Was This Taken to Far?

[Jaywalker]

What do you mean, "it may be effective"?

What we do know is effective is the actual law, and it doesn't involve mauling people.

I meant effective as a deterrent and brimstoneSalad covered that pretty well. I couldn't see a country mentioned in the article, but if the law doesn't function properly where they live, this may be better than him getting away with it. The lesser evil.

I'm also all for chopping off parts of rapists if it largely stops rape, even in developed countries. There would be other effects to consider since the mindset of a society which prescribes such punishments would likely be very different, but I'm not against it in principle. It's not automatically bad.

[_Doc]

I couldn't see a country mentioned in the article,...

It was in India.

[EquALLity]

It's a curve.

Total harm = Harm to the criminal from punishment + harm to society from lack of deterrence + harm to society from cost of punishment.
The last one is significant, and one of many reasons why long prison sentences probably do more harm than good.

I'm not saying he should serve twenty years or something, but at least more than a year seems pretty reasonable.

Six months is, again, barely any time at all for rape. The average sentence for rape is almost ten years.

It can work for rational people, but for irrational people (likely most criminals), it doesn't help since they don't think about what will happen if they get caught, or don't understand cause and effect and consequence.

For rational people, it only takes a small deterrence to prevent rape. For irrational people, it would take something emotionally jarring like being tortured to death in order to work (something so terrifying that they won't risk it, regardless of what they think their chances of getting caught are), this comes down to human psychology and risk assessment.

Think of it this way:

Rape a girl behind a dumpster:
Chance of being caught: 10%
Pleasure from the rape: 50
Pain from the punishment if caught: 501

If the chance of being caught is 10%, the deterrence only has to be ten times stronger than the reward to deter rational people from doing it.

Or, take another example,

Price of a subway ticket: $5
Chance of being caught sneaking on: 5%
Fine for being caught: $50

Of course even I am going to want to sneak on the subway if the fine structure is set up like that. It's cheaper to be caught one in twenty times and pay the fine than to buy the ticket. It's not that I want to break the rule, it's just that it's harmful to me not to.

Raise the fine to $100 and then it's break even. Raise it to $101 and it's a perfect deterrent: no rational person would sneak onto the subway to save money, because it's statistically not probable (it's like gambling, the house always wins).

For rational people, crime and punishment is a calculus. The punishment need not be proportional to the crime, but must be proportional to: 1. The pleasure/profit obtained divided by 2. the chance of being caught

For irrational people, it doesn't matter much what the punishment is, they're either going to do it or not for the most part. These people need to be educated and reformed.

That makes sense. And I agree, they definitely need to be reformed.

I see what you're saying about how long prison sentences may not deter less rational people, but six months is so low that it's barely even a deterrent for rational people.

There are also some people who aren't totally rational, but aren't completely irrational either. They won't be deterred by six months.

I would argue that mutilation is MORE effective as a deterrent because it also works on non-rational people, because it's horrible enough to take advantage of human psychology of poor risk assessment for scary things.
Mutilation is also cheaper for society than a prison sentence, which has an extreme opportunity cost (around $50,000 a year, right?).

I agree, it probably is more effective as a deterrent. But deterrence isn't the only important factor. It's still deeply immoral due to the intense suffering involved.

It's apparently $31,286 per inmate on average, btw.

It just makes their lives miserable and meaningless because they have no freedom. Having your hands chopped off may in practice be better than being in prison for the prime of your life; it's something you can learn to cope with and regain some normalcy.
Also, don't forget all of the victims of the opportunity cost.

Well, that's only if it's a life sentence, and I don't think he should be in prison for twenty-years or something. But it needs to be longer than six months. Six months is barely any time.

I'm not saying that prisons should be as horrible as they currently are. I think prison conditions in America should be changed drastically.

The "adult" kid

You mean the adult.
He's over 18, so he's an adult.

was not much older than the teenager

That's true, but he is still a minor.

I see your point that there's really very little difference in maturity, but legally, we have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how mature we treat someone in the justice system.
Morally, I know it doesn't make a big difference, though.

and his crime was committed on an intoxicated on a girl who was passed out drunk and didn't even remember it

It almost sounds like you're diminishing the severity of the rape. Like, "What's the big deal, she didn't even remember it, and she was drunk?"
Maybe you should read the statement of the woman who was raped.

Your Honor, if it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.

You don’t know me, but you’ve been inside me, and that’s why we’re here today.

On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there. I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college.

The next thing I remember I was in a gurney in a hallway. I had dried blood and bandages on the backs of my hands and elbow. I thought maybe I had fallen and was in an admin office on campus. I was very calm and wondering where my sister was. A deputy explained I had been assaulted. I still remained calm, assured he was speaking to the wrong person. I knew no one at this party. When I was finally allowed to use the restroom, I pulled down the hospital pants they had given me, went to pull down my underwear, and felt nothing. I still remember the feeling of my hands touching my skin and grabbing nothing. I looked down and there was nothing. The thin piece of fabric, the only thing between my vagina and anything else, was missing and everything inside me was silenced. I still don’t have words for that feeling. In order to keep breathing, I thought maybe the policemen used scissors to cut them off for evidence.

Then, I felt pine needles scratching the back of my neck and started pulling them out my hair. I thought maybe, the pine needles had fallen from a tree onto my head. My brain was talking my gut into not collapsing. Because my gut was saying, help me, help me.

I shuffled from room to room with a blanket wrapped around me, pine needles trailing behind me, I left a little pile in every room I sat in. I was asked to sign papers that said “Rape Victim” and I thought something has really happened. My clothes were confiscated and I stood naked while the nurses held a ruler to various abrasions on my body and photographed them. The three of us worked to comb the pine needles out of my hair, six hands to fill one paper bag. To calm me down, they said it’s just the flora and fauna, flora and fauna. I had multiple swabs inserted into my vagina and anus, needles for shots, pills, had a Nikon pointed right into my spread legs. I had long, pointed beaks inside me and had my vagina smeared with cold, blue paint to check for abrasions.

After a few hours of this, they let me shower. I stood there examining my body beneath the stream of water and decided, I don’t want my body anymore. I was terrified of it, I didn’t know what had been in it, if it had been contaminated, who had touched it. I wanted to take off my body like a jacket and leave it at the hospital with everything else.

On that morning, all that I was told was that I had been found behind a dumpster, potentially penetrated by a stranger, and that I should get retested for HIV because results don’t always show up immediately. But for now, I should go home and get back to my normal life. Imagine stepping back into the world with only that information. They gave me huge hugs and I walked out of the hospital into the parking lot wearing the new sweatshirt and sweatpants they provided me, as they had only allowed me to keep my necklace and shoes.

My sister picked me up, face wet from tears and contorted in anguish. Instinctively and immediately, I wanted to take away her pain. I smiled at her, I told her to look at me, I’m right here, I’m okay, everything’s okay, I’m right here. My hair is washed and clean, they gave me the strangest shampoo, calm down, and look at me. Look at these funny new sweatpants and sweatshirt, I look like a P.E. teacher, let’s go home, let’s eat something. She did not know that beneath my sweatsuit, I had scratches and bandages on my skin, my vagina was sore and had become a strange, dark color from all the prodding, my underwear was missing, and I felt too empty to continue to speak. That I was also afraid, that I was also devastated. That day we drove home and for hours in silence my younger sister held me.

My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find [my sister]. Again, he asked me, “What happened last night? Did you make it home okay?” I said yes, and hung up to cry.

I was not ready to tell my boyfriend or parents that actually, I may have been raped behind a dumpster, but I don’t know by who or when or how. If I told them, I would see the fear on their faces, and mine would multiply by tenfold, so instead I pretended the whole thing wasn’t real.
I tried to push it out of my mind, but it was so heavy I didn’t talk, I didn’t eat, I didn’t sleep, I didn’t interact with anyone. After work, I would drive to a secluded place to scream. I didn’t talk, I didn’t eat, I didn’t sleep, I didn’t interact with anyone, and I became isolated from the ones I loved most. For over a week after the incident, I didn’t get any calls or updates about that night or what happened to me. The only symbol that proved that it hadn’t just been a bad dream, was the sweatshirt from the hospital in my drawer.

One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me. That’s when the pine needles in my hair made sense, they didn’t fall from a tree. He had taken off my underwear, his fingers had been inside of me. I don’t even know this person. I still don’t know this person. When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me, this can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information. I could not imagine my family having to read about this online. I kept reading. In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings.

It’s like if you were to read an article where a car was hit, and found dented, in a ditch. But maybe the car enjoyed being hit. Maybe the other car didn’t mean to hit it, just bump it up a little bit. Cars get in accidents all the time, people aren’t always paying attention, can we really say who’s at fault.

And then, at the bottom of the article, after I learned about the graphic details of my own sexual assault, the article listed his swimming times. She was found breathing, unresponsive with her underwear six inches away from her bare stomach curled in fetal position. By the way, he’s really good at swimming. Throw in my mile time if that’s what we’re doing. I’m good at cooking, put that in there, I think the end is where you list your extracurriculars to cancel out all the sickening things that’ve happened.

The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it’s upsetting, just know that I’m okay, I’m right here, and I’m okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up.
The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing. Dancing is a cute term; was it snapping fingers and twirling dancing, or just bodies grinding up against each other in a crowded room? I wonder if kissing was just faces sloppily pressed up against each other? When the detective asked if he had planned on taking me back to his dorm, he said no. When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away. He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me. Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else. You were about to enter four years of access to drunk girls and parties, and if this is the foot you started off on, then it is right you did not continue. The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub.

Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us even speaking, a back rub. One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.

I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.
I was not only told that I was assaulted, I was told that because I couldn’t remember, I technically could not prove it was unwanted. And that distorted me, damaged me, almost broke me. It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet. I had to fight for an entire year to make it clear that there was something wrong with this situation.

When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me. Worst of all, I was warned, because he now knows you don’t remember, he is going to get to write the script. He can say whatever he wants and no one can contest it. I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless. My memory loss would be used against me. My testimony was weak, was incomplete, and I was made to believe that perhaps, I am not enough to win this. His attorney constantly reminded the jury, the only one we can believe is Brock, because she doesn’t remember. That helplessness was traumatizing.

Instead of taking time to heal, I was taking time to recall the night in excruciating detail, in order to prepare for the attorney’s questions that would be invasive, aggressive, and designed to steer me off course, to contradict myself, my sister, phrased in ways to manipulate my answers. Instead of his attorney saying, Did you notice any abrasions? He said, You didn’t notice any abrasions, right? This was a game of strategy, as if I could be tricked out of my own worth. The sexual assault had been so clear, but instead, here I was at the trial, answering questions like:
How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.

I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name. After a physical assault, I was assaulted with questions designed to attack me, to say see, her facts don’t line up, she’s out of her mind, she’s practically an alcoholic, she probably wanted to hook up, he’s like an athlete right, they were both drunk, whatever, the hospital stuff she remembers is after the fact, why take it into account, Brock has a lot at stake so he’s having a really hard time right now.

And then it came time for him to testify and I learned what it meant to be revictimized. I want to remind you, the night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn’t know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn’t feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked. Then he learned I could not remember.

So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.

He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He’s in the clear. Even in his story, I only said a total of three words, yes yes yes, before he had me half naked on the ground. Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn’t even do that. Just one coherent string of words. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency.

