File: 1472851760534.jpeg (85.53 KB, 529x580, image.jpeg)
No. 109168
>>109164>It is usually really, really, REALLY difficult to get somebody convicted on a rape charge here in the states. Mostly b/c the law says someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty.It sucks but the "innocent until proven guilty" thing is the best way to go about it. The most we can aim for is rape being treated like other crimes, I guess.
>At least you're not allowed to ask the woman what she was wearing anymoreReally? That's great
No. 109182
>>109168
>The most we can aim for is rape being treated like other crimes, I guess.The thing is, it's kinda not. There are different evidentiary standards (what you're allowed to use as proof in front of a jury) for rape, domestic violence, and molestation charges; They're tougher to beat if you're the defendant.
These are what are called "rape shield" laws, mostly they were passed back in the '70s and '80s, and then a federal version was adopted in 1993 so the states that were still holding out had to implement them.
They do a lot of good in terms of shifting the blame away from victims, but even so they can be a pretty blunt instrument sometimes. Anyway that's why defense attorneys can't ask about how short your skirt was that night.
But they're a vast improvement: rape law used to be fucking horrifying.
>>109169>>109173That's what makes this case so unusual— why the hell the judge handed down the sentence he did is a mystery to me. But I haven't really been following the case.
>>109181>>109180If it's any consolation he'll go on the sex offender registry. Severe limitations on where you can live, what sort of jobs you can do, law enforcement constantly up your ass etc.
Everyone is going to know what he did, wherever he goes from now on.
No. 109183
>>109182>why the hell the judge handed down the sentence he did is a mystery to meHe departed from the statutory minimum of two years because "he took into consideration Turner's intoxication, letters of support, remorsefulness, clean criminal record and, controversially, the effect the conviction would have on his life."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/stanford-sexual-assault-case-brock-turner-sentence-judge-1.3620631Honestly I thought his justification was weak and I don't understand why Brock Turner got more consideration than the victim. He was supposed to be getting punished, prison was supposed to have an effect on his life.
No. 109187
>>109183The real reason is being the judge is also a stanford alum and was also a swimmer. interesting, isn't it.
thankfully that judge has been called into question, and was actually removed on another sexual assault case he was going to be the judge off
No. 109192
>>109183
>He departed from the statutory minimumO_o
THAT is goddamn rare. Like, Black Swan rare in most places. Granted, where I live it's not as rare b/c my state abolished parole, so judges get more slack when they depart from sentencing guidelines. Those were enacted years ago with the understanding that people would be able to get out on parole so the drafters jacked up the mandatory minimums.
California HAS parole boards though.
I can understand not giving what the prosecutor was asking for, but setting aside the mandatory minimum. I've never seen that actually done in practice, just on paper. It's like seeing a unicorn only to have it spear you in the chest with its horn.
>he took into consideration [. . .] the effect the conviction would have on his life.wut
Is this a thing in california?
No. 109193
>>109185Sex offender status is lifelong unless you can get it expunged which is nearly impossible in most states
>>109187Apparently he can outswim prison. Really this is the biggest red flag about the whole thing.
>>109191I hope if someone does that they say "Hi Brock, meet brick! Brick, Brock, Brock brick!"
No. 109224
>>109211Because of his status and financial background he got a lighter sentence and more favourable comments from the judge and media. This type of bias has happened with any crimes, not just this one rape case.
Also the survivors life has been ruined, she will always have the trauma of her attack have a bit of empathy for fucks sake.
No. 109227
>>109224You're stupid to believe the cases you're presented with are the worst examples of violent criminality in America just because they happen to make a front page.
I think the worst crime I've ever heard of were the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, and they got barely any air time.
No. 109232
>>109192>Is this a thing in california?It's a thing in any court system, young people tend to get much shorter sentences for this reason (not minors, young adults I mean).
>>109193The red flag is that the judge was a swimmer? And I really hope you guys aren't actually advocating violence against this guy because you don't like the sentence.
It seems like a weird sentence, but you're essentially arguing for fucking vigilante justice because you don't like what the judge decided. I'm sure if there was no grounds for it to be done on there would have been an appeal to have the sentence increased or a retrial if the judge was deemed to be unfairly biased towards him, but there wasn't.
This crime is bad, but ruining the guy's life purely because he's famous and did it is fucking ridiculous, he's already on a registry for sex offenders.
No. 109237
>>109192It's rare but it can be done as long as the judge justifies it his decision.
I'm surprised he just didn't just give him the minimum, since it's common to only serve part of a sentence anyway and Brock probably wouldn't have spent that long in prison.
No. 109240
>>109235He can still swim, absolutely, but he can't compete for the Olympics team in the US as far as I know, heaps of the teams have a background screening process which means any violent felony, sex crime or violence against animals you can't be allowed into the team. Other crimes have different years before how long they'll let you compete, which is around 5-7 years for all.
This is just taken from the weighlifting team, but I don't see why others would be any different.
Source here
>http://www.teamusa.org/usa-weightlifting/coaching/criminal-records-screening-programI imagine it would be damn near impossible to get any sponsorship or advertising work though, which is where most of an athletes income usually comes from.
I'm curious as to what the circumstances were, are the court records (or judges notes) publically available this soon after a conviction in the US?
No. 109249
>>109232>ruining the guy's life purely because he's famousNo, it'seems because he ruined someone else's life.
Get raped, then let's see how you feel about rapists.
No. 109250
>>109249You seemed to miss the point. There are people who've done way, way worse stuff who serve their sentence and get out and live relatively normal lives without people saying they should be beaten and people should attack them if they try to do anything. You're focusing on this guy because he's famous, not because what he did was so exceptionally horrendous that he deserves it.
>Get raped, then let's see how you feel about rapists.Yeah, because emotions are absolutely the one true road to justice.
No. 109253
>>109251>R-Raping someone isn't exceptionally horrendous!It's not. It's a terrible thing to do, but on the scale of violent crimes, it's not exceptionally bad.
>All rapists should be beaten up, famous or not. Is that what you wanted to hear? It's at least more honest now you're arguing you simply care about revenge more than justice.
>boo hoo he can't swim in the olympics and now people who find him shady after things blow over and subsequently look up his name will find out he's a sex offenderLets be more honest here. The guy's career is fucking ruined, he'll have massive issues getting any sort of decent job, and he's going to be on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life, with all of the restrictions that entails.
He didn't get a super long jail term, but there was obviously a good reason for this, else there would have been a retrial. But acting like he's just going to get out and go back to the good old days is fucking retarded and objectively wrong.
Stop letting your emotions cloud your judgement.
No. 109254
>>109253>It's not. It's a terrible thing to do, but on the scale of violent crimes, it's not exceptionally bad.What's your "scale"? Actually, don't answer that, it's purely arbitrary and no one really cares. Your opinions aren't a fact. In a lot of cases, society disagrees. Historically, rape was considered a crime so terrible that people were literally executed for it.
>It's at least more honest now you're arguing you simply care about revenge more than justice.How is it unjust for bad things to happen to someone who does bad things?
>The guy's career is fucking ruined, he'll have massive issues getting any sort of decent job, His dad can easily twist some wrists and get him what he needs. He's not some Joe Schmo, he's an affluent, privileged person, and nepotism has always been a thing.
>and he's going to be on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life, with all of the restrictions that entails.See above.
>He didn't get a super long jail term, but there was obviously a good reason for this, else there would have been a retrial.Do you seriously believe everything that happens in court or the legal system happens for a "good reason"? How naive can you get?
>But acting like he's just going to get out and go back to the good old days is fucking retarded and objectively wrong.He's certainly not getting his just desserts, that's for sure.
No. 109255
>>109254>What's your "scale"?Things that cause lasting bodily harm, aggravated rape, torture, murder, there's heaps of stuff that's worse than rape, and that's if we don't go into particularly horrendous cases of those general crimes. This is just if we go off the lasting impact, both physical and psychological. What he did is terrible, but it's not worse than any of those things.
>How is it unjust for bad things to happen to someone who does bad things?Because you are not a judge, and your opinion of justice would mean that someone could also come along and beat you if they think you did a bad thing. The law's there for a reason.
>His dad can easily twist some wrists and get him what he needs.His dad's not going to be able to give him any sort of decent position now, nepotism only goes so far. No company would want him in any prominent position, regardless of his father.
>See above.Unless his dad can get the conviction over ruled, he's not going to be off the registry.
>Do you seriously believe everything that happens in court or the legal system happens for a "good reason"?Do you have any reason for why this wasn't just apart from "I don't like the decision"? Did it not follow appropriate sentencing procedure? Did the judge do something obviously based off his personal opinions instead of what's set down in the acts related to this? I haven't seen anyone give any good reasons for why this was an unfair decision so far except for people just saying they disagree with it.
And simply implying I'm wrong or naive shocking isn't actually an argument.
>He's certainly not getting his just desserts, that's for sure.He's getting the same shit as every other rapist who's out of prison does. Not everyone who commits a bad crime should be prosecuted as severely as they possibly could be (this is the reason we have an appeal system, a sentence can absolutely be too heavy, or too lax. His apparently wasn't), and the wealth of their family shouldn't be the basis of how severe their punishment is. I'm sure you'll argue for something to do with corruption here, but that was not at all the point I was making, and it's in fact the opposite.
No. 109257
>>109211>>109222Not the anon you replied to but I personally gain a greater sense of joy knowing that a smug richie who had everything laid out for him in life ruined his chances. I love seeing this type of person destroyed, because they had absolutely no motive to and did it because they thought they wouldn't be caught. The satisfaction is that they're not above justice (or they're not supposed to be, anyway).
At least when a ghetto ass thug rapes a woman it's because we all know he was raised as a desperate, knuckle-dragging ape with no moral conscience. When I hear about terrible crimes against women in places like India I know it's because the men there are raised and enforced by a culture who views women as sexual objects to begin with.
Turner was a "nice boy" athlete given every resource and care in a first world society. Turner is a special brand of sociopathic evil.
No. 109261
>>109260Happened some years ago, but search the wire archives, barely any media footprint on this case even back then:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/nyregion/06rape.html?_r=0I can dig up another half dozen cases that were just as bad. What do you think the perp in this case should receive? Are you as satisfied about his prosecution or are fall from grace stories all that satisfies your butthurt bitterness?
No. 109267
>>109192
>Black Swan rareIt IS unusual, but not that rare. Back before sentencing guidelines were implemented judges were pretty much left to their own devices when it came to handing down sentences. The one exception is the death penalty–that has to be meted out by a jury; it's still that way, and there's only one state that requires a less-than-unanimous verdict for it.
Anyway it's never available in rape cases. At least not when there's no accompanying murder or something with the case. Not sure why I brought it up.
>my state abolished paroleMaybe ten states have done this (mine too) and the expected benefits haven't materialized.
>wutEh, it only seems weird if you're not involved with the criminal justice system. His mitigation seems weak until you compare it with the stuff other defendants offer when they're in court.
Sentencing is typically a combination of seriousness of the crime plus prior criminal activity. This defendant had a previously clean record. Also, the article the other anon posted mentions the probation board reccommended departing from the mandatory minimum, which is a big deal.
It looks like a light sentence because it is, but it's not so light that an appellate court is going to overturn it.
I have a theory.
>>109184
>he basically went to summer camp.He got too light of a sentence for sure, but incarceration ain't no summer camp, sugar.
>>109187Yeah, the judge will probably not be re-elected. Apparently he's normally considered a pretty fair dude, and that's hard to find in a former prosecutor.
>>109227thanks /pol/
>>109253
>on the scale of violent crimes, it's not exceptionally bad.Oh, it's bad. In fact it's ranked just beneath murder in terms of the way it is adjudicated. The problem is that most of the time it's difficult to prove. If the defendant doesn't look like what a juror imagines a rapist should look like, or behave the way rapists are "supposed" to, it's damn hard to get a conviction.
People picture a skeevy greaseball in a hooter's parking lot, not Brock Turner.
>but there was obviously a good reason for this, else there would have been a retrial.I doubt it. In order to get a conviction overturned, there usually has to be a problem with the process itself— evidence that shouldn't have come in, testimony that shouldn't have been allowed etc.
If it's just a matter of a light sentence, that don't cut it. I guarantee the prosecutor looked at the prospect of appealing and thought "nah, waste of time and money. I'm not chasing a dead end."
>>109257Believe it or not, this isn't an uncommon attitude; I'm honestly surprised a judge up for election didn't descend on Brock Turner like a hawk. If someone is famous and unpopular jamming the judicial boot in his ass is an easy way to look tough on criminals.
Plus, you know, America loves to watch the rich and beautiful torn limb from limb. we LOVE that shit.
>>109259
>you're envious of his background, and probably black.
>At least when a ghetto ass thug rapes a woman it's because we all know he was raised as a desperate, knuckle-dragging ape with no moral conscience.Hmm, seems legit.
>>109261Everyone loves dredging up shit like this. If you're wondering why this doesn't make the news it's b/c people would barf into their cornflakes.
Rape is complicated, and so is addressing it through the legal system. It's one of those crimes with (believe it or not) has a very low recidivism rate.
Just like the rapist isn't usually the greaseball but is somebody you know, they typically don't do it again, either. Murder is the same way. Unless you're dealing with a serial offender (those are much less common, and the system is good at spotting them).
Some rapists ultimately do feel remorse; watch the sentencing hearing from Steubenville and tell me that teenager blubbering to his victim in open court about how he's sorry he ruined her life. That kid is unlikely to hurt anybody else.
Rape victims aren't some caricature either. Some people never get over it and are changed forever, others move on in a comparatively short time. Some sob, some relate it to you like it was a funny anecdote they heard at work.
Sometimes they'd rather not deal with the stress of pressing charges, sometimes they sit on the stand and behave in a way that is, well, inspiring.
My point is anybody who tells you there are easy answers is selling you a bill of goods. It's important to treat every accusation like it's serious, make the process easy if you can, and trust but verify.
Sometimes justice is unsatisfying. But honestly there's no better way to do it, or we'd do that instead.
No. 109270
>>109268I never claimed it was. I said that cases far worse than those of this admittedly bad person happen all the time and receive 1/10th of the media attention.
The Duke Lacrosse case for example literally had half the country talking about a "white on black rape epidemic" when the Department of Justice statistics show that white on black rape is demographically insignificant.
What I'm trying to say is that what you see on the morning news is not some computer algorithm picking up the most heinous crimes. It's a senior editing picking what he thinks should feature on the front page, often because it underscores a narrative he is sympathetic to.
