Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Marcuse » Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:12 pm

I'd tend to agree with this, but the solution should probably cut more in favor of dropping the floor for sentencing of rapes where the victim did resist than raising the floor for ones where she did. Obviously you want similar sentences for similarly situated convicts. But ideally the criminal justice system should be designed such that a situation like Brock Turner happens more often than a situation in which someone is forced by law to be punished far more harshly than necessary. And we're definitely erring on the latter side currently, not the former.


Is there any particular evidence base to suggest that lowering sentences for more serious crimes would reduce offending for ones classified as less serious? I think this is especially relevant given the public outcry about the unduly lenient sentence given to Brock Turner and the wider question it raises about how society implements punishment for crimes. Brock didn't show evidence of remorse for anything other than "drinking" and clearly didn't seem to accept that what he did was wrong, so can we really consider that sufficient to communicate the censure of society for the crime committed?
  • 8

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Grimstone » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:12 pm

I think aviel is saying that, although fair sentencing is the goal, automatic/unthinking sentences aren't the solution.
  • 3

"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart."
User avatar
Grimstone
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:52 am
Show rep
Title: Creature of the Night

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Marcuse » Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:17 pm

Grimstone wrote:I think aviel is saying that, although fair sentencing is the goal, automatic/unthinking sentences aren't the solution.


That's fine, when we can trust that judges will sanction crimes in a way we consider to be effective. In that ideal state there would be no need for minimum anything, because sentencing would always be proportionate. However, given people sometimes give people like Brock Turner ridiculous and cursory sentences like 6 months (serving 3 months) for sexually assaulting someone, there seems to be a call for restricting the competence of the judiciary in terms of the recommended proportionate sanction. It's worth noting that the main disagreement to mandatory minimum sentencing for things like minor drug offenses is that they're also considered disproportionate, just on the heavy side. The problem is that any minimum should be considered in relation the crime they're issued in response to, and whether they are concomitant with the offense. There is a strong practical argument that mandatory minimums for drug offenses don't do much more than put people in prison for no real reason, and represent a significant cost to the taxpayer for little benefit. That doesn't really bear much relation to this case or setting a minimum here, if the tendency is to set lower sentences than are considered reasonable, setting a minimum can help with that.

Also, I would like to return to the quote I grabbed in my previous post. It doesn't say that mandatory minimums are bad, more than it advocates for the removal of all minimums in specific response to this issue. My question is how reducing the floors on serious rapes would ensure that cases like Brock Turner's would be sentenced more effectively (ie. with a greater sentence proportionate to the crime committed).
  • 8

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Grimstone » Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:51 pm

Marcuse wrote:I would like to return to the quote I grabbed in my previous post. It doesn't say that mandatory minimums are bad, more than it advocates for the removal of all minimums in specific response to this issue. My question is how reducing the floors on serious rapes would ensure that cases like Brock Turner's would be sentenced more effectively (ie. with a greater sentence proportionate to the crime committed).


Oh, I guess I just thought he was expressing a general principle/sentiment simlilar in vein to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and not that it would necessarily reduce the incidence of future cases like Brock Turner's.
  • 2

"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart."
User avatar
Grimstone
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:52 am
Show rep
Title: Creature of the Night

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Marcuse » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:48 pm

Grimstone wrote:
Marcuse wrote:I would like to return to the quote I grabbed in my previous post. It doesn't say that mandatory minimums are bad, more than it advocates for the removal of all minimums in specific response to this issue. My question is how reducing the floors on serious rapes would ensure that cases like Brock Turner's would be sentenced more effectively (ie. with a greater sentence proportionate to the crime committed).


Oh, I guess I just thought he was expressing a general principle/sentiment simlilar in vein to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and not that it would necessarily reduce the incidence of future cases like Brock Turner's.


Sure, but that's an extremely general point to make. One might as well say "rape is wrong". It doesn't really relate to the case at hand, beyond stating something nobody would disagree with, and doesn't demonstrate how we might better address the issue that sexual assault and rape cases where the victim doesn't fight back are treated as lesser crimes which can be appropriately sanctioned by the minimal sentence of 6 months. That's what we're looking at here, as the legal changes made are based on the outcry that arose as a result of this specific case.

I'd tend to agree with this, but the solution should probably cut more in favor of dropping the floor for sentencing of rapes where the victim did resist than raising the floor for ones where she did.


For reference, this is the part I'm mostly referring to. I don't see how lowering the floor for more serious crimes would help with the problem of supposedly lesser ones being under sentenced.
  • 3

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Australia » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:53 pm

Grimstone wrote:Oh, I guess I just thought he was expressing a general principle/sentiment simlilar in vein to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and not that it would necessarily reduce the incidence of future cases like Brock Turner's.

