[Mick]

Indiancardinal, our family too is struggling with the Brock Turner case.  Yesterday I asked our older daughter what she thinks Stanford could do to lead the way.  She said now the case has gone viral the university should bring Turner to campus to talk with incoming freshman about his experience.  My husband and I agree, but our younger daughter thinks until Turner shows he understands he assaulted someone -- and how assault differs from drinking/sexual promiscuity -- bringing him to Stanford to talk with freshmen should not happen.  Tea and Consent published after Turner committed his crime. 

I welcome thoughts on this, especially in light of stupac2 and Mick's recent postings.

I like the idea of a very young felon speaking, perhaps in conjunction with a victim.  I think the students would respond well to someone who has had that experience.  But it won't be Brock Turner. 

Realistically speaking, I don't see Turner returning to Stanford to issue a combination public apology/words of warning conversation, whether he issues a true mea culpa or not.  I doubt he'll ever return to the university.

[Mick]

Indiancardinal, our family too is struggling with the Brock Turner case.  Yesterday I asked our older daughter what she thinks Stanford could do to lead the way.  She said now the case has gone viral the university should bring Turner to campus to talk with incoming freshman about his experience.  My husband and I agree, but our younger daughter thinks until Turner shows he understands he assaulted someone -- and how assault differs from drinking/sexual promiscuity -- bringing him to Stanford to talk with freshmen should not happen.  Tea and Consent published after Turner committed his crime. 

I welcome thoughts on this, especially in light of stupac2 and Mick's recent postings.

I like the idea of a very young felon speaking, perhaps in conjunction with a victim.  I think the students would respond well to someone who has had that experience.  But it won't be Brock Turner. 

Realistically speaking, I don't see Turner returning to Stanford to issue a combination public apology/words of warning conversation, whether he issues a true mea culpa or not.  I doubt he'll ever return to the university.

[CornFed]

I saw a young man speak who, in a blackout, had run head-on into an oncoming car on the Richmond Bridge.  He killed a father and three fairly young children.  The mother survived, as did the speaker.  He was convicted of felony manslaughter and was spared from receiving the harshest sentence due to the intervention of the mother.  She asked that he be given the opportunity to seek repentance and to atone for his transgression by speaking to student groups, Elks Clubs, AA/NA meetings.  I believe he is still making a national circuit many years later, occasionally appearing together with the mother.  It is a powerful presentation and I have no doubt has had at least some impact in reducing the number of incidents of reckless, mindless behavior.

Obviously, something like this is very rare and required two fairly remarkable people who handle this outcome very well.  But I think, as others have stated, there is absolutely no way in which it will work unless the perpetrator has actually accepted the horror of their act and repented in some manner.

[CornFed]

I saw a young man speak who, in a blackout, had run head-on into an oncoming car on the Richmond Bridge.  He killed a father and three fairly young children.  The mother survived, as did the speaker.  He was convicted of felony manslaughter and was spared from receiving the harshest sentence due to the intervention of the mother.  She asked that he be given the opportunity to seek repentance and to atone for his transgression by speaking to student groups, Elks Clubs, AA/NA meetings.  I believe he is still making a national circuit many years later, occasionally appearing together with the mother.  It is a powerful presentation and I have no doubt has had at least some impact in reducing the number of incidents of reckless, mindless behavior.

Obviously, something like this is very rare and required two fairly remarkable people who handle this outcome very well.  But I think, as others have stated, there is absolutely no way in which it will work unless the perpetrator has actually accepted the horror of their act and repented in some manner.

[CornFed]

Then we have the denizens who live under a moist rock and only crawl out on special occasions that call for their decisive stupidity:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/06...one-calls/

[CornFed]

Then we have the denizens who live under a moist rock and only crawl out on special occasions that call for their decisive stupidity:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/06...one-calls/

[BostonCard]

I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC

[fullmetal]

Turner not such a clean-cut kid, in text form (vs. video above):
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...ners-court

Yeah those texts are pretty incriminating.

The letter from the former swimmer offers a close look at the many ways Turner has refused to even acknowledge that he assaulted the woman, despite the guilty verdicts, and has instead continued to place blame on a “party culture” of “drinking”.