Which is the exact reason this:
http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-cop-shoots-and-kills-6-year-old-white-boy-with-autismHad virtually no nationwide media coverage, despite being vastly more sordid than virtually all of the nationally publicized stories of police killings of black men.
>>109267>Rape is complicated, and so is addressing it through the legal system. It's one of those crimes with (believe it or not) has a very low recidivism rate.See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9664255The recidivism rate runs from 16-50%+ depending upon the crime.
It's also much higher when you control for offenders with
violent rape convictions. The low recidivism rates are associated with idiots like the guy in the OP who had some mitigating factor like alcohol. The people who just have abysmally low impulse control on some innate level do re-offend pretty often.
>thanks /pol/What's the relevance to /pol/ exactly?
No. 109271
>>109259>you care more about his crime because you're envious of his backgroundHis background makes it all the more atrocious that the fucker did it. What part of me spelling that out for you did you miss?
Justice should be blind. If a nigger or curryloo gets put away for years for rape then so does sociopathic wonderbread. He's a threat to society as proven by his attitude, and you seek to enable people like him to just be more 'low key' about the next crime the gutless fucker chooses to commit.
>and probably blackWhite, actually.
Get this dumbfuck: Whites get locked away for sex crimes too. Just not rich ones. All white people who've gotten lenient sentences for crimes they admitted to were RICH or had connections. It's because they can pay off people, get valuable lawyers, and appear as 'well-to-do' as if they contribute fuck all to society as a whole. People like this are parasitic animals. We're a pack species who benefit from the cooperation from the group; lone wolves who violate our laws need to be isolated and eliminated. Like culling out vicious dogs.
He lost the privilege of his lifestyle when he violated another life. Bawwww.
No. 109272
>>109271>His background makes it all the more atrocious that the fucker did it. You're implying that poverty somehow makes it more understandable. Rape doesn't have anything to do with monetary motivation, it's a matter of impulse control. Yes, he should be punished, but if you think this case is worse than a case like
>>109261 then I've got no idea what to say to you.
You do understand that it's more worrying when someone can commit violent crimes of such magnitude when they're entirely sober right? And that it indicates their impulse control is as low if not lower than a blind drunk idiot?
No. 109280
>>109274The evidence in this case was pretty clear tbh. There were witnesses, the girl was unresponsive for hours and Turner admitted he remembered everything and consciously initiated sexual activity. It's one of the clearer cases, I think.
You don't really get sentenced unless there's evidence anyway. Unless you're being set up, it's innocent until proven guilty. They assume you're innocent and then look for sufficient evidence to prove your guilt, not the other way around.
No. 109282
>>109274I'm
>>109280 and I sperged and somehow read rape as assault. I mean the evidence in this case was clear for sexual activity. Turner didn't get convicted of rape.
No. 109287
>>109285Not the person you're replying to, but particularly bad kinds of violent rape actually used to carry the death penalty.
It's one of the reasons I'm skeptical of feminism, most feminists support liberal laws on criminal justice.
No. 109292
>>109272>understandableBeing poor and ignorant in a culture that literally breeds violence and sexual objectification of women is certainly more conceivable of the notion of more rape occurrences. Don't be so dense.
A white boy raised with every opportunity and full education in a liberal culture with a deep understanding of social law has ZERO circumstance for rape.
It's not about "which rape is worse," it's about who the fuck should know better.
You're also implying that non-sobriety make rape more understandable, which as many can attest, doesn't naturally happen. Seems like he doesn't have the "impulse control" to just not drink so much so he can't get so "blindly" drunk to commit crime in the first place. He needs culling either way.
No. 109294
>>109292>Being poor and ignorant in a culture that literally breeds violence and sexual objectification of women is certainly more conceivable of the notion of more rape occurrences. Don't be so dense. Culture isn't some amorphous thing that degrades people independently. People get the cultures they deserve. But that's besides the point, even a bix nood nigger knows that rape is wrong. And you must have missed the memo from the department for intersectionality - you're not allowed to criticize black culture anymore.
>it's about who the fuck should know better. Are you suggesting that the guy referenced in the NYT article didn't know what he was doing was wrong?
If so, I'd agree on the level his powers of cognitive reasoning were so innately low, and his level of innate impulse control also so low, he was incapable of controlling himself like the kid in this story was. But only by those standards.
And why are you putting an attested behavioral trait studied by geneticists and psychologists: impulse control, in brackets? Do you think it makes you smart? Stick to the case law and smug lawyering, you don't know anything about the hard sciences.
No. 109302
>>109294>degrades people independentlyYes it does.
Many people are known to conform to the dominant culture even if their moral views conflict, especially if there are repercussions involved.
This is an irrefutable, fundamental fact that can be proven in history and modern events.
>people get the culture they deserveExcept for the people who actively identified their cultures as shit and sought to escape their circumstances.
>Are you suggesting that the guy referenced in the NYT article didn't know what he was doing was wrong?No, my clarification between third world curryloo culture and privileged first world culture illustrates the point I was making and it had nothing to do with your article, which I didn't read btw because that was a different anon you were responding to. I'm not going to argue for their point. They can do so themselves.
MY point is simple:
>all rape is bad>low income and violent areas tend to beget crime>affluent and educated areas tend to have not as much crime>therefore people who come from privileged cultures who commit crimes are acting all the more outrageous and are the most socially dangerous Honestly it sounds like you're frustrated that your own logic caught up to you. If we punish people for failure to "impulse control" (which I am putting in
quotations, not
brackets, because it's your use of the term), then it doesn't matter if he was drunk during the rape because he lost his impulse control by getting drunk to begin with. Either way he is a fucked individual, even by your logic. You cannot escape this.
No. 109303
File: 1472933578964.jpg (49.13 KB, 550x413, fb2c12ce2fb74f5db542d2d1038b8d…)
>>109300http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/world/asia/china-jack-the-ripper-gao-chengyong.htmlSome countries actually punish criminals still. Laughable that people think America is "strict".
No. 109305
>>109302>Except for the people who actively identified their cultures as shit and sought to escape their circumstances.Which we can be reasonably certain this person didn't do.
>low income and violent areas tend to beget crimeI don't think it's as simple as low income equals crime. If you look at crime stats globally there isn't actually much of a correlation. Think about how much crime these days is driven by pure sociopathic tendencies, a "he looked at me wrong" type thing.
No. 109309
>>109270
>The recidivism rate runs from 16-50%+ depending upon the crime.Just from looking at the abstract it says that the 16% of their sample committed another sex crime within the 12 year period they were looking at. the 50% stat was from those who committed "some offense" meaning it could've been anything from shoplifting to jaywalking to blowing probation.
All we know is that it was nonviolent/nonsexual in nature.
>It's also much higher when you control for offenders with violent rape convictions. The low recidivism rates are associated with idiots like the guy in the OP who had some mitigating factor like alcohol.That's not inconsistent with what I said in my post– In fact I specifically mentioned the subset that can and do reoffend. Those people really are dangerous, and it suggests a carceral solution might be preferable, at least in those cases.
Speaking of that subset, it's factored into that 16% stat in the journal you cited.
>What's the relevance to /pol/ exactly?That case is like "the hills have eyes" if /pol/ had written it. It happened, yes, and it's horrific. It's stomach-turning in fact.
The facts lend themselves particularly well to an "Oogabooga gibs me dat" narrative, which is why it's an old favorite trotted out whenever rape gets brought up. My point is some people will be citing it long after Brock Turner has been forgotten.
>The Duke Lacrosse case for example literally had half the country talking about a "white on black rape epidemicIf anything the Duke case was more people bitching because they think rich white dudes get off easy when they rape a lady from the ghetto.
It's a lot like Brock Turner, except Brock Turner actually assaulted somebody.
>>109274
>Am I evil for not wanting to sentence dudes unless there's CLEAR EVIDENCE that they raped someone?No. It's often the case that clear evidence is hard to come by in the vast majority of rape cases, however.
There's more in this case than usual, and he got by with a lenient sentence.
>>109285US specifically, yes. But we're a common law country (like England, Canada, Australia etc) which means we all have the same legal heritage.
For one, rape used to be defined in terms of how it reduced a woman's value in terms of marriage material; Nobody would want to marry you if you'd been "tainted" and you'd be condemned to a NEET lifestyle with your parents forever etc. etc.
Basically you could beat a rape charge if you could prove the woman wasn't a virgin. I.e. nothing of value was lost. Attacking a victim's chastity was a valid legal defense well into the 1970s.
Hell, rape could only occur by definition outside of marriage. So if your husband held you down and fucked you it wasn't rape. Louisiana was the last state to recognize marital rape was a thing, which it finally did in 1985.
>>109287Feminism gave us rape shield laws, bucko.
No. 109311
>>109305>I don't think it's as simple as low income equals crimeWrong.
>http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137>For the period 2008–12—>Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).>Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).>If you look at crime stats globally there isn't actually much of a correlationHow many underdeveloped countries keep a detailed and organized record of all crimes committed I wonder…
>Think about how much crime these days is driven by pure sociopathic tendenciesIt's my point exactly. Which is why when these crimes occur in society's most affluent and educated they should be held to the highest degree of punishment. They are very dangerous.
No. 109312
>>109309>All we know is that it was nonviolent/nonsexual in nature.Read the abstract again. The recidivism rate for violent crimes is 26%. And you ignored my second point.
>The facts lend themselves particularly well to an "Oogabooga gibs me dat" narrativeAnd the people pushing the Duke Lacrosse thing didn't have a narrative? Everyone has a narrative.
>If anything the Duke case was more people bitching because they think rich white dudes get off easy when they rape a lady from the ghettoActually, Jesse Jackson literally went on TV and said that America has a problem with white men raping black women, when it barely registers as a blip on the interracial rape stats.
>Feminism gave us rape shield laws, bucko.Weighed against the fact rape w/ violent assault often used to carry the death penalty, that's not much.
If you support liberalism when it comes to criminal justice, then anything else is just an after the fact consideration. You brought up recidivism for example. Do you know how many people have been killed by recidivist murderers in the US since the 1970s? Why is that an acceptable price to pay but the killing of one innocent person by a court of law is so terrible?
>Wrong.Explain West Virginia's comparatively low crime rate, or the fact China has a crime rate well below that of Black America, which is actually significantly better off than the average Chinese in per capita income terms.
Explain the fact poor Chinese immigrants to California had a crime rate below that of virtually every other ethnic group, and this was in the late 19th century.
No. 109313
>>109311>How many underdeveloped countries keep a detailed and organized record of all crimes committed I wonder…A good many developing countries with functioning bureaucracies, e.g. China, actually do.
>Which is why when these crimes occur in society's most affluent and educated they should be held to the highest degree of punishment. So you're suggesting a poor black rapist should receive a lighter sentence than some rich white guy? Just to clarify here, because I hope that's not what you're saying, but we'll have to make sure.
No. 109326
>>109313>A good many developing countries with functioning bureaucracies, e.g. China, actually do.Present them.
I gave you mine to prove my point about crime in the US.
>So you're suggesting a poor black rapist should receive a lighter sentence than some rich white guy? Are you trolling? I've said this about thrice.
No. No. No.
Do you understand?
To reiterate: The crime is more atrocious when committed by someone with affluence and education because they come from a culture of opportunity and lower crime. Because of their status, their punishments are often mitigated via their backgrounds and access to resources. I'm arguing they need to be punished as harshly as a poor black dindoo.
No. 109331
>>109312I wasn't really clear in my initial post. I meant recidivism in terms of further rapes.
Sex crimes in an 88 person sample has a 16% recidivism rate. Rape is a sex crime. the likelihood of committing another rape is low; apart from a subset of people that do a lot of it.
I don't see how this is inconsistent with your second point that a drunk fratboy is less likely to be a serial rapist.
>And the people pushing the Duke Lacrosse thing didn't have a narrative?Sure they did, and it became a cautionary tale about snap judgments that assume rich white dudes are above the law.
If anything Duke stands for the proposition that the system works much more often that people if it credit for. If left to public opinion those dudes would've been crucified before anyone had a chance to determine what happened.
>Actually, Jesse Jackson saidConsider the source.
>Why is that an acceptable price to pay but the killing of one innocent person by a court of law is so terrible?Criminal sentences have one of three aims:
Retribution
>You did this horrible thing, fuck you right backIncarceration
>Jesus, you're dangerous. We need to put you somewhere where you can't hurt anyone.Rehabilitation
>Son, I am dissapoint. Maybe when you get out you can make amends and do something productive.The first two are less desirable, because they are justified by deterrence: if we fuck you over, you won't commit another crime. AND anybody who sees what happens to you won't either.
If justice is pure retribution, why not just kill Brock Turner?
If it's pure incarceration, Why not jail someone for life if they litter? No more littering from THAT guy.
On the other hand, maybe we can actually get criminals to better themselves and society if we take the third route.
I'd sooner see ten guilty thieves walk than lock you up if you didn't do it. If you don't see the issue there idk what you would suggest instead.
No. 109334
>>109331>On the other hand, maybe we can actually get criminals to better themselves and society if we take the third route.Do you not believe that there are innate behavioral characteristics that contribute towards the likelihood of someone re-offending? For example we already know that androgen receptor genes regulate someone's baseline cortisol levels and cortisol response levels - a physiological aspect of our bodies that helps us to regulate stress effectively, and that people with a lower number of "repeats" within a particular allele are more prone to violent criminality.
It's certainly not determined 100% by environment, since no broad behavioral trait is.
As for the rest of your points, I'm not someone who believes retribution is a bad thing since I don't subscribe to Christian ethics and don't believe in virtue signalling as a result (which is basically what the "uhhhh. we're above X, X isn't civilized" concept boils down to).
I don't believe rehabilitation has anything tangible to offer the US since the examples of it showing some marginal utility come from highly racially homogeneous, very small states like Norway and thus aren't transferable to the US 1:1, and secondly, I think it's indicative of a wider problem that liberals point to Norway but ignore societies that have even lower rates of homicide and violent crime like Japan, Singapore and so on.
No. 109337
>>109331Regarding the Duke Lacrosse thing, I don't think it's a cautionary tale about anything since the kids were innocent and the entire story was a bunch of manufactured bullshit right from the start.
>why not just kill Brock Turner?Because he didn't kill anyone.
>Why not jail someone for life if they litter? No more littering from THAT guy.Because jail is expensive and in the US at least, it isn't a good deterrent.
Corporal punishment is a far better deterrent for minor crimes like vandalism and littering. It's cheap and it hinges on the explicit humiliation of the perpetrator.