I figured more followed Wiggum's formulation.
  • 4

YamI JamesT Eyebrows Edgar Logan Eric Michael Tess Sunny Notch Kate Jamish Lao Carp Moo FaceCitizen Aquila Nisi Qinglong Chaise Nullbert NotCIAagent JackRoad Delta MURDA Bert Czar Ambi JulyJack Adric Marcuse SilverMaple Nudge 52xMax Damiana Doma Pumpkin Toy Fry Andro Carrie Snarky Royal RLG Pikajew Windy skooma Kleiner Java Sellers Piter Gisarmbards Grimstone Recluse Esteban Syrup Krashlia Twistappel MacReady Funkotron mcfooty Pseudoman Creepy Kivutar nerd Ladki Jim Youghurt satan GL Angler
Scari
User avatar
Australia
Resident Dickhead
Resident Dickhead
 
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:15 pm
Location: Take a wild guess
Show rep
Title: Kentucky Fried Colonel

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Learned Nand » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:21 pm

Marcuse wrote:Also, I would like to return to the quote I grabbed in my previous post. It doesn't say that mandatory minimums are bad, more than it advocates for the removal of all minimums in specific response to this issue. My question is how reducing the floors on serious rapes would ensure that cases like Brock Turner's would be sentenced more effectively (ie. with a greater sentence proportionate to the crime committed).

I'm not saying they would, nor that they need to. My entire point was that, even if Brock Turner's sentence was problematically lenient, the problem we have overall is that sentences are too harsh, even for violent crimes. Grimstone is roughly correct as to the sentiment I was expressing, but I have to disagree with you when you say that the sentiment isn't relevant to this case. California has, in response to this case, passed a new mandatory minimum sentence. My point is that that's the wrong reaction. We have too many mandatory minimum sentences as it is.

I'm unsure what you think my point is. It's not that reducing mandatory minimum sentences would reduce the incidence of overly lenient sentencing -- it probably wouldn't. It's also not that reducing mandatory minimum sentences would reduce crime rates -- it would probably have no effect on crime rates. It's that this case doesn't mean we need more mandatory minimum sentences; and if your concern is about consistency in sentencing for similarly situated convicts, then the solution to that problem is to remove mandatory minimums in places where they exist, not add them in places where they don't.
  • 3

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Crimson847 » Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:52 am

Aviel, a global trend in one direction does not preclude a local trend in the opposite direction. Arguing that having the effect of increasing aggregate sentences makes this legislation wrong because the broader trend is toward over-incarceration is like arguing that particular parts of the globe aren't cooling because the Earth as a whole is getting warmer. It is, once again, a division fallacy. The global trend means that policies which increase aggregate sentences require proportionately greater benefits in other areas (e.g. ensuring justice) to be justified--not that we must reject all such policies out of hand.

As such, simply pointing to global trends isn't enough to make your case. So, what is it about this legislation specifically that leads you to conclude the benefit isn't worth the cost?


This is why expressed an interest in seeing numbers earlier on the difference in average sentences between the two groups (the rape defendants who took advantage of this loophole and the ones who didn't). As far as I'm concerned, if we're talking about an average reduction from 14 to 7 years for rape, sure, bring that ceiling down. If we're talking about a reduction from 8 to 2 years, then I'd argue the floor needs to be raised more than the ceiling needs to be lowered in this particular case.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Learned Nand » Thu Sep 01, 2016 6:43 am

Crimson847 wrote:Aviel, a global trend in one direction does not preclude a local trend in the opposite direction. Arguing that having the effect of increasing aggregate sentences makes this legislation wrong because the broader trend is toward over-incarceration is like arguing that particular parts of the globe aren't cooling because the Earth as a whole is getting warmer. It is, once again, a division fallacy. The global trend means that policies which increase aggregate sentences require proportionately greater benefits in other areas (e.g. ensuring justice) to be justified--not that we must reject all such policies out of hand.

It's actually the inversion of that. Which to say, it's closer to saying that, because the Earth as a whole is warming, we shouldn't start turning the heat up because one spot is getting cold.

As such, simply pointing to global trends isn't enough to make your case. So, what is it about this legislation specifically that leads you to conclude the benefit isn't worth the cost?

Punishment for violent crimes is too harsh, in that there is little to no deterrent value in having them as harsh as they are relatively to sentences of lesser severity. This legislation seeks to ensure that sentencing law applies consistently, but it does that by increasing the punishment where the mandatory minimum is currently low rather than decreasing it where it is currently high. Because punishments for crimes, including for violent crimes, are too high, the former option would be preferable. This seems to me to be perfectly valid reasoning absent specific evidence that this approach is necessary here.
  • 1

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Crimson847 » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:42 am

aviel wrote:
Crimson847 wrote:Aviel, a global trend in one direction does not preclude a local trend in the opposite direction. Arguing that having the effect of increasing aggregate sentences makes this legislation wrong because the broader trend is toward over-incarceration is like arguing that particular parts of the globe aren't cooling because the Earth as a whole is getting warmer. It is, once again, a division fallacy. The global trend means that policies which increase aggregate sentences require proportionately greater benefits in other areas (e.g. ensuring justice) to be justified--not that we must reject all such policies out of hand.