According to him, the only reason we were on the ground was because I fell down. Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina. If a girl falls down help her up. If she is wearing a cardigan over her dress don’t take it off so that you can touch her breasts. Maybe she is cold, maybe that’s why she wore the cardigan.

Next in the story, two Swedes on bicycles approached you and you ran. When they tackled you why didn’t say, “Stop! Everything’s okay, go ask her, she’s right over there, she’ll tell you.” I mean you had just asked for my consent, right? I was awake, right? When the policeman arrived and interviewed the evil Swede who tackled you, he was crying so hard he couldn’t speak because of what he’d seen.

Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place. Brock stated, “At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.” Here’s the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I became unresponsive, then you still do not understand. You didn’t even stop when I was unconscious anyway! Someone else stopped you. Two guys on bikes noticed I wasn’t moving in the dark and had to tackle you. How did you not notice while on top of me?

You said, you would have stopped and gotten help. You say that, but I want you to explain how you would’ve helped me, step by step, walk me through this. I want to know, if those evil Swedes had not found me, how the night would have played out. I am asking you; Would you have pulled my underwear back on over my boots? Untangled the necklace wrapped around my neck? Closed my legs, covered me? Pick the pine needles from my hair? Asked if the abrasions on my neck and bottom hurt? Would you then go find a friend and say, Will you help me get her somewhere warm and soft? I don’t sleep when I think about the way it could have gone if the two guys had never come. What would have happened to me? That’s what you’ll never have a good answer for, that’s what you can’t explain even after a year.

On top of all this, he claimed that I orgasmed after one minute of digital penetration. The nurse said there had been abrasions, lacerations, and dirt in my genitalia. Was that before or after I came?

To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by Swedes for reasons unknown to you is appalling, is demented, is selfish, is damaging. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity of validity of this suffering.

My family had to see pictures of my head strapped to a gurney full of pine needles, of my body in the dirt with my eyes closed, hair messed up, limbs bent, and dress hiked up. And even after that, my family had to listen to your attorney say the pictures were after the fact, we can dismiss them. To say, yes her nurse confirmed there was redness and abrasions inside her, significant trauma to her genitalia, but that’s what happens when you finger someone, and he’s already admitted to that. To listen to your attorney attempt to paint a picture of me, the face of girls gone wild, as if somehow that would make it so that I had this coming for me. To listen to him say I sounded drunk on the phone because I’m silly and that’s my goofy way of speaking. To point out that in the voicemail, I said I would reward my boyfriend and we all know what I was thinking. I assure you my rewards program is non transferable, especially to any nameless man that approaches me.

He has done irreversible damage to me and my family during the trial and we have sat silently, listening to him shape the evening. But in the end, his unsupported statements and his attorney’s twisted logic fooled no one. The truth won, the truth spoke for itself.
You are guilty. Twelve jurors convicted you guilty of three felony counts beyond reasonable doubt, that’s twelve votes per count, thirty ­six yeses confirming guilt, that’s one hundred percent, unanimous guilt. And I thought finally it is over, finally he will own up to what he did, truly apologize, we will both move on and get better. ​Then I read your statement.

If you are hoping that one of my organs will implode from anger and I will die, I’m almost there. You are very close. This is not a story of another drunk college hook­up with poor decision making. Assault is not an accident. Somehow, you still don’t get it. Somehow, you still sound confused. I will now read portions of the defendant’s statement and respond to them.

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.
Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.
I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want to be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.
Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and my own sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.
You said, During the trial I didn’t want to victimize her at all. That was just my attorney and his way of approaching the case.
Your attorney is not your scapegoat, he represents you. Did your attorney say some incredulously infuriating, degrading things? Absolutely. He said you had an erection, because it was cold.

You said, you are in the process of establishing a program for high school and college students in which you speak about your experience to “speak out against the college campus drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that.”
Campus drinking culture. That’s what we’re speaking out against? You think that’s what I’ve spent the past year fighting for? Not awareness about campus sexual assault, or rape, or learning to recognize consent. Campus drinking culture. Down with Jack Daniels. Down with Skyy Vodka. If you want talk to people about drinking go to an AA meeting. You realize, having a drinking problem is different than drinking and then forcefully trying to have sex with someone? Show men how to respect women, not how to drink less.

Drinking culture and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that. Goes along with that, like a side effect, like fries on the side of your order. Where does promiscuity even come into play? I don’t see headlines that read, Brock Turner, Guilty of drinking too much and the sexual promiscuity that goes along with that. Campus Sexual Assault. There’s your first powerpoint slide. Rest assured, if you fail to fix the topic of your talk, I will follow you to every school you go to and give a follow up presentation.

Lastly you said, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin a life.
A life, one life, yours, you forgot about mine. Let me rephrase for you, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin two lives. You and me. You are the cause, I am the effect. You have dragged me through this hell with you, dipped me back into that night again and again. You knocked down both our towers, I collapsed at the same time you did. If you think I was spared, came out unscathed, that today I ride off into sunset, while you suffer the greatest blow, you are mistaken. Nobody wins. We have all been devastated, we have all been trying to find some meaning in all of this suffering. 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.

See one thing we have in common is that we were both unable to get up in the morning. I am no stranger to suffering. You made me a victim. In newspapers my name was “unconscious intoxicated woman”, ten syllables, and nothing more than that. For a while, I believed that that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. To relearn that this is not all that I am. That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All­ American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake. I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt, my life was put on hold for over a year, waiting to figure out if I was worth something.

