Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    29 Jun '16 15:331 edit
    Originally posted by FishHead111

    For that matter a few years ago a white girl in high school was raped by a black who just happened to be the star member of the football team and he got let off with a slap on the wrist and got to keep playing and SHE had to quit the drill team because she refused to go to the games he played in and go rah-rah.
    If unfair treatment in courts due to race wasn't a common thing, then you'd have a point. Remember Brian Banks, who is black, was wrongly convicted of rape as a teenager, and served five years in prison.

    This conversation isn't about random unjust sentences; it's about overall systematic racial injustice.
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Jun '16 16:05
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Why don't you move to China?
    i like it here and i don't wanna
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Jun '16 16:482 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662445/Judge-sentenced-Brock-Turner-20-six-months-rape-hand-three-year-sentence-Latino-man-32-charged-crime.html

    Judge who sentenced Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, 20, to six months for rape will hand down three year sentence to Latino man, 32, charged with nearly identical crime.

    Aaron Persky is the judge who se ...[text shortened]... e in the criminal justice system say Ramirez's sentencing is fair, while Turner's is the oddity.
    As explained in the other thread by sh76 and myself, Ramirez got the legal minimum sentence for his crime as part of a plea bargain he agreed to and that crime was legally more serious according to California law because the victim was conscious.

    If you don't like California law, tell the State legislators to change it. This is unfortunate race baiting; as pointed out in the other thread, Judge Persky's cases were reviewed by the AP and show no evidence of racial bias plus he has followed the Probation Department recommendation in every case.

    It was thoughtful of you to create a second thread where Duchess can call everyone who disagrees with her a "racist" and "rape apologist" and whatever else she can come up with.

    EDIT: From page 10 of the "Stanford Rapist(sic)" thread:

    Originally posted by sh76
    Two major differences jump out at me just at first glance:

    1. The victim in the Ramirez case appears to have been awake and dissenting, whereas in the Turner case, the victim was passed out.

    2. The Ramirez sentencing was pursuant to an agreed upon plea bargain. Judges have very little incentive to deviate from agreed-upon plea deals.


    no1marauder: Add to that, that Ramirez was 32 years old; Judge Persky took into account Turner's young age as a mitigating factor as allowed by California law. And the charges Ramirez eventually pled to were more serious than those Turner was convicted of.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    29 Jun '16 16:571 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    There is a major difference: The Latino was convicted of rape, while Turner, who sexually assaulted a woman with his finger, was only convicted of intent to rape, along with two other sexual assault charges.

    Not that I'd ever wish rapists get lighter penalties, but why doesn't the Latino get the same treatment?
    Not according to the Daily Mail article, which says that Ramirez pleaded guilty to sexual assault (the page was a pain and kept jumping up and down and I don't trust Daily Mail reporting). So he was not convicted of rape either. The differences in this case are that it was not in a public place, no alcohol seems to have been involved, and the victim was conscious. It is entirely unclear to me why these facts should be regarded as making the Ramirez case deserving of a sentence six times longer than Turner's. Normally those who plead guilty get a lower sentence than if they do not, I think 1/3 off is normal in English courts, which would mean that if US courts have a similar formula Ramirez would have been handed a 4 year sentence had he not pleaded guilty and that is 8 times longer. The only possible excuse for this is that the judge decided he'd better give a stiffer sentence after the criticism he received for the Turner verdict. If the Ramirez verdict (assuming he gets 3 years) is the correct verdict then it seems clear that Turner should have been handed the 6 years the prosecution argued for.

    Edit: No1 made his above post while I was writing this. It answers most of my points. The only thing I'd comment on is that Californian Law is wrong if it regards the state of the victim's consciousness as a mitigating factor, as it could encourage the perpetrator to attempt to make their victims drunk or to use date rape drugs.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Jun '16 17:021 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Not according to the Daily Mail article, which says that Ramirez pleaded guilty to sexual assault (the page was a pain and kept jumping up and down and I don't trust Daily Mail reporting). So he was not convicted of rape either. The differences in this case are that it was not in a public place, no alcohol seems to have been involved, and the victim wa ...[text shortened]... then it seems clear that Turner should have been handed the 6 years the prosecution argued for.
    Perhaps you should bother to read Judge Persky's sentencing transcript. Convicted defendants are entitled to individualized consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors before sentencing, not some mathematical formula. The Judge painstakingly enumerates and evaluates each one in that case.

    The fact that the victim was conscious upgrades the crime to a higher level of felony, one that requires a three year minimum sentence.

    EDIT: The sentencing transcript in the Turner case is here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/stanford-sexual-assault-read-sentence-judge-aaron-persky
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    29 Jun '16 17:05
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i like it here and i don't wanna
    Then stop complaining it's better here than anywhere else you can go so STFU
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    29 Jun '16 17:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Perhaps you should bother to read Judge Persky's sentencing transcript. Convicted defendants are entitled to individualized consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors before sentencing, not some mathematical formula. The Judge painstakingly enumerates and evaluates each one in that case.

    The fact that the victim was conscious up ...[text shortened]... www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/14/stanford-sexual-assault-read-sentence-judge-aaron-persky
    See above edit.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Jun '16 17:13
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    See above edit.
    As I stated in the other thread, use of force is generally considered to upgrade an offense; a robber threatening to kill you steals $5 from you is guilty of a higher grade offense than a pickpocket who steals $50.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    29 Jun '16 17:331 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Not according to the Daily Mail article, which says that Ramirez pleaded guilty to sexual assault (the page was a pain and kept jumping up and down and I don't trust Daily Mail reporting). So he was not convicted of rape either.
    The page kept jumping up and down for me as well. I probably missed that detail because it. I should stop using Daily Mail. But, this does mean that the Turner and Ramirez case is more similar than I originally thought: two men with no criminal background being convicted of sexual assault.