It's actually the inversion of that. Which to say, it's closer to saying that, because the Earth as a whole is warming, we shouldn't start turning the heat up because one spot is getting cold.


So Minnesotans and Siberians shouldn't turn on the heat in the winter (thereby creating a local increase in temperature, not to mention burning fossil fuels), because the problem on a global level is too much heat rather than too little?

Punishment for violent crimes is too harsh, in that there is little to no deterrent value in having them as harsh as they are relatively to sentences of lesser severity. This legislation seeks to ensure that sentencing law applies consistently, but it does that by increasing the punishment where the mandatory minimum is currently low rather than decreasing it where it is currently high. Because punishments for crimes, including for violent crimes, are too high, the former option would be preferable. This seems to me to be perfectly valid reasoning absent specific evidence that this approach is necessary here.


So what would be the ideal average sentence for rape, then?
  • 2

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Askias » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:42 pm

Crimson847 wrote:This is why expressed an interest in seeing numbers earlier on the difference in average sentences between the two groups (the rape defendants who took advantage of this loophole and the ones who didn't). As far as I'm concerned, if we're talking about an average reduction from 14 to 7 years for rape, sure, bring that ceiling down. If we're talking about a reduction from 8 to 2 years, then I'd argue the floor needs to be raised more than the ceiling needs to be lowered in this particular case.

I'm not sure if the average is very fit for that, unless you filter out another dozen factors. Defendants who didn't take advantage are a highly varied range and include any number of aggrevating factors which the other group doesn't have because they preclude the use of the loophole. Perpetrators which used abduction or heavy violence would draw the averages apart.

I am against minimum sentencing on principe. I could agree with a 'soft' minimum that the judge would have to formally justify not giving, if we're talking high-impact offenses. But I'd still like that minimum low. The UK uses this system for repeated severe offenses*.

On the sentence lenght in the UK system with varying circumstances - possibly disturbing
But to get a ball rolling for more concrete numbers: the UK guidelines has use of violence (outside of what is inherent in the offense, a 'harm' factor) boost the sentence range from 4-7 years (page 12: catagory 3, excluding any circumstances that increase 'culpability' such as using alcohol to facilitate the offense, planning, abuse of trust, so on and so forth) to 7-9 years (catagory 2, again excluding culpability-raising circumstances). It can get higher if the 'harm' factor was extreme in nature (for violence, beating someone into the Intensive Care would be extreme in nature) or multiple were combined (such as abduction+violence, forced entry+transmitted STD, see page 11). If this is the case (catagory 1), the sentence range moves up again to 10-15 years, starting point 12 years.

Factors that increase culpability, if any are present, raise the sentences across the board by 2 or 3 years. If you go for a catagory 1 offense with factors that increase culpability, you're at 13-19 years. Sentence lenght for rape can go higher than 20 years, up to life in prison, but that is reserved for repeated offenses.

Disclaimer: The minima and maxima of these ranges are not legally binding. They are intended as a sentencing guideline in the interest of uniformity. No rights can be derived from them.

Aviel, you're up. Higher or lower?


* See Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The formal exception to this rule is first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, but a judge can still set a term (15 years or higher, up to never) after which the convict may apply for parole.
  • 4

If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)
User avatar
Askias
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Under the Sea
Show rep
Title: Night Owl

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby iMURDAu » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:26 pm

The topic title while kind of shocking just doesn't shock nearly as much as

Convicted Rapist Serves Half of 6 Month Prison Sentence.
  • 6

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6752
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: twitch.tv/beakstore
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby cmsellers » Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:54 am


Doesn't "good behavior" usually result in sentence reductions.

You know, as a white boy from an upper-middle-class family, I realized I haven't been taking nearly enough advantage of my immunity from justice.

BRB. I need to go rape an old lady, defraud a baby, and remove the vocal chords of an annoying acquaintance.
  • 5

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby Marcuse » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:03 am

Doesn't "good behavior" usually result in sentence reductions.


As far as I understand it, assuming cooperation, it's normal to expect someone to serve half of a sentence handed down by a judge. It's just when that sentence is already laughably short, halving it is ludicrous.
  • 7

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Convicted rapist sentenced to 6 months in prison

Postby FaceTheCitizen » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:10 am

...
  • 7

User avatar
FaceTheCitizen
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:12 pm
Show rep
Title: Thot Patrol

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron