Women's Issues

Please don't shoot me, but if it were a black man who did the raping, guarantee you he will NOT be getting special treatment in prison. Heck, he'll be getting like 8 years in prison forsure. I know it's a Women's Issues thread, but still, someone had to say it.

You're practically preaching to the choir here.

Yeah, he may have gotten off lightly, but it seems that the rest of society isn't so interested in that, save for the MRA and PUA circles.

No, that he's a white male with a distinguished athletic record was probably the primary cause of his light sentence.

I am more inclined to belive the judge did not have enough information on the topic, given that that was a case early on in this topic even here, added with the fact that this judge does NOT have a history of light sentances for sexual crimes, infact quite the oppisite.

However, the only good thing that happened in this case is that USA Swimming barred him for life for his heinous act, so it's not like he'll be swimming professionally again .

edited 12th Jun '16 9:35:46 AM by MsCC93

Nope, he'll be permanently unemployed and probably rape again, much better.

As for the cell with a TV, cells get T Vs as part of an attempt to keep costs down and incentivise good behaviour, if you don't give prisoners a reason to behave themselves (via offering privileges that can be taken away, such as a TV) then they'd riot permanently and you end up with much higher costs and a lot more dead guards and inmates.

That makes so much more sense.

edited 12th Jun '16 10:05:50 AM by Zanthype

Yeah in the end it gives them something to do in their room other then make a shank, likewise they're not going to wanna shank somebody because then they might loose their TV.

I saw a new how a black men wrongly acused of rape feel piss off for this, and yes I can see why, this guy look like nerdy white kid who will never do anything bad....and therefore he didnt do it(ja)

But with the parent....meh, they are parent, they will side with their kid not matter what, and this one seen to be the kind of person who is good and kind...until he assult someone

I keep going back and forth on how I feel about the judge.

On one hand, I understand that there's wasn't any physical evidence given to Persky other than the victim's condition to look at, he just had verbal testimonies of what happened from Turner and the bikers that showed up at the scene. And it doesn't help that the victim herself was unconscious and unable to give an account of what was really done to her. Persky's a judge, he has to base his sentence on concrete evidence, not on how he feels about the perp.

And as Gary Goodman said, "Yes, prison is a big deal, but he [Turner] does have punishment. He is on the sex registry, so now if he has kids, he can't ever drop his kids off at school. He can't go watch his kids play basketball. He can't be a teacher. He can't go to a playground with his kids. He is severely limited for the rest of this life and it's not just a financial punishment, it's a lifetime punishment."

On the other hand, Turner was still deemed guilty of several counts of sexual assault, and I feel like that should've come with a longer prison sentence than what he got.

The disconnect I have is that he was found guilty. Whether or not the judge feels there was enough evidence is irrelevant in my mind. Rape should have a multiple year prison sentence attached to it at the absolute minimum. Three months is effectively a slap on the wrist.

The problem is that guilty/not guilty is pretty irelevent to sentancing when you get down to the conditons of the crime itself.... with what your sugestion, a 18 yearold having sex with her 17 year old boyfriend should ALSO get multiple years of jail time.

From the evidince presented early on, it looked like 2 drunk collage studants doing drunk collage student things, and if that is what the judge was presented with for info, it is extreamly easy to see why they would go light on the sentancing.

That 17-18 scenario is for (sloppily done) age of consent laws, though. Violating them and sexual assault (educate me: What is the difference between sexual assault and rape?) are not the same crime.

Statutory rape generally isn't treated the same way. There are also Romeo and Juliet laws in a lot of places that cover those sorts of situations.

edited 12th Jun '16 10:34:10 AM by Kostya

He was found guilty of Sexual Assault, not Rape (the law distinguishes between the two), which I think is another factor in why his prison sentence was so short.

Well I still think sexual assault should have a prison sentence that's at least a year even if it isn't as severe as rape.

I agree. And I found the charges:

I think that first charge alone should warrant at least several years.

The difference is that rape generally requires penetration of either the ass or vagina with a penis, I belive that the FBI do now also consider forced envelopment rape but that's not true in at the UK and other places.

Wait, so is forced oral sex not rape or did you just not mention that?

I think forced oral may fall unde sexual assult not rape, but I'm not sure.

Its indeed not rape under the law.

But probaly is under the topic of every day conversation.

edited 12th Jun '16 10:46:08 AM by Imca

The sad thing is, being caught with relatively small amounts of cannabis has more mandatory years attached...

edited 12th Jun '16 10:47:59 AM by Euodiachloris

,I feel like that should be included too.

It makes me sick that getting caught with drugs has a longer mandatory sentence than severely hurting another human being.

I don't have the link to the article where I originally read this, but the normal sentencing range for sexual assault in California is 2-14 years. Judges can make an exception to lower the sentence under [some law that had a really long name which I don't remember], which is supposed to be used for cases which are demonstrably less severe/serious than "normal" cases. The judge in this case made such an exception using that law, which is why the sentence is only six months.* Which is part of the reason people are getting so upset—most people who have read about the case really don't see how this case was somehow less serious than "normal" sexual assault cases and therefore strongly feel that the exception to the minimum sentencing rules should not have been granted.

*He is sentenced to six months. The reason "3 months" is getting thrown around (and why the scheduled release date is three months from the commitment date) is that it's apparently normal in California (I think according to the same article as above) for people convicted of whatever class of crime this falls under to be released from jail after half the sentence and serve the remaining half under parole.