    Regarding the differences in the case, there's one that I think makes a difference; Ramirez wasn't convicted of intent to rape, since he stopped on his own. Turner was convicted of intent to rape; he only stopped because he was caught. I wonder if Turner had Ramirez's charges, would he still would've gotten a sentence below the minimum.
  10. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    29 Jun '16 17:401 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As explained in the other thread by sh76 and myself, Ramirez got the legal minimum sentence for his crime as part of a plea bargain he agreed to and that crime was legally more serious according to California law because the victim was conscious.

    If you don't like California law, tell the State legislators to change it. This is unfortunate race baitin ...[text shortened]... And the charges Ramirez eventually pled to were more serious than those Turner was convicted of.
    Good points. In your opinion, had Turner originally been charged with what Ramirez was charged with, do you think it's possible that he still would've been sentenced below the minimum?
  11. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    29 Jun '16 18:20
    Originally posted by vivify
    Good points. In your opinion, had Turner originally been charged with what Ramirez was charged with, do you think it's possible that he still would've been sentenced below the minimum?
    So No1 has shown that it isn't about race after all. How about the other fellow, the good ol boys club?
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '16 18:251 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder to Vivify
    As explained in the other thread by sh76 and myself, Ramirez got the legal minimum sentence for his crime as part of a plea bargain he agreed to and that crime was legally more serious according to California law because the victim was conscious.

    If you don't like California law, tell the State legislators to change it. This is unfortunate r ...[text shortened]... And the charges Ramirez eventually pled to were more serious than those Turner was convicted of.
    In the many threads about rape or sexual assault during the past several years, I cannot
    recall No1Marauder (he may cite an exception if he can) ever expressing any support for
    the real or alleged victims. As a defense lawyer, No1Marauder has consistently sided
    with the convicted or accused rapists and with every judicial ruling in their favour.

    No1Marauder has a long record of lying and hurling sexist insults to attack me personally.

    "...where Duchess(64) can call everyone who disagrees with her a 'racist' and 'rape apologist' and whatever else she can come up with."
    --No1Marauder

    No1Marauder, a morally despicable pathological liar, keeps shamelessly lying as usual.
    No1Marauder also has shown his extremely sexist ignorant attitudes toward victims of rape or sexual assault.

    In real life, I give counsel to victims of rape or sexual assault. Everyone in our group
    (counselors or victims) would regard No1Marauder with absolute disdain. Indeed, a
    white male doctor said that he knew and could recommend lawyers in the USA who
    he expected would be happy to argue against No1Marauder's sexist nonsense.

    And didn't No1Marauder for a long time refer to me as 'he'? If he lies about it, I think I can cite some evidence.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '16 18:35
    Originally posted by FishHead111 to Vivify
    It happened because a judge blew a synapse and was retarded about the sentence that's why EVERYBODY is complaining about it and clamoring for him to be removed from the bench.
    Jesus give it a rest it's not like everybody just said Oh Well that's OK because he's white.
    For that matter a few years ago a white girl in high school was raped by ...[text shortened]... E had to quit the drill team because she refused to go to the games he played in and go rah-rah.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/15/cheerleader-rape-saga-still-roils-silsbee-texas-three-years-later.html

    I already have mentioned the case of Hillaire, a 16 year old cheerleader in Texas,
    who was allegedly raped by Rakheem Bolton, a 17 year old star athlete.
    As I recall, No1Marauder and I argued about this case. As usual, No1Marauder's sympathies
    were with the accused rapist and he apparently believed that Hillaire was treated fairly.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Jun '16 18:47
    Originally posted by vivify
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662445/Judge-sentenced-Brock-Turner-20-six-months-rape-hand-three-year-sentence-Latino-man-32-charged-crime.html

    Judge who sentenced Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, 20, to six months for rape will hand down three year sentence to Latino man, 32, charged with nearly identical crime.

    Aaron Persky is the judge who se ...[text shortened]... e in the criminal justice system say Ramirez's sentencing is fair, while Turner's is the oddity.
    No1Marauder has a long record of flagrantly misrepresenting me, so I would like to emphasize
    that, while I believe that the US criminal justice system is afflicted by institutional racism (and
    class bias) I have *not* reached a conclusion about whether or not Judge Persky is a racist.

    Brock Turner was able to afford more highly paid (and perhaps superior) legal representation,
    and that should not be overlooked. There may be a reason why affluent defendants
    don't hasten to get into the queue for the services of the local public defender.
  15. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    29 Jun '16 18:561 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Edit: No1 made his above post while I was writing this. It answers most of my points. The only thing I'd comment on is that Californian Law is wrong if it regards the state of the victim's consciousness as a mitigating factor, as it could encourage the perpetrator to attempt to make their victims drunk or to use date rape drugs.
    I don't have much to add over no1 has said except that I completely disagree with this particular statement. Force and violence is always considered an aggravating circumstance. That's why robbery is punished more harshly than run-of-the-mill theft. Generally, situations likely to lead to violence are punished more severely. That's why robbery when you're holding a gun is often punished more severely than robbery without a gun, even if the gun is never actually fired. The law punishes people for engaging in dangerous criminal conduct. While sexually assaulting a sleeping person is absolutely criminal and could be rape due to lack of consent (depending on what actually happened), the law is absolutely right to make a distinction between a case wherein resistance was overcome by force or violence and a case in which there was no force or violence.
Back to Top