Brock Turner, a swimmer for Stanford, was released from an extremely small sentence for sexual assault. After serving three months of an already pitiful six month sentence, he was allowed to walk the streets once again on Friday, September 2nd. He was treated differently because of his astounding swimming career. His family members, such as his father, claimed that even six months of his time would be wasted in prison and Turner's career should not be destroyed because of '20 minutes of action". These happenings have shook the entire country. Some believe he made a small mistake and his life should not be ruined, others believe Turner's so called 'mistake' requires further consequences. The one good thing to come out of all of this is that after 90 days Turner will be required to register as a sex offender.
1. Do you believe he should've been imprisoned for longer? Why?
2. Does it matter that he has a career as a swimmer and should that have played into the judge's decision on how long he was incarcerated?
Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-spotted-at-parents-ohio-house/
Replies
Good story choice! Be sure to hyperlink correctly and also be sure to comment more regularly. The more people that comment the more you need to reply.
Yes I think that he should be imprisoned much longer because sexual assalt is a serious crime. Even if he is a great swimmer, that shouldn't change he is treated if he breaks the law. If he did it once, then he might do it again. I don't think three months in prison is enough to teach him a lesson. I don't think it should matter at all because under law every person is equal.
I think he should have definitely been kept in prison longer. I feel like he should have at least served the full year and then decide if he can get off with good behavior. If you do something like that then you should have to serve the whole punishment even if it is a small one to begin with. I think a criminal is a criminal no matter who he is or what he does.
Yes I do think he should have been in prison longer, anyone that does something like that should be held because once they were let out people just feel not safe anymore. No that should not matter at all what he did he did his career should not matter it should all be handled just as it would have been for anyone else.
Yes he should be in prison longer. He sexually assaulted someone, that is a good enough reason to keep him in jail for at least a year or two. No it does not matter, a crime is a crime, if you do something like that, being a famous athlete should have nothing to do with it.
Yes, of course he should’ve been imprisoned longer. He raped an unconscious woman; it was witnessed by two men and they had to pull Turner off the victim. Arguing that it was “only 20 minutes” is an invalid argument because that isn't necessarily a short time frame. Some people say that a single mistake shouldn’t ruin his life. Those twenty minutes will always stick with that poor woman, so why does he deserve that? Even though he ruined someone else's life, why is he rewarded with leniency in order to preserve the value of his life? On another note, where’s the proof that this is the first time he’s made a “mistake” like that? His sentence was completely unreasonable and ineffective. A measly three months will not faze an individual charged with sexual assault. Who’s to say he won’t go out and do it again?
In most cases, including this one, what you do in your personal life SHOULDN’T affect your sentence when you are convicted of a crime. The fact the he was a Harvard swimmer shouldn’t matter, and he didn’t deserve special treatment. The judge’s arguments and decisions were ludicrous.
I agree, his father's argument was horrible and almost obscene. Just because it was 20 minutes, which is still a very long time for anything of this caliber, doesn't mean it shouldn't decide the rest of his life.
I strongly think that he should still be in prison. Some sex offenders are in prison up to sixty months. What Brock did is not OK and cannot be taken lightly. His father saying that his life should not be ruined for "20 minutes of action" is not something that should be said. Maybe Turner's life, the person that should be punished, will not be ruined and nothing bad will happen to him, but the women's life will be forever changed. That "20 minutes of action" has ruined her life and punished her, but nothing will happen to the real bad guy in the situation.
I don't care that he has a career swimming. He had his shot to be a big champion and maybe go on to be in the Olympics, but he failed himself. It was his choice to do what he did. He didn't have to do what he did. Just because this man had a career and a big life ahead of him, the judge should have treated it the same as if someone who has no life planned out and no money.
I think that he should have served longer. So what if his life was ruined, what about the woman he victimized? She has to live with the though that she had been violated for the rest of her life. He ruined her life and all he gets is a little slap on the wrist, where's the justice in that. This case sets a precedent for all the other cases like this. The judge is supposed to look at the facts of the case not of the defendants life. So what if he had a career in swimming, that doesn't make what he did any less horrific. He should have been charged to the fullest. I think that judge should be sued for not upholding the law to it's fullest.
I agree with your opinion completely. The judge acted wrongly by letting a man walk free after only three months when he was obviously guilty. The excuse "it will ruin his life" should never be used to help a rapist.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next