.

The last bit about prisons is interesting stuff. Punishment systems are supposed to provide an incentive to not commit crime, but IMO prisons are an inefficient way to do this.

That's a big problem in sending young folk to prisons with career criminals. They basically just learn how to get better at crime without getting caught.

Absolutely. I mean, no one's thinking about prison sentences when they commit a crime, because A. Crimes of Passion exist, B. Desperate people will do a lot to succeed and C. People tend to underestimate the odds of losing if they have control over the event.

I read about an interesting murder in Ohio the other month. I don't know the details, but here's the setup as near as I can remember.

A former police officer returned to his home after a business trip or visiting friends or something to find his wife had cleared out all of their accounts, packed her bags and refused to speak to him, even to explain why. Seeing no other recourse with the brick wall that replaced his wife, he shot her in the head, left the gun on the kitchen table, called the police, told them what he had done, and waited for them on his front porch.

So this makes me wonder, what punishment does this man deserve? Obviously, details could alter the frame of view, but from this, is this man really a threat to other people? If the prison system is truly meant for reformation, what purpose would it serve a man or a woman who is highly unlikely to commit another crime?

So yeah, the prison system can't even hold to it's own claims for existence. It's most certainly a means of punishment first, everything else second.

I suppose it is an interesting question. I guess, despite how I hark on about how simple "Hurt those who hurt others" is a barbaric logic, by simple brain does find comfort with it. Although I can see it as illogical, mindless punishment does have a lot of appeal to me on a personal level. I think it just sits wrong with people to think that people who hurt others shouldn't be punished.