Brock Turner

[WorkingMummy]

The whole Stanford rape case has been so wildly unjust. This online news commentary makes the point about privilege very well.

I wish I could say that white and well educated people do not enjoy the same unfair leniency in our criminal justice system.

[Medusa]

...and you'd be spot-on.

Neither do women, by and large.

[rendelharris]

Medusa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and you'd be spot-on.

Not really. Ministry of Justice's own reports show black or Asian defendants 20% more likely to receive jail sentences for the same offence, and when they do on average they get 7 months longer than whites.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-8959804.html

[Loz]

Medusa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and you'd be spot-on.

>

> Neither do women, by and large.

There was too many double negatives in the OP. Do you mean women get more unfair leniency in the criminal justice system?

[Jeremy]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really.

OP is saying (in a roundabout way) that white/well educated ARE treated leniently.

[rendelharris]

Yes I know, but then the next poster seems to be saying that they aren't; it's semantically confusing but WorkingMummy said (in paraphrase) I wish I could say white people don't get preferential treatment, Medusa has said if you did say that you'd be right. Maybe s/he's been thrown by the double negatives, but that's to what I was replying.

[Loz]

I don't think white people as such are treated more leniently. I think rich people who can afford good lawyers are treated more leniently.

But, admittedly, the rich people are predominantly white.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think white people as such are treated

> more leniently. I think rich people who can

> afford good lawyers are treated more leniently.

>

> But, admittedly, the rich people are predominantly

> white.

It is certainly the case that the wealthy stand a better chance of reduced punishment due to being able to afford the best lawyers, but there aren't enough wealthy people committing the most common categories of crimes which attract prison sentences (theft from the person, ABH, theft from a vehicle, theft of a vehicle, criminal damage to a vehicle, shoplifting and burglary), for obvious reasons, to skew the figures very much. Those figures I quoted above (official MoJ figures remember, not a liberal thinktank or similar) of BME defendants being 20% more likely to receive a custodial sentence, and that sentence being on average seven months longer, for the same offence, are pretty unequivocal.

[Loz]

Sorry, RH - I hadn't read that article. I agree - those stats do look pretty poor.

[Blah Blah]

There's another tangent to this and that's the whole issue of rape and sexual assualt on University Campuses. There's a very good documentary on Netflix called 'The Hunting Ground' which centers around a group of young women who began to question why universities seldom act against perpetrators of sexual assault and rape, and very few cases are referred to law enforcement bodies. It's worth a watch. It isn't just about class/ privilege etc, but the powerful alumni and Fraternities that fund many US universities and particularly those with strong sports wings. There's a culture of permissible behaviour by young men that then goes unpunished. College football for example is a business, not an extra curricular activity. Its stars are protected by powerful money. Brock Turner is the one that made it to court. The are thousands that don't. It's quite shocking.

[DaveR]

I'm not sure whether race played much of a part in the Stanford case. The main point is (as Blah said) that US universities have a very poor record when it comes to dealing with sexual assaults, particularly where the alleged assailant/s are college athletes.

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/rules-regulations/college-athletic-departments-role-in-investigating-sexual-assaults.html

[rendelharris]

No, race played no direct part (that I'm aware of) in the Stanford case, but WorkingMummy's point was that had the accused been black workingclass there's no way he would have got such a lenient sentence.

[DaveR]

My point was that that's not really what this case is about; if the accused had been a black (or white) college athlete from a more prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or basketball it's conceivable that the college would have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice system entirely. It's not helpful IMHO to introduce race issues where they don't arise, because it's both inflammatory and likely to divert from real issues.

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My point was that that's not really what this case

> is about; if the accused had been a black (or

> white) college athlete from a more

> prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or

> basketball it's conceivable that the college would

> have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice

> system entirely. It's not helpful IMHO to

> introduce race issues where they don't arise,

> because it's both inflammatory and likely to

> divert from real issues.

The difference between sentences received by black and white criminals for the same offence, is, as noted above, a very "real" issue in both the US and the UK, so when a rich white person receives a joke sentence it's perfectly legitimate to speculate as to whether his race and social standing played a part in the leniency. If you regard raising a relevant issue within a perfectly valid context as being inflammatory then so be it.

"if the accused had been a black (or white) college athlete from a more prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or basketball it's conceivable that the college would have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice system entirely."

That is very true, but in this case it wasn't a more prominent sport, the perpetrator was arrested and brought to justice, then received a joke sentence, so he wasn't protected by his sporting status but, arguably, by his race and social status, making it perfectly legitimate as a subject for discussion.

[Blah Blah]

Dave is right. There have been some very high profile black college athletes who escaped justice and even charges too.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> began to question why universities seldom act

> against perpetrators of sexual assault and rape,

> and very few cases are referred to law enforcement bodies.

I've never understood why US colleges and universities are expected to be some sort of arbiters of the law. I assume there is some sort of reason people don't/can't report these incidents directly to the police?

[Blah Blah]

In the documentary Loz, students are encouraged to report to some kind of college welfare, arbitration body. BUT where students have gone directly to the Pilice, other forces have intervened too, especially in towns where the local college team is the main sporting attraction. It's an issue of male Police officers, Sheriffs, and local male college sporting heroes.

[Blah Blah]

And then add to that the levers of power open to Fraternity Alumni, who are essentially major donors and lobbyists etc.

[Blah Blah]

And also to add (sorry for the multiple posts), have we forgotten O.J.Simpson who got away with double murder (although now serving time for armed robbery)? Another sporting hero. There's no denying the disparity between black and white in sentencing in the US justice system, but there's also a different law it seems for sportsmen.

[rendelharris]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And also to add (sorry for the multiple posts),

> have we forgotten O.J.Simpson who got away with

> double murder (although now serving time for armed

> robbery)? Another sporting hero. There's no

> denying the disparity between black and white in

> sentencing in the US justice system, but there's

> also a different law it seems for sportsmen.

You rather make my point though Blah - the OJ case was far less about his sporting status than racial issues in the cauldron of LA post-Rodney King and the riots, remember he was acquitted by an all-black jury then found guilty in the civil case by an all white (or nearly all-white?) one. So in that instance, as in the Turner case, raising the question of how much race influences justice is perfectly legitimate and not "inflammatory."

[Blah Blah]

But it's too easy to blame race for the leniency of the sentence. There were other things at play, which is what I'm trying to point out. If Brock Turner were just some ordinary working guy from a small town, he may well have got a bigger sentence. We don't know what part, college and sporting status played, connections into the establishment played etc. They obviously played some part, it was a heinous crime, but I'm willing to bet that had Brock been black and with all those connections, he would have still got a light sentence. There are plenty of examples of black male college sportsmen not being brought to full justice, if any justics at all, for equally serious crimes.

[rendelharris]

Yes of course there were other elements at play, particularly his social status. But when you say "had Brock been black and with all those connections, he would have still got a light sentence" you're doubtless right, the point is that very few (proportionately) young black men in America have those connections, so the law is still skewed in favour of the rich white male. Of course we can never know what part each element played in the sentencing (the fact that the judge is a Stanford alumnus who captained their lacrosse team seems to be a fairly glaring one) - maybe race didn't play any part at all. What I object to is being accused of being "inflammatory" (not by you) for suggesting, perfectly legitimately, that race may have played its part in the leniency.

[Blah Blah]

Jameis Wilson. High profile college football star, protected by both the local Police and his college and escaped ever being charged. Civil cases though have seen massive payouts to the woman he allegedly raped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/sports/football/florida-state-to-pay-jameis-winstons-accuser-950000-in-settlement.html?_r=0

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/12710233/what-hunting-ground-shows-jameis-winston-campus-culture

[Blah Blah]

Absolutely yes, the Judge being a Stanford Alumni is a massive factor - for me the dominent one within the context of this case.

Whether black people have access to those connections isn't really relevant here. It is relevant in the wider world of course, when trying to understand disaparities in both crime and juctice between black and white, but not I feel in this particular case.

[Medusa]

Yep. Because of my own bias I automatically read the OP as a wry comment about how very well white, educated (read 'privileged/wealthy/middle-class)people fare in the criminal justice system. Hence my response.