Brock's full statement here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...us-culture

"There isn’t a second that has gone by where I haven’t regretted the course of events I took on January 17th/18th."

Buddy, it wasn't just that night... :(

[fullmetal]

Turner not such a clean-cut kid, in text form (vs. video above):
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...ners-court

Yeah those texts are pretty incriminating.

The letter from the former swimmer offers a close look at the many ways Turner has refused to even acknowledge that he assaulted the woman, despite the guilty verdicts, and has instead continued to place blame on a “party culture” of “drinking”.

Brock's full statement here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...us-culture

"There isn’t a second that has gone by where I haven’t regretted the course of events I took on January 17th/18th."

Buddy, it wasn't just that night... :(

[82lsju]

Brock Turner case fallout: Prospective jurors refuse to serve under judge

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...rce=JPopUp

[82lsju]

Brock Turner case fallout: Prospective jurors refuse to serve under judge

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...rce=JPopUp

[Mick]

I saw a young man speak who, in a blackout, had run head-on into an oncoming car on the Richmond Bridge.  He killed a father and three fairly young children.  The mother survived, as did the speaker.  He was convicted of felony manslaughter and was spared from receiving the harshest sentence due to the intervention of the mother.  She asked that he be given the opportunity to seek repentance and to atone for his transgression by speaking to student groups, Elks Clubs, AA/NA meetings.  I believe he is still making a national circuit many years later, occasionally appearing together with the mother.  It is a powerful presentation and I have no doubt has had at least some impact in reducing the number of incidents of reckless, mindless behavior.

Obviously, something like this is very rare and required two fairly remarkable people who handle this outcome very well.  But I think, as others have stated, there is absolutely no way in which it will work unless the perpetrator has actually accepted the horror of their act and repented in some manner.

I think people like to see these stories of repentance acted out.  At the same time, you have to be careful for what you wish.  I saw the infamous former Enron CFO, Jeff Fastow speak.  That was an exercise in futility.  At the beginning, and at the end of his speech, he was penitent and repentent.  He talked about how he did wrong, how hard it was to tell his children, how he repented in prison and so forth.  In the 40 minutes or so between the beginning and the end, however, he was the least repentent person I've ever seen.  The themes of his speech were:

a)  Technically, I didn't do anything wrong.
b)  I didn't break any laws, because there were no laws that specifically addressed the esoteric things we were doing.
c)  No accountant and no attorney ever told me that what I was doing was wrong.
d)  You would do it too, if you were me.

That last point was an interesting sell.  How did he manage that?  Well, he does three things for a living now.  He consults with short-sellers, thanks to his expertise in financial statement footnotes.  He speaks on the public circuit.  And...he teaches a class on Ethics in Economics, or some such title.  And here's what he does in the class.  He spends some time teaching them how public entities can cheat.  Then he gives them a case study of an unknown organization.  The case study is a set of financial statements with obvious holes.  He and the students pore over the financial statements, and the students learn how financial weakness is disguised.  The Big Reveal comes when Fastow lets them in on the secret...the subject of the financial statements is their own educational institution.  He leads them down the path of self-righteousness, and the class agrees to pen a collective letter and present it to the board of trustees, with the demand that the board change all the misleading policies.  The class is unanimous in their desire to admonish the board.

Then comes the Second Big Reveal.  Fastow informs the students  that if these policies are implemented, their tuition will rise 40%.  The class is stunned.  Fastow asks for another vote, and the students vote to refrain from demanding the board change accounting policies.

Fastow then smugly informs the audience that the implicit conspiracy between the students and the board proves that anyone would do the same thing...push to the limits of the law, as he did.

[Mick]

I saw a young man speak who, in a blackout, had run head-on into an oncoming car on the Richmond Bridge.  He killed a father and three fairly young children.  The mother survived, as did the speaker.  He was convicted of felony manslaughter and was spared from receiving the harshest sentence due to the intervention of the mother.  She asked that he be given the opportunity to seek repentance and to atone for his transgression by speaking to student groups, Elks Clubs, AA/NA meetings.  I believe he is still making a national circuit many years later, occasionally appearing together with the mother.  It is a powerful presentation and I have no doubt has had at least some impact in reducing the number of incidents of reckless, mindless behavior.