No. 109342
>>109334
> I'm not someone who believes retribution is a bad thing since I don't subscribe to Christian ethics and don't believe in virtue signalling as a resulttips fedora
>Do you not believe that there are innate behavioral characteristics that contribute towards the likelihood of someone re-offending? For example we already know that androgen receptor genes regulate someone's baseline cortisol levels and cortisol response levels - a physiological aspect of our bodies that helps us to regulate stress effectively, and that people with a lower number of "repeats" within a particular allele are more prone to violent criminality.No dispshit, I DON'T think crime is genetic.
>I don't believe rehabilitation has anything tangible to offer the US since the examples of it showing some marginal utility come from highly racially homogeneous, very small states like Norway and thus aren't transferable to the US 1:1, and secondly, I think it's indicative of a wider problem that liberals point to Norway but ignore societies that have even lower rates of homicide and violent crime like Japan, Singapore and so on.Japan and Singapore are super diverse, great example.
>Because he didn't kill anyone.But he's a criminal. Shouldn't we kill him, just so we're safer?
>Because jail is expensive This is unironically a big part of why BT got the sentence he did.
>Corporal punishment is a far better deterrent for minor crimes like vandalism and littering. It's cheap and it hinges on the explicit humiliation of the perpetrator.Yeah, maybe we should SPANK Banksy Anon, that'll show him.
You might not be a Christian (welcome to the club) but if you think redemption is mere virtue signalling. . .well, all I can say is vote.
If enough people think that they'll amend the laws and I'll have to enforce them as written.
Till then, you're on the minority.
No. 109344
>>109342>tips fedoraYou're aware that most of the world outside of Western Europe and North America agrees with me right?
>No dispshit, I DON'T think crime is genetic.So you believe the variance in propensity towards aggression is 100% determined by environment?
Do you have any evidence of this?
>Japan and Singapore are super diverse, great example.Singapore is very diverse actually (Chinese, Indians, Malays etc).
>But he's a criminal. Shouldn't we kill him, just so we're safer?No. The punishment should fit the crime as best as possible.
>Yeah, maybe we should SPANK Banksy Anon, that'll show him.It will. Far better than any unpaid fine or jail time will.
You underestimate the power of humiliation as a deterrent. Compare how clean Singapore is to a festering dirty shithole like New York or Paris. And you westerners have the audacity to call Chinese "dirty".
>You might not be a Christian (welcome to the club) but if you think redemption is mere virtue signalling. . .well, all I can say is vote.It is virtue signalling and it is fundamentally Christian, the fact you think moral universalism is the default state of all humans is bizarre.
Why do you think people, well, non-black people anyway, took to the streets to protest the execution of Stanley Williams, a piece of trash who murdered an entire family, shot a kid in the throat and laughed about the noises he made as he died and so on? Someone who never apologized for any of this, only for forming the Bloods and Crips because it killed other blacks.
There's some sort of ethical mechanism inside people like you that thinks the moral worth of someone is determined by the degrees they are prepared to go to support the sorts of people considered the most sociopathic, violent and evil by the rest of society. It even has a term in psychology: Social Polarization. It's why Amy Biehl's parents shook hands with their daughter's murderers (one of whom went on to commit rape again after the reconciliation committee let him out of jail), it's not an intrinsic morality, it's a desire to posture, to prove that you are
so moral, you're
so above those beastly people who want to kill criminals, that you won't just support the release of such people, you'll actually shake hands with them.
There's nothing substantively ethical about it because it is driven by self-indulgent ego-mongering.
>Till then, you're on the minority.Globally I'm on the side of the majority, and the standard bearers of liberal democracy are being assfucked by racial balkanization, islamic terrorism, endemic criminality in inner cities and so on.
The real test is whether the "West" can see off China economically and otherwise. You're the champions of liberal democracy, and if you fail in that regard, the prestige of your brand diminishes alongside it.
You may not have realized this fam, because you're a typically myopic American whose idea of wordliness probably extends to Sweden at best, but the rest of the world looks at what is unfolding in Europe with the migrant and crisis and says to themselves "if this is what westerners want us to adopt with their NGOs and color revolutions, then fuck 'em."
Can't say I disagree to be honest.
No. 109359
>>109267>In fact it's ranked just beneath murder in terms of the way it is adjudicatedIt's only slightly above kidnapping on average, but you need to consider that stuff like cases where someone is tortured tend to just be listed as "violent offences", or left out because there's almost inevitably an abduction involved and it skews the data.
I believe acts of domestic terrorism even if they don't result in death are higher on average as well.
Rape's a bad crime, but when you compare it to others, especially on the criteria I listed here
>>109255 it's not exceptionally horrendous.
>I doubt it. In order to get a conviction overturned, there usually has to be a problem with the process itself— evidence that shouldn't have come in, testimony that shouldn't have been allowed etc.Or a complete disregard of sentencing procedure.
>>109273Not everyone who disagrees with you is a robot.
>>109271>His background makes it all the more atrocious that the fucker did it.>Justice should be blind.These don't work together. Short of someone having serious trauma in their background that directly led to the crime, where you come from shouldn't impact how you're convicted. You can't argue everyone should be treated the same in the courts and then say that it's worse because he was rich and did it.
No. 109376
>>109363Yeah, he wasn't even convicted of rape, I don't get why people in this thread are going around calling it that. He was convicted of sexual assault, which I assume was because the victim was unconscious, and when you take into account that he was also intoxicated at the time.
No-one's seemed to talk about this, but the judge gave good reasons for why he gave 6 months in prison and three years probation (Which means it's not less than the minimum). Here's the reasons, direct from the judge
>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/stanford-sexual-assault-read-sentence-judge-aaron-perskyThey referred to plenty of legislations and gave a good justification.
No. 109386
>>109376>the judge gave good reasonsNo.
He tries to soften the ruling by pointing out the three biggest factors of damage done to the plaintiff, as if he is weighing them in equal balance against Turner. He spends little time on her and the most time on Turner:
>"So, as she writes, the damage is done." >"that [Jane’s] life has been devastated by these events, by the criminal process has had such a debilitating impact on people’s lives">"the media attention that has been given to this case, which compounds the difficulties that participants in the criminal process face"
>Q: "Is incarceration in state prison the right answer for the poisoning of [Jane’s] life?"
The "reason" for recommending probation:
>"that justice would best be served, ultimately, with a grant of probation…let me go through the Rules of Court, because there is a limitation on probation eligibility…And pursuant…this is a case where probation is prohibited except in unusual cases where the interest of justice would best be served.">"the Court is…to evaluate whether the statutory limitation on probation is overcome.">"And the probation officer alluded to, I believe, the fact that alcohol was present and concluded that this would be a basis for overcoming the statutory prohibition of probation."There you have it. What kind of "good" reasoning is it to hold a person "less morally culpable" just because they were intoxicated? We still charge people with assault and manslaughter even if they are under the influence, but bucko here gets a pass. The judge even admits this hold LITTLE WEIGHT yet he brings up his opinion anyway to throw smoke and mirrors. But this kind of minimizing is important to come to his conclusion at the end of the ruling. Because ultimately what little Turner isn't "morally culpable" for is also not something he should serve time for so as not to "impact his life."
Next he touches on specific factors:
>"a defendant is youthful and has no significant record of prior criminal offenses"Poor boy dindoo nuffin up until this point so, like, take that.
BUT WAIT, HE ACTUALLY DID DO SOMETHING CRIMINAL AS JUDGE-O ADMITS:
>…have presented some evidence of…pending minor-in-possession case, which I have considered, as well as communications involving recreational drug use, even a video showing recreational drug use. But I don’t…I don’t find that enough to negate the absence of any criminal convictions."So judge admits the kid does illegal shit while trying to say he's got a squeaky clean history. Bullocks.
BUT WAIT, JUDGE SAYS:
>received letters from…Turner’s friends, family, which indicate a period of, essentially, good behavior."Yeah, lets pardon criminals because family and friends say they were good. Then it's some other bullshit of how "prison is bad and he'll comply to probation."
>btw Turner is remorseful and wery, wery sowwy :'(He also states that one of the factors was that he wasn't "armed with a weapon" which is arguably not true since witness accounts state he assaulted her with a pine branch.
Then
>"..whether the manner in which the crime was carried out demonstrated criminal sophistication or professionalism on the part of the defendant. And this was not – Mr. Turner’s actions on that night did not demonstrate criminal sophistication"Y'know, because dragging someone into a dark alleyway to assault them instead of doing it out in the open isn't a sign of sophisticated thoughts of crime.
The conclusion:
>"Obviously, a prison sentence would have a severe impact on him…it’s probably more true with a youthful offender sentenced to state prison at a – at a young age.">"the adverse collateral consequences on the defendant’s life resulting from the felony conviction…sex offender registration that he’ll be subject to for life…secondly, with respect to the media attention that’s been given to the case, it has not only impacted the victim in this case, but also Mr. Turner." The amount of publicity should be given NO COLLATERAL CONSIDERATION. This is nonsensical! This is like saying nobody deserves time because they get an article written about them in the newspaper.
This is absolute bullshit.
No. 109387
>>109386>He spends little time on her and the most time on Turner: Why would he talk about her? He said what needed to be said about her, it was his sentencing, not hers.
>What kind of "good" reasoning is it to hold a person "less morally culpable" just because they were intoxicatedReading comprehension friend, he says it's a mitigating factor, but not an important one in his decision. And a drunk person will always get a lower sentence than someone who does it sober in any case, because that's how mitigating factors work. But it's not a major reason in why he made the choice he did.
>So judge admits the kid does illegal shit while trying to say he's got a squeaky clean history. Please, that clearly is referring to the kid getting caught with some pot, not a serious crime. It's also pending, so isn't a criminal history, and he has to be treated as innocent.
>Yeah, lets pardon criminals because family and friends say they were good.Do you know anything about how a trial works? Character statements are hugely important to find out what the person's generally like.
>btw Turner is remorseful and wery, wery sowwy :'(Putting something in retarded words doesn't make it wrong friend. Showing remorse is a hugely important factor in any sentencing, for any crime, from murder to shoplifting.
>which is arguably not true since witness accounts state he assaulted her with a pine branch.Why would he assault an intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness person with a branch? Clearly these witness accounts were not reliable, otherwise the jury would have convicted him of that.
>Y'know, because dragging someone into a dark alleyway to assault themThere's absolutely no evidence this happened, especially when the claim is that she consented in the moment. They were found in an alley, both intoxicated. That's all that was able to be confirmed as to where they were or how they got there. And even if he did drag her out, that's not evidence of professionalism or any sophistication, simply that he moved her. That's like saying you're a criminal professional because you don't go and hand yourself in after you commit a crime.
Stop twisting facts.
>The amount of publicity should be given NO COLLATERAL CONSIDERATION.That's not a very logical thing to say anon. If he's already suffered extra punishment as a result of outside influences, that should absolutely impact how they're punished as far as incarceration goes.
>This is absolute bullshit.Not really, he refers directly to appropriate acts and cites previous cases for every decision he made. You just lied and typed it in condescending terms to try to discredit it, but that doesn't really work when the article is right there for everyone to see.
You're now arguing that the entire criminal justice system worked to get this guy free, despite him having three years probation for a sexual assault, which is a completely normal sentence to give. He was not convicted of rape (by a jury, not a judge), and sentencing procedures or what's appropriate in a rape trial don't apply here.
No. 109414
>>109344
>You underestimate the power of humiliation as a deterrent.Are you from Singapore anon? I've never heard anybody else advocate caning as a means of addressing criminality.
Anyway I think I might have been overly dismissive when I answered your post. . .BUT: Corporal punishment, specifically caning revolves not just around humiliation but also the infliction of pain. It hurts like a bitch when you get smacked with a wet piece of rattan, and it leaves scars afterward.
In early america we used to brand criminals (when we didn't just hang them) i.e. we would burn a T on a suspected thief's forehead or cheek for example. We used flogging too, which is probably the closest thing to what you're suggesting.
In fact, some of our more backwater states still paddle school children.
I don't want to derail the tread too much so I'm going to keep my answers brief if they don't have much to do with the Turner case so I'm going to make probably an overly brief and overly simplistic statement:
Corporal punishment's benefits are vastly overstated compared to its downsides, both as practiced here currently and also in Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew. It's been determined unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, so changing the law would be hard.
I also don't think singapore is a good model to look to for legal solutions because they jail people indefinately without trial (yes, I know you can make a "no U" argument here, and it's somewhat justified), and execution is mandatory for certain crimes in singapore.
The streets might be clean and the trains may run on time, but there are massive tradeoffs involved which would cut against fundamental shit in the american constitution. TL;DR No room for dissent and crap civil & human rights.
>Why do you think people, well, non-black people anyway, took to the streets to protest the execution of Stanley WilliamsTookie Williams maintained his innocence until he died. I don't buy it, but I assume some people did. There were problems with his trial which his supporters think warranted a stay. When we executed him we fucked it up. There were plenty of reasons for people to be mad.
>it's a desire to posture, to prove that you are so moral, you're so above those beastly peopleNope. Fundamentally backward and overly simplistic conception of reality that is patently untrue, and a rehash of old, debunked ideology. The wheels come off the second this worldview hits sunlight. This isn't the thread for arguing that though.
>>109358>>109344
>So you believe the variance in propensity towards aggression is 100% determined by environment?
>yes aggression can be genetic to some extentI wouldn't go so far as to say that genetics are irrelevant with respect to things like this, but the effects on things like crime rates and criminality are vanishingly small.
I don't think crime can be explained by how individuals react to elevated cortisol levels, or how well their genes predispose (or don't) their ability to react to stress hormones.
In any case evidence that a person had a certain gene or didn't would be inadmissible in court as evidence that they were more or less likely to be a criminal. Why is complicated and probably boring af to most of the anons reading this.
>>109363
>I'll bet part of the mitigating factors were due to the victim having no memory of the crime.Well, usually in rape cases the victim's memory of what happened or didn't can be very important in determining what happened, but in this case BT was discovered by other grad students so there were other people who could attest to what was going on
>>109376
>I don't get why people in this thread are going around calling it that.What BT did would be classified as rape in some places, but not in California. He was originally charged with that. The charge was reduced for some reason: maybe BT had good lawyers, maybe he cut a deal with the prosecution, maybe the prosecutor didn't think they had quite enough evidence to support a full-on rape charge etc.
Either way, thanks for posting the transcript.
>>109386
>This is absolute bullshit.Yup.
