Brock Turner

[EMP]

The article said an estimated 216K rapes occurred in prisons while there were 90K odd rape cases outside of prison. Rape cases are different than number of rapes committed.

The Daily Mail also reports on Bigfoot sightings.

[doggyfizzle]

I'm not sure how much of the outrage is out of genuine concern for the victim & that the sentence was too light and how much is because we love seeing the rich white college athlete fall from grace. We idolize celebrity and the wealthy and then rejoice when they mess up.

I've actually wondered (but haven't looked into it) if the prosecution in this case took the "make an example out of the white privileged male" route in an attempt for harsh sentence and that may have influenced the judge's leniency?  Maybe the judge thought about the Duke Lacrosse case from a couple years ago and was overly cautious or something when sentencing this kid after he was found guilty?

I'm reading the prosecution asked for 6 years and the absolute max was 14 years.

We're in a time where people are protesting about over incarceration and mandatory minimums. A judge then takes into consideration the age of the guilty and lack of criminal record and...people are pissed.

This article suggests that's the sentence is inline with norms from the county probation department: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29985256/stanford-sexual-assault-case-judge-behind-sentence

I 100% agree with you, and wasn't trying to imply that the sentence wasn't harsh enough.  I maybe should have phrased my question: did the judge try and assign a sentence in a way to ensure some punishment that likely stems to some degree from poor choices on both the victim and defendants part and takes into account the unfortunate lack of "without a doubt evidence" while avoiding a lengthier sentence that would certainly be appealed (and drag the victim back into the spotlight again) and May result in the defendant going free?  I think that is likely what was at play.

[EMP]

I'm not sure how much of the outrage is out of genuine concern for the victim & that the sentence was too light and how much is because we love seeing the rich white college athlete fall from grace. We idolize celebrity and the wealthy and then rejoice when they mess up.

I've actually wondered (but haven't looked into it) if the prosecution in this case took the "make an example out of the white privileged male" route in an attempt for harsh sentence and that may have influenced the judge's leniency?  Maybe the judge thought about the Duke Lacrosse case from a couple years ago and was overly cautious or something when sentencing this kid after he was found guilty?

I'm reading the prosecution asked for 6 years and the absolute max was 14 years.

We're in a time where people are protesting about over incarceration and mandatory minimums. A judge then takes into consideration the age of the guilty and lack of criminal record and...people are pissed.

This article suggests that's the sentence is inline with norms from the county probation department: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29985256/stanford-sexual-assault-case-judge-behind-sentence

I 100% agree with you, and wasn't trying to imply that the sentence wasn't harsh enough.  I maybe should have phrased my question: did the judge try and assign a sentence in a way to ensure some punishment that likely stems to some degree from poor choices on both the victim and defendants part and takes into account the unfortunate lack of "without a doubt evidence" while avoiding a lengthier sentence that would certainly be appealed (and drag the victim back into the spotlight again) and May result in the defendant going free?  I think that is likely what was at play.

I believe most people are upset that the judge cited the defendant's future potential and not wanting to disrupt his swimming career more as the reasons for the leniency.

I'm not huge on punitive sentencing, so maybe 6 months and having to register as a sex offender serves justice. Eh.

The defendant's dad has also gone on record saying some appalling things on his son's behalf.

[Midwest]

I read something that, and I just looked for it and didn't see it again, but what I recall is that the victim has no memory of the actual acts, and wouldn't know it had happened if they hadn't been told (no physical discomfort, bruising, physical awareness or memory at all).

Not saying its right, but if its true that probably played a part in the light sentence.

I do believe campus rape is an important issue, I do believe that any rape is an important issue.  I am not sure that this case is the right hill to die on. It's sort of similar to picking to whiskey-drinking apartment-to-herself flame-my-boss-in-public girl as the poster child for wealth inequality.

It sounds an awful lot like two people were headed to the nearest horizontal surface to fool around, and one passed out before the other. As soon as your partner passes out, you should stop.  But I don't know if 14 years in prison is really justice for being too drunk to notice someone passed out. And there's every indication that could be exactly what happened.

I wasn't there, either in the courtroom or the alley (and the "behind the dumpster in the alley" thing I think is what makes this seem more clear cut than it is - some of you may never have been drunk enough to think having sex behind a dumpster is a reasonable plan).  But if you believe in the rule of law, in innocent until proven guilty, then anything that happens between two drunk people is always going to be difficult to reconstruct the next day.  And when that happens the presumption of innocence was agreed upon, outside the heat of any particular circumstance, by everyone, to be the right thing to do.

So if what happened was a guy and girl are flirting it up, both drinking way too much, both get totally wasted and decide to leave together, and make it as far as the alley before they start making out, and then things move into the pants, and then she passes out and he keeps going, and some passersby see it and pull him off (noticing she looks passed out with her head on his shoulder, or w/e).  And then he's too drunk to really explain himself, which gets misinterpreted as "guilty looking"  (and any 20 year old who was just doing that is going to look guilty, hell I'd look guilty if you walked in on me with my finger there).  Has he done something wrong?  Lets say sure.

He gets a ruined reputation (his name now pops up with a "don't be a rapist meme").  That by itself, his life is likely going to be total shit forever.  He also gets 6 months in jail.  He is absolutely going to be raped there, over and over.  After that, congratulations felon, you can't work at 80% of jobs.

And!  You get to register as a sex offender and can't live in 80% of housing (because it's too close to schools).

It is really really difficult for me to think that all of this isn't enough punishment for what wouldn't be a crime if the victim could remember what had happened (and was OK with it, which, admittedly, it's unlikely she was like, lets go finger bang behind that dumpster).