Obviously, something like this is very rare and required two fairly remarkable people who handle this outcome very well.  But I think, as others have stated, there is absolutely no way in which it will work unless the perpetrator has actually accepted the horror of their act and repented in some manner.

I think people like to see these stories of repentance acted out.  At the same time, you have to be careful for what you wish.  I saw the infamous former Enron CFO, Jeff Fastow speak.  That was an exercise in futility.  At the beginning, and at the end of his speech, he was penitent and repentent.  He talked about how he did wrong, how hard it was to tell his children, how he repented in prison and so forth.  In the 40 minutes or so between the beginning and the end, however, he was the least repentent person I've ever seen.  The themes of his speech were:

a)  Technically, I didn't do anything wrong.
b)  I didn't break any laws, because there were no laws that specifically addressed the esoteric things we were doing.
c)  No accountant and no attorney ever told me that what I was doing was wrong.
d)  You would do it too, if you were me.

That last point was an interesting sell.  How did he manage that?  Well, he does three things for a living now.  He consults with short-sellers, thanks to his expertise in financial statement footnotes.  He speaks on the public circuit.  And...he teaches a class on Ethics in Economics, or some such title.  And here's what he does in the class.  He spends some time teaching them how public entities can cheat.  Then he gives them a case study of an unknown organization.  The case study is a set of financial statements with obvious holes.  He and the students pore over the financial statements, and the students learn how financial weakness is disguised.  The Big Reveal comes when Fastow lets them in on the secret...the subject of the financial statements is their own educational institution.  He leads them down the path of self-righteousness, and the class agrees to pen a collective letter and present it to the board of trustees, with the demand that the board change all the misleading policies.  The class is unanimous in their desire to admonish the board.

Then comes the Second Big Reveal.  Fastow informs the students  that if these policies are implemented, their tuition will rise 40%.  The class is stunned.  Fastow asks for another vote, and the students vote to refrain from demanding the board change accounting policies.

Fastow then smugly informs the audience that the implicit conspiracy between the students and the board proves that anyone would do the same thing...push to the limits of the law, as he did.

[CornFed]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15166.msg164727#msg164727 date=1465496768]
I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC
[/quote]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

[CornFed]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15166.msg164727#msg164727 date=1465496768]
I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC
[/quote]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

[winflop]

Brock Turner case fallout: Prospective jurors refuse to serve under judge

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...rce=JPopUp

I don't live in Santa Clara County, but if I were ever brought to a jury panel on a case over which he was presiding, I would categorically refuse to serve to the point of being held in contempt of court.  No way. No how. Not ever.

[winflop]

Brock Turner case fallout: Prospective jurors refuse to serve under judge

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...rce=JPopUp

I don't live in Santa Clara County, but if I were ever brought to a jury panel on a case over which he was presiding, I would categorically refuse to serve to the point of being held in contempt of court.  No way. No how. Not ever.

[stupac2]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?

Then there is the widely lauded victim impact statement Turner’s victim read during the sentencing hearing. I am glad she wrote this extraordinarily powerful letter and glad so many millions have read and been moved by it. But it had absolutely no place in the courtroom. Victim impact statements were once a liberal bête noire, and rightly so, because they seriously undermine the defendant’s due process rights. In a criminal sentencing hearing, the judge (or jury) should consider only the facts of the case at hand in determining the defendant’s culpability. Victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings, allowing the judge or jury to be swayed by emotional response rather than logical reflection. That, in turn, shifts the focus away from the defendant and toward the victim while injecting arbitrariness into the sentencing process. The defendant’s punishment may well hinge on how emotionally compelling the victim can make his or her statement.

How does this undermine due process? As long as he has the ability to make his case too, which he quite apparently did, I don't see that at all. Further, understanding what the victim experienced is definitely a part of understanding the crime committed, isn't it? I suppose this circles back to the question of what our justice system is trying to accomplish in sentencing, but given that it appears to be some mishmash of retribution/rehabilitation there definitely seems to me to be a place for the victim's perspective to be introduced in sentencing.