My independence, natural joy, gentleness, and steady lifestyle I had been enjoying became distorted beyond recognition. I became closed off, angry, self deprecating, tired, irritable, empty. The isolation at times was unbearable. You cannot give me back the life I had before that night either. While you worry about your shattered reputation, I refrigerated spoons every night so when I woke up, and my eyes were puffy from crying, I would hold the spoons to my eyes to lessen the swelling so that I could see. I showed up an hour late to work every morning, excused myself to cry in the stairwells, I can tell you all the best places in that building to cry where no one can hear you. The pain became so bad that I had to explain the private details to my boss to let her know why I was leaving. I needed time because continuing day to day was not possible. I used my savings to go as far away as I could possibly be. I did not return to work full time as I knew I’d have to take weeks off in the future for the hearing and trial, that were constantly being rescheduled. My life was put on hold for over a year, my structure had collapsed.

I can’t sleep alone at night without having a light on, like a five year old, because I have nightmares of being touched where I cannot wake up, I did this thing where I waited until the sun came up and I felt safe enough to sleep. For three months, I went to bed at six o’clock in the morning.
I used to pride myself on my independence, now I am afraid to go on walks in the evening, to attend social events with drinking among friends where I should be comfortable being. I have become a little barnacle always needing to be at someone’s side, to have my boyfriend standing next to me, sleeping beside me, protecting me. It is embarrassing how feeble I feel, how timidly I move through life, always guarded, ready to defend myself, ready to be angry.

You have no idea how hard I have worked to rebuild parts of me that are still weak. It took me eight months to even talk about what happened. I could no longer connect with friends, with everyone around me. I would scream at my boyfriend, my own family whenever they brought this up. You never let me forget what happened to me. At the of end of the hearing, the trial, I was too tired to speak. I would leave drained, silent. I would go home turn off my phone and for days I would not speak. You bought me a ticket to a planet where I lived by myself. Every time a new article come out, I lived with the paranoia that my entire hometown would find out and know me as the girl who got assaulted. I didn’t want anyone’s pity and am still learning to accept victim as part of my identity. You made my own hometown an uncomfortable place to be.

You cannot give me back my sleepless nights. The way I have broken down sobbing uncontrollably if I’m watching a movie and a woman is harmed, to say it lightly, this experience has expanded my empathy for other victims. I have lost weight from stress, when people would comment I told them I’ve been running a lot lately. There are times I did not want to be touched. I have to relearn that I am not fragile, I am capable, I am wholesome, not just livid and weak.

When I see my younger sister hurting, when she is unable to keep up in school, when she is deprived of joy, when she is not sleeping, when she is crying so hard on the phone she is barely breathing, telling me over and over again she is sorry for leaving me alone that night, sorry sorry sorry, when she feels more guilt than you, then I do not forgive you. That night I had called her to try and find her, but you found me first. Your attorney’s closing statement began, “[Her sister] said she was fine and who knows her better than her sister.” You tried to use my own sister against me? Your points of attack were so weak, so low, it was almost embarrassing. You do not touch her.

You should have never done this to me. Secondly, you should have never made me fight so long to tell you, you should have never done this to me. But here we are. The damage is done, no one can undo it. And now we both have a choice. We can let this destroy us, I can remain angry and hurt and you can be in denial, or we can face it head on, I accept the pain, you accept the punishment, and we move on.

Your life is not over, you have decades of years ahead to rewrite your story. The world is huge, it is so much bigger than Palo Alto and Stanford, and you will make a space for yourself in it where you can be useful and happy. But right now, you do not get to shrug your shoulders and be confused anymore. You do not get to pretend that there were no red flags. You have been convicted of violating me, intentionally, forcibly, sexually, with malicious intent, and all you can admit to is consuming alcohol. Do not talk about the sad way your life was upturned because alcohol made you do bad things. Figure out how to take responsibility for your own conduct.

Now to address the sentencing. When I read the probation officer’s report, I was in disbelief, consumed by anger which eventually quieted down to profound sadness. My statements have been slimmed down to distortion and taken out of context. I fought hard during this trial and will not have the outcome minimized by a probation officer who attempted to evaluate my current state and my wishes in a fifteen minute conversation, the majority of which was spent answering questions I had about the legal system. The context is also important. Brock had yet to issue a statement, and I had not read his remarks.

My life has been on hold for over a year, a year of anger, anguish and uncertainty, until a jury of my peers rendered a judgment that validated the injustices I had endured. Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move our lives forward. Instead he took the risk of going to trial, added insult to injury and forced me to relive the hurt as details about my personal life and sexual assault were brutally dissected before the public. He pushed me and my family through a year of inexplicable, unnecessary suffering, and should face the consequences of challenging his crime, of putting my pain into question, of making us wait so long for justice.

I told the probation officer I do not want Brock to rot away in prison. I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars. The probation officer’s recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time­out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, an insult to me and all women. It gives the message that a stranger can be inside you without proper consent and he will receive less than what has been defined as the minimum sentence. Probation should be denied. I also told the probation officer that what I truly wanted was for Brock to get it, to understand and admit to his wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, after reading the defendant’s report, I am severely disappointed and feel that he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of “promiscuity.” By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can’t even see that distinction.
The probation officer factored in that the defendant is youthful and has no prior convictions. In my opinion, he is old enough to know what he did was wrong. When you are eighteen in this country you can go to war. When you are nineteen, you are old enough to pay the consequences for attempting to rape someone. He is young, but he is old enough to know better.

As this is a first offence I can see where leniency would beckon. On the other hand, as a society, we cannot forgive everyone’s first sexual assault or digital rape. It doesn’t make sense. The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly, we should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error. The consequences of sexual assault needs to be severe enough that people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be preventative.