>>109387
>Character statements are hugely important to find out what the person's generally like.This is true, but the admission of character evidence is in criminal trials hugely nuanced and it is an absolute minefield.
>Why would he assault an intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness person with a branch? Clearly these witness accounts were not reliable, otherwise the jury would have convicted him of that.Assault can mean a lot of things, but generally it means somebody touched you (or made something else touch you) on purpose, and did so in an offensive way.
That's what it means. So if I throw a glass of wine on your skirt, or blow cigarette smoke in your face, you could sue me for assault.
Here, there was a pine branch. He may have run a twig over her shoulder or he might have penetrated her with a big branch. There's a lot you could do to assault an unconscious person
Idk what turner did from looking at the transcript
>which is a completely normal sentence to give.It's light. Not so out of left field that it's going to be appealed, but it's very light.
No. 109423
>>109414>vanishingly small It's not a default position to assume that 99.9% of the variance of a behavioral trait is determined by environment. Read some behavioral psychology (I recommend Turkheimer), the default assumption, even in behavioral genetics, is that it's a 50/50 split. If you suggest or imply it is 99.999%, which you do, then you need to prove it. This is what we mean by the term "variance".
On the subject of aggression, we have good reason to believe it plays a very critical role, see:
At one end of the androgen receptor gene, which is alternatively labeled AR or NR3C4, there are varying amounts of the trinucleotide repeats CAG and GGC.
Fewer CAG repeats causes increased transactivation of the receptor (meaning that the receptor became more activated to increase gene expression), see the research here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8065934Cortisol responses are another area that highlight racial differences in behavior. a new study by Way and Taylor has found that the short allele of 5-HTTLPR causes increased cortisol responses to a perceived social threat provided by the Trier Social Stress Test.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322309012724/abstractAlso, a new study by Armbruster et al found that the 7R allele of DRD4 causes lower cortisol responses and that this allele interacted with the long allele of 5-HTTLPR to lower cortisol response to social stress.
http://www.citeulike.org/group/6880/article/6445652
>human rightsIf having certain kinds of human rights, you haven't specified which, and it's worth noting that what is considered a human right is a continuously expanding thing (some people think broadband internet should be considered a human right for example) is more important to you than safe streets, that's fine, but don't expect people to consider the US as an example to follow or for the rest of the world to follow you, because to the vast majority of people anywhere, having safe, clean streets where your wife or kids can walk at night are far, far more important than the human rights industry.
And honestly I don't care what's unconstitutional or not, lawyers and judges read into the constitution what they want, a guy called Goodwin Liu thinks the constitution mandates reparations for slavery. Now there's no way you can seriously believe that was in the scope of what the founders intended, but it's perfectly possible through enough verbal chicanery to read that sort of thing into the constitution. So really, the constitution is sort of meaningless, since everyone reads whatever they want into it, from hardcore sovereign citizen lolberg types to hardcore bernout types who want reparations.
>specifically caning revolves not just around humiliation but also the infliction of pain. It hurts like a bitch when you get smacked with a wet piece of rattan, and it leaves scars afterward.You're selling me on it more and more.
>both as practiced here currently and also in Singapore under Lee Kwan YewWhere's the evidence?
>they jail people indefinately without trialSo do the US. Remember Guantanamo? Actually a significant proportion of those released from Gitmo have gone on to play a key role in Islamist networks across the Mid East.
>and execution is mandatory for certain crimes in singapore.And the results are there to see with your own eyes. Kids in East Asia don't think about drugs in the same nonchalant, irreverent way that American kids do. They certainly don't "experiment" with them as much. People who do that sort of thing in countries like Japan and Singapore aren't regarded as "cool", they're regarded as fucking losers. As it should be.
>TL;DR No room for dissent and crap civil & human rights.There are legal opposition parties in Singapore. I'm not denying that it's a de facto one party state, but you can't just point to things that non-westerners generally don't care as much about and say "yeah, but we have these things, that means we're better".
There are real, objective measures of quality of life, education, productivity and so on we can use to compare different countries, and the fact is that the US is falling behind in most of them compared to Far Eastern states. You can't just discount these things with a "b…but human rights!" defense. Do you think Brazil would be better or worse if they let police off the hook and brought the murder rate in Rio down to 5% of what it is now, for example?
Do you really think the "right" for a criminal to have endless appeals is worth tens of thousands of dead, for example? I don't.
>There were problems with his trial which his supporters think warranted a stay.You can say this about every single trial ever conducted. No single trial is an example of every single person involved believing that procedure was carried out to the letter, if that's your standard of proof for there being room for a stay, then the court system would literally never conclude cases. At all. Which is what lawyers want I guess, for even more misallocation of labor to the legal industry away from productive industries.
>debunked ideologyWhat ideology is debunked? What are you even talking about? This is just waffle.
No. 109424
File: 1473011498915.png (86.58 KB, 869x483, 1409847529159.png)
>>109423In 2008 Rajender et al determined that male control subjects average 21.19 repeats, rapists average 18.44 repeats, murderers average 17.59 repeats, and men who murder after they finish raping average 17.31 repeats.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/50x2125530hku64l/fulltext.pdf?page=1
>"but nothing politically uncomfortable is determined by genes! all of those traits are 100% environmental and determined by social causes like racism">"except homosexuality, which is 100% genetic.">"and sexual fetishes, which are also inbuilt, and definitely not influenced by an increasing number of children viewing increasingly hardcore pornography, you fucking puritan prude!"Why so much doublethink libs?
No. 109448
>>109414>He was originally charged with that.It doesn't really matter what you're charged with though, it matters what you're convicted with. If I get charged with murder it doesn't make me a murderer.
>This is true, but the admission of character evidence is in criminal trials hugely nuanced and it is an absolute minefield.Of course, but I'd assume a judge would understand this, simply playing it off as if it doesn't actually matter is ridiculous. It's important.
>Idk what turner did from looking at the transcriptIt doesn't even sound like he did anything, I've not even seen any witnesses claiming that he did, let alone medical evidence that he battered her with it or something, let alone penetration. It sounds like bullshit someone just made up to make the case sound worse to me.
>It's light. Not so out of left field that it's going to be appealed, but it's very light.It is, but there were plenty of reasons given as to why it would be light, with reference to legislation that says those are the reasons to give probation instead of more jail time. You can disagree with the sentence, but just pretending it wasn't in keeping with sentencing procedure is ridiculous, as is claiming that it was so light he deserves some retard vigilante sorts to go after him.
>>109427Just ignore anyone you see posting those images, he's been spamming them and shitposting in a bunch of threads and argues almost entirely by just insulting people and through fallacies. It's not worth trying to talk to him.
No. 109454
>>109423A few points:
>It's not a default position to assume that 99.99%I wouldn't go so far as to say the effect of genetics on criminal propensity is
that small; there are twin studies and so forth that suggest that it does play some role. I do think it's a puzzle piece, albeit a very small one. Most criminality is determined by a multitude of environmental factors that interlock, and there are one hell of a lot of moving parts involved. Reality leads some individuals to do bad things. This isn't to say genetics play no role, but to overstate their importance leads to "minority report" type problems— the assumption that people are culpable before they've even actually done anything.
>lawyers and judges read into the constitution what they wantAbsolutely true. For example it flat out says the US isn't supposed to have paper money or an income tax, but those things have been read in.
That said, if you don't have an entrenched legal document, there's very little stability and treating it as completely meaningless makes it 100 times harder to have a functional society. It DOES set out the broad contours of what the government can and can't do, which makes it important. It protects the rights of political minorities and it is very difficult to change, which helps with predictibility.
>a guy called Goodwin LiuI don't like him either, but when Hillary wins there's a nonzero chance that he'll end up on the Supreme Court. I hope your body is ready.
>So do the US. I actually made an oblique reference to GTMO in my post, and you picked up on it. The silly line that the Federal Government gives on that issue is basically "No no no guise we don't indefinitely detain the terrorists for punishment reasons, it's to keep them from rejoining the war on terror! So you see, we're better than singapore because they just do it as punishment."
You're thinking that's a crock of shit and I agree, though I suspect our reasons are probably very different. If you're going to argue it sharply undercuts the american position I also agree. It's a line that never should have been crossed and it was. At least when we had used that rationale in the past in was in the context of POWs and there was some kind of endpoint in sight, so it was finite.
>Tookie WilliamsI wasn't arguing he should've been given a stay, I was responding to your point that all his supporters were just posturing for the news cameras. I don't think that's accurate,at least some of them probably thought he really didn't do anything. If there's one problem I have with his case it's that we fucked up his execution.
I have problems with the death penalty more generally, in that I don't think it's an effective deterrent. It's been justified by the Supreme Court on pure deterrance grounds (i.e. they said it was never justifiable as pure retribution, but I forget which case they said that in). If the only case to be made for it is deterrence it shouldn't be on the table.
If it IS on the table, then we should at least kill people right.
That said, here is your position as you've staked it out. If I'm overgeneralizing or being unfair, let me know where:
>Niggers have a genetic predisposition toward criminality, and if they step out of line we should beat them with pieces of wood until they learn their place. I disagree. I don't think race or gender are determinative of very much at all. Your position isn't going to change and neither is mine. We can keep arguing ad infinitum but at this point we're both shitting up an unrelated thread, and nobody else cares.
This is an argument for the race thread, and continuing it here is pointless.
The last point I'll make b/c you deserve to be answered, but I don't want to derail things more than we already have:
When I mentioned ideology I meant your assertion that the only reason people don't agree with you is only because they want the rest of society to think they're awesome.
It's crap. I think criminals ought to be treated a certain way not because I give two shits about people think about me, but because I know the way they get treated today is the way the rest of society gets treated tomorrow. In putting out the fire on your neighbors house you keep it from spreading to your own.
>>109448
>It doesn't really matter what you're charged with thoughYou said you didn't get why people kept calling it rape. I said the original charge WAS rape which is why probably why people think he was convicted of that. Plus other states define what he did as rape, so some people aren't going to know that California doesn't.
>simply playing it off as if it doesn't actually matter is ridiculous.I wasn't especially clear, but the letters attesting to what a stellar person the defendant is are only admissible during sentencing. The jury never saw those until they rendered a verdict. The judge relied on them pretty heavily, and departed from an already light reccommended sentence. Both are things which are legal for him to do, but a lot of people feel like BT got off too easy and that the judge was in the tank for him from the get go.
Like I said, his sentence isn't so far off base that there's grounds for appeal. But I do think the legal rationale was crap.
As to what BT actually did, I read a source (which is behind a paywall, so you're free to take this with as many grains of salt as you like) that laid out the facts like this:
Brock Turner was intoxicated, with a BAC at twice the legal limit to drive.
He led an even more intoxicated chick he knew (ID'd as Jane Doe) away from where they were drinking.
She went voluntarily, and they hung out for a bit until she passed out.
time passes. . .
Swedish grad students bork onto the scene
They see BT grinding on a passed-out Jane Doe, he's clothed.
They confront him and apparently he'd been fingerbanging her while she was unconscious, and they said he'd also stuck a tree branch partway up her ass
He loses his shit and runs away
they bork after him in pursuit
Campus police get involved and arrest him
I think he wasn't charged with rape because he didn't have the time to go further then he did.
No. 109455
>>109454>You said you didn't get why people kept calling it rape.Fair enough, but I think it's still unfair to call him a rapist at this point when he's not.
>I wasn't especially clear, but the letters attesting to what a stellar person the defendant is are only admissible during sentencingWhich is what I was talking about, the actual verdict came from the jury, not the judge.
>But I do think the legal rationale was crap.Not really, it was all based off legislation or past cases, which is how it's meant to be done.
>They confront him and apparently he'd been fingerbanging her while she was unconscious, and they said he'd also stuck a tree branch partway up her assThis is what I found on the topic
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/brock-turner-bystanders_us_5755b3e1e4b0c3752dce45f8There's no mention of a stick at all. It also would be kind of odd that if she was penetrated with a foreign object that there'd be no medical proof of this, because that would absolutely cause damage, and the police were involved almost immediately.
I have a feeling this whole thing about the stick has just been made up after someone misinterpreted "penetration with a foreign object", which in this case meant his finger, because I can't find anything at all about it, not in the transcript of his sentencing, not in quotes from the people who found him, she's said nothing about it, there's no medical evidence, just nothing. It's possibly I just haven't found it yet, but still, surely that would at least come up in the sentencing or the witnesses would say something?
No. 109462
>>109454>I wouldn't go so far as to say the effect of genetics on criminal propensity is that smallYou quite literally called it "vanishingly small" in your previous response. Are we to assume by "vanishingly small" you actually mean "somewhat significant"?
And you're dancing around the central issue here, which is that assuming something is 99% down to environment is not a default position. The default position, if anything (read some behavioral psychology) is that behavioral traits are a 50/50 split, then things like genome-wide association studies are done to hammer down what exactly the split is.
>but to overstate I haven't even offered an exact position on the matter except saying that they play a significant role. How can you know whether I'm overstating their importance or not when you've gone from saying they are essentially unimportant to saying that they're somewhat important?
Did you even read the studies I linked?
>That said, if you don't have an entrenched legal document, there's very little stability There's actually no correlation worldwide between states with a higher body of codified law and stability and never has been.
>but when Hillary wins there's a nonzero chance that he'll end up on the Supreme Court. I don't care, the US is fucked in the long run anyway, for reasons far beyond the cognitive capacity of the average bullshitty lawyer (hollowing out of various industries, loss of capital intensive manufacturing competitive advantages, increasing racial balkanization that cause the US to increasingly resemble an Empire rather than a Nation and so on).
This is what liberals such as yourself don't understand. Whether or not you have stewardship of a sinking ship is irrelevant at this point.
>I have problems with the death penalty more generally, in that I don't think it's an effective deterrent.Compare the numbers of people who are murdered every year in the US with the number of them that receive the death penalty. Of course if there's a <1% chance of receiving the death penalty anyway it won't act as a deterrent.
The reason Singapore's strict liability laws for drugs work is because if you're caught with a certain amount, you stand a very good chance of receiving capital punishment.
>It's been justified by the Supreme Court on pure deterrance grounds You're arguing like a lawyer, i.e. with reference to case law. The issue here isn't one of case law, it's one of ethical philosophy. Of course a liberal state like the United States is going to take a dim view of retributive justice and the various cases that go through its courts are going to echo this. Your method of argumentation is like me referring to the constitution of North Korea to justify authoritarianism. It's circular.
>If I'm overgeneralizing or being unfair, let me know where:Nice strawmen, but the laws of mendelian inheritance don't exclusively apply to blacks.