That's my lay impression, we have plenty of lawyers here, maybe I'm missing something big (then again, some people claiming to be lawyers also took issue with that paragraph in the article's comments).

[stupac2]

This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?

Then there is the widely lauded victim impact statement Turner’s victim read during the sentencing hearing. I am glad she wrote this extraordinarily powerful letter and glad so many millions have read and been moved by it. But it had absolutely no place in the courtroom. Victim impact statements were once a liberal bête noire, and rightly so, because they seriously undermine the defendant’s due process rights. In a criminal sentencing hearing, the judge (or jury) should consider only the facts of the case at hand in determining the defendant’s culpability. Victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings, allowing the judge or jury to be swayed by emotional response rather than logical reflection. That, in turn, shifts the focus away from the defendant and toward the victim while injecting arbitrariness into the sentencing process. The defendant’s punishment may well hinge on how emotionally compelling the victim can make his or her statement.

How does this undermine due process? As long as he has the ability to make his case too, which he quite apparently did, I don't see that at all. Further, understanding what the victim experienced is definitely a part of understanding the crime committed, isn't it? I suppose this circles back to the question of what our justice system is trying to accomplish in sentencing, but given that it appears to be some mishmash of retribution/rehabilitation there definitely seems to me to be a place for the victim's perspective to be introduced in sentencing.

That's my lay impression, we have plenty of lawyers here, maybe I'm missing something big (then again, some people claiming to be lawyers also took issue with that paragraph in the article's comments).

[fullmetal]

I found that paragraph okay given the context of the rest of the article.  Those are certainly some well-substantiated thoughts, and I think they bear contemplation.  Certainly contemplation is not something most people wish to spend time doing w.r.t. this case. 

When I see a certain vocal, less-thoughtful subset of my Facebook friend feed virally sharing emotional grenade articles on the Turner case, I know that the case and its details have been lost in the broader fight against rape (which needs to be won, but hopefully in the right manner).

I was introduced to the concept of restorative justice some years ago; that concept is nowhere to be found here.  Retributive justice is the last thing I'd thought I'd see certain people campaigning for--certainly not a reliance on the prison(-industrial) system.  All kinds of cognitive dissonance going on.

[fullmetal]

I found that paragraph okay given the context of the rest of the article.  Those are certainly some well-substantiated thoughts, and I think they bear contemplation.  Certainly contemplation is not something most people wish to spend time doing w.r.t. this case. 

When I see a certain vocal, less-thoughtful subset of my Facebook friend feed virally sharing emotional grenade articles on the Turner case, I know that the case and its details have been lost in the broader fight against rape (which needs to be won, but hopefully in the right manner).

I was introduced to the concept of restorative justice some years ago; that concept is nowhere to be found here.  Retributive justice is the last thing I'd thought I'd see certain people campaigning for--certainly not a reliance on the prison(-industrial) system.  All kinds of cognitive dissonance going on.

[82lsju]

from the NYTimes

In the week since he received a six-month jail sentence for committing sexual assault, the former Stanford University student Brock Turner has become a symbol of the rapist who got off easy. But other aspects of the case suggest a different interpretation, signaling that the cultural and legal responses to rape are shifting, in the direction that victims and their supporters have long fought for. Turner’s light sentence means that the reform they advocate is incomplete. But his conviction, the punishment he received from Stanford and the public outcry over his sentence all suggest that men who act like Turner have far more reason to think they’ll pay a price than they once had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/magazi....html?_r=0

[82lsju]

from the NYTimes

In the week since he received a six-month jail sentence for committing sexual assault, the former Stanford University student Brock Turner has become a symbol of the rapist who got off easy. But other aspects of the case suggest a different interpretation, signaling that the cultural and legal responses to rape are shifting, in the direction that victims and their supporters have long fought for. Turner’s light sentence means that the reform they advocate is incomplete. But his conviction, the punishment he received from Stanford and the public outcry over his sentence all suggest that men who act like Turner have far more reason to think they’ll pay a price than they once had.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/magazi....html?_r=0

[CTcard]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15166.msg164756#msg164756 date=1465524641]This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?
[/quote]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

-------------
Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15166.msg164756#msg164756 date=1465524641]This article, too, addresses the issue of fairness; albeit from a somewhat different perspective:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...tab_tw_top

Really good article, but does anyone else find this paragraph less than convincing?
[/quote]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

-------------
Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.