The probation officer weighed the fact that he has surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. How fast Brock swims does not lessen the severity of what happened to me, and should not lessen the severity of his punishment. If a first time offender from an underprivileged background was accused of three felonies and displayed no accountability for his actions other than drinking, what would his sentence be? The fact that Brock was an athlete at a private university should not be seen as an entitlement to leniency, but as an opportunity to send a message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class.

The Probation Officer has stated that this case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication. It felt serious. That’s all I’m going to say.

What has he done to demonstrate that he deserves a break? He has only apologized for drinking and has yet to define what he did to me as sexual assault, he has revictimized me continually, relentlessly. He has been found guilty of three serious felonies and it is time for him to accept the consequences of his actions. He will not be quietly excused.

He is a lifetime sex registrant. That doesn’t expire. Just like what he did to me doesn’t expire, doesn’t just go away after a set number of years. It stays with me, it’s part of my identity, it has forever changed the way I carry myself, the way I live the rest of my life.

To conclude, I want to say thank you. To everyone from the intern who made me oatmeal when I woke up at the hospital that morning, to the deputy who waited beside me, to the nurses who calmed me, to the detective who listened to me and never judged me, to my advocates who stood unwaveringly beside me, to my therapist who taught me to find courage in vulnerability, to my boss for being kind and understanding, to my incredible parents who teach me how to turn pain into strength, to my grandma who snuck chocolate into the courtroom throughout this to give to me, my friends who remind me how to be happy, to my boyfriend who is patient and loving, to my unconquerable sister who is the other half of my heart, to Alaleh, my idol, who fought tirelessly and never doubted me. Thank you to everyone involved in the trial for their time and attention. Thank you to girls across the nation that wrote cards to my DA to give to me, so many strangers who cared for me.

Most importantly, thank you to the two men who saved me, who I have yet to meet. I sleep with two bicycles that I drew taped above my bed to remind myself there are heroes in this story. That we are looking out for one another. To have known all of these people, to have felt their protection and love, is something I will never forget.

And finally, to girls everywhere, I am with you. On nights when you feel alone, I am with you. When people doubt you or dismiss you, I am with you. I fought everyday for you. So never stop fighting, I believe you. As the author Anne Lamott once wrote, “Lighthouses don’t go running all over an island looking for boats to save; they just stand there shining.” Although I can’t save every boat, I hope that by speaking today, you absorbed a small amount of light, a small knowing that you can’t be silenced, a small satisfaction that justice was served, a small assurance that we are getting somewhere, and a big, big knowing that you are important, unquestionably, you are untouchable, you are beautiful, you are to be valued, respected, undeniably, every minute of every day, you are powerful and nobody can take that away from you. To girls everywhere, I am with you. Thank you.

(her fault for being drunk in a strange place; it's virtually entrapment -- that doesn't excuse the rape, just like it doesn't excuse a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian at night if the person was running in the road in all black, but it is an important consideration).

Er, what?

Entrapment?

In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability.

How is this any different from, "She's wearing revealing clothing, so she's asking for it?"

How exactly is this an 'important consideration'? In what way? Are you saying the crime is somehow less severe because the woman was intoxicated due to her own drinking?

The teenager raped an innocent baby, and would have probably gotten off with little to nothing at all (even less than Turner) if the father hadn't taken justice into his own hands.

If it's either mutilation or nothing at all, though, I still think it should be nothing at all.

In the scenario with mutilation, there's a guarantee that this person was significantly abused and traumatized.

In the scenario with nothing at all, worst case scenario that is likely is the person commits a similar crime in the future (which I don't even think is really likely, given that he knows he can get caught now, even though he didn't really get punished) and then likely gets convicted for that as an adult and put in jail.

In the worst case scenario with the teen getting away with rape that is likely, he hurts one other person and is punished without being abused in that way. It's not necessarily worse than the first situation. But in the best case scenario, he learns his lesson and doesn't commit another crime in the future. That would be a better outcome than the first situation's outcome.

And he'd probably still be punished to an extent, anyway. It's probably not zero punishment.

It wasn't a slap on the wrist. It's six months of prison and a life on the sex offender list which will follow him forever.
The kid was left tied by the road where he would be found, given he was screaming. The father could have killed him if he wanted that.

Yes it is. Six months is barely any time for rape. Being on the sex offender list is bad, but I doubt it's something most people would even consider when thinking about rape.
Maybe I'm wrong about that? I'm sure I heard Brock Turner was on the list, but I didn't remember it enough to take note of it. It just seems like a side thing, and I don't think it's something most people would consider.

Maybe the father did want him dead. He left him there bleeding out and screaming.
He certainly put the teen's life at risk, either way.

You have to understand that such a thing is also a very effective deterrent for rational people. Its function is also as a punishment; like a scarlet A on his clothes. Everybody knows, and he will be shamed and ostracized for the rest of his life.

I think it's mostly a problem with employment, though both of those things act as deterrents. However, I think that the deterrence for rape should be stronger than that list and a small prison sentence.

I don't like the concept of the sex offender list as punishment, but I do think it's important for safety reasons.
Though, it's bizarre that we have a list for sex offenders but not one for murderers (who committed a worse crime than rapists). I don't understand why we don't have a murderer registry.

Different as in better, since it's a more effective deterrent against irrational people (and it only takes a small deterrent for the rational). Better also as in it's very cheap, and won't have an opportunity cost of $50,000 a year taken from other social programs to take care of a prisoner for decades.

You're right to consider harm to the culprit. But it's harm to culprit vs. harm to others because of lack of deterrent, where the others vastly outnumber the culprit. Even a small change in the efficacy of a deterrent can make a huge difference to the many.
And then, as I said, there's also harm from opportunity cost because of the expense of the punishment.

It's probably a more effective deterrent, but I don't think it's better overall.

