While many are outraged at such an inexplicably short sentence, Jusge Persky's reasoning for it is especially imbalanced and egregious. He has stated that Brock Turner, due to being so intoxicated, had "less moral culpability" in the situation, as well as "no significant record of prior criminal offenses". He said a long prison sentence would have a substantial impact on him, including his pending swimming career and possible entrance into Olympic competition. (The governing body for swimming in the United States, USA Swimming, has already banned Turner for life.) He also said that the six-month sentence, in light of all of the scrutiny Turner received from the media, might serve as an "antidote" to that scrutiny.
Before I get into my comments regarding the judge's decision, let me address the threats to the judge and his family that have been flying around social media. Calling for the judge's removal, which is in full swing, is an appropriate response, but wishing death to the judge and harm to his family is not justice.
Now, to the judge's decision. First, the idea of "less moral culpability" because of being intoxicated is tantamount to saying being drunk gives anyone a pass on immoral and illegal behavior. I strongly disagree. Anyone in that state has less ability to control, but less moral culpability? Sorry, not buying that. Courtrooms deal with the law, not morality. Sometimes, the two can run parallel to one another (i.e. murder is both immoral and illegal), but the law is dealt with in the courtroom. Period.
No prior criminal record was partly based on Turner saying, in essence, he was a good boy. Not fully true, as pictures of Turner drinking and smoking from a hash pipe and bong, in addition to text messages showing him looking to acquire harder drugs, have since surfaced. In a letter he wrote to the judge, Turner said he "never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol". The pictures and texts were all from prior to the incident.
Taking into account the damage done to Turner, the assailant, is not completely 100% out of line, but the amount of credence the judge gave to it was out of line. Sure, jail time will have an huge effect on him; it has a huge effect on anyone. However, weighing that so heavily as to cause you to give such a short sentence is inexcusable. You are more worried about his well-being, and likely his (formerly) potential Olympic swimming career, than the victim's? That as one of your reasons for a lower sentence does exactly that. No, a sentence of, say, twenty years doesn't make the victim feel all better, as though nothing happened. A shortened sentence shows her, and other victims of rape and all sexual assault, that the assailant will get off light. What a great message: Hey, girls/ladies/women, the law is interested in taking it easy on some. It should be equally harsh, or lenient, with all. Period.
And the idea of his sentence being an antidote to the media scrutiny Turner received is contemptible.
It is not unusual for a parent to stick up for their child. Most people say that is normal. Turner's father's comments have, however, added to the outrage in social media. Like Brock, his father also wrote a letter to the judge asking for leniency. One of his sentences in particular has garnered a lot of attention:
"That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."
The arrogance and bone-dry well of morality are stunning.
Twenty minutes of action is the father's base line. Look at that statement: twenty minutes of action. (It's not exactly a widely kept a secret that "getting some action" can mean sex.) What is this? A father pleading for his son or two frat brothers talking about another frat brother's escapades at a party? Stunning. Aside from the disgusting nature of the term "action" in his letter, let us play this out to its "logical" extremes. If the act was longer -- say Brock got a couple hours of action -- then, and only then, should the sentence be longer? Let's not even make it the worst kind of sick, twisted sexual depravity, just Brock doing what he was doing for two hours. I doubt the father would ask for a longer sentence. Maybe he'd brag about his boy's virility.
On the flip side, What if Brock shot the girl? Would the father think that life imprisonment was an even steeper price to pay for seconds out of his son's twenty years of life?
Is anyone else wondering from where Brock's attitude and decision making may have begun?
The most obvious out of all this: Getting some action without the girl saying okey dokey is not that big of a deal. Well, it is that big of a deal and only the morally bankrupt and professionally confused would say to the contrary. That is what happened here.
Finally, Brock's blaming of the party culture at the university for his actions in his letter to the judge is a very thin veil, indeed. The party culture exists at a LOT of colleges and universities. The key is to be responsible. If you can handle it, fine. If you cannot, or if you are very unsure of yourself, then stay away. Peer pressure? Sure, but can YOU be smart enough and strong enough to be responsible? The party does not possess your responsibility ... you do!
That would be like walking into the middle of a busy intersection, getting struck by a car, and being laid up in a hospital for months. When someone asks you why did you do that, you would say that just the intersection's presence was more than you could handle and you couldn't help yourself from walking out into it.