[needle]

Victim impact statements are also about giving victims a role in the criminal justice system. They have been described as an important part of the concept of restorative justice.

  Many victims report that VIS increased their satisfaction with the entire criminal justice system. Research by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD, 1994) found that 66 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present written VIS, and 62 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present oral VIS. Victim dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system increased to 75 percent when they were not allowed to submit written VIS, and to 78 percent when they were not allowed to present oral VIS.

A rich body of research concludes that two factors increase victims' overall satisfaction with the justice system and reduce victim trauma: (1) being taken seriously and being believed; and (2) being informed and involved in key justice proceedings related to their cases. VIS provide opportunities to fulfill both of these key elements that help victims reconstruct their lives in the aftermath of a crime.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restora...ments.aspx

The Brock Turner case seems to suggest that even if powerful and convincing, a victim impact statement may not do much to influence a judge when it comes to sentencing. I'd be open to hearing research on how such statements may affect juries.

In the Turner case, I'd bet that the young woman who wrote the statement felt a strong sense of satisfaction in collecting her thoughts and surely in the universal praise that her words have received since her words were published online.

[needle]

Victim impact statements are also about giving victims a role in the criminal justice system. They have been described as an important part of the concept of restorative justice.

  Many victims report that VIS increased their satisfaction with the entire criminal justice system. Research by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD, 1994) found that 66 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present written VIS, and 62 percent of victims were satisfied with the criminal justice system if they were given the opportunity to present oral VIS. Victim dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system increased to 75 percent when they were not allowed to submit written VIS, and to 78 percent when they were not allowed to present oral VIS.

A rich body of research concludes that two factors increase victims' overall satisfaction with the justice system and reduce victim trauma: (1) being taken seriously and being believed; and (2) being informed and involved in key justice proceedings related to their cases. VIS provide opportunities to fulfill both of these key elements that help victims reconstruct their lives in the aftermath of a crime.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restora...ments.aspx

The Brock Turner case seems to suggest that even if powerful and convincing, a victim impact statement may not do much to influence a judge when it comes to sentencing. I'd be open to hearing research on how such statements may affect juries.

In the Turner case, I'd bet that the young woman who wrote the statement felt a strong sense of satisfaction in collecting her thoughts and surely in the universal praise that her words have received since her words were published online.

[stupac2]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

Well, yes and no. It definitely helps victims who have resources while not helping those who don't, but this is true about literally every aspect of our justice system. I have a hard time believing that these statements are a big deal compared to access to lawyers, for instance.

Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.

Yes, they're crazy and we should do away with them. Finding information about the down-ballot races for this primary was a colossal pain, I was very glad that some of them were running unopposed, because the ones that weren't were really hard to make informed choices about.

[stupac2]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

Well, yes and no. It definitely helps victims who have resources while not helping those who don't, but this is true about literally every aspect of our justice system. I have a hard time believing that these statements are a big deal compared to access to lawyers, for instance.

Perhaps it is due to my background growing up as an ex-pat in another country, but I find the American process of having elections for so many different public positions that require specialized, advanced skills very odd. I have seen reports that in elections that are confined to positions such as the judiciary and other technical roles, turnout can be as low as 1%. Perhaps more disturbing are the votes on such positions during elections that do have high turnout, say a presidential election. I would venture that in most such elections the percentage of voters who actually know who the candidates are for the judicial positions still doesn't rise much above 1%. At that point you are electing judges based upon party-line voting or just pure randomness.
And this is beyond the issue of judicial independence and wanting judges not influenced by the passions of the mob.

Yes, they're crazy and we should do away with them. Finding information about the down-ballot races for this primary was a colossal pain, I was very glad that some of them were running unopposed, because the ones that weren't were really hard to make informed choices about.

[jacketree]

Restorative justice and due process are different things.  Victim impact statements aren't based on adjudicated evidence but emotion.  Are they only used after conviction and before sentencing?  But if you are going to allow character letters in defense prior to sentencing, you had better allow the victim and his/her friends and family to speak as well.