It's also what the establishment of this kind of violent retribution does to society. It makes people comfortable with barbarism and vengeance, and I don't think that's a good thing.

That doesn't matter much. I think you're getting distracted by this irrelevant issue.

I think it does matter.

It's not "fair" from some perspectives. Fair is not moral, and moral is not fair.
The moral question comes down to the cost/benefit equation.

I'm not sure why you put fair in quotes.

It's definitely not fair, but it's also not moral, just by the nature of the situation. There's no reason why, for example, people who are white would need less punishment than people who are black. So if one is being punished more than the other, and the other is being punished reasonably, one group is being punished too severely.

Doesn't matter. But college IS relevant. So are priors.

I didn't mention priors (apparently previous convictions). There are other factors at play too (that are arbitrary).

College is not relevant when it comes to how much a person should be punished for a crime. It has nothing to do with the crime.
Legally, we need fairness in terms of all are equal before the law.

Again, do you really think that a poor, young, black man who wasn't in college would've gotten the same sentence?

It's a great deterrent for rational people. He'll probably also have to pay the victim huge sums of money. He's also lost his athletic dreams. It's not worth it to rational people for a few rapes.

For irrational people, no amount of prison is going to be a very effective deterrent. Even a painless death probably wouldn't be.
Mutilation, on the other hand? There are some psychological principles that suggest this would be if it's horrible enough.

Perhaps not totally rational people, but what about people who are on the fence?

That's not what "getting away with it" means.

He is most certainly being punished and blamed for the act. Just because you don't think the punishment was harsh enough doesn't mean he got away with it.

You may say he "got off light"
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/got+off+light

He might have gotten off light, but he did NOT get away with it.

This is just semantics.
He got away with it in the sense that his punishment was so insignificant that it's almost the same as flat out not being punished.

I agree, but such claims should be based on actual research and evidence of how much punishment is actually a deterrent, and which kinds of punishment work.
If it stopped rape to flay this kid alive on national television, maybe that would be worth doing. Medieval punishments are more likely to work than prison, which just cost money and don't really discourage irrational people from committing crimes.
Either way, it should be based on evidence of efficacy, not assumptions.

You're assuming a longer prison sentence would be a better deterrent, but I don't think that's true. Chopping off his hands might be. But more prison -- no. That would just waste money, and probably teach him to be a more hardened criminal by the time he got out and even increase the chance of recidivism.

I don't think so.

Like I said, it makes people comfortable with barbarism, and it teaches people to solve their problems with violence.
And in what position is the government to tell people not to be violent when the government responds to crime with violence? What kind of message is it sending?

[EquALLity]

What do you mean, "it may be effective"?

What we do know is effective is the actual law, and it doesn't involve mauling people.

I meant effective as a deterrent and brimstoneSalad covered that pretty well. I couldn't see a country mentioned in the article, but if the law doesn't function properly where they live, this may be better than him getting away with it. The lesser evil.

I'm also all for chopping off parts of rapists if it largely stops rape, even in developed countries. There would be other effects to consider since the mindset of a society which prescribes such punishments would likely be very different, but I'm not against it in principle. It's not automatically bad.

What do you think about these parts of my response?:

If it's either mutilation or nothing at all, though, I still think it should be nothing at all.

In the scenario with mutilation, there's a guarantee that this person was significantly abused and traumatized.

In the scenario with nothing at all, worst case scenario that is likely is the person commits a similar crime in the future (which I don't even think is really likely, given that he knows he can get caught now, even though he didn't really get punished) and then likely gets convicted for that as an adult and put in jail.

In the worst case scenario with the teen getting away with rape that is likely, he hurts one other person and is punished without being abused in that way. It's not necessarily worse than the first situation. But in the best case scenario, he learns his lesson and doesn't commit another crime in the future. That would be a better outcome than the first situation's outcome.

And he'd probably still be punished to an extent, anyway. It's probably not zero punishment.

It's probably a more effective deterrent, but I don't think it's better overall.

It's also what the establishment of this kind of violent retribution does to society. It makes people comfortable with barbarism and vengeance, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Like I said, it makes people comfortable with barbarism, and it teaches people to solve their problems with violence.
And in what position is the government to tell people not to be violent when the government responds to crime with violence? What kind of message is it sending?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not saying he should serve twenty years or something, but at least more than a year seems pretty reasonable.

On what basis? Where is your evidence of the ideal amount?

Six months is, again, barely any time at all for rape. The average sentence for rape is almost ten years.

Maybe the average sentence is too long. Maybe six months is too long. Maybe ten years is not long enough.

Evidence?

The bottom line is you can't judge ANY of these things without it. It's just personal feelings (no different from those PsYcHo has, so you really can't criticize him if you're doing the same thing for a different crime) and political rhetoric,

If you don't know what that curve looks like, or where the "line" is, you're just guessing.

I see what you're saying about how long prison sentences may not deter less rational people, but six months is so low that it's barely even a deterrent for rational people.

Proof?

How much enjoyment does drunkenly fingering and dry humping a girl behind a dumpster yield?

A single day in prison is even a serious deterrent if you know anything about prison. Not fun.

There are also some people who aren't totally rational, but aren't completely irrational either. They won't be deterred by six months.

How do you know? What does this demographic look like? How many people? How much will deter them? How do you know ten years will?

Again, these can make fine hypotheses, but you have to test them and provide evidence before you start condemning people.

I didn't vote in the poll. I don't have evidence.
I have no way to say if it was taken too far, or not far enough.

Any vote in such a poll is an expression of your personal feelings, and that's not a sound basis for moral judgement.

I agree, it probably is more effective as a deterrent. But deterrence isn't the only important factor. It's still deeply immoral due to the intense suffering involved.

I think you missed my point: what if it prevents more suffering from deterrence than it causes?
Do you know that it doesn't? No.