Three heroes are part of this story. First, the victim. Her getting through this, as surely she is (and will be) continuing to do so, is a testament to that. Her letter, shown in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, is a clarion call. It shows the effect this kind of deplorable action and the rape-ignorance culture has on victims. Her letter should be read to every son and daughter! Embed the right morality that this is wrong, so wrong, in the minds of the youth of this country.
The other two heroes are the two Swedish PhD students who happened to be cycling across the university's campus at the time the assault was taking place. Their names are Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson.
Carl-Fredrik Arndt Peter Jonsson
The pair came across the scene and once they realized that the girl was unconscious, they called out Turner. Turner immediately ran. Arndt tended to the victim, while Jonnson chased down Turner. The two have since said they acted purely on instinct. Instinct or not, they are heroes.
Just imagine, though, if two different individuals were in the area instead of Arndt and Jonsson. Would they have acted in the same manner?
There are a lot of immoral things going on in this world. No one argues with that. That is the fact. The key is what does one do him/herself? Millions upon millions of people do not engage in those activities, even though those activities are going on. Millions upon millions of people make the right choice day in and day out.
Brock Turner would have us look elsewhere as to why he could not make that same smart decision. We are smart enough to not fall for it.
Terry
UPDATE -- September 2, 2016 -- Turner was released after serving only three months of his six-month sentence.
Twenty minutes of action is the father's base line. Look at that statement: twenty minutes of action. (It's not exactly a widely kept a secret that "getting some action" can mean sex.) What is this? A father pleading for his son or two frat brothers talking about another frat brother's escapades at a party? Stunning. Aside from the disgusting nature of the term "action" in his letter, let us play this out to its "logical" extremes. If the act was longer -- say Brock got a couple hours of action -- then, and only then, should the sentence be longer? Let's not even make it the worst kind of sick, twisted sexual depravity, just Brock doing what he was doing for two hours. I doubt the father would ask for a longer sentence. Maybe he'd brag about his boy's virility.
On the flip side, What if Brock shot the girl? Would the father think that life imprisonment was an even steeper price to pay for seconds out of his son's twenty years of life?
Is anyone else wondering from where Brock's attitude and decision making may have begun?
The most obvious out of all this: Getting some action without the girl saying okey dokey is not that big of a deal. Well, it is that big of a deal and only the morally bankrupt and professionally confused would say to the contrary. That is what happened here.
Finally, Brock's blaming of the party culture at the university for his actions in his letter to the judge is a very thin veil, indeed. The party culture exists at a LOT of colleges and universities. The key is to be responsible. If you can handle it, fine. If you cannot, or if you are very unsure of yourself, then stay away. Peer pressure? Sure, but can YOU be smart enough and strong enough to be responsible? The party does not possess your responsibility ... you do!
That would be like walking into the middle of a busy intersection, getting struck by a car, and being laid up in a hospital for months. When someone asks you why did you do that, you would say that just the intersection's presence was more than you could handle and you couldn't help yourself from walking out into it.
Three heroes are part of this story. First, the victim. Her getting through this, as surely she is (and will be) continuing to do so, is a testament to that. Her letter, shown in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, is a clarion call. It shows the effect this kind of deplorable action and the rape-ignorance culture has on victims. Her letter should be read to every son and daughter! Embed the right morality that this is wrong, so wrong, in the minds of the youth of this country.
The other two heroes are the two Swedish PhD students who happened to be cycling across the university's campus at the time the assault was taking place. Their names are Carl-Fredrik Arndt and Peter Jonsson.
Carl-Fredrik Arndt Peter Jonsson
The pair came across the scene and once they realized that the girl was unconscious, they called out Turner. Turner immediately ran. Arndt tended to the victim, while Jonnson chased down Turner. The two have since said they acted purely on instinct. Instinct or not, they are heroes.
Just imagine, though, if two different individuals were in the area instead of Arndt and Jonsson. Would they have acted in the same manner?
There are a lot of immoral things going on in this world. No one argues with that. That is the fact. The key is what does one do him/herself? Millions upon millions of people do not engage in those activities, even though those activities are going on. Millions upon millions of people make the right choice day in and day out.
Brock Turner would have us look elsewhere as to why he could not make that same smart decision. We are smart enough to not fall for it.
Terry
UPDATE -- September 2, 2016 -- Turner was released after serving only three months of his six-month sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment