As the Brock Turner sexual assault sentence continues to circulate, many onlookers are in an uproar. On Friday, prosecutors released the rape victim’s statement read aloud in court to the former Stanford University swimmer. The rape victim describes her first time reading an article about what happened.
“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…I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me…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.”
This case highlights a larger issue, which I term athletic justification. Athletic justification refers to the repeated rationalization of athletes’ actions and potentials based on their performance in a sport. While this concept has positive affects in areas like the job hiring process, it can also be damaging.
The subject of sexual assault should be the main discussion point, yet “Stanford swimmer” was an incremental part of nearly every legal and media report on this case. Like so many other cases before this, an athlete’s sport success was used by the defense to justify actions, a shorter sentence, and reputation.
The Benedict-Crosset Study of sexual assaults conducted by 30 major Division I universities reported that one third of college sexual assaults are committed by athletes. Another survey titled “Sexual Coercion Practices Among Undergraduate Male Recreational Athletes, Intercollegiate Athletes, and Non-Athletes” found that 54.3 percent of the intercollegiate and recreational athletes compared to 37.9 percent of non-athletes engaged in sexually coercive behaviors. Almost all of these actions corresponded to the legal definition of rape.
Despite these high sexual assault numbers, USA Today research found that of 168 sexual assault allegations against athletes in the past 12 years, only 22 cases had trials, and only six had convictions. A plea agreement was reached in 46 cases. That gives athletes a 32 percent sexual assault charge rate. The general population has an 80 percent sexual assault charge rate (Benedict-Crosset Study). Athletes have a lower chance of going to trial, a lower conviction rate, and a lower average sentence.
Athletic prowess does not describe the character of an individual. It is an attribute, just like being a talented business person, performer, or any other occupation.
Tonight a sexual assault victim will go to bed with the light on because she can no longer sleep in the dark without having nightmares about being touched. Tomorrow we will see if the statistics change.
By Bri Groves, Swimming World College Intern
I don’t believe the sentencing had anything to do with favoritism related to Turner’s athletic experience. He was a good swimmer but not exactly an Olympian.
The victim was blackout-drunk. She couldn’t recall a thing that happened. That’s why the judge couldn’t issue a longer sentence. All he had to go by was what Turner and his lawyer said. The victim only knew what she learned later.
I’m very worried about her. I think she’ll probably end up in similar situations again if she has that little control of her drinking. She didn’t exactly establish innocence, despite the passionate letter full of things other people told her later.
Turner needs to go to jail. It’s just too bad the victim damaged her case so badly, the judge couldn’t issue a longer sentence.
Are you KIDDING ME?!?!? That still DOES NOT justify Brock Allen Turner (or anyone for that matter) violating this poor woman because she got “too drunk at a party.” I don’t care how drunk both of them are, it still does not give him a free pass to violate her. This self-entitled, little spoiled brat Brock Allen Turner grew up with the entitlement to have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it. He found “opportunity” and reached for it when he could.
Did you know “Beaver” that the judge was also a Stanford student athlete? Well, turns out, he was the captain of the lacrosse team back in the day…
I can tell you that as a former D1 athlete we will stick up for each other. So yes, in this particular case the judge was in the wrong in sentencing him to only 6 months in prison. AND the kid also made a statement saying remembered nothing only to go back and change his story after he found out she didn’t recall. Oh boy, what a truthful young outstanding man……. -_- Brock Allen Turner has absolutely no future in swimming or anything else he decides to embark on later in life.
Oh… And you’re “worried” for this girl that she’ll end up in situations like this again?!?! I can tell you that she will probably NEVER attend a party without someone on her arm at all times, NEVER sleep with the all the lights off again and NEVER have another night with a peaceful nightmare-less sleep.
Read it again. This time, dial back the mindless outrage and try to comprehend what you’re reading.
Sorry, but she didn’t plan a safe evening. Do we need to count the ways?
By the way, I’d appreciate it if you would take greater care to avoid misrepresenting my comments. Nothing I said was remotely similar to a justification of what Brock Turner did. It was only an explanation of why the victim’s case turned out to be such a failure.
So totally agree with everything you wrote Laura.
I’m very worried about Brock. I think he’ll probably end up in similar situations again if he has that little control of his hormones.
“the judge couldn’t issue a longer sentence”?
That is just factually inaccurate. From a legal perspective, whether a victim is drunk, or made poor decisions, or could not testify well due to a lack of memory is irrelevant once the defendant is found guilty. It was within the judge’s discretion to go up to 14 years BECAUSE HE WAS FOUND GUILTY. The judge chose a sentence that with good behavior could end up being less than 2% of the maximum. What he should have been considering was whether the sentence was sufficient to punish the criminal behavior based on its severity and/or to adequately deter recidivism. I would say it was neither.
