Stanford Rape Case
I think any parent would emphasize the good aspects of their child's character to increase the chances for a lenient sentence. However, I felt the father's letter here violated decency standards in a few ways.
First, the incredibly trivial details describing of how his criminal son has been affected ("He just doesn't love throwing a ribeye on the grill the way he used to.") Better to say he's upset by what occurred and leave it at that.
Second, the adherence to the apparent defense strategy of excusing his son by citing campus sociological trends. Binge drinking and hook-up culture did not drag that poor woman behind a dumpster and savagely attack her. Your son did.
Third, the total lack of remorse, concern or even acknowledgement of the victim. Even worse, he states that "nothing violent occurred" calling her a liar despite the jury that sided with her. The purpose of his letter is to provide a more complete view of his criminally convicted son, not to cast doubt on the verdict or the victim.
The problem with drunkenness is that it makes it easier for the defense attorney to attack the victim's credibility. In the Stanford case, the fact that two grad students caught Turner in the act effectively nullified that defense strategy even though it was attempted.
tjohn said:
The problem with drunkenness is that it makes it easier for the defense attorney to attack the victim's credibility. In the Stanford case, the fact that two grad students caught Turner in the act effectively nullified that defense strategy even though it was attempted.
Stop using drunkenness to excuse his behavior. It's disgusting. And the fact that it can be used to nullify a victim's story is the issue, not being drunk.
In general, I am a bit skeptical of claims of remorse in criminal cases. I think that over time, as they grow older, a lot of perpetrators become increasingly remorseful, but I think at the time of conviction, they mostly are thinking about themselves.
debby said:
People are not monolithic. He may be a nice guy in many ways, but he raped an unconscious woman and doesn't see what the big deal is. That has nothing to do with alcohol. Granted, he may not have had the courage to do it sober.
tjohn said:
Klinker said:
tjohn said:
Oh, I agree totally. The father should have consulted with a PR person when crafting that letter. I can believe that Brock Turner is basically a decent person. However, while under the influence of the demon drink, he did something terrible and he can't undo it and has to pay the price.
That certainly seems to be the Dad's point of view. I'm not buying it.
You don't think that Brock Turner is basically a decent person? I haven't heard anything to suggest otherwise. How many people (especially young people) do you suppose are walking around who a) need to avoid drinking too much and b) need friends to keep them on the right path. I think it's a lot.
tjohn said:
The problem with drunkenness is that it makes it easier for the defense attorney to attack the victim's credibility. In the Stanford case, the fact that two grad students caught Turner in the act effectively nullified that defense strategy even though it was attempted.
He ran when he was confronted. That tells me that he knew, even while drunk, that what he was doing was wrong regardless.
marylago said:
tjohn said:
The problem with drunkenness is that it makes it easier for the defense attorney to attack the victim's credibility. In the Stanford case, the fact that two grad students caught Turner in the act effectively nullified that defense strategy even though it was attempted.
Stop using drunkenness to excuse his behavior. It's disgusting. And the fact that it can be used to nullify a victim's story is the issue, not being drunk.
I am not using drunkenness to excuse his behavior. I am saying that when the victim is drunk, it gives the defense attorney a means to attack the victim's credibility.
tjohn said:
marylago said:
tjohn said:
The problem with drunkenness is that it makes it easier for the defense attorney to attack the victim's credibility. In the Stanford case, the fact that two grad students caught Turner in the act effectively nullified that defense strategy even though it was attempted.
Stop using drunkenness to excuse his behavior. It's disgusting. And the fact that it can be used to nullify a victim's story is the issue, not being drunk.
I am not using drunkenness to excuse his behavior. I am saying that when the victim is drunk, it gives the defense attorney a means to attack the victim's credibility.
Your words, not mine. "The problem with drunkenness..." indicates that you do believe it is her fault for getting drunk.
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case or it would be much harder to prosecute.
tjohn said:
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case.
Sorry I don't buy it. She is guilty of getting drunk but the last time I checked was not a crime... I don't care what the defense attorneys do. This guy was FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his piers. There is nothing up for debate. Yes there would not be a case even if she was not drunk, without the grad students, likely because it would have been her word against his and we know how that often goes. And well, even with everything that was noted, and even after found guilty he still got away with it for all intents and purposes.
Who is saying Turner isn't guilty?
pmartinezv said:
tjohn said:
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case.
