Outrage Leads To Impulse Rules And Laws -- Driven By Emotion Instead Of Justice
"Impulse laws" is how I think of those laws named for victims that can have unintended consequences.
Cathy Young talks at AllThink about a similar possible consequence of the outrage over the Brock Turner sentence -- only six months of jail time after a conviction on three counts of sexual assault on a severely intoxicated, unconscious woman.
She calls it "a new rallying cry for social justice advocates," and explains:
I think the victim's statement was moving and compelling. I also understand the disgust and anger at the attitudes exhibited in the statements submitted to the court by Turner's father (who infamously lamented that his son's life was being ruined for "20 minutes of action"), by his friends and other character witnesses who seemed to see him as an equal victim, and by Turner himself. While his statement makes several brief references to the pain and trauma his actions caused the victim, most of is steeped in self-pity and shows little accountability; he clearly sees himself as a victim of "the party culture" at Stanford.But I have other concerns, too. I think this case is clearly being used to whip a new moral panic about campus rape and "rape culture," which will be used to step up the policing of consensual sex and punish innocent people (most but not all of them men). Whatever one thinks of the sentence, letting self-righteous outrage mobs and ideological zealots such as Stanford law professor Michele Dauber shape law and policy is extremely dangerous.
Here's one of her points:
5) Turner's crime should not be reduced to a confused drunken hookup -- but, by the same token, confused drunken hookups should not be reclassified as sexual assault.While the Turner case did involve an incapacitated victim, many other recent cases in which young men (and in at least one case, a young woman) got expelled from college for sexual misconduct involved "victims" who were able to walk, procure condoms, text friends, and engage in other activities despite being intoxicated. Lena Dunham, who dedicated a sexual assault PSA to the Stanford victim, went public in 2014 with a story of "rape" by a fellow student while she attended Oberlin. By her own account in her controversial memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, Dunham voluntarily took her "rapist" home from a party while lonely, drunk, and high on Xanax and cocaine (angrily rebuffing a male friend's attempt to stop her). She admits that she was an active participant in the encounter and gave the man verbal encouragement; when she noticed that he had apparently removed the condom, she had sufficient presence of mind to kick him out. She also admits that when she told a friend about the encounter and her friend blurted out "You were raped," her first reaction was to laugh. Yet somehow Dunham has concluded that it was indeed rape about which she was initially in denial -- apparently because the intercourse was too aggressive (she was in pain for several days afterwards), because she knew she hadn't consented to being handled so roughly, and because "it didn't feel like a choice at all." Incidentally, her partner was so drunk he had no memory of the encounter the next day.
When such accounts are hailed as brave truth-telling about rape, this inevitably trivializes the real thing -- including incapacitated rape. Yet even the prosecutor in the Stanford case contributed to muddying the waters, saying that one of the lessons of this case is that "drunk means no." But if any level of drunkenness (not just unconsciousness or severe disorientation) negates consent, the question some people have raised about double standards -- why doesn't it also negate responsibility for Turner? -- are entirely legitimate.
via @BarbaraHewson
I'm also disgusted by the sentence, and Brock Turner's father's calling it "20 minutes of action."
Why is the judge even considering the impact of the sentence on the victim's life? Brock Turner is an adult. It's his job to think about the consequences of his actions, not the court's.
Why not just sentence appropriate to the crime, not the impact of the criminal's life? And if Brock Turner's dream of becoming an Olympic swimmer are dashed because he can't practice his swimming for the six years he languishes in prison, he has no one to blame but himself.
Patrick at June 11, 2016 7:46 AM
"20 minutes of action" is so appalling. Good parents don't excuse or deny their children's terrible behavior.
Amy Alkon at June 11, 2016 9:29 AM
The father's comment is bullshit.
Just because he took his time (20 minutes) assaulting the woman doesn't excuse the decision to assault the woman.
The judge should be removed by his peer group immediately.
Bob in Texas at June 11, 2016 9:36 AM
I know a California defense lawyer, Harvard-educated, about 60, whom I consider to be a very kind and decent person, as a rule.
Yet, he's completely on Turner's side (not that he's involved with the case), is pretty upset about it, is GLAD the sentence is only six months, and was especially affected by the letter written by Turner's female friend.
I haven't spoken to him directly about this (my being on the East Coast), I don't plan to, and I don't know whether he thinks that there should be NO prison sentence, since according to California law, it was sexual assault (digital penetration only) and not rape, technically speaking. Or what else he thinks. (Though I have to wonder how calmly he would take it if some man digitally penetrated HIM while he was unconscious.)