Bull fucking SHIT.  He was not "so drunk as to not notice".  He dragged an unconscious woman to assault her and was sober enough to know it was wrong by evidence that he FUCKING RAN AWAY when caught.  And yes this is the perfect case, you don't have sex with someone unable to consent.  And when someone is drunk, they cannot consent.  He knew it, which is why he attempted to flee the scene of the crime.  And the reason he got a light sentence was the judge is a piece shit who is fine with women being raped.  That is the only explanation for it.

Disclaimer - There are 2 witnesses who thought the situation was weird enough to intervene, so I think there is more to this story than he didn't realize she passed out.  The jury has more facts than we do and they convicted him of a crime.

Having said that - Where has it been reported he dragged her behind the dumpster? and b) if 2 guys attacked me when I was wasted, I might run too.

Bad situation for all involved.

[rosaz]

I'm not sure there's data to support "overwhelming majority", but rape in the general population is much closer to 50/50 then people seem willing to admit.

This article's (http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/) key quote:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

My problem with those stats is that calling 'drunken-bad-decision-making' sex rape is pretty radical and uncommon, regardless of gender. I've had plenty of girlfriends tell me about drunken-bad-decision-sex and none of them have ever called it rape. Nor have I ever heard of a rape case where a woman (above statutory age) says 'well, yes, I was conscious and I acted like I was consenting, but I was drunk, so it was rape.' As I understand the law, a jury could not convict under those circumstances. That may be the definition certain fairly radical people, but it's far from a mainstream (or legal) definition.

So unless I can see a split-out of drunken vs. coerced/unconscious, I'm going to be reluctant to take away anything larger from that statistic.

[Midwest]

I know it's a very fuzzy line in general when alcohol is involved. And yes, binge drinking culture is bad. However, so is forgiving wrongdoing and blaming it on the alcohol. You can take the wheel while drunk and kill someone and be held accountable. Why shouldn't you be when you rape someone?

The question is, if both parties are drunk, and didn't say no or yes, is it really rape?  In Brock's case, absolutely, it is.  But in the larger sense, especially in college, how many drunken yes's were sober no's and why is that the male's sole responsibility?

I agree that it often falls on the male to be "responsible" in these cases, and no I don't think it's right. And I think the problem with rape cases is that there are times that a woman will cry rape when it shouldn't actually be considered rape - and it makes us doubt the victim at all times. Rape culture is not only forgiving men that shouldn't be forgiven, it is also allowing women to cry rape when what they actually feel is regret. I don't have the answer. But in this case, I don't think it's really a gray area. This isn't a case of her crying rape a week later because her friend told her what happened and she thought she shouldn't have done it. This is a case of someone violating someone else's unconscious body. Those cases are very different.

It pains me that we have to doubt victims. And it pains me that men are held responsible at some times when both should be held responsible. Unfortunately, this is the system in which we're in at the moment. At least have an open dialogue about it could help find the right answer?

This comment is in no way defending Brock Turner -

If we are looking for a dialogue, if one of the parties is incoherently drunk or passed out that's rape.  If party says no or attempts to stop the other party, that's rape.

If two people are hooking up (drunk or sober), I disagree to require them to ask permission constantly through the encounter.

If you want to avoid drunken hook up sex, don't get drunk and/or completely blasted out of your mind?  I'm advising my daughter that being black out drunk and/or alone at a party is a bad thing.  I'm telling her that because there are predators out there, but also you need to take responsibility for yourself (drunk or sober).

[Midwest]

I'm not sure there's data to support "overwhelming majority", but rape in the general population is much closer to 50/50 then people seem willing to admit.

This article's (http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/) key quote:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

My problem with those stats is that calling 'drunken-bad-decision-making' sex rape is pretty radical and uncommon, regardless of gender. I've had plenty of girlfriends tell me about drunken-bad-decision-sex and none of them have ever called it rape. Nor have I ever heard of a rape case where a woman (above statutory age) says 'well, yes, I was conscious and I acted like I was consenting, but I was drunk, so it was rape.' As I understand the law, a jury could not convict under those circumstances. That may be the definition certain fairly radical people, but it's far from a mainstream (or legal) definition.

So unless I can see a split-out of drunken vs. coerced/unconscious, I'm going to be reluctant to take away anything larger from that statistic.

I realize the police did not pursue the allegation, but what should happen in this situation?  Friend's kid is at this school -

http://totalfratmove.com/public-oral-sex-at-ohio-university-blows-up-on-social-media-rape-alleged/

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm not sure there's data to support "overwhelming majority", but rape in the general population is much closer to 50/50 then people seem willing to admit.

This article's (http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/) key quote:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

My problem with those stats is that calling 'drunken-bad-decision-making' sex rape is pretty radical and uncommon, regardless of gender. I've had plenty of girlfriends tell me about drunken-bad-decision-sex and none of them have ever called it rape. Nor have I ever heard of a rape case where a woman (above statutory age) says 'well, yes, I was conscious and I acted like I was consenting, but I was drunk, so it was rape.' As I understand the law, a jury could not convict under those circumstances. That may be the definition certain fairly radical people, but it's far from a mainstream (or legal) definition.

So unless I can see a split-out of drunken vs. coerced/unconscious, I'm going to be reluctant to take away anything larger from that statistic.

I realize the police did not pursue the allegation, but what should happen in this situation?  Friend's kid is at this school -

http://totalfratmove.com/public-oral-sex-at-ohio-university-blows-up-on-social-media-rape-alleged/

Fucking nothing should happen. Thank god there's video, and that they were 10 feet off Court Street, or that poor bastard might be fucked.

[rosaz]

Absolutely nothing should happen.

So I guess I was wrong that no woman has claimed rape under those circumstances, but the point stands that no police department would ever follow up on something like that.

Thank god there's video, and that they were 10 feet off Court Street, or that poor bastard might be fucked.

Nah, if there hadn't been video, I doubt she would have alleged rape. Not saying that it's ok at all - but I'm guessing she probably did that due to being humiliated by the video being all over the internet and trying to deflect her shame in some way.