You can't just say "this is a lot of suffering, so it's wrong no matter how much suffering is prevents."

You need some evidence.

If one man having his hands chopped off prevents a dozen rapes and a two murders, is that worth it?
How about if it prevents a million rapes and a thousand murders?

It's apparently $31,286 per inmate on average, btw.

That's still pretty absurd. Do you have any idea how much good could be done with that money in social programs?

Well, that's only if it's a life sentence, and I don't think he should be in prison for twenty-years or something. But it needs to be longer than six months. Six months is barely any time.

Why? Evidence?

I see your point that there's really very little difference in maturity, but legally, we have to draw the line somewhere in terms of how mature we treat someone in the justice system.
Morally, I know it doesn't make a big difference, though.

Was this a legal debate, or a moral one? I took it as a moral one. I put adult in quotes for that reason. They're both kids in moral terms, roughly the same maturity level.

It almost sounds like you're diminishing the severity of the rape.

I'm not. And based on the letter, it's mainly the psychological aspects, and what came after the rape that were problems.
That letter was really too long to post here (it stretches the page and it's hard to read here), you should probably link stuff that long (can you edit to replace with a link? I don't know where you got it.).

The situation could have been handled much better. It was BECAUSE the family feared a ten years prison sentence that the trial was so brutal.
If the possible sentence were lighter, it might have been less adversarial, and the kid more likely to accept blame and try to make amends.

Severity of sentences can sometimes increase criminality and make trials more hostile, which is a big problem in cases like this.
It would have been much easier for him to settle if the maximum sentence were lighter.

Entrapment?

In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability.

How is this any different from, "She's wearing revealing clothing, so she's asking for it?"

How exactly is this an 'important consideration'? In what way? Are you saying the crime is somehow less severe because the woman was intoxicated due to her own drinking?

There is not less harm to the victim, but it is less of a deviation from the norm of human behavior (the norm is not great); that is, the kid is not that unusual, and in some sense just got unlucky. He would not have normally raped a sober girl, and being drunk in addition, he may not have even realized he was raping somebody. He was certainly in the wrong, but this is not altogether unusual behavior for college kids -- there's a lot of wrong going around (look at how normal meat eating is).

If a girl is passed out on a bed in a party house full of drunk guys, that's going to be a lot harder for the average frat boy to resist having sex with her (particularly if he's drunk too).
Normalcy is not a moral defense, but it DOES bring up good questions about how we need to deal with the issue. It's a social issue.

A good example of entrapment is just leaving a pile of money on a table unsupervised with a note that says "don't touch", and then arresting the person who takes it. A lot of people would take that money, but it doesn't mean they would normally commit crimes.
If we lower the bar that low, probably some additional 5% of the population need to be in jail, despite not being active criminals.

From a moral character perspective, a frat boy who WOULD rape a passed out girl is not a better person than a frat boy who DID rape a passed out girl (who just had the bad luck of being exposed to opportunity at the wrong time).
If we want to lock people up on character, we have to understand that a person who, when drunk, rapes a passed out girl with his fingers is NOT as bad as a person who, when sober, rapes a sober girl (who is fighting him and saying no) with his penis.

This boy is not a serious danger to society (probably much less now). He's pretty damn normal (which is a shame, since he's arguably a piece of shit).

The important question here for his punishment is about deterrence. And questions of deterrence require evidence.

If it's either mutilation or nothing at all, though, I still think it should be nothing at all.

Based on what evidence?

In the scenario with nothing at all, worst case scenario that is likely is the person commits a similar crime in the future (which I don't even think is really likely, given that he knows he can get caught now, even though he didn't really get punished) and then likely gets convicted for that as an adult and put in jail.

Then why not apply the same to Turner? Let him off with nothing.

You talked about deterrence. Letting the baby raping boy off with nothing might be a poor deterrence to other kids who have the same idea.

And he'd probably still be punished to an extent, anyway. It's probably not zero punishment.

Now you're making distinctions of it not being "zero punishment", and yet you're saying that Turner is getting nothing at all when his life plans are ruined, he's out of university, his athletic goals crushed, he's on the sex offender list for life, AND he's serving at least three months in prison.

It seems like a double standard.

Yes it is. Six months is barely any time for rape. Being on the sex offender list is bad, but I doubt it's something most people would even consider when thinking about rape.

If people wouldn't consider it, it needs to be publicized better. That's a serious punishment.
Six months in jail is a serious deal. Even three months is. Even a week is.

However, I think that the deterrence for rape should be stronger than that list and a small prison sentence.

Why? Evidence?

It's probably a more effective deterrent, but I don't think it's better overall.

Why?

It's also what the establishment of this kind of violent retribution does to society. It makes people comfortable with barbarism and vengeance, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Interesting hypothesis. Evidence?

That doesn't matter much. I think you're getting distracted by this irrelevant issue.

I think it does matter.

Why?

It's not "fair" from some perspectives. Fair is not moral, and moral is not fair.
The moral question comes down to the cost/benefit equation.

I'm not sure why you put fair in quotes.

Because it's subjective. What seems fair to one person is not fair to another.

It's definitely not fair, but it's also not moral, just by the nature of the situation.

Any unnecessary harm is wrong, but that's something we need some evidence for. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

There's no reason why, for example, people who are white would need less punishment than people who are black.

That's an unfounded assertion.
What if, due to cultural reasons, smaller punishments are a better deterrent for "white people"?

So if one is being punished more than the other, and the other is being punished reasonably, one group is being punished too severely.

Or they're both being punished too much, or both not enough, or they may be punished just right because of demographic and cultural differences between the groups which affect deterrence.