After all, as someone said on NPR, one likely reason the law is written that way is that PIV rape puts the victim at risk for STDs and pregnancy, so many feel there has to be a lesser penalty across the board. (But I assume that there ARE typically prison sentences for digital sexual assault in CA, or we'd have heard otherwise by now. It is a felony, right?) One could also argue that having to register as a sex offender for more than, say, 20 years when you had a perfectly clean record before is pretty extreme - what if he behaves perfectly for the next 20 years?
I do know that there are women who would consider it no big deal if they couldn't remember it and there were no witnesses and no public notice - and even children, as people have pointed out again and again, are often able to put molestation, per se, behind them (as opposed to when it involves actual intercourse). Or WOULD be if it weren't for parental hysteria and the media. One such non-PIV-molestation story was told by a female victim of a priest in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," Chapter 9, and she made clear that even though she was 7 at the time, since it wasn't as extreme as rape, physically, she only considered it "yucky" and never lost sleep over it - but she lost a LOT of sleep over the fear that her beloved non-Catholic friends would be going to hell, as she was taught, again and again.
That does not change the fact, though, that 1) you can't assume that someone who's practically unconscious is hoping someone will have sex with her or even grope her, or 2) that she wasn't unknowingly drugged, or 3) that she has no RIGHT to be horribly upset and traumatized by digital penetration when she couldn't fight him off, just because some women who get drunk and pass out are not upset later on. I find it hard to believe that she would write such a long impact statement for nothing.
Finally, just because some adults and children are not traumatized by criminal behavior does not mean that such criminals should not pay the standard penalties. What's to stop them from doing WORSE things the next time? Just because you might feel forgiveness for your poverty-stricken housecleaner when she steals something of yours and then disappears, doesn't mean you shouldn't report her. What if she steals someone's identity next? How would you feel if you found out that she stole from someone before you and THAT victim chose to be "charitable" and not report her?
It's called "nipping it in the bud."
lenona at June 11, 2016 10:34 AM
lenona,
Just ask your friend if it had been a "black nigger boy using a coke bottle" would he think differently.
And no. It's not called "nipping it in the bud". He raped and assaulted a woman for 20 minutes.
I think we have enough air breathers on Mother Earth and would not miss this one.
Bob in Texas at June 11, 2016 11:15 AM
Brock Turner was not found guilty of rape.
Turner was charged with:
- Two counts of rape
- Two counts of penetration ( usually means a finger )
- One count of assault with intent to rape.
The rape charges were dropped before trial.
Turner was convicted of penetration.
So, factually, a drunk college boy places his finger(s) into the vagina of a very drunk and unconscious girl of approximately the same age. Stupid and reprehensible behavior to be sure, particularly where the girl is unconscious. Maybe the judge sentenced Turner based on those facts.
During my college days, I admit to digitally penetrating a few drunk college girls. They were conscious at the time and did not object which meant consent in those days. Nevertheless, it's a relief to know that the statute of limitations has passed.
Nick at June 11, 2016 11:22 AM
Nick, read the victim's 7000 words about it. This wasn't a hookup during a party. He had her outside beside a dumpster on the ground with pine needles grinding into her hair. Two Swedish men found her, tackled the suspect, and in telling the policeman what happened, one broke down crying about it. Read her words.
gooseegg at June 11, 2016 12:34 PM
I don't understand why he wasn't charges with kidnapping given she was unconscious and had to be moved
lujlp at June 11, 2016 1:20 PM
And no. It's not called "nipping it in the bud". He raped and assaulted a woman for 20 minutes.
_____________________________________
Would you mind explaining what you THINK I said?
I thought I made myself pretty clear - or maybe my language was too gentle.
My point was that no, he should not get a less than standard sentence for sexual assault (and I assume that six months IS a lot less than usual, even when only fingers are involved, especially when the victim is unconscious). Even though the family disagrees. Thus, his BEHAVIOR would be more likely to get "nipped in the bud" - i.e., eliminated - in the future.
And regarding my lawyer friend: I'm pretty sure he didn't sympathize much, if at all, with the convicted white high school students in the 1989 Glen Ridge, NJ rape case, which mostly involved foreign objects. (Who DID sympathize with them, outside of Glen Ridge?) But I'm guessing that was mainly because she was mentally disabled and they knew it, beforehand. Not to mention: Who submits to that sort of treatment in front of an audience without getting paid for it - unless, again, she's disabled?
BTW, Turner's mother is now asking for NO jail time. Good lord. Wouldn't it make more sense, in the long run, for her to accept whatever jail time is given to her son - even if it had been five years - and then demand that he not have to register as a sex offender for more than ten years after that, so he can get a job? Or something? From HER point of view, that is, that should make more sense. I'm not saying it should be anyone else's view.
lenona at June 11, 2016 1:47 PM
lujlp, if you're being sarcastic, you should know that yes, in some states, it IS kidnapping even if you only manage to drag your victim a few feet. Whether the victim is male or female. Maybe that isn't the law in California. Or maybe there was a lack of evidence that she didn't want to go outside with him.
lenona at June 11, 2016 1:52 PM
I can understand why people are outraged by this sentence, but they're reacting to a selective presentation of information.