People posting that video is pretty damn creepy though. Yes they were both moronic, but does it really justify the insane slut-shaming she (and not he) went through after that?

[randymarsh]

If you want to avoid drunken hook up sex, don't get drunk and/or completely blasted out of your mind?  I'm advising my daughter that being black out drunk and/or alone at a party is a bad thing.  I'm telling her that because there are predators out there, but also you need to take responsibility for yourself (drunk or sober).

That is good advice. Unfortunately many people will claim you're now victim blaming and promoting "rape culture" if you say this.

Ignoring the sexual assault issues, may bad things can happen when you get blackout drunk so all parents should be teaching their children that the college party scene needs to be handled with care.

[Taran Wanderer]

In my experience, being drunks impairs logical reasoning and lowers inhibitions. Thus, one may say or do things that one might otherwise not do, and one might otherwise regret them later. Therefore, it can be risky to get drunk.  Many bad things can happen and consent or lack of consent can be confused. Refusal is still pretty unambiguous, and unconsciousness is very apparently not consent.

I recall a confusing, drunken night where I ended up in a woman's room in college, and those last couple of beers kicked in after we arrived. I was so drunk I could not walk out, but I still knew that "getting some action" was not appropriate. I did the walk of shame in the morning, with a very bad headache, and nothing very exciting to be ashamed of.  I recall another situation where I could have been taken advantage of by Nicole Kidman's twin, but instead she poured out my grape juice and told me I was done for the night.  (It wasn't grape juice, and it turned out that was was definitely not Nicole Kidman's twin. Same hair, though...)

Bottom line:  Don't be an inner asshole because when you get drunk, that inner asshole might float to the surface.  And if you do get drunk, make sure you are around people who will look out for you.

And in case it's not clear, in this situation Brock Turner must have a fairly big inner asshole. And his dad does, too!

[Midwest]

Absolutely nothing should happen.

So I guess I was wrong that no woman has claimed rape under those circumstances, but the point stands that no police department would ever follow up on something like that.

Thank god there's video, and that they were 10 feet off Court Street, or that poor bastard might be fucked.

Nah, if there hadn't been video, I doubt she would have alleged rape. Not saying that it's ok at all - but I'm guessing she probably did that due to being humiliated by the video being all over the internet and trying to deflect her shame in some way.

People posting that video is pretty damn creepy though. Yes they were both moronic, but does it really justify the insane slut-shaming she (and not he) went through after that?

As it relates to the link - I think it's odd that people posted that video on social media, but my sympathy for her is tempered by the false rape allegation.  Both responses to the post have indicated nothing should happen to the young man, but no thought given to legal consequences to the young woman for her false allegations against him.  If the police had pursued this at all, he allegation could have ruined his life.   Frankly I think she should be charged criminally.

There has been some discussion in this thread and in the media as to what constitutes consent and can drunk people consent.  I think the link provides some interesting issues.  a) Were they both too drunk to consent b) She's accusing him of rape.  Since they are both drunk, couldn't she be assaulting him? c) As it relates the assaulting him, if they were in on of the affirmative consent states, who would be the rapist (her or him) and d) Why no consequences for her false accusation? 

Edited to Add - I'm referring to the link.  Not Turner. 

[Midwest]

If you want to avoid drunken hook up sex, don't get drunk and/or completely blasted out of your mind?  I'm advising my daughter that being black out drunk and/or alone at a party is a bad thing.  I'm telling her that because there are predators out there, but also you need to take responsibility for yourself (drunk or sober).

That is good advice. Unfortunately many people will claim you're now victim blaming and promoting "rape culture" if you say this.

Ignoring the sexual assault issues, may bad things can happen when you get blackout drunk so all parents should be teaching their children that the college party scene needs to be handled with care.

Many in this country are promoting the idea that we are all victims, it's not a sentiment I agree with.  If two consenting adults get drunk and make bad decisions, so be it.  Being drunk doesn't excuse bad decisions (I'm not just referring to hook ups). 

If you don't want to make bad decisions, avoid situations or put safeguards in place.  I don't go out to dinner, drink too much and then try to figure out how to drive home.  If you don't want to cheat on your spouse, keep your guard up around people you might want to cheat with.  It's really common sense stuff.

Having said all that, if one of the parties is incoherently drunk and incapable of participating or responding then you've crossed the line and should stop to avoid problems for both.

[rosaz]

If you want to avoid drunken hook up sex, don't get drunk and/or completely blasted out of your mind?  I'm advising my daughter that being black out drunk and/or alone at a party is a bad thing.  I'm telling her that because there are predators out there, but also you need to take responsibility for yourself (drunk or sober).

That is good advice. Unfortunately many people will claim you're now victim blaming and promoting "rape culture" if you say this.

I think the accusation of victim blaming comes in when someone tells women not to get drunk if they don't want to get raped, or when they start conflating rapes with drunken hook-ups.

[rosaz]

As it relates to the link - I think it's odd that people posted that video on social media, but my sympathy for her is tempered by the false rape allegation.  Both responses to the post have indicated nothing should happen to the young man, but no thought given to legal consequences to the young woman for her false allegations against him.  If the police had pursued this at all, he allegation could have ruined his life.   Frankly I think she should be charged criminally.

I agree, the allegation does make her a lot less sympathetic.

Not sure there's anything criminal about it though - I think for that to apply she'd have had to lie about what happened, i.e., said she had said no when she hadn't. If she was honest about what happened and was just using an incorrect definition of rape (a definition apparently propogated by the CHC according to  that Time article linked up thread) then it probably shows a lack of character but I don't think it's criminal.

[randymarsh]

As it relates to the link - I think it's odd that people posted that video on social media, but my sympathy for her is tempered by the false rape allegation.  Both responses to the post have indicated nothing should happen to the young man, but no thought given to legal consequences to the young woman for her false allegations against him.  If the police had pursued this at all, he allegation could have ruined his life.   Frankly I think she should be charged criminally.

