Three felony counts of sexual assault were convicted: Penetration of an unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and the intent to rape an unconscious/intoxicated person.
For these crimes committed against one woman, the prosecution asked for six years.
The attacker was sentenced to six months behind bars and three years of probation. If he exhibits good behavior, heĀ will only be in the county jail for three months.
The reason for a lenient sentencing? The attacker’s lack of a criminal history, his age as a Stanford freshman and his personal happiness.
“A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” stated the judge in theĀ case, Aaron Persky. “I think he will not be a danger to others.”
The implication here being that the punishment would be “too hard” on a man that physically hurt and sexually violated an unconscious girl behind a dumpster behind a frat house.
Why are we so apologetic towards perpetrators of sexual crimes? Why do we try to humanize criminals by finding similarities with them? A rapist who has favorite snacks, or enjoys sports does not make him less of a rapist; it makes him rapist who sometimes eats pretzels and is on the swim team. Painting Brock Turner as anything except a sexual offender is lessening the validity of the value of his victim.
One of the main reasons this case has become well-known in the media is from the publishing of the victim’s statement. In her statement, every detail of the night and Brock Turner’s crimes against her were written in detail. The victim’s way with words is what made her pain get taken seriously.
It was easy to ignore the crime and list his excuses, until the general public realized she was an actual human being with actual pain that could never be revoked. She was someone who woke up in a hospital with physical lesions, with dirt and pine needles stuffed in her genitals, with no underwear and with a huge bruise on the back of her head.
A “kind” human being would never do these things to another human being. A human being with a “gentle and quiet nature” would never do these things to another human being.
The voluntary consumption of alcohol changes neither of these statements. His (and her) intoxication do not excuse the way he treated a human life: with flagrant disrespect.
The defendant claimed his “promiscuity” was a result of his drinking, not his character. The victim of this crime wrote about his statement in detail, saying:
“Lastly you said, ‘I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin a life.’Ā A life, one life, yours, you forgot about mine. …Your damage was concrete; stripped of titles, degrees, enrollment. My damage was internal, unseen, I carry it with me. You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.”
Alcohol is not a veil under which any actions taken don’t matter. Alcohol does not excuse unspeakable crimes or the people whoĀ commit them. People are a sum of their actions.
Brock Turner is a sexual offender, not the kid down the street.Ā