The fact that Turner's father is an ass shouldn't have any impact on his sentencing. Nor should the victim's ability to write an emotionally compelling essay.
Turner was not convicted of rape, but of serious lesser charges. His sentence is in line with his conviction given other relevant factors.
He doesn't have a criminal record and the victim was unable to testify as to her behavior preceding the incident, due to her level of intoxication. So there is no way to know whether he lured or coerced her. Turner was intoxicated as well, and claims not to remember the progression of events.
What we know is that he was found molesting her and she was barely conscious. Both of them were heavily intoxicated.
His sentencing recommendation actually came from a female probation officer with a background in sexual assault sentencing. She's the one who recommended leniency because of his profile and extenuating circumstances - he was very drunk and by most accounts his behavior was our of character.
Take a look at sentences for similar offenses. You're going to find a lot just like this one - 6 to 18 months w/ several years of parole and listing on a sexual offenders registry. There is really nothing special about his sentencing.
malsmo at June 11, 2016 2:26 PM
And, in case anyone didn't get it, I don't plan to talk to my friend about the case because I don't AGREE with him about this. Just because he can't see Turner's acts as traumatic for the victim doesn't mean they weren't. I don't know whether my friend thinks there wasn't enough evidence to prove she wasn't consenting - or whether he thinks forced digital penetration shouldn't warrant a jail sentence, or what.
I do know he was upset to hear about Turner's female friend getting blacklisted (she's a musician) as a result of her letter. From CNN:
"The public outrage over (Leslie) Rasmussen's character letter resulted in a barrage of vile social media messages, some threatening, and multiple canceled Good English appearances in New York and Ohio, including the Northside Festival and the Dayton Music Art & Film Festival."
(Rasmussen has apologized for her letter - somewhat.)
lenona at June 11, 2016 2:43 PM
So, she writes the letter and her band, made up of her and her two sisters, is blacklisted because of it.
I find her ignorance somewhat troubling.
Yes, that person is certainly a rapist, but ambush rape is actually very uncommon. Most people are raped by someone they know.
Patrick at June 11, 2016 3:05 PM
Regarding the Lena Dunham rape story while she was a student at Oberlin.
There seems to be a mindset among some female college students that there is a badge of honor to be a victim of something, particularly a victim of rape. Thus, Lena Dunham and others can take a consensual, clumsy sexual encounter and turn it into rape. This is wrong because it diminishes the impact of true victims of rape.
Lena Dunham outs her rapist as, naturally, a "... conservative Republican." I didn't think there were any conservative Republicans at Oberlin.
Nick at June 11, 2016 3:09 PM
I think people are reacting exactly because of the vivid description the girl gives us. She takes you right there when she goes to the party, starts to drink, and wakes up. She is a better prosecuting attorney than her own legal counsel. Her words:
Brock stated, “At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.” Here’s the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I became unresponsive, then you still do not understand. You didn’t even stop when I was unconscious anyway! Someone else stopped you. Two guys on bikes noticed I wasn’t moving in the dark and had to tackle you. How did you not notice while on top of me? You said, you would have stopped and gotten help. You say that, but I want you to explain how you would’ve helped me, step by step, walk me through this. I want to know, if those evil Swedes had not found me, how the night would have played out. I am asking you; Would you have pulled my underwear back on over my boots? Untangled the necklace wrapped around my neck? Closed my legs, covered me? Pick the pine needles from my hair? Asked if the abrasions on my neck and bottom hurt? Would you then go find a friend and say, Will you help me get her somewhere warm and soft? I don’t sleep when I think about the way it could have gone if the two guys had never come. What would have happened to me? That’s what you’ll never have a good answer for, that’s what you can’t explain even after a year.
gooseegg at June 11, 2016 3:12 PM
If Turner had been acquitted, I could understand the furor. But the sentence for his crime was right in line with similar situations (I am an attorney), and was based on a recommendation from the probation department -- which was made after interviewing the victim.
Jail time plus lifetime sex-offender status is hardly a slap on the wrist. This guy's life has been ruined as a consequence of his drunken debauchery -- and as a consequence of his victim's irresponsible behavior, as well. (Oh yes, I WILL blame the victim for that which is blameworthy!)
For those braying for Turner's head on a pike and/or the judge's recall, consider yourselves part of a hysterical, mindless lynch mob. Virtue-signalling at its finest.