>It's crap.Virtue signalling and social polarization are real psychological phenomena.
No. 109481
File: 1473072223878.gif (1.01 MB, 500x347, giphy (7).gif)
Brock literally did no wrong.
>got drunk
>a drunk girl let him finger her
>she falls asleep
>two cucks see and REEE
She was a whore and he did no wrong. He served 3 months too long.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)
No. 109483
File: 1473072745751.jpg (52.88 KB, 260x400, Paulie1.jpg)
>>109482Not even baiting. I genuinely don't see what he did wrong. It's not even like he was in a better state of mind, they were both drunk. She allegedly said yes as well. Who gives a shit?
No. 109484
>>109483Because there's no evidence she actually let him, just his word. And as was said, even if consent was given, why would he keep going after she passed out? Consent isn't a "Oh, you said yes once so now I have consent forever" thing, and an unconscious person cannot consent.
You're not fooling anyone anon, at least put bait on the hook next time.
No. 109504
>>109498Anon, have you heard of the fallacy Reductio ad absurdum? It's basically taking a statement, turning it into something absurd and then using that as an argument. Do you see how you just did that?
The point is that consent can be withdrawn at any point, that continued consent is implied by your actions. An unconscious person cannot provide consent for any further sexual activity, and as such consent is automatically withdrawn.
To use a slightly more extreme analogy, if you ask to borrow someone's car, you can only use it for the period they consent to you doing so, right?
If you borrow someone's car and then kill them, you don't then become the new owner of a car because they can't say they want it back, do you?
Ignoring that murder is different to passing out, my point is that consent is something that is actively given, and when you're put in a scenario where you can't actually give it anymore, you can no longer consent.
>>109500It's the exact same points as
>>109481 down to insulting the people who stopped it, just using different meme terms after
>>109482 pointed out he should use different ones next time.
You also replied at the same time as he did.
No. 109511
File: 1473087585163.jpg (13.71 KB, 257x276, 1506473303.jpg)
>>109481>tfw you know which boards this fat neckbeard lurks just because of the way he formatted his shitty bait End my suffering.
No. 109532
>>109529>It wasn't rape.He wasn't convicted of rape, read the thread.
> And this whole idea that consent can just be taken away whenever is fucking bullshitRead
>>109504 Consent is something you must continue to give, and an unconscious person can't do that.
There's also, as I said, no evidence that she consented except that he said she did from what I've read.
No. 109562
>>109504You seem confused. Reductio ad absurdum is exactly what I did, except it isn't a fallacy, it's a perfectly legitimate way of demonstrating the absurdity of someone else's position by following it to its logical conclusion.
Still I was just funposting, but calling someone a rapist and demanding he spend years in prison for drunkenly sticking his fingers into a girl and then not noticing or not having the presence of mind to stop when she passes out is full hysteria.
>>109505Nod really, stuff like that is no big deal to normal people.
No. 109569
>>109533Well, seeing as consent is mostly a legal term, what the law defines it as is what it is.
And once again, there's no evidence she actually consented.
And he wasn't so drunk he didn't know he was doing something wrong, that's why he took off.
>>109562>except it isn't a fallacyExcept it objectively is, because it's not debating the actual point raised, it's turning it into something ridiculous and arguing against that.
>following it to its logical conclusion.The logical conclusion of "you must continue to provide consent" isn't "So you have to say I consent over and over again".
If you consent to sex you don't have to actually say the words "Yes, I consent to being penetrated by you in these particular ways".
>calling someone a rapistHe's not a rapist, objectively, he's been convicted for sexual assault.
And as was said, he wasn't so drunk he didn't know what he was doing was wrong, because he ran off as soon as someone saw him doing it.
No. 109588
>>109586>what is the logical conclusion?The logical conclusion was exactly what I said, that consent is an active process that is mostly based around body language and the persons reacting to your actions, as well as the fact that they haven't said otherwise and are actually able to say otherwise.
If a person can't say otherwise, they can't consent.
It's not a topic that will result in something else, the conclusion is contained within it. Same as water being wet doesn't have a logical conclusion, because it's simply a fact.
No. 109591
>>109533How do robots manage to live with this level of cognitive dissonance?
>i want sex>i want a gf to fuck>i wanna be chad and fuck girls>NO SYMPATHY FOR GIRLS WHO HAVE SEX THOUGH Seriously, how does that even work? Do you hate yourself for being lewd and disgusting too? Or do you hate the hot sluts because they make you think lewd stuff? Why the hell is sex such a terrible thing?
You are fucking crazy
No. 109604
>>109591You're missing a step there:
>NO SYMPATHY FOR GIRLS WHO HAVE SEX WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T MESee? No cognitive dissonance. You just didn't go full robot.
No. 109614
>>109610Read the victim statement and some court docs on the injuries. Not sure if she had tears in her vaginal canal, but she had leaves, dirt and rocks in her vagina so he was inserting debris in as he was fingering her which was most likely purposefully since there was a significant amount. The report on her injuries include significant abrasions on the back of her arms and hands. Soooo let's evaluate:
1. She was found unconscious by eye witnesses.
2. Perpetrator ran when discovered
3. Debris, rock and dirt found in vagina.
4. Abrasions in areas of body that indicate dragging.
Here are some reasonable assumptions:
Most people, when intoxicated enough to pass out usually don't instigate sex, but wander to the nearest wall or secluded area to sit down or lay down because of the dizziness. There's a lower chance of her being able to communicate consent or willingness for sex if she's drunk enough to pass during sex.
Being drunk she probably found a secluded area in the house and passed out. Brock pulled the girl outside the house to rape her. This is evident by abrasions on the back of her hands. Of course he pulled her behind a dumpster instead of a bedroom because there's less a chance of someone walking in on him. Or, depending on the lay out of the house, was closer to the dumpster.
Brock would have never run to leave someone who consented.
What sort of sick fuck fingers a girl while she's passed out? It's obvious with all the dirt and rocks inside of her that he was crudely performing rape and not just having sex with a party girl.
No. 109650
>>109618Hi, people still get raped by people they
know.
No. 110323
>>110322>Why does everyone want him strung up and lynched?Because he's a rich, white male who attended a good school. You realize a very vocal minority of the population genuinely believes that white, rich males should be strung up and lynched on that basis alone?
I mean, let's be real here. Nobody would give a shit if he were black and lived in some slum in south Chicago.
>He's on the sex offender registry and his life is ruined already, let it beThis, seriously. I'm not saying he's a good guy, but it's time to get the fuck over it. If the fact that he's a rapist offends you this horribly, get some help for yourself. You won't fix system, certainly not by being perpetually enraged over every little injustice that makes the news.
No. 110402
>>110323>Because he's a rich, white male who attended a good school. It just means that of all the kinds of folks out there he should have been the most aware of the consequences. He threw away his graces and savagely raped someone. Why do we have to feel sympathy for anybody who commits this shit? Why does the scale tip so hard for rich white boy?
Reason why cares fade when it comes to poor black crime is usually because those offenders get the fullest extent of the law thrown at them i.e. sex offender registration in addition to jail time, and then probation for long after the release.
Nobody will "get over it" because of your say so. And since you both seem to be on his dick so much, you should gander that thread on pt where those psychopath bitches write to convicts and create blogs about how they want to marry them and shit. Because fuck, they think they should be free too!
>"Yeah he committed an injustice but you all shouldn't be outraged."Fuck.
No. 110456
>>110402>Why do we have to feel sympathy for anybody who commits this shit? Why does the scale tip so hard for rich white boy?It doesn't. Both people have been punished appropriately, in keeping with sentencing legislation and past cases, and the only reason anyone's screaming about this is purely because he's rich. The crime isn't better or worse based on how much cash or melanin you have.
> And since you both seem to be on his dick so much, you should gander that thread on pt where those psychopath bitches write to convicts and create blogs about how they want to marry them and shit. Because fuck, they think they should be free too!Yeah, because that's not a false equivalency at all. None of us here want his sentence removed, we just think this retarded calling for vigilante justice against someone who has already been punished and will continue to be punished for the rest of his life is retarded.
No. 110486
http://louderwithcrowder.com/vanderbilt-football-star-rape-was-payback-for-400-years-of-slavery/Barely anything about this on the msm. Note that blm are getting mad about the sentence and comparing it to brock Turner but that 15 years was the minimum a judge could have imposed on this. And the judge was black.
If anyone is "untouchable" in America it is black athletes. They seem to get away with this shit over and over again. Jameis Winston was just one of many.
No. 110509
>>110402>all the kinds of folks out therefound the BLM activist.
>Why does the scale tip so hard for rich white boy?lmao why don't you tell us all about that combined six figure salary your parents pull in per year? fuck off, you bougie nigger.
No. 110559
>>110456>and the only reason anyone's screaming about this is purely because he's richNo, it's because he did something horrendous but because of his status, that was the reason why he was spared the usual sentence. Did you not read the judge's opinion? He literally said that.
>None of us here want his sentence removedYeah, you just think the status quo for rich people "justice" is fine.
>>110509>mfw I'm white and think BLM is a terrorist organizationFound the rapist. MODS
No. 110570
>>110559>No, it's because he did something horrendous but because of his status, that was the reason why he was spared the usual sentence. Did you not read the judge's opinion? He literally said that.But it's not, and you're just making shit up to fit an agenda. The judge followed legislation relating to sentencing of this particular crime, as well as past cases.
Read what was linked in
>>109376 and stop arguing with emotions.
>Yeah, you just think the status quo for rich people "justice" is fine.You've not actually proven that it's different based on economic class, just asserted that it is. There's no "rich people sentencing act 1983" (I just used a random year), it's all based off the same legislation. Him being able to afford a better lawyer doesn't mean that the judge should be harsher on him, that's not how justice works.
No. 110578
>>110570I'm the same person who posted
>>109386, so no, I'm not using "emotions." The judge literally said he didn't want to issue a harsh sentence because of how it would affect his life.
>t-there's no such thing as rich people not getting preferential judicial outcomes Denial. Absolute denial. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.
No. 110583
>>110578>I'm the same person who posted >>109386Oh, you mean the post that almost entirely argued with emotions, ignored how the courts work, and then stopped replying after
>>109387 proved that?
>The judge literally said he didn't want to issue a harsh sentence because of how it would affect his life. Yes anon, that's how sentencing works. It's why we don't give everyone 40 years for every single crime, because the impact on their lives would be way too high.
>Denial. Absolute denial. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.Kek, so what you're saying is you can't actually explain why this happens in a way that isn't obviously because of better lawyers, but that you're sure it does, and it must be true because of that?
No. 110677
>>110583>entirely argued with emotionsHow?
>ignored how courts workYou mean how there's precedent for sexual assaults being punished with jail time? No, I believe I addressed that and why the judge is a biased cunt.
>then stopped replying after >>109387 proved that? More like I left the thread for a few days and forgot about your post, and someone else summed up what I was going to reply with anyway. Then you proceeded to argue with them for a few days. Even so, reading it over it doesn't seem to really prove anything.
We'll agree to disagree.
No. 110691
>>110677>How?Because it disregarded how the court system works, and was based off you feeling like it was wrong or not just.
>You mean how there's precedent for sexual assaults being punished with jail time?Which he got, and then got probation for a far longer period of time. Sexual assault is a very broad category.
>More like I left the thread for a few days and forgot about your post, and someone else summed up what I was going to reply with anywayThat person not only didn't agree with you, but also was making a bunch of crap up, particularly about the stick.
You can think whatever you want, but it doesn't change that you're just acting like some sort of SJW who thinks their opinion on what should happen is more important than judges following sentencing procedure and past cases.
This is such an insanely minor case compared to the vast majority that's out there, I have no idea why him being white and rich makes everyone feel like they need to go on about this in particular. He was punished. He'll continue to be punished for the rest of his life. There's nothing else to say.
No. 110705
>>110691
>He'll continue to be punished for the rest of his lifeThis is the dumbest cop out I hear quite often. He deserves more punishment law wise, being sneered at by people is nothing and is not a punishment for committing a -crime-
TBH I don't care if he's rich or white or whatever but he's a disgusting scum and deserved more jail time for the crime he committed. Although I do agree that there is definitely a racial bias in the justice system (I mean, there are racists/people with bias everywhere so It only makes sense sadly) and of course being rich gives you better defense lawyers etc. What bothers me most is that he got little jail time and that people were saying this was "just" and "how he doesn't deserve to get his life ruined for 20 minutes of action" sort of thing (if you chose to do a crime, you should pay for the consequences idc)
ESL anon sorry for bad grammar
No. 110707
>>110705>This is the dumbest cop out I hear quite often. He deserves more punishment law wise, being sneered at by people is nothing and is not a punishment for committing a -crime-You mean like the sex offender registry, which he's on? I wasn't talking about social issues, no-one will remember who he is a year or two from now, let alone his face 5 years down the line when it's completely different. When I say he's going to be punished for the rest of his life, I mean that he's going to be suffering legal consequences for what he did for the rest of his life.
>What bothers me most is that he got little jail time and that people were saying this was "just" and "how he doesn't deserve to get his life ruined for 20 minutes of action" sort of thing (if you chose to do a crime, you should pay for the consequences idc)I get what you're saying, and I wish people would just come out and say this. There's nothing wrong with feeling like he deserves more jail time. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
It becomes an issue when you start acting like it was all because of the judges bias, and not because as far as sexual assault goes, this was relatively minor, and according to the legislation that dictates how to sentence someone in the situation he's in, he didn't really deserve a super heavy jail sentence.
And that's ignoring how many people have just made stuff up to make it sound worse than it actually was, calling him a rapist, saying he alternatively either beat her or penetrated her with a branch, all sorts of crap.
Not justifying what he did either, don't get me wrong, it was still terrible, but as far as sexual assaults go, it wasn't particularly bad.
No. 110723
>>110709Well, obviously there's the part about it being a violent attack, but I think that's not the most important part.
It's a violent attack that results in you being absolutely demeaned and stripped of any power or autonomy after the fact. The person who raped them was using them, likely painfully for their own pleasure. It's closer in nature to torture than a normal assault, as it's the complete lack of ability to do anything while that person just uses you as an object for their own desires to be taken out on. You're not just getting punched.
Now, I think that alone is enough to explain why it would cause trauma, but there's also that sex is something people view as pleasurable, and something they have complete control over. When you take away that control, and present sex as a negative, it can become hard to detach it from that again and to become sexually healthy, particularly if it's more than once.