I agree, the allegation does make her a lot less sympathetic.

Not sure there's anything criminal about it though - I think for that to apply she'd have had to lie about what happened, i.e., said she had said no when she hadn't. If she was honest about what happened and was just using an incorrect definition of rape (a definition apparently propogated by the CHC according to  that Time article linked up thread) then it probably shows a lack of character but I don't think it's criminal.

Huh? She did lie. The article says "The female participant has since claimed rape, sparking an investigation by Athens police." I'm assuming that means she said "I was raped'.

If you tell the police you've been raped when all available evidence says you were an enthusiastic and willing participant, you should be charged with a crime. I say enthuastic becasue:

Per another anonymous source that spoke to Total Frat Move, the two oral enthusiasts posed for pictures with each other and with several bystanders after they were finished.

This is a classic "I was drunk and made bad decisions and omg people took pictures so now I'm going to cry rape to absolve myself of any accountability".

[Cyaphas]

Get drunk: decision making capabilities impaired.

Get blackout drunk: can't remember anything let alone decisions being made.

Male: responsible for any actions insinuated or suggested by female companion regardless of what actually happened.

Female: can make any accusations towards male and make them stick until ABSOLUTELY proven wrong. Even after being proven wrong, you can still fall back on you were black out drunk.

We've created a society where certain adults are allowed to completely inebriate themselves and are not only not responsible for their actions, they're given a choice about whether or not they want to completely ruin someone else's life to save face with those actions.

Rape is HORRIBLE. But what have we done to women that have lied about rape? Are those sentencing even remotely comparable to what they have and were going to put someone else through?

[rosaz]

Huh? She did lie. The article says "The female participant has since claimed rape, sparking an investigation by Athens police." I'm assuming that means she said "I was raped'.

I'm just pointing out the an earlier poster on this same topic claimed that women rape men as often as men rape women, because having sex with a drunk person equals rape. This per Time magazine, per the CDC.

If the CDC can argue, apparently in all seriousness, that having sex while stupidly drunk means you were raped, then as insane as I find that definition, I can't say it was criminal for a humiliated 20 year-old to latch onto it. If she lied and said something happened that definitely did not happen, then yes that is criminal. If she said "I was very drunk and I don't remember any of it, and I think I might have been raped", then no, I don't think that's criminal. Given that the photos were apparently online before she went to the police, I'm skeptical that she actually made up a story that could be so easily disproved. The police would still presumably have to do some basic groundwork to ascertain that she was conscious and participating before dropping the case (which they quickly did).

Female: can make any accusations towards male and make them stick until ABSOLUTELY proven wrong. Even after being proven wrong, you can still fall back on you were black out drunk.

We've created a society where certain adults are allowed to completely inebriate themselves and are not only not responsible for their actions, they're given a choice about whether or not they want to completely ruin someone else's life to save face with those actions.

Rape is HORRIBLE. But what have we done to women that have lied about rape? Are those sentencing even remotely comparable to what they have and were going to put someone else through?

Ok, show me a case where a female said that she blackout drunk, there were no witnesses or objective evidence, and the man was convicted of rape. I don't think that's a thing that actually happens.

And sure, we should absolutely criminally try the women who have lied about rape. The difficult part is proving that they're lying. Because it's one thing to say that you can't prove a man did it, and another thing to say that you can prove he didn't. There are women who lie, and there are also rapists who walk because guilt wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict the woman would require a second trial, and presumably her defense would be allowed all the accusatory questions she was asked the first time ("How many sexual partners have you had? How much did you have to drink this one night five weeks before the incident? Have you ever smoked marijuana? Flirted with someone inappropriate? Explain this Facebook picture from five years ago etc.)... something I'd guess most men falsely accused of rape wouldn't voluntarily submit themselves to.

[Cyaphas]

Huh? She did lie. The article says "The female participant has since claimed rape, sparking an investigation by Athens police." I'm assuming that means she said "I was raped'.

I'm just pointing out the an earlier poster on this same topic claimed that women rape men as often as men rape women, because having sex with a drunk person equals rape. This per Time magazine, per the CDC.

If the CDC can argue, apparently in all seriousness, that having sex while stupidly drunk means you were raped, then as insane as I find that definition, I can't say it was criminal for a humiliated 20 year-old to latch onto it. If she lied and said something happened that definitely did not happen, then yes that is criminal. If she said "I was very drunk and I don't remember any of it, and I think I might have been raped", then no, I don't think that's criminal. Given that the photos were apparently online before she went to the police, I'm skeptical that she actually made up a story that could be so easily disproved. The police would still presumably have to do some basic groundwork to ascertain that she was conscious and participating before dropping the case (which they quickly did).

Female: can make any accusations towards male and make them stick until ABSOLUTELY proven wrong. Even after being proven wrong, you can still fall back on you were black out drunk.

We've created a society where certain adults are allowed to completely inebriate themselves and are not only not responsible for their actions, they're given a choice about whether or not they want to completely ruin someone else's life to save face with those actions.

Rape is HORRIBLE. But what have we done to women that have lied about rape? Are those sentencing even remotely comparable to what they have and were going to put someone else through?

Ok, show me a case where a female said that she blackout drunk, there were no witnesses or objective evidence, and the man was convicted of rape. I don't think that's a thing that actually happens.

And sure, we should absolutely criminally try the women who have lied about rape. The difficult part is proving that they're lying. Because it's one thing to say that you can't prove a man did it, and another thing to say that you can prove he didn't. There are women who lie, and there are also rapists who walk because guilt wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict the woman would require a second trial, and presumably her defense would be allowed all the accusatory questions she was asked the first time ("How many sexual partners have you had? How much did you have to drink this one night five weeks before the incident? Have you ever smoked marijuana? Flirted with someone inappropriate? Explain this Facebook picture from five years ago etc.)... something I'd guess most men falsely accused of rape wouldn't voluntarily submit themselves to.