Frankly, the feminist cabal is palpably relieved that, this time at least, there was an ACTUAL CRIME!
Word to men these days? Make the nasty slut beg for it, and make a recording.
Jay R at June 11, 2016 3:38 PM
I'm wondering how the judge thinks that by sentencing him to only six months, this is going to spare him the hardship that a longer sentence would impose.
Even if he gets a short sentence and can go on to pursue his dreams of becoming an Olympic swimmer, won't his reputation as "the rapist who got off too easy" remain with him?
How would this interfere with his attaining his ambitions. He might make it to the Olympics but he'll likely be the first medalist who was booed by his own country.
Patrick at June 11, 2016 4:21 PM
Bullshit on you all. He took her behind a DUMPSTER!
That shows enough ability to think (what do I want to do to her and where is a safe place for ME to do that) that his "I don't remember." is immaterial.
Kidnapping, assault, pile the charges on and send the fucker away for a LONG time.
This is not a sexual event. It is a physical assault on a total defenseless human being.
Bob in Texas at June 11, 2016 4:26 PM
Before charging out with pitchforks and torches, consider that it might be at least paradoxically true that answering an atrocity of this magnitude with blind fury isn't necessarily the best response.
But I'm not charmed by the presence of the loving mother in the photos I saw of him walking into the courtroom. I never did anything so monstrous; if I had, at most any age, I'd hope my family would have said 'You've chosen your own path, and we can't help you follow it.'
The best and deepest loyalties have boundaries.
Crid at June 11, 2016 7:25 PM
And of course, that includes judges in the courthouse.
I don't know what to do with this one.
Crid at June 11, 2016 8:58 PM
He dragged he behind a dumpster and undressed her while she was unconscious. He attempted to flee when seen.
I have no sympathy for him. If he was cognizant enough to flee and undress a passed out woman he was aware enough to know she was out.
Had he gotten drunk and started shooting at people or drove a car deliberately into a crowd no one would feel sorry for him.
Everyone knows alcohol lowers inhibitions and interferes with cognitive functions. When you CHOOSE to drink you are responsible for your actions afterwards.
lujlp at June 12, 2016 1:02 AM
There is no evidence that he dragged her behind a dumpster folks. People saw them leave together and they were found outside near a bike path not behind a dumpster. You're getting your information from activists who want to inflame this incident to push their agenda.
He committed a criminal act and has been convicted and sentenced for it. His sentence is in line with standards for the offenses he's been convicted of and the circumstances of the case.
The claims that he's gotten away with rape or has gotten special treatment are lies.
Don't fall for lies at June 12, 2016 11:40 AM
The point of raising children with discipline and ethics (even when doing so is exhausting to the parent) is to burn into muscle memory the fact that certain things just don't get done; so that even in severe intoxication, your now-adult child recognizes a line that cannot be crossed.
Your partner being unconscious is such a line. He she been even semi-conscious, he could argue that he was getting affirmative assent signals while acknowledging that perhaps he went too far. However, she was unconscious and signaling nothing so he has no defense even if he was stopped from actually raping her (by the legal definition of rape).
The thing that bugs me the most about this case is the father's poor choice of phrasing (Archer?). His whine about a the punishment being too severe for "twenty minutes of action" smacks of a father declaring proudly that his son was "getting some action" and this was normal or to be celebrated, no matter the condition of the woman. Whether he actually intended it that way is not clear.
And when you voluntarily get blind, stinking, pass-out drunk? Are you then responsible for what you allow by default to happen to you by being willfully unconscious?
Conan the Grammarian at June 12, 2016 12:18 PM
This guy's life has been ruined as a consequence of his drunken debauchery -- and as a consequence of his victim's irresponsible behavior, as well. (Oh yes, I WILL blame the victim for that which is blameworthy!)
____________________________________
So you're saying that someone who's too drunk to resist and is practically comatose should be LEGALLY fair game for anyone to assault - or rob?
What exactly was wrong with the three points I made in my first post?
From a well-known writer, 20 years ago:
"A con artist is just as much a thief as if he'd broken into his victim's safe-deposit box. 'The complainant showed incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor,' is not a legal defense. Why is rape different?"
lenona at June 12, 2016 4:22 PM
And when you voluntarily get blind, stinking, pass-out drunk? Are you then responsible for what you allow by default to happen to you by being willfully unconscious?
Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have penalties for drunk driving
lujlp at June 12, 2016 7:36 PM
Um, once you're unconscious, I'm pretty sure you can't turn the car on. Release the brake with your knee, maybe, but I'm sure that's legally different from "driving."
lenona at June 13, 2016 12:00 PM
Leave a comment