Six months is a travesty of justice, absolutely. The second half of your sentence is supposition and opinion. As with most things in this world, there's more at play than one simple dynamic. Do whites have a better chance at getting lighter sentences than non-whites? Data certainly supports that conclusion. How much of that is due to skin color and racial prejudice vs. variance due to financial means is a tougher question. All things considered, I'd take being wealthy and able to afford the best legal defense over relying on the relative lack of melanin in my skin pigmentation. I find it interesting that the national debate on this issue went immediately to the race issue rather than the screwed up mess that the California legal system allows judges in imposing sentences. In Oregon, mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines would have required a minimum of 100 months behind bars for a conviction of first degree rape, or 75 months for second degree rape. California allows judges major leeway in imposing sentences. If you are convicted of “rape” pursuant to California Penal Code Section 261, you face the following penalties: A felony conviction Formal probation with a maximum sentence of 1 year in county jail OR Up to 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison In this case, the prosecution asked for a six year sentence. In California, the judge is allowed to consider mitigating factors in imposing a sentence lighter than the recommended range. In this case, according to this article on OregonLive, the judge considered Turner's otherwise spotless criminal record and letters from family and teachers requesting leniency. A pre-sentence report is prepared by the California Probation Department. According to OLive: "The county probation department interviewed the victim and Turner, researched sentences in similar cases and recommended Turner get less than a year in jail." The report quoted the victim as saying she preferred Turner receive counseling: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars." She later disputed that statement and said that Turner never displayed remorse, but the judge's report included the above quote. It seems to me that if Californians are as outraged by this decision as they ought to be, they need to consider the amount of leeway that they allow judges in imposing sentences. That's a debate that should be taken up nationally as well.
True. I was a bit sloppy in my discussion. He was found guilty of 1. assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, 2. sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and 3. sexual penetration of an unconscious person. I'm no attorney so I don't know the exact equivalent here, but Oregon's minimum sentences for 2nd degree unlawful sexual penetration is 6 years, 3 months and for 1st degree Sexual abuse 6 years, 3 months.
Cool story bro. He got his light sentence due to skin tone alone. Hence the name of the thread. Watching you all defend this coward's sentence is shameful.
Good thing you're not reffing this thread because that's 100 percent BS. I didn't defend the asshole or his light sentence. I actually read the facts relating to the case instead of jumping to the conclusion, based on sheer speculation, that the judge's decision was based on white privilege.
Holy shit. Even worse. A white state trooper in Alabama was called to the scene of an accident. He put the victim in a cage area of his car, drove off, raped her, forced her to perform oral sex, then dumped her by the side of the road. He got 6 months to be served in increments of his choosing.
Everyone who hasn't seen the movie Crash with Matt Dillon, Terrence Howard and others needs to watch it. Then come back and discuss this stuff.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-alabama-state-trooper-accused-of-rape-gets-jail-time/ Plea agreement, not a judge's decision.
I was off line all weekend, sorry, forgot the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-6-months-for-raping-car-accident-victim.html. But it looks like e_blazer also posted a link. Yeah, "both sides" had to agree, but the victim very likely figured going to court meant she'd be dragged through the mud. Rape is still the only crime where the victim has to prove she didn't "want it". And the cop might have completely gotten away with it. My quibble is not with her accepting this travesty but that she felt she had to.
Supposedly they test cops for psychological problems...... but IMO they need to do a better job. Way too many psychos seem to get through the selection process.
I've said it before, we need to draft cops. 90 percent of people who want to be one are the type of people who shouldn't be one IN MY OPINION.
The problem is that most cops are former military. When you serve in the military for 4+ years, and you're trained every day in military rules of engagement, and then you spend 6 months learning how to be a cop, which training will your muscle memory fall back on? It would be interesting to see if police shootings increased after 2001.
Wouldn't be surprised. I want vets to have jobs, but if they have issues keeping calm when unruly citizens give them shit then they shouldn't be cops. Hairdressers should be cops, the shit customers say to their poor hairdressers is insane. Especially bald men who freak out when you cut their 10 inch comb over hair section an eight of an inch too short.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...are-deaths-police-shootings-highest-20-years/ Interesting graph. It looks like shootings increased in the mid 90's (right after all the Gulf War vets got out of the military) and then took a dip, and now it's climbing back up after Afghanistan and Iraq War vets are getting out of the service.
