|
LadyPact -> RE: Victim Statement from Stanford Rape Victim (6/19/2016 1:34:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: samboct
To Lady P
I'd like to respond to your points...
First of all, I'd like to distinguish between the law and what is moral or correct. I think the law in this case is clear- that if you're found attempting to have sex with an unconscious individual, that's considered attempted rape. I think the trial did establish those facts, i.e Brock Turner was trying to have sex with an unconscious woman when he was found. Under the law- that makes him guilty of rape or attempted rape- I'm not drawing much of a distinction between rape and attempted rape because it's not relevant.
OK, we seem to be seeing eye to eye on this part, at least to some degree.
quote:
About the hypothetical selfie: My comment is that if Turner had taken a selfie at 12:30 (the cyclists came upon them at around 1 AM), it would not have mattered- there is sufficient evidence for rape under the law. The woman in question was indeed extremely intoxicated at that point- she made a phone call to her boyfriend which was unintelligible.
It isn't *just* that, though. The part you are forgetting is that, by the time the two were found, the woman was unconscious, which is the other part of the law. There is no more affirmative consent if the person is no longer responsive. How drunk would a person have to be not to realize that the person they were having sexual contact with was passed out?
On her intoxication level, it was 0.24. Even when you're drunk, that's kind of hard to miss. You're also skipping that they were both at the same party drinking, so Turner had every reason to know she was intoxicated.
quote:
To me, the question at this point is-does the law work? While it would be nice if the legal system made continual forward progress- cases like Citizen's United show that courts can take a wrong turn- as I think they have with this law. My understanding of this case is that the accuser clearly met the requirement that she was too intoxicated to give consent. However, there's a second requirement- that the attacker knows that the intended victim is too intoxicated to give consent. I don't see how that was met here since Brock Turner was also quite intoxicated. It is reasonable to assume that even in his intoxicated state he was aware that the person he was with was too drunk to give consent? This might be a tough call if you're sober- and he clearly wasn't. I'd also say that it requires a lot of judgement on the part of an 18 y.o. who's looking for sex. (And thank you for cutting me the slack that yes, when I was 18 and even to this day- I'm only interested in consensual sex- but I tend to think this is the norm : ) .)
The very reason CA has moved forward with "yes means yes" is to get the law to work. If we do have a problem with people being sexually assaulted past certain levels of intoxication or when no longer conscious, the law is supposed to be how we address that. Situations like this aren't "new". In my opinion, we've obviously had cases on campuses all across the country where passed out/incoherent people are being assaulted once passed a certain intoxication level or when they've been intentionally drugged. We definitely had a problem with campuses not handling sexual assaults properly, sweeping them under the rug, etc. We have to use law to address that because we weren't exactly doing a great job otherwise.
quote:
I think the jury bought the argument based on the testimony of the two cyclists that when he was caught, Brock Turner attempted to flee- thus confirming his guilt. Well, most people if they're caught in public having sex feel some element of embarrassment-flight doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. It's an admission of having sex as well as attempted rape- how can you tell which is which?
Sam, I'm not trying to be rude. How familiar are you, really, with this case?
The reason I'm asking is because there are certain points in this post, as well as the prior one that make me wonder if you're aware of certain facts that have presented that weren't disputed.
How does flight seem to you, when the words that came from one of the cyclists upon discovery were, "What the f^ck are you doing? She's unconscious."
But, let's try it your way. Let's suppose you are 18 and you're having consensual sexual contact with some gal behind a dumpster. Two men discover you, which you say makes you embarrassed, so that you flee to avoid being seen having sex in public. What kind of man leaves the woman he was being with, naked and exposed for other men to find, while he runs and saves his own skin?
quote:
So two possibilities here: either the law is flawed- which I think it is, or the findings of the jury didn't follow the law, i.e. they concluded that Brock Turner knowingly took advantage of his accuser, something which I find illogical given his intoxication. Please note, I really don't like the notion that intoxication can be used as a defense for a violent crime. i don't buy it in cases of murder whether gun or vehicle- so I'm uncomfortable using it here. It's one of the reasons I think this is a bad law.
I have to tell ya. I've had my share of sex while ripped. I'll even admit to having sex while I was ripped at 18. Now, either somebody's been having some really lousy consensual sex or no matter how drunk you are, you should be able to realize the other person isn't responding. No movement, no speech, nada. And if you are so drunk yourself that you can't figure it out, maybe YOU are too drunk to be doing whatever it is that you're doing.
quote:
In terms of the state being able to prosecute a rape case without the victim being willing to come forward.... I found a 1999 law article that shows that in practice- well not really. See here: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5730&context=journal_articles Not being very knowledgeable in this area, I don't know if recent legislation has changed this perception. but the article's conclusions were clear- while the state may be able to prosecute a robbery or similar crimes on the basis of witnesses rather than the testimony of the victim, for rape cases this is practically impossible.