I’ll agree based on his times, he was not anywhere near making the Olympics. But your comments are exactly the sort of inappropriate victim-blaming that should be offensive to anyone who reads them. Don’t turn this on her. Nothing she did has anything to do with the deficiency in sentencing.
In a court of law, it’s called reasonable doubt, and the victim introduced it with her inability to address what happened. In your mindless rush to outrage, you must’ve forgotten that irksome little detail.
“Nothing I said was remotely similar to a justification of what Brock Turner did.”
1. “The victim was blackout-drunk. She couldn’t recall a thing that happened.”
2.”I’m very worried about her. I think she’ll probably end up in similar situations again if she has that little control of her drinking. She didn’t exactly establish innocence… ”
3.”…too bad the victim damaged her case so badly…”
4.”Sorry, but she didn’t plan a safe evening. Do we need to count the ways?”
Everything you are saying in both content and attitude is blaming the victim. By extension you are therefore removing at least some of the blame from the rapist and therefore justifying what he did.
Just because you think you’re not justifying BROCK’S actions you ARE justifying the actions of the faceless ‘rapist’ that clearly you believe will rape a girl should they get the opportunity. “She didn’t plan a safe evening” translated: “Girls need to have their wits about them at all times lest they be raped. Rape is a fact of nature that girls simply accept, and plan against.” So basically it’s the GIRL’S responsibility not to get raped.
You’re no doubt nodding your head at that, but you wouldn’t blame a man for being raped after being blind drunk. Why do you think it’s justifiable to blame a woman?
“I’d appreciate it if you would take greater care to avoid misrepresenting my comments.” Maybe you should’ve planned a safer comment.
If you’re going to be an armchair lawyer, try studying a bit more.
Nothing I said was even remotely referencing the law – I didn’t mention to anything in the case. I was highlighting the flaw in your contention that you didn’t condone Buck’s actions yet still felt the victim was partially at fault. That’s having your cake and eating it too.
On June 8 Michael wrote:
“Everything you [Beaver] are saying in both content and attitude is blaming the victim. By extension you are therefore removing at least some of the blame from the rapist and therefore justifying what he did.”
People often confuse justifying something with blaming them. But one can try to explain why something happened without agreeing with it.
You talk in terms of blame, and of degree, whereby she was 100% clear and he was 100% to blame. Maybe there’s something to that. But couldn’t it be that he was only 80% (for example) to blame, and she was 20%, because she drank and lost consciousness. If there is truth to the concept of men’s innate sex drive (brought under control by socialization) the purpose of which is to spread their seed as widely as possible, then that could be a reason why the young did what he did, not having any luck any other way. And that is an explanation of his behaviour, not a justification for it. He ought not have.
But also, the girl ought not have presented herself as willing, by attending a prob ably notorious frat party, and by leaving with the young man. And by drinking to excess.
“Just because you [Beaver] think you’re not justifying BROCK’S actions you ARE justifying the actions of the faceless ‘rapist’ that clearly you believe will rape a girl should they get the opportunity. “She didn’t plan a safe evening” translated: “Girls need to have their wits about them at all times lest they be raped. Rape is a fact of nature that girls simply accept, and plan against.” So basically it’s the GIRL’S responsibility not to get raped.”
Well, we do have to wonder about men because it does seem as though we do indeed live within a culture of sex (rather than rape) and it is every man’s aim (it sometimes seems) to have sex with a girl. That one would go too far and do it without the girl’s permission, and do it while is unconscious, is a dreadful thought. But men do, and so don’t you think that girls should plan for that instead of saying, as feminists keep telling them, that it’s their right to do this or that and men should not assault them because it is their right to get drunk and fall down unconscious? It doesn’t mean that men cannot be hopefully taught not to harm girls, but can girls count on that? It appears not.
My point has been from the start that Beaver has no recourse about being called out for his sentiments being a justification of what the rapist did. If you insist that the victim is culpable in some way you are alleviating some of the blame, and therefore justifying the actions of the rapist.
You put forward that (some?all?) men will rape, as it’s in their nature, so women who put themselves into a vulnerable position need to take some of the responsibility. This is the same sentiment that Beaver has. You however appreciate that you are then at least tacitly giving SOME form of justification to Brock’s actions with this argument. I disagree, but respect the fact you own that stance. Beaver it seems is far too delicate to be confronted by the reality of this and chooses to be offended when it’s pointed out that you CAN’T blame the victim WITHOUT justifying the actions of the rapist.
