Stanford sex assault case: Sentence was too short — but the system worked

The irritating thing here is the WHOLE story...

HE said he asked for permission to "finger" her, and she agreed.
SHE said he did not ask and she agreed to nothing.
He fingered her.
The jury found him guilty of sexual assault, not rape.

THAT was all that happened. There was no penis insertion. That was never even alleged. There was only that: finger penetration.

Now while ANY penetration is rape, the fact is that there was disagreement and a decision was made on this one "action" (for THAT is what the father meant when he wrote "action"), when both were totally drunk.

The judge made the right call.

As for the letter she wrote...

I myself was sexually assaulted when I was 12. But I realized even then that I had a prurient interest in what happened. I am grateful for not having been a victim of victimization culture -- or I would never have moved beyond it. I realized at the age of 12, that I had an interest in seeing his penis. Today, 40 years later, and several gay relationships (I had a great time - no regrets), I am now married to a woman with two kids of our own and monogamous for the past 16 years. I came close, many times, to ALMOST feeling like a victim of what happened. And many of my thoughts parallel her 12 page letter. She is victimizing herself.

This rape hysteria is damaging to:
individual men
the perception of men= masculinity
almost all women.

WHEN will people realize that women are letting themselves be shackled by feminist under the umbrella of the Salem Witch Trial hysteria.

Anyway, the only disturbing issue here is that this post above, I posted to NYTimes, LATimes and a few other papers. And it was censored by all newspaper and deleted. No one wants to hear the truth about what happened: there was no rape in the conventional sense and there was disagreement as to what happened and a LOT of alcohol by both. A six month punishment was just.

It almost makes me feel sad for women.

Feminists are doing their best to suck as much juice out of this lemon as they can because all the other rape cases turned out to be false accusations. They finally got a guy to fit the narrative they've been selling--a fresh-faced, clean-cut athlete who assaulted a girl. They're using his image to show how all men are rapists or at least potential rapists and how all women should be afraid of all men--their fathers, brothers, and sons.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Thanks for the explanation Thomas. I had not really followed this case, other than the soundbites I hear on TV, before this article and your comment, I had thought it was penis>vagina rape.

Although I am having trouble finding credible sources on what really happened. The articles I just looked up indicate she was pretty well unconscious and there is no mention of him asking for permission. She mentions that she had no idea what happened to her until she woke up in a hospital and police told her. I also came across part of the victims letter where she mentions that there was no regard for her body. That her vagina and breast were completely exposed, according to witnesses. She was nearly fully undressed so she got very scrapped up as he moved her body on the cement, and there were things found in her vagina like pine needles and dirt (I assume unintentional things he touched and had on his hands). Some commenters said that there were internal injuries (but I have not come across any news sources reporting that)

It sounds like when witness came upon the crime, that the perpetrator was on top of the unconscious woman and looked like he was going to penetrate her with his penis as they did mention he was erect, but ran. They chased him, tackled him and called police.

Kris,

You will also find that he was convicted of three things
1. Sexual assault
2. INTENT to rape an unconscious person
3. INTENT to rape an intoxicated person

Now it seems 2 and 3 are conflated and their existence underscores that the violation was a finger insertion. And while the law must punish the intent, the fact is that it never happened AND, he said it was by agreement and they were both drunk.

Yes, he should be punished. But at this point:
6 months in jail
Expelled from Stanford
Expelled from all future swimming competitions for life

And now word is that not only are they attempted to recall the judge, but in the current trial he is overseeing, potential jurors are walking out.

This does not bode well for democracy.

This reaction is making women into rape victims of now just the male gaze.

I had read an article which explained the charges. It said that the sexual assault charge was because it was fingers and not a penis (according to that state's law any penetration which is not a sexual organ is "sexual assault" not "rape"). It said the "intent to rape" charges was because according to the two witnesses, that's what he was preparing to do, based that he had pulled down his clothing to expose his penis, was erect, and was on top of the woman (I assume in a position for penetration). He ran when he noticed the two witnesses (which indicates he knew what he was doing was wrong)

In rape testimonies it is common to get a "he said, she said" situations. I generally start off in a neutral position, until there is evidence to make me believe one person more than the other.

The details which would make me believe her over him (about "permission") would be abrasions on her body (most girls refuse sexual acts which hurt and scratch them up), which should have been easy to prove in court. Based on the article I will link to, she was bandaged up at the hospital because she had abrasions from the incident,signs that she had been dragged with her head on the ground. The article also indicates that he never mentioned "permission" until a year later in court, after he realized her testimony was going to be that she could not remember anything. (I am sure police interrogated him the night of the incident, so his testimony about permission would have been in there if he truly had received it or even thought he had received it).

Personally, I think the charges are fair and correct. As far as sentencing, I think that it is a light sentence, but the guys life is over. Perhaps we need to look at how we sentence rape/sexual assault and try and be more consistant and fair

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/news/ci_29975891/brock-turner-sexual-assault-case-victim-reads-letter

Kris,

You wrote

"The article also indicates that he never mentioned "permission" until a year later in court, after he realized her testimony was going to be that she could not remember anything."

Your first clause is a truth. Your second clause is an interpretation. And while it is likely true, we are dealing with a court of law and legal precedents.

A person who is the victim of a crime DOES have the right to add statements. We do not question when a woman does it. We should not question when a man does it. He has the right to enter it into evidence. Yes, you can question it, but the questioning cannot and should not be carte blanche

Interpreting a late submission of a statement as immediately indicative of likely culpability is an extremely dangerous precedent.

Also, her abrasions could have been from falling down drunk, or struggling to remove the clothing. The existence of abrasions is not proof.

We do not know when she passed out. She may have been conscious up until he fled. All we know is that both were suffering from diminished capacity, with the defendant stating that there had been an agreement to intercourse. We do not know if he is telling the truth. We only know that by her own admission, she remembers nothing.

It does appear to be the intent to rape -- I agree. But there are enough mitigating circumstances to consider a lighter sentence.

I still feel that the judge was wise. Six months is enough considering the extent of his punishment. He will never go to college or swim competitively. And a statement on the impact of a crime on the perpetrator does NOT EVER imply one does not care about the victim.

Finally, there is another aspect. I will not drive across Syria. I will not walk around the South Bronx after midnight. I will not get naked, lie down in the street,drunk. We owe it to our children to point out when their actions are excessive. And the total refusal to comment on this woman is a bit disturbing.