She didn't even need to be drunk:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Woman-Falsely-Accused-Brian-Banks-Rape-Ordered-to-Pay-26M-211689741.html

[rosaz]

I'm not sure what your point is. That some woman, somewhere, falsely accused a man of rape and was caught? My point was that a woman couldn't just say she blacked out and be absolved of any responsibility, she actually had to lie and say he had dragged her into a stairwell. It wasn't just that she was drunk so he was responsible and she wasn't. And yes, sometimes women lie, just like sometimes men rape people. It's horrible. Unfortunately rape cases do tend to be he-said-she-said and inevitably some juries will make mistakes - like I said before, mistakes that can go both ways. That doesn't translate to the woman's story being automatically believed; it frequently isn't, even when it's the truth.

But maybe you're arguing that this is a case where the woman wasn't sentenced? You're right, and I'm not sure why it is, though maybe it has something to do with 9 years possibly being beyond the statute of limitations for her offense.

[fallstoclimb]

Reading this thread just made me feel sick to my stomach.  I'm so sick of the politics on this site.  I didn't even realize the Brock Turner case WAS an issue that could be controversial, since 6 months for rape is so obviously unacceptable.  I thought this would be a discussion of how powerful the victim's statement is.  I'm in awe of her poise and courage.

Women lying about rape, or regretting drunken sex, and ruining men's lives is something that happens much, much, much more rarely than men raping women.   (And, yes, men can get raped too, and that's equally as horrible.)

Another thing that happens often is that victims accuse someone of rape but are not believed. 

Jon Krakauer wrote a really powerful book on campus rape called Missoula.  In an interview about his work:

But in any case, it turns out [that in] Missoula, over the course of the four years I looked at, there were 230 rapes in town, most of which either weren't prosecuted or the prosecutions were bungled. The upshot was most rapists walked away without any punishment, any accountability, which is in fact — the best statistics show that about 97 percent of rapes, you know, the rapist walks away, is never held accountable.

And we are seriously sitting here arguing about women regretting consensual drunken sex?  OK, statistics suggest that happens between 2 and 10 percent of the time.  Yes, that's shitty.  It's unfortunate that it happens.  However, the thing that happens much, much more commonly -- rapists rape and get away with it, and are free to rape again.  THAT is rape culture. 

[Northwestie]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

[EMP]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

No. His victim was a person in her own right. She shouldn't have to be defined in relationship to the men in her life to matter.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

[randymarsh]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

[Chris22]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

They also like to pretend that if two consenting adults get drunk and then have sex, somehow it's the man's fault. 

[Northwestie]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

No. His victim was a person in her own right. She shouldn't have to be defined in relationship to the men in her life to matter.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I

Are you saying the girl was somehow responsible for this moron's actions?   What does your statement mean?

[EMP]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

No. His victim was a person in her own right. She shouldn't have to be defined in relationship to the men in her life to matter.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I

Are you saying the girl was somehow responsible for this moron's actions?   What does your statement mean?

No, I'm saying that it's important that she has value as a person that should be obvious.  I don't care for the language about someone's sister/mother/daughter, because it lessens the victim's worth as a person.

There was a comment upthread about the "vast majority" of rapes occurring against men while in prison.  And we should care about those because there are more of them.  I also felt an implication that the poster felt those rapes against men are more important than rapes committed against women because he was ignoring all of the evidence that most rapes against women go unreported, and very few of the reported rapes are prosecuted. 

[EMP]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

They also like to pretend that if two consenting adults get drunk and then have sex, somehow it's the man's fault. 

I believe these comments do a fantastic job of illustrating that conversations about rape are only important if we focus on the real victims, men.  /sarcasm

[Chris22]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

They also like to pretend that if two consenting adults get drunk and then have sex, somehow it's the man's fault. 

I believe these comments do a fantastic job of illustrating that conversations about rape are only important if we focus on the real victims, men.  /sarcasm

That's a giant reach, and counterproductive if you're interested in actually discussing this.  It seems as though you're instead interested in pushing an agenda or playing the victim.  In which case, carry on, it's clear for all to see.

[randymarsh]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

They also like to pretend that if two consenting adults get drunk and then have sex, somehow it's the man's fault. 

I believe these comments do a fantastic job of illustrating that conversations about rape are only important if we focus on the real victims, men.  /sarcasm

I think your comment does a fantastic job of illustrating how male rape victims are ignored completely. You don't want to talk about them because there are female victims and they're the priority.

[charis]

This Stanford loser knew better.  Where were his morals?  Imagine if it were your daughter or sister.  Drunk is not an excuse.

The comment about prison rape was also infuriating, not because prison rape is not an important issue, but because the the implication I got from that comment was that rape is only a real crime when men are victimized.

Rape is a real crime when anyone is victimized. But people with an agenda like to pretend that all women are helpless victims and all men are aggressors when the reality is quite different.

They also like to pretend that if two consenting adults get drunk and then have sex, somehow it's the man's fault. 

I believe these comments do a fantastic job of illustrating that conversations about rape are only important if we focus on the real victims, men.  /sarcasm

I think your comment does a fantastic job of illustrating how male rape victims are ignored completely. You don't want to talk about them because there are female victims and they're the priority.

The majority of sexual assaults go unreported, by both women and men victims, mainly because the process of bringing such an allegation is incredibly hard on victims, even in a case such as this where the evidence against the accused is overwhelming.   The very first thing that victims doubt when they consider the incident is their own memory.   And they are almost guaranteed to lose in court, even with physical evidence.