Sorry I don't buy it. She is guilty of getting drunk but the last time I checked was not a crime... I don't care what the defense attorneys do. This guy was FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his piers. There is nothing up for debate. Yes there would not be a case even if she was not drunk, without the grad students, likely because it would have been her word against his and we know how that often goes. And well, even with everything that was noted, and even after found guilty he still got away with it for all intents and purposes.
https://rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
Only 344 out of every 1,000 sexual assaults are reported to police. That means about 2 out of 3 go unreported.1
Individuals of college-age2 Female Students: 20% report
Female Non-Students: 32% report
The elderly: 28% report3
Members of the military: 43% of female victims and 10% of male victims reported.
And I think the stats show that a rapist is likely to rape more than once. This was the first time he was caught -- and it is likely he will rape again.
Sometimes these events are nuanced. If 2 people are pissed drunk and engage in sex and one party doesn't remember consenting, that is a tricky issue.
But this is not that issue. The victim was unconscious. The rapist was not. AND attempted to run away when spotted.
He is sick and twisted. And he is clearly a rapist.
Nobody is saying Turner is not guilty. But you are implying that she is guilty of getting drunk and because she got drunk she got raped. That is bull$hit. Getting drunk is not a crime.
tjohn said:
Who is saying Turner isn't guilty?
pmartinezv said:
tjohn said:
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case.
Sorry I don't buy it. She is guilty of getting drunk but the last time I checked was not a crime... I don't care what the defense attorneys do. This guy was FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his piers. There is nothing up for debate. Yes there would not be a case even if she was not drunk, without the grad students, likely because it would have been her word against his and we know how that often goes. And well, even with everything that was noted, and even after found guilty he still got away with it for all intents and purposes.
I really don't think that is what tjohn is saying. I think he's saying that the victim's alcohol or drug use can be exploited by the defense team to introduce doubt re:credibility, and that in this case that was not possible because of two eye-witnesses.
pmartinezv said:
Nobody is saying Turner is not guilty. But you are implying that she is guilty of getting drunk and because she got drunk she got raped. That is bull$hit. Getting drunk is not a crime.
tjohn said:
Who is saying Turner isn't guilty?
pmartinezv said:
tjohn said:
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case.
Sorry I don't buy it. She is guilty of getting drunk but the last time I checked was not a crime... I don't care what the defense attorneys do. This guy was FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his piers. There is nothing up for debate. Yes there would not be a case even if she was not drunk, without the grad students, likely because it would have been her word against his and we know how that often goes. And well, even with everything that was noted, and even after found guilty he still got away with it for all intents and purposes.
No, that's just how you are reading it. I am saying that for better or for worse, if the victim was drunk and has a hazy or non-existent recollection of events, the defense attorney is going to go after her credibility. That's just a fact, nothing else. And it's harsh since a victim of a violent crime is may well have a messed up recollection of events even if unimpaired.
pmartinezv said:
Nobody is saying Turner is not guilty. But you are implying that she is guilty of getting drunk and because she got drunk she got raped. That is bull$hit. Getting drunk is not a crime.
tjohn said:
Who is saying Turner isn't guilty?
pmartinezv said:
tjohn said:
When I hire a defense attorney, they will use every method they can to defend me and in rape cases, this includes attacking the credibility of the victim. If the victim was drunk at the time of the crime, it gives the defense attorney additional angles of attack. This is why drunkenness is a problem in these cases. Fact is, absent the grad students, there wouldn't be a case.
Sorry I don't buy it. She is guilty of getting drunk but the last time I checked was not a crime... I don't care what the defense attorneys do. This guy was FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his piers. There is nothing up for debate. Yes there would not be a case even if she was not drunk, without the grad students, likely because it would have been her word against his and we know how that often goes. And well, even with everything that was noted, and even after found guilty he still got away with it for all intents and purposes.
Woot said:
Sometimes these events are nuanced. If 2 people are pissed drunk and engage in sex and one party doesn't remember consenting, that is a tricky issue.
But this is not that issue. The victim was unconscious. The rapist was not. AND attempted to run away when spotted.
He is sick and twisted. And he is clearly a rapist.
That sums it up.
this is no "decent young man". Lots of people get drunk- 99.9% of them do not brutally rape a person. As for "piling on his father"- are you kidding me? His behavior is almost as deplorable as his son's. A disgusting human being who absolutely deserves all the venom coming his way.