There's societal factors too, people feeling like they'll get blamed and looked down on (the same as someone who gets beaten up might lie about what happened because they feel bad they got beaten up, except on a larger scale). Combine that with the inherent nature of rape being incredibly hard to prove without you either going straight to a hospital or the police (which you're not likely to do considering the mental state you're likely to be in, which tends to be quite dissociated) or some other sort of evidence such as camera footage, and it becomes not only a bad event that happened, but then an event that the person feels like they have no recourse to.
Sure though, if we look at it purely logically it shouldn't cause your self esteem to drop or make you feel bad about some aspect of yourself, but that's pointless to say, humans aren't ever purely logical creatures, let alone when there's trauma involved.
I also think people tend to mix up really serious cases where someone's been raped repeatedly or in a really violent manner, and how people react to those, and the more common cases, which aren't as extreme. There's still issues that become present, but most people don't get severe PTSD or become socially crippled from it, they rely on family, maybe talk to someone professionally if they aren't coping great, and do tend to move on after a time.
No. 110726
>>110723>It's a violent attack that results in you being absolutely demeaned and stripped of any power or autonomy after the fact.Haha, this is funny, rape culture if finally starting to make sense to me. For a woman to have that power/autonomy after the fact, she needs social power to back her up because she's obviously weaker, so her options are to go to the government, which for understandable reasons, can't lower its standard of proof for dispensing justice. This also involves extremely humiliating medical procedures being done and photographs being take and presented in court for everyone to see of your used genitalia, so it's not really an option for most. Therefore, her only option is to speak out and hope to ruin his life. This certainly works in some cases, but if the culture doesn't reject a man who has been accused of rape, then there are no consequences and the public accusation becomes only a further humiliation for the victim.
No. 110727
>>110726Yep, that's pretty much what I feel like that term means, or should do at least.
Obviously rape isn't acceptable by any standards, but the way our society and legal system works means that it's hard to catch people doing it. There's not much to be done apart from improving our investigative techniques when it comes to rape, which admittedly we are getting a lot better at, when it comes to people who can't consent, we can catch them really well, but if someone can consent, it becomes a matter of one person saying consent was given, and one saying it wasn't, which obviously isn't enough to sentence someone over.
It's not a sexist thing really, it's just one of those shitty by products of other things, in this case our legal system.
With that being said, there really should be more focus pushing people who're victimised in that way to go have the appropriate examination done, so that the courts do have concrete evidence they can use, because it's by far the best tool we currently have for these cases.
No. 110770
>>110726Amazing explanation of rape culture.I'm tired of people claiming it's some 'feminazi lie' sort of thing.
This is exactly what happened to me. Got raped by boyfriend, reported it, shitty investigation with him even admitting it, he got arrested and charged with the crime, he had a court date, he took back his statement, all charges were dropped. People who knew both of us pretty much chalked me out to be the "bitch/"slut" that "ruined" his life (and I got facebook messages from people insulting me during this whole ordeal, seriously so disgusting).Eventually they canceled the trial date and the state attorney dropped the charges. I live in fear of walking into him (we live in the same town) and thinking about him hurting someone else, funny to me how socially in our friend circles and stuff no one dropped him or ostracized him but instead focused on blaming me.
He did get kicked out of his college though and lost his scholarship.
No. 110800
>>110726Generally photographic evidence of somebody's genitals isn't going to be admissible in court because it's usually not going to prove anything that isn't already proveable by other evidence like medical reports. The system, such as it is, really does try its best to minimize the ordeal when it comes to victims. There are certain things though which make trial a bitch and a half for rape victims though, and most of it revolves around things like the high standard of proof in criminal trials, or the right of the accused to have anyone testifying against them be in the same room when they do it, etc.
It's cold comfort, but you'd be amazed at how often the justice system actually works the way it's supposed to. The guilty do get theirs, most days.
Rape cases are very difficult to prosecute though.
>>110770I'm sorry to hear that, anon ):
I realize this probably sounds trite, but if the prosecutor dropped the case, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't believe you, just that they couldn't prove it in front of a jury.
Most of the problems for people in your position end up coming from the rest of society after the fact. It's shit, but I hope you're doing better.
No. 110811
>>110809I didn't say it was good, I said it's better than something like what
>>109211 spoke about.
To use another example, being stabbed in the neck is worse than being punched in the face, but that doesn't somehow make being punched a good thing.
No. 110849
>>110816You're assuming based on your emotional comprehension of said actions that being stabbed is the equivalent to a rape and a sexual assault is like being punched, with the knowledge that those actions could vary in severity and trauma to a lot of people given the factors.
Logical people don't make false equivalences and hope others won't notice.
No. 110850
>>110849
>You're assuming based on your emotional comprehension of said actions that being stabbed is the equivalent to a rape and a sexual assault is like being punched, with the knowledge that those actions could vary in severity and trauma to a lot of people given the factors. What? No, I'm not doing that at all, I'm saying that two things can both be bad while one is worse.
And being assaulted while unconscious is pretty objectively better than being raped and seriously disfigured while completely conscious, which is why the sentencing is so, so much higher for the latter.
What are you even trying to argue here? You're just asserting I'm wrong and naming fallacies (without really understanding how those fallacies work, or saying how they apply) without really saying what you think, or why what you think is right.
Is this some strange bait?
No. 110854
>>110850>I'm saying that two things can both be bad while one is worseIt's a bullshit equivalence.
Who is stabbing or punching you? A child or a 6' adult?
Where are you being hit? Wouldn't it be worse to take a punch to the back of the head and suffer brain damage than suffer a small cut on your hand from a stabbing?
How hard is the person punching or stabbing you?
You're manipulating the circumstances without admitting that certain variables could actually make a punch more harmful than a stabbing.
In certain circumstances, a sexual assault (like what happened to Turner's victim) could seem more traumatizing than statutory rape, for instance. Even at that, who are you or I to determine how another person was traumatized by a particular crime? I'm sure Turner's victim wouldn't have wanted neither to be assaulted behind a dumpster or have her eyelids torn off during a rape. We don't try crimes based on how "bad" they were compared to another crime, we try them based on how many laws the crime violated.
Anyway, if you're the same person who's bumping the 1-2 year old threads you seem like an arrogant autist with nothing better to do than argue and say "no u."
No. 110855
>>110854>Who is stabbing or punching you? A child or a 6' adult?What different does it make who stabs me?
>Where are you being hit? Wouldn't it be worse to take a punch to the back of the head and suffer brain damage than suffer a small cut on your hand from a stabbing?Did you actually read my post?
>How hard is the person punching or stabbing you?Lets assume full force, as no-one half heartedly rapes someone.
>You're manipulating the circumstances without admitting that certain variables could actually make a punch more harmful than a stabbing. Says the person who just ignored everything I said to manipulate the circumstances to make it seem like it doesn't work.
>In certain circumstances, a sexual assault (like what happened to Turner's victim) could seem more traumatizing than statutory rape, for instance. Even at that, who are you or I to determine how another person was traumatized by a particular crime?In what situation would someone prefer to be fingered while unconscious compared to brutally raped and disfigured while conscious?
>We don't try crimes based on how "bad" they were compared to another crime, we try them based on how many laws the crime violated.That's just flat out false. Murder is a single crime, that the average sentence for sits well above 10 years. It violates one law.
You can litter and act in an obscene way in public (as in swearing, or spitting somewhere), and you're not even going to get any jail time.
We don't judge by how many laws it violate, a more severe crime will get a more serious sentence.
>Anyway, if you're the same person who's bumping the 1-2 year old threads you seem like an arrogant autist with nothing better to do than argue and say "no u."Why would you possibly think I was that person? You replied to me, and I replied back to you.
Seriously, is this some weird attempt to bait? You're just ignoring things I said to try to make a point, lying about how the law works, and now making weird accusations, while still not actually explaining anything.
No. 110856
>>110855Oh gosh, you're gonna do that annoying single-sentence greentext thing. Whew lassie.
The "different" is that between a minor and an adult stabbing you, the punishments for the crime would be different by default. DId you read my post? Or are you just going to carry on insisting you're right about shit you clearly don't understand?
How come you're ignoring the statutory rape example? You realize that there have been 18 year olds jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends because the parents got pissed. Why is it that they haven't committed a violent sex crime (like Turner) yet don't receive as lenient punishments? Wouldn't someone rather be softly fucked by their bf than be sexually assaulted by a stranger altogether? Tell me that.
>You can litter and act in an obscene way in public (as in swearing, or spitting somewhere), and you're not even going to get any jail time.Don't be so confident about that one.
>Why would you possibly think I was that person?The posts were made in the last hour and they do the same annoying thing you do by spacing out every other sentence, of course.
Hurr, u b8ing me anon?
No. 110858
>The "different" is that between a minor and an adult stabbing you, the punishments for the crime would be different by default. Sure, because responsibility also impacts your sentencing, alongside severity of crime, and a child is assume to have less responsibility than an adult. But severity is still the major factor for what a crime is, and what the baseline sentence for it is.
>You realize that there have been 18 year olds jailed for having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends because the parents got pissed.In what country? Nearly everywhere I know of has laws that mean you can't go to jail if it's within a certain timeframe to avoid stupid shit like that, which usually ends up being a two year safe period.
And even if we assume what you're saying is true (it's not), an exception required to create an important law (that people under the age of consent can't consent, to stop people abusing children) doesn't change that what I said is still in almost every situation within criminal law, entirely accurate.
>Don't be so confident about that one. Well seeing as neither carry jail time, I'm completely confident about it.
>The posts were made in the last hour and they do the same annoying thing you do by spacing out every other sentence, of course. So becase someone else posts in the same hour as me, they must be me? By that same logic, I'm actually you.
>>110857Take your meds.
No. 110865
>>110858>In what country?The United States, to name one.
>Nearly everywhere I know of has laws that mean you can't go to jail if it's within a certain timeframeWhen the person is at least two-three years older, but that's only in certain states. In states where that limitation doesn't apply, prosecution is fair game:
>https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm
>Well seeing as neither carry jail timeLol, you're undeservingly smug. Why yes, in some states it is an offense worthy of jailtime when you litter:
>http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/states-with-littering-penalties.aspxAnd swearing? There are exemptions to free speech in the United States. You can't always swear anywhere you'd please. For example if you swear in court at a judge you can be held in contempt and be sentenced to jailtime.
Don't speak if you're only guessing on what's legal and what isn't. You didn't even bother to look first.
No. 110879
>>110865Yeah, okay, you're just ignoring the majority of what I'm saying to argue semantics.
For example, you're going "But if you litter you can go to jail", while ignoring that those laws are referring to people who dump ridiculous amounts of stuff in public places. Seriously, show me a single case where someone went to prison for throwing a can on the ground.
>For example if you swear in court at a judge you can be held in contempt and be sentenced to jailtime.Which isn't in public, and being held in contempt isn't a sentence.
And as for the laws about child abuse, first off, can you find me a case where that happened? And secondly, as I said, it's a by product of the system.
And when the few states that don't have that limitation have brilliant laws like
>Criminal inducement to get a person under age 18 of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourseIt's pretty much impossible to prosecute. Seriously, did you read your link? Every single other state bar maybe Idaho, which is clearly not the entire legislation has this limitation in some form or another.
>Don't speak if you're only guessing on what's legal and what isn't. You didn't even bother to look first.Says the person who's not only twisted my words to go "haha you're wrong and I'm right" (you know when I'm talking about littering I'm not talking about large scale public dumping), but also claimed that the severity of the sentence you get is based on how many laws you break, not on what your crime is.
And how does this pedantic shit actually support you at all? Your point was that you can't say one crime is objectively more severe than another, right? How is going "Yeah well if you dump literally hundreds of pounds of crap in public you can get 6 months in prison so therefore it's considered a crime as bad as murder in the court system", while ignoring that any murder will get you at least 10 years unless there's extraordinary circumstances surrounding it supposed to support that claim?
No. 110880
>>110879Hahaha, wait, wait, wait…you're angry at
me because you failed to articulate your own point?
You never said "if I only throw a tin out the window," no, you said "you can't ever be arrested for littering." Fuck you retard, lmao. It's your own fault.
>laws about child abuse I'm talking about statutory rape, not child abuse in general. To refresh your mind before you get too sidetracked in your own circular argument: Your original comparison
>>110850, was to say
>"And being assaulted while unconscious is pretty objectively better than being raped and seriously disfigured while completely conscious, which is why the sentencing is so, so much higher for the latter"And I countered by stating that non-violent, consensual statutory rape is often punished by jail time. However, Turner violently assaulted an non-consenting, unconscious person and was awarded no jail time. Therefore your logic about sentences being doled out based on how "bad" they are is technical bullshit.
>It's pretty much impossible to prosecute.No it's not.
>Says the person who's not only twisted my words Yeah, other people are expected to read your mind and infer what you mean on generalized words, and how dare they get a different meaning than what you intended for.
Honestly I wouldn't surmise you're over the age of 18 with the way you argue. You're so entitled.
No. 110882
>>110880>Hahaha, wait, wait, wait…you're angry at me because you failed to articulate your own point?Oh yeah, I'm positively furious.
>You never said "if I only throw a tin out the window," no, you said "you can't ever be arrested for littering." Fuck you retard, lmao. It's your own fault. If you can't tell the difference between littering and large scale public dumping, then I don't know what to say.
>I'm talking about statutory rape, not child abuse in general.Kek, that's a great poin, just ignore what I said to argue that I used the wrong word.
>And I countered by stating that non-violent, consensual statutory rape is often punished by jail time.Which I counted by pointing out that it's not in all bar one or maybe two states.
>However, Turner violently assaulted an non-consenting, unconscious person and was awarded no jail time.Why did you come into a thread to talk about a case you have no idea about?
>No it's not.
>chaste life>girl claims she's not chaste>case is droppedIt's a retarded old law that hasn't been updated.
>Honestly I wouldn't surmise you're over the age of 18 with the way you argue. You're so entitled.So now you've gone from what, I'm some chronic shitposter, to me being a bad poster for replying to each of your points, to now accusing me of being underage? Not to mention the buzzword entitled, which doesn't even make any sense here. Surely you can do better than that.
No. 110883
>>110882Furious enough to bring it up twice, and accuse me of "twisting your words" when I'm merely taking them at face value.
>Which I counted by pointing out that it's not in all bar one or maybe two statesSo? Point is it still happens.