Focusing on false accusations is a bizarre stance when one considers how incredibly rare those occurrences are, particularly in comparison to founded accusations and the disturbingly under reported incidents.   Sexual assaults are very difficult to prosecute, particularly when the victim's mental state can be used to attack their veracity, by age, alcohol, intellectual capacity, etc.   I.e., the very individuals that perpetrators seek out.

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

[randymarsh]

The majority of sexual assaults go unreported, by both women and men victims, mainly because the process of bringing such an allegation is incredibly hard on victims, even in a case such as this where the evidence against the accused is overwhelming.   The very first thing that victims doubt when they consider the incident is their own memory.   And they are almost guaranteed to lose in court, even with physical evidence.

Focusing on false accusations is a bizarre stance when one considers how incredibly rare those occurrences are, particularly in comparison to founded accusations and the disturbingly under reported incidents.   Sexual assaults are very difficult to prosecute, particularly when the victim's mental state can be used to attack their veracity, by age, alcohol, intellectual capacity, etc.   I.e., the very individuals that perpetrators seek out.

I don't really disagree, but I don't know how you fix it either. Most rapists don't see prison because most incidents aren't reported. If the crime isn't reported, of course nothing can happen. Many victims had a bad experience when they did report it and we end up in this catch 22 where people don't report because they don't think anything will happen but nothing can happen if it's not reported.

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

That's how our legal system works though. I'm not prepared to convict someone based on 1 person's accusation. Sexual assault will probably always be a difficult crime to prosecute due to its private nature and general lack of hard evidence. I just worry that in our attempts to get tough on sexual assault, we're trying these crimes on CNN & Twitter instead of in court.

[Midwest]

Jon Krakauer wrote a really powerful book on campus rape called Missoula.  In an interview about his work:

But in any case, it turns out [that in] Missoula, over the course of the four years I looked at, there were 230 rapes in town, most of which either weren't prosecuted or the prosecutions were bungled. The upshot was most rapists walked away without any punishment, any accountability, which is in fact — the best statistics show that about 97 percent of rapes, you know, the rapist walks away, is never held accountable.

Haven't read Krakauers book (great author), but honest question - How accurate do you think the 97% statistic is?  Rape is a horrible thing and difficult to prove because typically there are only 2 parties involved.   I'm assuming 97% percent includes incidents in which were reported but there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict?

We do live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.  It's not playing into the rape culture to abide by that.  If someone is tried and convicted of rape, I'm all for punishing them.  We shouldn't punish people who have yet to be convicted.

[randymarsh]

Jon Krakauer wrote a really powerful book on campus rape called Missoula.  In an interview about his work:

But in any case, it turns out [that in] Missoula, over the course of the four years I looked at, there were 230 rapes in town, most of which either weren't prosecuted or the prosecutions were bungled. The upshot was most rapists walked away without any punishment, any accountability, which is in fact — the best statistics show that about 97 percent of rapes, you know, the rapist walks away, is never held accountable.

Haven't read Krakauers book (great author), but honest question - How accurate do you think the 97% statistic is?  Rape is a horrible thing and difficult to prove because typically there are only 2 parties involved.   I'm assuming 97% percent includes incidents in which were reported but there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict?

I think a lot of the numbers come from anonymous surveys. You can compare the % that said they were assaulted to the % of police reports or cases that went to trial/plea and draw a rough conclusion.

[charis]

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

That's how our legal system works though. I'm not prepared to convict someone based on 1 person's accusation. Sexual assault will probably always be a difficult crime to prosecute due to its private nature and general lack of hard evidence. I just worry that in our attempts to get tough on sexual assault, we're trying these crimes on CNN & Twitter instead of in court.

Be sure to mention that if you are ever selected for jury duty, you will get out quick.  If a jury believes that the victim is telling the truth, that is enough for a conviction (even if there is little other evidence, as is common in sexual assault cases).  That's how the legal system works.

[PKFFW]

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

That's how our legal system works though. I'm not prepared to convict someone based on 1 person's accusation. Sexual assault will probably always be a difficult crime to prosecute due to its private nature and general lack of hard evidence. I just worry that in our attempts to get tough on sexual assault, we're trying these crimes on CNN & Twitter instead of in court.

Be sure to mention that if you are ever selected for jury duty, you will get out quick.  If a jury believes that the victim is telling the truth, that is enough for a conviction (even if there is little other evidence, as is common in sexual assault cases).  That's how the legal system works.

Not quite.  A jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

I have served on a jury.  Defendant was charged with supply and traffic a prohibited substance.  The feeling and "belief" of most, if not all, of the jury was the defendant committed the crime.  Unfortunately the only actual evidence the prosecution had was a few photos of him posing with bogs of money gangster style and the testimony of another person who had already been convicted.  By law we were obligated to return a finding of not guilty precisely because we were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence that the defendant was guilty.

Further, even if a jury simply believes the defendant is guilty and decides to convict based on their belief, the Judge can summarily dismiss the verdict immediately if, in his/her opinion, the evidence does not support the conviction.

[RetiredAt63]

Now that this thread has descended into the depths of nonsense - do men grow up being trained to be wary of women who will grab and molest them?  Of women who will grab at body parts in passing?  Do they worry about the woman on the hotel elevator late at night?  Do they plan their walk home from work in the dark so that it is as safe as possible?  Do they worry more about women than bears and mountain lions when they go camping? And worry about women who will put rohypnol in their drinks at a bar?

For women, actual rape is the far end of the spectrum.  The rest of the spectrum is the catcalls and the suggestive comments, the boy on a bike grabbing at a girls' breast as he rides by, the guy on the crowded bus who grinds up against a woman, the man in the bushes who grabs a teen who gets free and runs (Christy Clark, Premier of BC, in the June 10 Financial Post) and doesn't tell anyone because it is just part of life.  And the legal system - after watching the mess of the Gian Ghomeshi trial, how many women in Canada are going to be willing to go to the police now?  After the Brock Turner trial, how many American women will keep quiet, because the legal side is as bad in its own way as the actual rape?