A "basically decent person" must have a really low bar for you. Mine is somewhere above rapists.
tjohn said:
TarheelsInNj said:
tjohn said:
If I had a son and he committed a crime such as this, I would do whatever I could to minimize his punishment. This doesn't make the father a bad person although there is no doubt that the letter he wrote is a PR disaster. All of us have been in positions where we have done something that we would give the world to take back but can't. Brock Turner is looking at the end of life as he knew it and I am sure he is experiencing every emotion under the sun including blaming the victim.
I totally agree that you would try to minimize the punishment. What you likely wouldn't do (or at least, I wouldn't) is minimize the crime. The father is basically saying "what happened isn't even a big deal."
Oh, I agree totally. The father should have consulted with a PR person when crafting that letter. I can believe that Brock Turner is basically a decent person. However, while under the influence of the demon drink, he did something terrible and he can't undo it and has to pay the price.
It would have been completely easy for the father to say "the kid messed up, please don't send him away for life" without basically saying "...because he didn't even do anything." It's the latter part that's so troubling. The father could have apologized on behalf of the family for raising an entitled little prick, but he didn't. Because he doesn't feel that way.
Apart from the letter his father wrote which quite defies comprehension, do we know that Brock Turner lived as "entitled little prick"? I have not seen anything on that one way or the other. I would find it easier to understand if, in fact, he had a history that suggested that he could commit rape. But if there is truly nothing in his past to suggest that he could do this, I don't quite know what to make of it.
TarheelsInNj said:
It would have been completely easy for the father to say "the kid messed up, please don't send him away for life" without basically saying "...because he didn't even do anything." It's the latter part that's so troubling. The father could have apologized on behalf of the family for raising an entitled little prick, but he didn't. Because he doesn't feel that way.
Find what easier to understand? What exactly are you struggling with?
marylago said:
Find what easier to understand? What exactly are you struggling with?
Suppose you are a person who really does know him well and you never saw anything to suggest he had this in him? What if for example, he had hitherto treated women well, was considerate of other people, etc.? What would you think? Now, maybe he displayed evidence of entitlement in this regard. That I don't know.
What does it matter? A rapist rapes for the first time at some point. A murderer kills for the first time. Because they were nice to women before that or never stabbed someone to death before, doesn't mean they had a good core.
I have had a father, a grandfather, two brothers, 3 husbands, two sons, and three grandsons in my life ranging in age from 14 to 22. NEVER have any of these men demonstrated anything close to rape. Something is wrong with This man to treat another human being so disrespectfully.
tjohn said:
Apart from the letter his father wrote which quite defies comprehension, do we know that Brock Turner lived as "entitled little prick"? I have not seen anything on that one way or the other. I would find it easier to understand if, in fact, he had a history that suggested that he could commit rape. But if there is truly nothing in his past to suggest that he could do this, I don't quite know what to make of it.
TarheelsInNj said:
It would have been completely easy for the father to say "the kid messed up, please don't send him away for life" without basically saying "...because he didn't even do anything." It's the latter part that's so troubling. The father could have apologized on behalf of the family for raising an entitled little prick, but he didn't. Because he doesn't feel that way.
The father's entire letter suggests his son was raised that way. Whether he was entitled enough to be a serial rapist doesn't really matter. What does matter is at no point has anyone shown ANY remorse for this. And sure, I could see your point that maybe for Brock it will come later. But the reaction from his father suggests he thinks his son is the victim here. It's way beyond just pleading for leniency. You can do that and still acknowledge he *****ed up - AND acknowledge the incredible trauma he inflicted on someone. Whether it's out of character or not is really not the point in my mind, honestly... because he did it this time and he hurt someone badly and has taken absolutely no responsibility for it, nor has his family. "He screwed up and we all feel terrible about it" should not be so hard.
Reading the father's letter suggests to me that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree in terms of attitudes anyway.
It's rape. "out of character" might be to talk rudely to a waitress at a restaurant when you are usually soft spoken or to eat a piece of candy when you are a health nut. It can't be "out of character" to rape someone. That very terminology and mindset minimizes the crime.
pmartinezv said:
But you are implying that she is guilty of getting drunk and because she got drunk she got raped. That is bull$hit. Getting drunk is not a crime.
Of course it's not a crime. Still, I consul my daughter not to drink to the point of passing out, because I know as girl she's vulnerable to animals like this kid.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
People are not monolithic. He may be a nice guy in many ways, but he raped an unconscious woman and doesn't see what the big deal is. That has nothing to do with alcohol. Granted, he may not have had the courage to do it sober.