I still think it was a light sentence, but anecdotally I'm not sure County Jail is the country club it has been portrayed by some.  (And obviously six years in County Jail - not sure that ever happens - would be better than six months reduced to three with good behavior.  Funny how that is just assumed for this guy, isn't it?)  During the late 1980s/early 1990s prison building boom in California, the firm I worked for at the time was flush with prison jobs.  I made extensive site visits (no jeans or orange clothing of any kind....no cameras....if there is a riot we ain't saving you....sign here) to a multitude of state penitentiaries.  San Quentin (gorgeous and right out of a movie set with brobdingnagian scary dudes lifting weights a few feet from where we were taking some survey points), Atascadero, Susanville, Coalinga, Pelican Bay, Folsom, Soledad, Avenal, Corcoran (12th circle of Hell), Temecula, and the closest I've ever been to Mexico, south of Otay at the good old Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.  But the only time I actually feared for my life or worse was at Elmwood Correctional Facility right here in Milpitas, where we were on site to solve the problem of inmates constantly shoving their orange jumpsuits down the can for fun.  Education didn't work; grinders did. And we were also nearly ground if you get my drift.....

[jacketree]

Restorative justice and due process are different things.  Victim impact statements aren't based on adjudicated evidence but emotion.  Are they only used after conviction and before sentencing?  But if you are going to allow character letters in defense prior to sentencing, you had better allow the victim and his/her friends and family to speak as well.


I still think it was a light sentence, but anecdotally I'm not sure County Jail is the country club it has been portrayed by some.  (And obviously six years in County Jail - not sure that ever happens - would be better than six months reduced to three with good behavior.  Funny how that is just assumed for this guy, isn't it?)  During the late 1980s/early 1990s prison building boom in California, the firm I worked for at the time was flush with prison jobs.  I made extensive site visits (no jeans or orange clothing of any kind....no cameras....if there is a riot we ain't saving you....sign here) to a multitude of state penitentiaries.  San Quentin (gorgeous and right out of a movie set with brobdingnagian scary dudes lifting weights a few feet from where we were taking some survey points), Atascadero, Susanville, Coalinga, Pelican Bay, Folsom, Soledad, Avenal, Corcoran (12th circle of Hell), Temecula, and the closest I've ever been to Mexico, south of Otay at the good old Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.  But the only time I actually feared for my life or worse was at Elmwood Correctional Facility right here in Milpitas, where we were on site to solve the problem of inmates constantly shoving their orange jumpsuits down the can for fun.  Education didn't work; grinders did. And we were also nearly ground if you get my drift.....

[2006alum]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

What's troubling about victim impact statements is that in the criminal justice system, the approach is that the accused committed a crime against the community - not just the victim. It is for this reason that the victim has no say in plea bargaining, choice in charging offenses, how to proceed at trial, and the sentence length sought if convicted. All of these choices are made not by the victim but by the state, because the crime was committed against the community and the state, and so the party that has standing to prosecute the accused is the state.

Victim impact statements potentially upset this balance because they permit the victim to influence the sentence. Imagine if a different victim said, "forgive and forget. Everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance." Do we really think this story would have blown up the way it has? It was only after her statement was posted on buzzfeed that this story gained traction. Yet the crime was the same, the charge was the same, and the conviction was the same.

On the other hand, as others have said, it does play an important role in restorative justice. The problem is just that our model of justice doesn't particularly accommodate that model of penology, so it's a bit of an awkward fit. But an important conversation to keep having in a criminal justice system that clearly screams out for reform.

[2006alum]

While I don't necessarily find that particular paragraph overly convincing, I am generally at least a little troubled by victim's impact statements - along with some other issues raised in that article.

At the least, weighing victim's impact statements in deciding sentencing would seem to lead to increased punishment for those committing crimes against well educated, articulate victims versus those who cannot write well. Along with all the other issues that vex our system, I don't think anyone really believes that people committing crimes against such less able victims should get lighter sentences.

That is certainly not the intent of having victim's impact statements, but it seems unavoidable as a result.