[shelivesthedream]

The thing that kills me about this case is what a total arse both Brock and his father have been about it all. The focus has not been on whether Brock made a mistake in thinking she was consenting (because he was drunk, or because she consented and then passed out, or whatever). The focus has been on "Boo boo, this trial has ruined MY life and MY prospects as a student and swimmer". I think underreported and underprosecuted rape is awful, but I respect the right for alleged rapists to defend themselves in court. What disgusts me is the implication that twenty minutes of "action" (sorry, RAPING) don't deserve punishment because, like, he's such a nice guy and has a lot of, like, potential and stuff. Uh, no. There's a first crime for every criminal and one stops being a nice guy when one assaults someone. Had Brock owned up and grovelled and said "A few months in prison will be ample because I realise what a terrible thing I have done and am stricken with remorse and the horror of my actions will never leave me" then MAYBE I would support a fairly light sentence. However, to cry about how stressful this all is for Brock is to totally miss the point. I liked the victim statement a lot because we so rarely get to hear in-depth from a rape victim, and she pointed out that the life that was really ruined unfairly was hers.

[charis]

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

That's how our legal system works though. I'm not prepared to convict someone based on 1 person's accusation. Sexual assault will probably always be a difficult crime to prosecute due to its private nature and general lack of hard evidence. I just worry that in our attempts to get tough on sexual assault, we're trying these crimes on CNN & Twitter instead of in court.

Be sure to mention that if you are ever selected for jury duty, you will get out quick.  If a jury believes that the victim is telling the truth, that is enough for a conviction (even if there is little other evidence, as is common in sexual assault cases).  That's how the legal system works.

Not quite.  A jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

I have served on a jury.  Defendant was charged with supply and traffic a prohibited substance.  The feeling and "belief" of most, if not all, of the jury was the defendant committed the crime.  Unfortunately the only actual evidence the prosecution had was a few photos of him posing with bogs of money gangster style and the testimony of another person who had already been convicted.  By law we were obligated to return a finding of not guilty precisely because we were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence that the defendant was guilty.

Further, even if a jury simply believes the defendant is guilty and decides to convict based on their belief, the Judge can summarily dismiss the verdict immediately if, in his/her opinion, the evidence does not support the conviction.

While I am glad to hear that you were paying attention to the judge's instructions concerning the law, I am well familiar with the burden of proof and sufficiency of the evidence standard.  What I was merely pointing out was that if a jury believes that a victim is telling the truth, they can (not must) convict, even if there is little other evidence.   Also, you shouldn't be on a jury if you have decided a head of time, before hearing any of the evidence, that you can't convict based on the testimony of one witness.  You can and should be removed from the panel if you hold that view.

[TVRodriguez]

Now that this thread has descended into the depths of nonsense - do men grow up being trained to be wary of women who will grab and molest them?  Of women who will grab at body parts in passing?  Do they worry about the woman on the hotel elevator late at night?  Do they plan their walk home from work in the dark so that it is as safe as possible?  Do they worry more about women than bears and mountain lions when they go camping? And worry about women who will put rohypnol in their drinks at a bar?

For women, actual rape is the far end of the spectrum.  The rest of the spectrum is the catcalls and the suggestive comments, the boy on a bike grabbing at a girls' breast as he rides by, the guy on the crowded bus who grinds up against a woman, the man in the bushes who grabs a teen who gets free and runs (Christy Clark, Premier of BC, in the June 10 Financial Post) and doesn't tell anyone because it is just part of life.  And the legal system - after watching the mess of the Gian Ghomeshi trial, how many women in Canada are going to be willing to go to the police now?  After the Brock Turner trial, how many American women will keep quiet, because the legal side is as bad in its own way as the actual rape?

All of this.

"A woman, I forget who, once asked a male friend why men felt threatened by women. He replied that they were afraid that women might laugh at them. When she asked a group of women why women felt threatened by men. they said, We're afraid they might kill us."  Quote from The Fall

[PKFFW]

Moreover, people generally, for better or worse (I'd argue for worse usually), view rape allegations with a skeptical eye anyway, particularly when alcohol is involved.   But for those two witnesses, Turner would be a (more) free man.

That's how our legal system works though. I'm not prepared to convict someone based on 1 person's accusation. Sexual assault will probably always be a difficult crime to prosecute due to its private nature and general lack of hard evidence. I just worry that in our attempts to get tough on sexual assault, we're trying these crimes on CNN & Twitter instead of in court.

Be sure to mention that if you are ever selected for jury duty, you will get out quick.  If a jury believes that the victim is telling the truth, that is enough for a conviction (even if there is little other evidence, as is common in sexual assault cases).  That's how the legal system works.

Not quite.  A jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

I have served on a jury.  Defendant was charged with supply and traffic a prohibited substance.  The feeling and "belief" of most, if not all, of the jury was the defendant committed the crime.  Unfortunately the only actual evidence the prosecution had was a few photos of him posing with bogs of money gangster style and the testimony of another person who had already been convicted.  By law we were obligated to return a finding of not guilty precisely because we were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence that the defendant was guilty.

Further, even if a jury simply believes the defendant is guilty and decides to convict based on their belief, the Judge can summarily dismiss the verdict immediately if, in his/her opinion, the evidence does not support the conviction.

While I am glad to hear that you were paying attention to the judge's instructions concerning the law, I am well familiar with the burden of proof and sufficiency of the evidence standard.  What I was merely pointing out was that if a jury believes that a victim is telling the truth, they can (not must) convict, even if there is little other evidence.   Also, you shouldn't be on a jury if you have decided a head of time, before hearing any of the evidence, that you can't convict based on the testimony of one witness.  You can and should be removed from the panel if you hold that view.

Actually if the only evidence is the testimony of one witness, the case should not be brought to trial.