What good did it do those men to say "Well my non-violent sexual crime wasn't as bad as a violent sex crime?" Nothing. Turner got the sentence he did because he was high-profile, had good lawyers, an overly sympathizing judge, a strong support system, and money (his family posted the $150k bail, do poor people do that often..). It had little to do with comparing it to other sex crimes, when his was just as violent.
>girl claims she's not chasteWell all girls are whores, after all.
No. 110884
>>110883>Furious enough to bring it up twice, and accuse me of "twisting your words" when I'm merely taking them at face value. You caught me, I'm shaking in my chair.
>So? Point is it still happens.Where?
>Turner got the sentence he did because he was high-profile, had good lawyers, an overly sympathizing judge, a strong support system, and moneyTurner got the sentence he did because it was what the sentencing legislation dictated, not because of whatever shit you want to blame it on. This has been discussed already.
>It had little to do with comparing it to other sex crimes, when his was just as violent. His wasn't at all violent though.
>Well all girls are whores, after all.Oh, you're just one of those sorts. Go back to whatever shit forum you came from, retard.
No. 110915
>>110884>sentencing legislation dictatedYou keep saying this but it's like you're forgetting the judge literally said he's not giving Turner a harsh sentence because of the spectacle of "ruining his future" and also being swayed by the "good character" letters from his friends and family. So no, it didn't happen strictly on the grounds of legislation. And at that, the judge's interpretation of the legislation (aka the law) can be flawed, and many believe it is.
>his wasn't violentOkay, now you're trolling.
>hurr let me get mad at that obviously facetious sentence while I'm at it, rawrrr No. 110936
>>110915>the judge literally said he's not giving Turner a harsh sentence because of the spectacle of "ruining his future"No shit, that's why we don't just give everyone 40 years for every crime.
>also being swayed by the "good character" letters from his friends and family.Wait, hang on, you mean to tell me that character referrals were used in a criminal case? Well that's just absolutely unheard of, someone should contact the president.
>And at that, the judge's interpretation of the legislation (aka the law) can be flawed, and many believe it is.Can you explain why it is, or are you just going to assert that that's the case? Because it seems to me you have no idea about the case, and are just arguing about it and finding new info as you go. Lets not forget that you claimed he got no jail time.
>Okay, now you're trolling.It explicitly wasn't a violent crime. She drank until she was black out drunk, then either he moved her outside, or she willingly went outside (she can't remember whether she consented or not), and then he fingered her. It's still a terrible thing to do, and I don't believe the claim she consented, but there is absolutely no physical violence involved in it.
>hurr let me get mad at that obviously facetious sentence while I'm at it, rawrrr>I was merely pretending to be retarded!Even if it was just you memeing, memes aren't actually an argument. That law is essentially possible to prosecute under as a result of what I said.
No. 110938
>>110936>no shitThen why are you arguing dumb shit like "it was the sentencing legislation dictated" when the judge's opinion CLEARLY influenced the outcome? You're not making any sense.
>Can you explain why it isI broke it down bit by bit, scroll up. You choosing to ignore my initial post about his pious opinion is not something I'm going to keep repeating for your sake.
>claimed he got no jail timeHe didn't really for the crime he committed, no. Not enough.
Are
you pretending to be retarded? I'm memeing you because you're being a ridiculous autist literally arguing for the sake of arguing like you have a behavioral disorder. I already told you this would go nowhere and, big surprise, it hasn't. You keep having your fucked opinion about it and I'll have mine. It's a done deal whether you tantrum about it or not.
No. 110940
>>110938>Then why are you arguing dumb shit like "it was the sentencing legislation dictated"Because it did.
>I broke it down bit by bit, scroll up.The only post I can see relating to that got a reply already, and looked kind of stupid as a result, because they were just completely arguing with emotion.
Just so you don't get lost, here's the post relating to it
>>109387You gave no reasons for why those decisions were wrong except for that you didn't like them, you used belittling language as an argument, and just flat out ignored what the judge said to make up your own points.
>He didn't really for the crime he committed, no. Not enough.Kek, nice back pedalling. You claimed he got no jail time.
>Are you pretending to be retarded? I'm memeing you because you're being a ridiculous autist literally arguing for the sake of arguing like you have a behavioral disorder.Kind of the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? If you're going to insult someone in an argument, probably avoid insulting them for something you're also doing. And the same as you did earlier, you just drop points as soon as you can no longer argue them, while still acting like you're correct about everything you say.
>You keep having your fucked opinion about it and I'll have mine. It's a done deal whether you tantrum about it or not.You say this, but then you keep replying. Don't be a hypocrite.
No. 110944
>>110940>Because it did.With the judge's interpretation of the legislation applicable to the circumstances IN ADDITION to his OPINION that Turner's life "shouldn't be ruined." It's not all based on legislation, which is what you seem to think.
>looked kind of stupidI don't see one other poster itt agreeing with your side of things, and most been more in-line with my opinion. It's not stupid. You're just so insistent with your argument that most other posters have jumped ship from the thread bc they don't want to waste their time.
>weh you used belittling language to express your outrage at judge's bullshit decisionSo? Cry more. You're on lolcow, not a political debate forum, autist.
Stupid autist.
No. 110946
>>110944>With the judge's interpretation of the legislation applicable to the circumstances IN ADDITION to his OPINION that Turner's life "shouldn't be ruined."Obviously interpretation plays a part, but he still followed the legislation, and referred to similar past cases. And as I said, not wanting to ruin peoples lives is why we don't give 40 years for every sentence. Stop repeating points I've addressed.
>I don't see one other poster itt agreeing with your side of things, and most been more in-line with my opinion. Except for all of these, right?
>>109211>>109237>>109250>>109259>>109261>>109274>>109363>>109428>>109610>>110322Seems like there's plenty of other posters who agree with me, ignoring the obvious baiters or robots.
>So? Cry more. You're on lolcow, not a political debate forum, autist.Why get involved in an argument if you just want to scream and whine about shit? My point wasn't that it upset me, it was that it was not an argument, and highlighted your lack of impartiality. You also just never replied to it.
>Stupid autist.Kek, yeah, because acting like a child and calling names totally makes you look more like you have a point.
Nice job dropping half the points raised again, including that you didn't even know he got any jail time though.
No. 110950
>>110946>not wanting to ruin peoples lives is why we don't give 40 years for every sentenceBut it's okay to ruin
some peoples' lives and not others? Sure, just like how statutory rape cases work. But you'll just deny those (in)justices happens before you admit that kind of mentality is wrong.
I have no reason based on the syntax of the posts you quoted that 70% of them aren't just you samefagging, even so, how is "don't single him out" and "people have done worse" and "if you can't remember a crime then the perp shouldn't be punished as harsh" VALID points? You're insane.
It's like saying "Well why single out a shoplifter because there's so many and surely others have stolen worse and if the victims don't recall what they lost then why bother?" You're so brazen about your flawed logic and bootlicking that judge it's gross.
You're not better than anybody and you got what you wanted by accusing me of "arguing with emotion." You wanted the emotional argument, remember? Well, now you get called a names. Put on your big girl pants and get over it.
No. 110952
>>110950>But it's okay to ruin some peoples' lives and not others>Where did I say that?
>Sure, just like how statutory rape cases work. But you'll just deny those (in)justices happens before you admit that kind of mentality is wrong.I already addressed this and you full well know I did.
>I have no reason based on the syntax of the posts you quoted that 70% of them aren't just you samefagging,Kek, yeah, because that's an argument. I could just claim that every post in the thread that disagrees with me is you, but I haven't, because it's retarded and pointless.
>even so, how is "don't single him out" and "people have done worse" and "if you can't remember a crime then the perp shouldn't be punished as harsh" VALID points? You said no-one agreed with me, not that no-one presented an argument you personally, as the arbiter of validity and intellectual honesty, decided was valid.
>It's like saying "Well why single out a shoplifter because there's so many and surely others have stolen worse and if the victims don't recall what they lost then why bother?" That's not what it says at all, it's saying "That shoplifter doesn't need the same sentence as someone who rammed their car into a store and stole $60000 worth of electronics", and that it's dumb to focus on a minor case when much more severe ones exist.
>You're not better than anybody and you got what you wanted by accusing me of "arguing with emotion." You wanted the emotional argument, remember? How did you manage to get from what I said that I wanted you to argue with emotions? I was pointing out that you had nothing behind what you were saying apart from your emotions.
>Well, now you get called a names. Put on your big girl pants and get over it.Why are you so certain I'm upset? I'm just saying you're just supporting my argument that your entire point is "I am angry about this and feel it is wrong, therefore it is wrong".
No. 110954
>>110952>Where did I say that?You're implying it by stating that Turner's life doesn't deserve a longer sentence. How much clearer can it be spelled out to you?
Don't you understand people have been locked away for sexual molestations that didn't even involve penetration (the fingering you're referencing)? Don't you understand people have been locked away for consensual sex with minors?
You're being willfully ignorant. I've addressed this multiple times but you choose to ignore it.
>I already addressed statutory and you full well know I did.Liar, this is what you said about it: "Which I counted by pointing out that it's not in all bar one or maybe two states." You basically said it's OK because the punishment doesn't happen in every state. Fucking kek. Nice "counter."
>You said no-one agreed with me, not that no-one presented an argument you personally, as the arbiter of validity and intellectual honesty, decided was valid.See, this shit right here. You're a crafty little bitch.
Instead of explaining how those are VALID POINTS redirect the argument to make it about my credibility. Yeah, okay. Because you haven't been prodding me this entire time to prove how my argument was valid beyond "emotion." Hypocrite. And even when I provided comparisons and examples you nitpicked the limitations and denied they happen frequently, so you throw them out. So damn unreal!
>That shoplifter doesn't need the same sentence as someone who rammed their car into a store and stole $60000 worth of electronicsBut you
do realize that retail shoplifters, media pirates, and the thieving like fucking served MORE jailtime for their non-violent crimes than Turner did, yeah?
>how are you so certain I'm upset?Because I already said how this is a waste of our times yet you continue to pursue it. Autists love to carry on thinking they're being impartial when they're being dumb as fuck.
No. 110959
>>110954>You're implying it by stating that Turner's life doesn't deserve a longer sentence. How much clearer can it be spelled out to you? Oh, I get you now. And yes, if you commit an extremely serious crime, your life should be ruined for it. Sexual assault is not an extremely serious crime.
>Don't you understand people have been locked away for sexual molestations that didn't even involve penetration (the fingering you're referencing)? Don't you understand people have been locked away for consensual sex with minors? Don't you understand that he was locked away, and that "consensual sex with minors" is a contradiction, as minors can't consent?
>Liar, this is what you said about it: "Which I counted by pointing out that it's not in all bar one or maybe two states." You basically said it's OK because the punishment doesn't happen in every state. Fucking kek. Nice "counter."What I said is that there's a single state that has a law even relating to it, and that I couldn't even find a case where it actually happened as you're putting it.
>Instead of explaining how those are VALID POINTS redirect the argument to make it about my credibility. It is about you, because you didn't ask for "valid points", you said no-one agreed with me. Those people did.
>Because you haven't been prodding me this entire time to prove how my argument was valid beyond "emotion." Which you haven't managed to do yet.
>And even when I provided comparisons and examples you nitpicked the limitations and denied they happen frequently, so you throw them out. So damn unreal!Where did this happen?
>But you do realize that retail shoplifters, media pirates, and the thieving like fucking served MORE jailtime for their non-violent crimes than Turner did, yeah?That's just flat out false. Shoplifting as a crime has different thresholds for amount stolen that say whether or not you can be put in prison for it. A first time offender who steals something worth $5, hell, even worth $50 isn't getting anything but a misdemeanor charge. Same goes for piracy, people only get serious charges if they run large scale distribution operations or try to sell the pirated content. Even then, it's usually just a fine they have to pay over jail time unless they're selling huge quantities.
>Because I already said how this is a waste of our times yet you continue to pursue itSo stop replying then if I'm wasting your time. You're the only one who sees it that way out of us.
>Autists love to carry on thinking they're being impartial when they're being dumb as fuckThat can just as easily apply to you. What's with you and trying to use insults as arguments anyway? Go take a walk, calm down, there's no reason to take this so seriously.
No. 110963
>>110959>Sexual assault is not an extremely serious crime.Source? By whose standards? I resent that.
>as minors can't consent?Whew, way to nitpick.
In some states minors can magically consent at 15, but in other states it's 16, 17, or 18. So why yes, minors do have the ability to verbally state that they want sex versus being forcibly raped by someone who they don't want sex with. The difference is some states set this magical limitation of when they're not knowledgable enough to want sex, which I don't agree with btw. It SHOULD be worse for when the person is unconscious because the perp is literally overlooking their rights to accept or decline sexual relations.
But how pedantic of you to have me explain that.
>you didn't ask for "valid points"So is this your admission of those points being invalid or…? Do you seriously believe they are?
>Which you haven't managed to do yet.No, I have. But again you choose to redirect questions, ignore my logic, and accuse me of just being wrong so again I don't know what you seek to gain from this since you've been "IM RIGHT YUR WRONG" from the start of this.
>that say whether or not you can be put in prison for itBut you can be put in prison for it. You can't deny that these non-physical crimes will still land people jail time. The amount is moot to the point I'm making. You're stuck on that though because you think that makes the point invalid, which is just…sad.
You can steal something thrice and go for years to jail, but if you literally physically assault someone you're looking at a couple months and probation.
>inb4 but the sex offender registryYeah well, like you said, thieves will have the misdemeanors and felonies on their records too. Depending on what their dreams were that's pretty "life-ruining" too. But who cares about them?
No. 110970
>>110963>Source? By whose standards? I resent that.By legal standards. When you're comparing it to stuff like rape, serious physical assaults that cause serious harm or impairment to the person, murder, kidnapping, torture, and countless other crimes, it's moderate at most.
>In some states minors can magically consent at 15, but in other states it's 16, 17, or 18. So why yes, minors do have the ability to verbally state that they want sex versus being forcibly raped by someone who they don't want sex with. If you don't go by legal definitions, then this case we're discussing isn't even illegal, as the claim was that she consented. This isn't a case where he forced her down, it's a case where she couldn't consent because she was intoxicated. Consent is a legal term, and trying to separate it from the law is pointless. If the law says someone can't consent in that state, they can't. As such, a minor, or someone under the aoc, can't consent.
>So is this your admission of those points being invalid or…? Do you seriously believe they are?No, I'm simply pointing out that their validity is completely irrelevant to what you asked, no matter how much you try to move the goalposts.