What's troubling about victim impact statements is that in the criminal justice system, the approach is that the accused committed a crime against the community - not just the victim. It is for this reason that the victim has no say in plea bargaining, choice in charging offenses, how to proceed at trial, and the sentence length sought if convicted. All of these choices are made not by the victim but by the state, because the crime was committed against the community and the state, and so the party that has standing to prosecute the accused is the state.

Victim impact statements potentially upset this balance because they permit the victim to influence the sentence. Imagine if a different victim said, "forgive and forget. Everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance." Do we really think this story would have blown up the way it has? It was only after her statement was posted on buzzfeed that this story gained traction. Yet the crime was the same, the charge was the same, and the conviction was the same.

On the other hand, as others have said, it does play an important role in restorative justice. The problem is just that our model of justice doesn't particularly accommodate that model of penology, so it's a bit of an awkward fit. But an important conversation to keep having in a criminal justice system that clearly screams out for reform.

[stupac2]

What's troubling about victim impact statements is that in the criminal justice system, the approach is that the accused committed a crime against the community - not just the victim. It is for this reason that the victim has no say in plea bargaining, choice in charging offenses, how to proceed at trial, and the sentence length sought if convicted. All of these choices are made not by the victim but by the state, because the crime was committed against the community and the state, and so the party that has standing to prosecute the accused is the state.

The victim gets to choose whether to press charges or not, at least in some crimes.

Anyway that seems like kind of weak argument to me. "The victim's voice is mostly irrelevant, so it should stay that way." I think the opposite makes more sense, personally.

[stupac2]

What's troubling about victim impact statements is that in the criminal justice system, the approach is that the accused committed a crime against the community - not just the victim. It is for this reason that the victim has no say in plea bargaining, choice in charging offenses, how to proceed at trial, and the sentence length sought if convicted. All of these choices are made not by the victim but by the state, because the crime was committed against the community and the state, and so the party that has standing to prosecute the accused is the state.

The victim gets to choose whether to press charges or not, at least in some crimes.

Anyway that seems like kind of weak argument to me. "The victim's voice is mostly irrelevant, so it should stay that way." I think the opposite makes more sense, personally.

[2006alum]

The victim gets to choose whether to press charges or not, at least in some crimes.

Yes and no. Press charges is the colloquialism for initiating an investigation that may lead to a formal indictment or charge. But this is largely to spare the victim of having to be involved in an investigation if s/he does not want to have to undergo it. Either way, however, the victim has no say in what the prosecution ultimately decides to do:

From RAINN:

What does it mean to press charges?
After the initial report is made to law enforcement, a survivor can decide whether or not they would like to move forward with the investigation, a process referred to as pressing charges. Ultimately, the decision to press criminal charges is up to the state. It’s possible, though uncommon, that a prosecutor may move forward with charges based solely on the available evidence, even if the survivor chooses not to be involved.

[2006alum]

The victim gets to choose whether to press charges or not, at least in some crimes.

Yes and no. Press charges is the colloquialism for initiating an investigation that may lead to a formal indictment or charge. But this is largely to spare the victim of having to be involved in an investigation if s/he does not want to have to undergo it. Either way, however, the victim has no say in what the prosecution ultimately decides to do:

From RAINN:

What does it mean to press charges?
After the initial report is made to law enforcement, a survivor can decide whether or not they would like to move forward with the investigation, a process referred to as pressing charges. Ultimately, the decision to press criminal charges is up to the state. It’s possible, though uncommon, that a prosecutor may move forward with charges based solely on the available evidence, even if the survivor chooses not to be involved.

[TreesAndBirds]

An example of prosecutors "pressing charges" against the will ( and sometimes the strong resistance)  of the victim is spousal abuse. The abused spouse often just wants the matter to go away, for whatever reason, but the prosecutor determines that it is in society's interest to prosecute the case. See Ray Rice.

[TreesAndBirds]

An example of prosecutors "pressing charges" against the will ( and sometimes the strong resistance)  of the victim is spousal abuse. The abused spouse often just wants the matter to go away, for whatever reason, but the prosecutor determines that it is in society's interest to prosecute the case. See Ray Rice.