There is simply no way 12 normal people should be unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt if that were so.  It would be reckless in the extreme for the prosecution to bring such a case to trial.  Any conviction would be automatically overturned and the State would, in all likelihood, be held liable when sued by the defendant.

[Zamboni]

Even at my most drunk in college, I knew to keep my hands to my damn self because I was raised that way. An entitled asshole is going to become more of an entitled asshole with alcohol... doesn't mean he isn't one when he's sober though, it just means he hasn't yet acted upon it.

This strikes right at the heart of it. Several studies have shown that the small percent of men who are rapists are the ones who are likely to to physically push themselves on women in an obnoxious way (way too close, even groping) in a party or nightclub situation. Alcohol is then used as an excuse for their obnoxious behavior, but in fact it is not what causes this lack of boundary respect behavior at all. Every woman on here who has been out at a crowded college party scene knows what I am talking about. Some testimonies indicated he had a history of pushing himself on uninterested women -- literally-- at these parties.

Edited to add that this particular boundary-disrespecting rapist has been banned for life by USA swimming . . . I guess the judge and his parents were the only ones besides him who cared about his promising athletic career.

[Telecaster]

I'm not doing to defend Brock Turner, but I am going to defend the judge, unpopular a position as that may be.    Before we get out the rope, let's realize that unlike all of us here, the judge has heard all of the facts of the case.   Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, he was not even charged with rape.  Despite what you may have read, the judge did not say that Turner's swimming career had anything to do with the sentence.  The probation officer who wrote the sentence recommendation--who is a woman by the way--recommended six months, presumably based on similar cases.  Was justice served?  I don't know.  I don't think an angry mob will improve things though. 

[charis]

Actually if the only evidence is the testimony of one witness, the case should not be brought to trial.

There is simply no way 12 normal people should be unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt if that were so.  It would be reckless in the extreme for the prosecution to bring such a case to trial.  Any conviction would be automatically overturned and the State would, in all likelihood, be held liable when sued by the defendant.

This is absolutely false.  What jurisdiction do you practice law in?  Regardless, I can't continue this conversation.   

[PKFFW]

Actually if the only evidence is the testimony of one witness, the case should not be brought to trial.

There is simply no way 12 normal people should be unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt if that were so.  It would be reckless in the extreme for the prosecution to bring such a case to trial.  Any conviction would be automatically overturned and the State would, in all likelihood, be held liable when sued by the defendant.

This is absolutely false.  What jurisdiction do you practice law in?  Regardless, I can't continue this conversation.

I don't practice law and never claimed to.

I am however married to a Police Prosecutor with a law degree in the jurisdiction of NSW, Australia and have a relative who practices law in New York, USA.  Both of whom believe the above to be almost certainly true in those jurisdictions.

Feel free not to continue the conversation though, no skin off my nose.

ETA:  An interesting development pertinent to this particular point...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/14/prosecutor-bumps-stanford-sex-assault-judge/85898742/

"Persky was bumped from the new sexual assault case a day after he tossed out an unrelated misdemeanor theft trial before it went to a jury, ruling prosecutors hadn't proved their case.

"We are disappointed and puzzled at Judge Persky's unusual decision to unilaterally dismiss a case before the jury could deliberate," the district attorney said in a prepared statement. "

I don't know the case but the jury wasn't even allowed to decide.  The Judge simply tossed it out.  Maybe there was more than a single witness testimony and maybe not but the Judge decided there wasn't enough evidence.

[TVRodriguez]

Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, he was not even charged with rape.   

Huh?  "Sexual assault" is not rape to you?  Is it because he didn't use his penis to penetrate? 

Here's a fun game:  ask a friend to stick his finger in your anus when you're asleep while dry humping you, and see if you don't feel violated.

He was convicted of sexual assault.

[Gin1984]

Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, he was not even charged with rape.   

Huh?  "Sexual assault" is not rape to you?  Is it because he didn't use his penis to penetrate? 

Here's a fun game:  ask a friend to stick his finger in your anus when you're asleep while dry humping you, and see if you don't feel violated.

He was convicted of sexual assault.

And attempted rape.....

[Telecaster]

Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, he was not even charged with rape.   

Huh?  "Sexual assault" is not rape to you?  Is it because he didn't use his penis to penetrate? 

Here's a fun game:  ask a friend to stick his finger in your anus when you're asleep while dry humping you, and see if you don't feel violated.

He was convicted of sexual assault.

Sexual assault isn't rape according to the law.  You may disagree with the law, but judge and probation officers did not write the laws, and the prosecution did not bring that charge.  Because Turner was not convicted of rape, the judge must consider the sentence for the crime of which he was convicted. 

[Gin1984]

I'm not doing to defend Brock Turner, but I am going to defend the judge, unpopular a position as that may be.    Before we get out the rope, let's realize that unlike all of us here, the judge has heard all of the facts of the case.   Brock Turner was not convicted of rape, he was not even charged with rape.  Despite what you may have read, the judge did not say that Turner's swimming career had anything to do with the sentence.  The probation officer who wrote the sentence recommendation--who is a woman by the way--recommended six months, presumably based on similar cases.  Was justice served?  I don't know.  I don't think an angry mob will improve things though.

And frankly, given her statement and reality, she should be fired as well.  She said  “This case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication.”  Except that majority of crimes of similar nature have defendants having some level of intoxication.  In fact, if you look into research on rapists, they do that on PURPOSE.  So basically she played into rapists' hands. 

[Sylly]

Yeah, the thing I don't understand is why the judge is taking all the heat when he's following the probation officer recommendation. That probation officer is probably very thankful that her name is not public (that I'm aware of).

I agree that 6 months is a joke, but I don't know if recalling the judge would make a good precedent. If seems like these days, the court of public opinion is trying to take the place of actual, legal court, in a lot of cases.