You lost me on this link for two reasons. One being it's from 1999. The other being it's an article that starts crossing criminal law with civil law, where the injured party has to be involved in the case.
Here's something closer to what you might be trying to get at. About a month ago, I was on another thread elsewhere about a completely different case. (I'm sorry. In this instance, I won't link it.) The guy who had started it was squawking about why at least half of the women who report sexual assault were lying. According to the FBI, 6% of complaints are determined as false reports. Then, there's 44% that won't go to trial for a combination of, or singular of the following factors: Lack of physical evidence, inability to substantiate (non-victim) witness testimony, cessation of victim cooperation, etc.
The one you want to look at is when cases are dropped because the victim no longer wants to cooperate. They do this for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with something didn't happen. They want to move on. They are aware how difficult trial will be. They want to save their family the anguish. A hundred different reasons.
Some prosecutors will respect those reasons and not want to go forward. Some just look at the decrease in odds of convictions if you have no victim or a hostile witness. On top of how hard it is to prove a case, you don't want it blown.
quote:
About the cougar comment....OK- mea culpa- not a cougar by common usage. But when I was in college, I always thought that senior guys attempting to date freshmen women were not playing quite cricket- there's a big maturity gap. It's one of the things that's bothered me about this case as I've noted before. It's also one of the reasons I don't have much sympathy for the accuser- along with her friend, Michele Dauber, trying to get Turner the max sentence- and Michele Dauber is one of the people that's called for the judge's resignation.
It's kinda rough that you say you don't have sympathy for someone who is a victim of a sexual assault. Are you aware that a part of the victim's statement was that she didn't want Turner "to rot"?
This was a bad ruling on sentencing, in my opinion. We are teaching people, once again, we will slap a defendant on the wrist, with a "don't do it again" philosophy. In doing so, we teach people this is not a serious crime. I could do three months in county standing on my head.
quote:
I'm going to throw out a hypothetical- but one I think can't be easily dismissed. The accuser probably had an issue with her boyfriend who's a graduate student in Pennsylvania. Note that in the police report, she said that she's been faithful to him. But if things are going peachy- why is she getting falling down drunk, going to a frat party dressed for sex, and calling the boyfriend while so drunk- and then agreeing to have sex with a stranger minutes later? There were witnesses that corroborated this- sort of- drunk and therefore not reliable. OK, so the next thing she knows she wakes up in the hospital and they ask her if she'd been raped? If she's got a case of the guilts about ditching her long distance boyfriend for a quick roll in the hay with Turner- then she says "yes". Coupled with her law school professor friend who's got her tongue hanging for a case like this and you have a way to rescue the relationship with the boyfriend- at Turner's expense. Do I know it happened like this? No, but it's altogether too plausible and is based on what I was able to glean from the police report. I just don't think she's as lily white as she paints herself.
I won't dismiss it. I'll debate it.
The woman's relationship with her boyfriend is inconsequential. Even if she had consented before she passed out, that consent is void once she did. That's what the law says.
I'm going to tell you now, as a poly person who is married to someone who has been out of the country during his career, I didn't sit my tail at home for a year at a time, just because he couldn't go places with me. This was a party the victim went to with her sister. I can promise you that I tossed back a few when MP was gone. It never meant that was an open invitation to violation.
She didn't go to a party "dressed for sex". Court documents show that even her sister was kidding her on the way that she was "dressed like a librarian". One of her items of clothing was a beige cardigan.
You are also incorrect about her waking up in the ER and being asked if she was sexually assaulted. She wasn't asked. She was told. Her own statement says that she believed the hospital personnel had the wrong person when nurses told her why she was in the ER.
quote:
When I first read Turner's dad's comments that his son's life was thrown away for "20 minutes of action"- I thought, what an oaf! But the more I read about this case, the more his comments make sense.
Do you know what I thought? I thought of just how much I could do in certain scenarios with twenty minutes. I consider myself, at least, a semi-decent person. Should I pay for what I could potentially do in that twenty minutes? You bet.
quote:
Obviously I have a deep abhorrence of Catherine MacKinnon. Is misandrist a word? I know that hating men is termed misandry. This case shows that her thinking has had an effect on jurisprudence, and I think this is a terrible direction to go. I suspect we can both agree that violence to force another to our do our sexual bidding is wrong and is too common in our society today. (Not BDSM play between two or more consenting adults!) I just don't think we've gone the right way in solving the problem.
Yes, misandrist is a word, and no, I couldn't care less about Catherine McKinnon.
When you talk about facts of a case, it's not supposed to be about how many others have also been victims, which crimes are "worse", or how the victim is the person we seem to put on trial. If you showed me the money in your wallet, would you say you deserved it if I robbed you? If I think you have a nice car, does me wanting that car mean I can take it? Please tell me what you think I'm entitled to do to you while you are passed out.
|
|
|
|