If she’s partially to blame, then by definition it can’t be ALL Brock’s fault, and you are therefore offering justification to his actions ‘It’s in (some? all?) men’s nature to rape so if you give them cause – you can’t entirely blame them when one of them takes advantage’.
Michael- The only difference between you and I is you can justify the victim’s actions, and I feel she was terribly reckless. Everything else you wrote regarding my comments is fiction writing, and you should keep your day job.
Michael
Re your post, “My point has been from the start”.
I believe the problem may be that you are using language as though it accurately describes what it is you are talking about. But you have been using language to put words in other people’s mouths, such as saying “if you insist the victim is culpable in some way you are alleviating some of the blame” . You know, Michael, we are human beings, civilized human beings, and it is us who invented language which at time can confuse issues as much as explain them. If me or someone else has insisted that the victim is culpable, please state ho said that and what words did they use to say that, because I think you are changing words and meanings to suit your own agenda.
Taking responsibility is different than taking blame. Justification is not the same as explanation. No one is saying Brock was justified in doing what he did. Nevertheless, he did have his own reasons. And for a moment forget the idea of blame, and of using the word in this situation. You say, “If she’s partially to blame . . . ” but she isn’t. He raped her, and one can only hope that she learned something from it. From her story about it, it seems she has not. She has no intention of taking responsibility in the future by changing her behaviour.
You can continue to use language to try to screw with people’s brains, but it doesn’t make you more insightful to keep using words such as blame and justification so negligently.
Barry your attitude is a perfect example of the problem. Judging the victim for the rapist crime. She was drunk, her skirt was too short, she when out on her own, she must have been asking for it, just because they say no it doesn’t really mean no. How many other trite and false ways can we find to blame the victim and not blame the only one who is responsible for the rape and that is the rapist.
Ron Eakins,
I’m sure it’s no one’s intent to place blame on the girl for this happening. But it is about taking responsibility, and even she has told her views on this, regarding his behaviour though, not her own. She didn’t just get drunk. She went to a frat party, apparently with no friends to watch out for he. She got so drunk she passed out, presumably after getting friendly enough with him to leave with him. This seems to me to be not taking enough precautions, which is why I would like to see feminists give their views on this case, especially the ones who are engaged with the Slut Walk in Canada, who believe women have the right to dress as they like and behave in ways others might see as irresponsible, when in situations like this.
Should young women be told they can do anything and still never get harmed because it is their right to behave as though they might be willing partners in sex even though they might not be. It was a frat party, and alcohol was involved. Perhaps she was not aware of the effect of her actions that night. Should she be told? Or should she be allowed to continue to think she has the right to be safe and therefor no harm will come to her if she continues to behave in this manner?
Beaver, you are an IDIOT!!! Please don’t reproduce.
You are entitled to your opinion, but can you really talk about the crime without talking about the contributing factors? Drunk and disorderly conduct was certainly a contributing factor to the crime. There is no excuse for what Brock Turner did, and he deserves to go to jail, but he wasn’t the only drunk and disorderly person at the party that evening. To call the girl blackout-drunk is not victim blaming. It’s the truth.
Beaver
I wonder if she was aware of how men are different from women, sexually. It is a subject feminists don’t seem willing to discuss. Rather, they like to pretend that men and women are the same, and that men needn’t pursue women as some do to the extent of doing harm.
Feminists act as though it is a choice for them to act civilly, and not let their sex drives take over. Shouldn’t women be told that men sometimes don’t heed the right women have to wear whatever they choose or to behave the way they do and to be safe from sexual harm, and that these behaviours might actually lead to such situations as sexual assault? Yes, I know feminists say Not so!, giving examples of a stranger raping an unknown woman in complete darkness, but in this case, couldn’t the social circumstances have something to do with it? I think you’re right. I think the judge took those circumstances into consideration.
You go on believing that misconception.
Two men witnessed the assault and chased him off.
The judge mentioned that a long term jail sentence would be detrimental to his swimming career.
The judge was also a former graduate of the same college.
I’m sure it f it were a man that was unconscious and violated by another man that would be a whole different outcome.
Keep your mysogynistic thoughts to yourself or grow up.
I didn’t know that the judge was a former Stanford athlete. He should have recused himself. Disgusting behavior on the part of the judge.
Why should the judge recuse himself?
Do you realize you’re saying essentially the same thing Donald Trump just said about the Mexican-American judge?
Beaver wrote:
“Why should the judge recuse himself?
Do you realize you’re saying essentially the same thing Donald Trump just said about the Mexican-American judge?”
Well-said! Hopefully, these people recognize a possible conflict of interest but can deal with it objectively.