I would not factor "race" into it, but I would factor in socioeconomic class and education. The more education, the less punishment is probably needed to act as a deterrent. If you punish more rational people the same as less rational people, you're not meeting out optimal punishment for reformation or deterrence.

College is not relevant when it comes to how much a person should be punished for a crime. It has nothing to do with the crime.

Of course it's relevant. See above.

More educated perpetrators are also less likely to repeat the crime. They'll need less reeducation. Being kicked out of school and publicly shamed also adds to the punishment.

There are so many differences between the two examples you have which have nothing to do with "race" or skin color.

Legally, we need fairness in terms of all are equal before the law.

If the situations are equal. But they aren't.

Again, do you really think that a poor, young, black man who wasn't in college would've gotten the same sentence?

No, and he shouldn't. Because he's not in college; he has less potential, and he's more likely to continue criminal action. He needs a longer sentence to be reeducated and taught a trade, then a longer parole with more support since he has less of a safety net against returning to his criminal behavior.
Poor people are also statistically likely to be less rational, so it may take more severe punishment of poor people to deter certain behaviors.

Giving them the same punishments is as ridiculous as having a set million dollar fine for murder. Impossible for a poor person to pay, but a rich person could kill at leisure and just pay the fine. Replace money with time/reformation. Not everybody should have the exact same treatment.

There are relevant differences between socioeconomics and educational classes.

Perhaps not totally rational people, but what about people who are on the fence?

What about them? Do we have demographic evidence? How many are there? Where is the distribution?

There's probably no perfectly rational or 100% irrational, I was just giving a general example to explain how different people can respond differently to crime and punishment, and are deterred by different things (showing why it isn't always linear, and there's no hard line).
If you want to make specific claims, you have to have evidence.

This is just semantics.
He got away with it in the sense that his punishment was so insignificant that it's almost the same as flat out not being punished.

It's not just semantics, it's rhetoric, and it shuts down rational conversation. The exaggeration is unnecessary. Please use "got off easy/light" if you think that's what happened.

Like I said, it makes people comfortable with barbarism, and it teaches people to solve their problems with violence.

Maybe it does. And if it does, we need evidence of this, and we need to compare the harm to the benefit.

And in what position is the government to tell people not to be violent when the government responds to crime with violence? What kind of message is it sending?

It's sending the message "If you're violent you will have violence done to you", which is potentially very effective.
Hypotheses to the contrary need to be proved through experimentation in order to make claims of judgement against it.

[Jaywalker]

What do you think about these parts of my response?

Yeah, good points. Violence begets violence.

I think there may be a correlation between violent punishments and violent societies, but not sure if that's a causation.

[PsYcHo]

So, you DO believe in revenge?
If you had the power to do anything, you would not criminalize that form of violent retribution?

Also, to clarify, which way did you vote?

Aren't all types of punishment revenge? Placing a criminal in jail is society's revenge for breaking the law. Putting a child in time-out is revenge for not following the parents' rules.

If I had the power to do anything, violent criminals would be released into the middle of a jungle, where they can live among the animals they are behaving like.

I hadn't responded yet because of work, but it did give me time to ponder morality, especially my own. I know for a fact that I am capable of using violence as revenge for a violent act such as rape. (No hands were lost in my revenge, but a few teeth were.) But here is the thing, I know what I did was morally wrong, yet I feel no remorse. It's not as simple as "well then you don't think it was wrong", more of "I know it was wrong. I did it anyway. I shouldn't have done that." How would you define my morality in a case such as that? (I'm not sure if I would react the same way now, but I can't 100% say I wouldn't either.)

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Aren't all types of punishment revenge?

No, revenge requires one to have an intention to do harm for the purpose of retribution.

If you beat me up and I get you jailed because I want to prevent you from beating other people up, then your punishment is not an expression of my revenge. If I get you jailed because I want you to suffer like you made me suffer, then it is an expression of my revenge.

Placing a criminal in jail is society's revenge for breaking the law.

Only if society unanimously agrees that criminals must be jailed for the sake of revenge.

Putting a child in time-out is revenge for not following the parents' rules.

Only if the parents gave the child a time out to express their revenge. People do things for different reasons. Perhaps the child was put in time out because the parents want to condition it to stop performing a certain behavior? Perhaps the parents put the child in time out to get some peace and quiet? We don't know, and it's unfair to assume.

If I had the power to do anything, violent criminals would be released into the middle of a jungle, where they can live among the animals they are behaving like.

Maybe if you ask Australia really nicely they'll become penal colonies again and your dream will come true!

[PsYcHo]

If I had the power to do anything, violent criminals would be released into the middle of a jungle, where they can live among the animals they are behaving like.

Maybe if you ask Australia really nicely they'll become penal colonies again and your dream will come true!

If I really had the power to do anything, violence wouldn't be an issue in the first place. I wonder if I am taking such a hard stance on this because of experience?

Anybody ever been the victim of violence? Not just "some guy pushed me once", but "is today the day I die?" type violence?

[EquALLity]

What do you think about these parts of my response?

Yeah, good points. Violence begets violence.

I think there may be a correlation between violent punishments and violent societies, but not sure if that's a causation.

I think that state violence does a few things to promote violence in general:

1) It desensitizes people. Seeing violence constantly like that diminishes the severity of it, and people just get used to it, and thereby are more comfortable administering it.
2) Tied in with that^, because people get used to violence being a way to solve problems, they may be inclined to go to war.
3) And tied in with that^, people are also more likely to use violence in general. One example in practice is Saudi Arabia (and similar countries), where there are things like public executions. There's also a lot of domestic violence (towards wives and children). And why wouldn't there be? People are being taught that undesired behavior should be punished with violence by the ultimate authority, government. Of course that'll translate into home life.

What do you think?