>No, I have.Where? Did you refer to past similar cases that prove the judge blatantly misinterpreted the legislation? Did you explain how he ignored the legislation? All I can see is you saying that you don't like the legislation, and don't like his decision. Both of which are emotion based.
>But you can be put in prison for it. You can't deny that these non-physical crimes will still land people jail time. The amount is moot to the point I'm making. You're stuck on that though because you think that makes the point invalid, which is just…sad.But it actually makes the point I'm making. People who commit minor shoplifting related offences get a misdemeanor, if not just a warning by the police and are forced to return the item or pay for it. Someone who, as I said, steals $60000 worth of electronics would get jail time.
Why would you focus on the person who stole a bag of lollies when the more serious offence exists? Both are bad, because stealing is wrong, but one is more severe, and results in a more severe sentence.
The same as it's stupid to focus on a sexual assault that wasn't even particularly heinous as far as sexual offenses go, when much more serious and severe cases exist that get no media attention.
You've just dropped your original analogy, which was
>"Well why single out a shoplifter because there's so many and surely others have stolen worse and if the victims don't recall what they lost then why bother?" To try to make a point that all sentences are equal, and there is only a single shoplifting charge available to all offenders, instead of the amount stolen completely changing what they're charged with in the first place. It's an incredibly dishonest argument, because you're just flat out ignoring how it really works in the courts to try to make a point off a hypothetical.
>Yeah well, like you said, thieves will have the misdemeanors and felonies on their records too.Which is not even close to the impact that the sex offender registry will have on your life. The only things that a record of felonies will do is stop you joining the army or police. Being on the registry does all of these, plus more jobs, plus restricts where you can even live. It's also publicly available, unlike a criminal record, anyone can find out you did that at any point and link it back to you.
>Depending on what their dreams were that's pretty "life-ruining" too. But who cares about them?How do you not understand what appropriate punishment is? No-one's saying you shouldn't do anything because it could impact their lives, simply that the severity of the crime is weighed against the impact a potential sentence would have on the rest of their life.
No. 110974
>>110970I think it's funny how you draw the line at rape but for some reason penetrating an unconscious girl with dirty hands near a dumpster doesn't set off the same kind of alarm bells for seriousness to you.
>neener neener the state makes the lawsWell, you sure pitched a tantrum when I mentioned that about the statutory rape jail sentences, littering, and stealing. State variances in law didn't matter then as long as the majority had a certain law. But hey, don't let that hinder your cherrypick.
>No, I'm simply pointing out that their validity is completely irrelevant to what you askedWell, go on then. Stop skirting around the question and PROVE these are valid points, miss "emotional argument."
>Did you refer to past similar cases that prove the judge blatantly misinterpreted the legislation? Are you implying a judge has never been debarred before for doing precisely that?
>Did you explain how he ignored the legislation?I explained how his application of his logic to interpret the legislation was flawed, yeah. Which is why plenty people are mad as well.
>People who commit minor shoplifting related offences get a misdemeanorBut you just said if they commit the same petty theft multiple times they will go to prison. Is it not "less bad" to commit petty theft thrice than to commit sexual assault once? Cripes you'd rather see someone go to jail for multiple years for lifting a few sound systems than see a sexual assailant do that amount of time? How is that right to you?
>as it's stupid to focus on a sexual assault that wasn't even particularly heinous as far as sexual offenses goYou are not an expert. You are not an eye-witness. This is you making an emotional argument with no basis in logic. This is you thinking you know enough to determine what's traumatizing and damaging for someone over others. There's no objectivity to it.
>To try to make a point that all sentences are equalThey're not treated equal even if you're deluded enough to believe they are.
>The only things that a record of felonies will do is stop you joining the army or policeAnd also getting jobs in certain professions. Fool.
>How do you not understand what appropriate punishment is? Because this is where we fundamentally disagree. I think sexual assault is a crime worthy of a lengthier jail sentence and you don't. Wanna keep going with this?
No. 110984
File: 1474709211021.jpg (44.45 KB, 371x332, 1365182071144.jpg)
>anon's not replying in the vent thread
>must be finishing up a reply in this one
>"I'm not the same anon guise!!!!"
No. 110987
>>110974>neener neener the state makes the lawsI didn't say that at all.
>Well, you sure pitched a tantrum when I mentioned that about the statutory rape jail sentences, littering, and stealing. State variances in law didn't matter then as long as the majority had a certain law.What are you even trying to say? You should go take a walk, come back when you can actually make a point that makes sense.
>Well, go on then. Stop skirting around the question and PROVE these are valid points, miss "emotional argument."Why? It's not relevant to what you said originally, that no-one agreed with me.
>Are you implying a judge has never been debarred before for doing precisely that?No? I'm saying this judge didn't do that.
>I explained how his application of his logic to interpret the legislation was flawed, yeahWhere? Are you talking about that post that every point you brought up was countered, and pretty much proved you had nothing but your feelings?
>But you just said if they commit the same petty theft multiple times they will go to prison.If they keep doing it over and over again they might get a month or so in jail, sure.
>Is it not "less bad" to commit petty theft thrice than to commit sexual assault once? No, but not only will stealing something three times not get you anywhere near jail, just community service and a fine, but the reason people who constantly commit minor offences end up with small prison sentences is because they've demonstrated they aren't going to stop doing it. It's also why whether or not someone shows remorse is important in their sentencing.
>You are not an expert.And you are? I'd say that a judge is a pretty good expert on it though, wouldn't you? Or the people who wrote the legislation that originally stated what crimes get what sentence, and how to determine this?
>They're not treated equal even if you're deluded enough to believe they are.I never said they were though, you need to work on your reading comprehension.
>And also getting jobs in certain professions. Fool.Which ones?
>Because this is where we fundamentally disagree. I think sexual assault is a crime worthy of a lengthier jail sentence and you don't.And why do you think that?
>Wanna keep going with this?You're the one who kept telling me to stop replying because it was pointless.
>>110984Are you talking about me?
No. 110992
>>110991>shit stirringSince when is having a different opinion to you the same as shit stirring?
Also, when you claimed that 70% of the posts that agreed with me that I quoted were all me because they had the same writing style, I kind of disregard what you're saying about "writing style and tone".
And I don't know what to tell you, I haven't been in the vent thread until just before today.
What's with the obsession that everyone who has a different opinion is the same person though? There's a thread full of dissenting opinions here, do you think it's exclusively two people arguing back and forth?
No. 110994
>>110992I am a different anon you fucking moron.
>since when does blooblooblooNobody cares.
No. 111002
>>110994Fair enough, hard to tell when the other person has a habit of vanishing once they stop being able to argue points though.
And it sounds like you care, why else would you get all belittling about it. Hell, if you didn't care, why come into the thread to reply at all? That kind of proves that you do.
No. 111015
>>110486What people need to understand is that what you see headlining the news on CNN or taking the front page of the NYT isn't the result of some algorithm distilling what is the world's most important events that day.
It is the result of editorial discretion. In other words the result of someone going through news wires and deciding what gets priority, what doesn't and what doesn't get reported at all.
No. 111017
>>110987>I didn't say that at all.Yes you did.
>What are you trying to say?Honestly it's REALLY hard to get points across to you when you lack reading comprehension.
Because you're not stating your age, I'm assuming you're under the age of 18 which is why you're having a really bad time with this. Let's begin again:
You keep arguing sexual assault isn't "that bad" or "that serious" of a crime to "ruin someone's life" with extensive jail time. Remember? Good.
Stay with this.
I brought up that non-violent crimes like littering, statutory rape, and theft are often punished with excessive jail time. You didn't believe me. When I gave you easy-to-read state charts describing the legislation you cherry-picked and said "Yeah well, jailtime only in certain states and for numerous offenses," which DIDN'T MATTER to the point I was making! The point is these aren't "serious" crimes in the grand scheme of things yet our legislation finds it justifiable to punish with wayyyyy more jailtime than Turner. He sexually violated someone and got less than a year. It's bullshit.
>Why? It's not relevant to what you said originallyPft, you don't want to because you KNOW you can't. And instead of admitting you're wrong (or that it's just your opinion from emotion and not objective) you'd rather pretend everyone else is just being stupid. You'd rather demand everyone else prove their shit while you sit back and make these bogus claims without having to do any work on your end.
>was counteredNo it wasn't kiddo. Literally anyone with eyes can scroll up and just see you accusing everyone disagreeing with you as being "emotional." You've yet to prove shit.
>If they keep doing it over and over again they might get a month or so in jailYou either don't read the news, are legit retarded, or you're 12.
Just to name a few
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/crime/ct-nvs-shoplift-walmart-naperville-st-0925-20150923-story.html>Richard A. Olson, 40, of Morris, was sentenced Monday to 2 1/2 years in prison for stealing nearly $500 worth of merchandise from the Walmart SuperCenter in Naperville. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/margate/fl-broward-deputy-shoplifting-arrest-20160909-story.html>all totaled the scheme adds up to a 3rd-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prisonhttp://www.galesburg.com/news/20160825/galesburg-woman-sentenced-to-18-months-for-retail-theftThe list goes on. Literally ALL these people got more than a year in jail for non-violent shoplifting offenses at Wal Mart. Lol. They should've just sexually assaulted a passed out college girl.
>but not only will stealing something three times not get you anywhere near jaiHahahahaha. What a dumbass!
>And you are?I've got evidence and links.
Do you also need the links to how bad sexual assault and molestation can fuck people over for life too? Does your stupid ass need that spelled out for you as well? You're a scumbag.
>Which ones?Really? You can't just google this shit?
1. Architects (CGS § 20-294).
2. Private detectives, watchmen, guards, and patrol services (CGS § 29-158).
3. Professions under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health specifically including healing arts, medicine and surgery.
4. Attorneys (CGS § 51-91a).
5. Judges, family support magistrates, workers’ compensation commissioners (CGS § 51-51i).
6. Radiographers and radiologic technologists (CGS § 20-74cc).
7. Midwives (CGS § 20-86h).
8. Licensees for (a) electrical work; (b) plumbing and piping work; (c) solar, heating, piping, and cooling work; (d) elevator installation, repair, and maintenance work; (e) fire protection sprinkler systems work; (f) irrigation work; and (g) sheet metal work (CGS § 20-334).
9. Major contractors (CGS § 20-341gg).
10. Lead abatement consultants, contractors, and workers (CGS § 20-481).
11. Public Service Gas Technicians (CGS § 20-540).
12. Public Accountants (CGS § 20-281a).
13. Psychologists (CGS § 20-192).
14. Individuals and businesses selling insurance (CGS § 38a-702k)
Not to mention you lose a shit ton of your rights.
>>110992Honestly it's just super pathetic to see you denying that you're samefagging when it's so obvious.
No. 111037
>>111017>Yes you did.No, I never did, you're just making things up and accusing me of saying it.
>Honestly it's REALLY hard to get points across to you when you lack reading comprehensionNo, the sentence really made no sense.
>I brought up that non-violent crimes like littering, statutory rape, and theft are often punished with excessive jail timeYes, but that was false, which when you provided the chart, supported my claim that it was false, because literally every state bar one had laws that stated there was an age limitation for the offender, and the one that didn't had an impossible to prosecute under law.
And as for littering, that isn't a charge. You need to specify the particular charge, not just list a broad category and go "see, look, people go to jail", because for the vast, vast majority of littering related offences, you won't.
>He sexually violated someone and got less than a year. It's bullshit.And several years probation.
>Pft, you don't want to because you KNOW you can't.No, I don't want to because you're moving the goalposts, and I have no interest in chasing them.
>Literally anyone with eyes can scroll up and just see you accusing everyone disagreeing with you as being "emotional."Yes, and literally anyone with eyes can scroll up and see you being overly emotional, everything from your language to your actual points supports that.
>Richard A. Olson, 40, of Morris, was sentenced Monday to 2 1/2 years in prison for stealing nearly $500 worth of merchandise from the Walmart SuperCenter in Naperville. He also had a charge of burglary and possession dropped for that charge, and a relatively long list of related criminal offences. A plea deal isn't the same as a normal sentence.
>all totaled the scheme adds up to a 3rd-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prisonBecause it was a repeated offence, and he did it while in police uniform, which increases the severity of the charge.
>http://www.galesburg.com/news/20160825/galesburg-woman-sentenced-to-18-months-for-retail-theft
>She received an 18-month prison sentence for an August 2015 theft from Bergner's and the probation violation followed by a one-year sentence for an October 2015 theft from Wal-Mart. She was on probation when she did it, and was involved in running a meth lab at the time. Kind of a bit different to just stealing something.
Seriously, you've yet to show me a single instance of someone stealing something as a pure crime (as in not related to other offences, not a plea charge, not at the end of crime spree) from a store and getting sentenced. Nice try though.
>I've got evidence and links.Which didn't support you at all, because none of them were purely littering, and the one that was not only did it 7 times (read, not 3), but did it while in uniform, which exacerbated the charge.
>Really? You can't just google this shit? Fair enough, but you're ignoring that a sexual assault also carries that restriction. The argument of "It could ruin your life depending on what you want" is a pretty poor one, because it's not ruining anything, simply restricting your choices. Giving a young person three years + for a relatively minor (legally speaking) offence would have a huge impact on his life, as not only would he have these restrictions either way, but he would miss any normal opportunities to develop skills, and come out as a mid-20 year old on the registry with no real skills, making it exceptionally hard for him to find work or housing. The crime committed simply doesn't deserve that much of an impact on his life, according to all of the experts who write the legislation relating to it, the judge in the past case, and the judge in this case. As you said, you're not an expert in this.
>Honestly it's just super pathetic to see you denying that you're samefagging when it's so obvious.Kind of ironic you say this while posting this
>>111023 don't you think?
And even if I was the vent anon (I'm not), you realise that's not samefagging, right? Samefagging is when you post in a single thread pretending to be someone else who agrees with you, not when a single poster posts in two threads and doesn't immediately reveal every other thread they've been in.
No. 111045
>>111037Actually, the point where you go from just using dishonest arguments (and constantly moving the goalposts to something else) to doing that as well as pretending to be multiple people all disagreeing with me (that all just conveniently appeared straight after you posted to either comment on me, or talk about how great you are) is the point I step out, because you're clearly not interested in having any sort of discussion on the topic, just on playing games and trying to "win" the conversation at any cost.
So whatever, you win, I've made my points well enough that anyone can see what I'm saying, I'm not interested in having to deal with some SJW sort who instead of trying to talk honestly once called out on it, just ups the game to be even more dishonest.
Hopefully you'll stop treating this place like SRS, but more likely you'll assume some other poster is me and scream at them for another week.