By Jack Kelly, Business Editor
Two years ago few knew the name. Perhaps his family and friends would talk about a strong student-athlete who was accepted into Stanford, one of the most prestigious universities in the country. However, today he is known as Brock Turner, a vile individual who got away with a horrible atrocity due to an unjust criminal system. How did this change take place over such a short span of time, and how does this case cast a shadow over the greater U.S. justice system?
Turner was accepted into Stanford in 2014 on a swimming scholarship. As a three time all-American, many thought he was destined for the Olympics. All of this came crashing down around him a few months into his freshman year. On Jan 17, 2015, Turner attended a fraternity party that involved copious amounts of alcohol. Later that night around 1 p.m., two graduate students spotted Turner on top of an unconscious woman behind a dumpster near the fraternity. When confronted, Turner allegedly fled before being caught and restrained by the older students. The authorities were notified, and Turner was questioned and arrested early in the morning on Jan 18.
The victim, named Jane Doe to keep her identity confidential, awoke in a hospital several hours later. She found her hair full of pine needles and her arms and elbows bloodied. After recovering, Doe was interviewed by police and claimed to have never given consent for any sexual activity. A Sexual Assault Response Team at the hospital determined that Doe had experienced “significant trauma” including “penetrating trauma.” Meanwhile Turner was released later in the day after posting a $150,000 bail.
This narrative paints a horrific picture of the rape of an intoxicated girl and the resulting court decisions have sparked widespread public outcry. After pleading not guilty to three counts of federal sexual assault and two counts of rape, Turner’s trial began on Jan 28. Over the course of the trial, both counts of rape were dropped; on March 30, Turner was sentenced with the three remaining charges of federal sexual assault, a potential sentence of 14 years in prison. The prosecution was seeking a six year prison sentence; however, on June 2, 2016 Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to just six months in jail followed by a further three years of probation.
Upon the release of the sentence, a massive wave of criticism arose over the relatively short sentence.
“A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” Persky stated, in defence of his ruling. “I think he will not be a danger to others.”
This statement in combination with Turner’s tiny sentence raise a great deal of important questions. Shouldn’t the purpose of prision be to have a severe impact on inmates? I would argue the reason we have such an extensive jail system is to rehabilitate people in an attempt to make society a better place. Furthermore, I fail to understand how someone who just raped an unconscious girl and then attempted to run away after being caught is not a threat to society.
Another side of the ruling that many are examining is possible racial bias. A case similar to Turner’s is that of Brian Banks. Banks is an African-American high school football star who was planning on playing for University of Southern California. However, before he left for college in 2002, Banks was arrested and charged with rape, ending up with a five year sentence in prison. After he was released, attorneys proved Banks’ innocence of the crime with a confession by the supposed victim. This case is interestingly juxtaposed to that of Turner’s. In one case, the white defendant has been found clearly guilty of rape and is charged with six months, while the black defendant who never actually committed a crime is charged with 5 years.
Three months later, only halfway through his short sentence, Turner was released. Citing “good behavior,” a judge decided to free the sex offender. The public grew outraged that someone convinced of three felonies could walk free after only three months in prison. The development prompted many upset gun rights activists to protest outside Turners’ family’s house armed with rifles and carrying signs that implicated that Turner should be shot. This puts many in an uncomfortable situation. While no one wants to defend such a person as Turner, does his family deserve to be threatened in this manner?
I despise Turner and believe that his upbringing is a large part of why he committed the crime in question, but his parents do not deserve this treatment. In this case, I think the protesters who are attempting demonstrate their first and second amendment rights are violating the Turner family’s right to security. The injustice that is Turner’s sentence should be protested, just not in this manner. People need to put their guns down and find a way to protest without violence.