Blog Stage 8: Response to People v. Turner

In one of my colleague’s blogs titled America In-Formation, the author posted an original editorial about the court case People of the State of California v. Brock Turner. Her main argument is that the sentence for Turner of 6 months in jail with 3 years of probation was just because of the California law. The author states that although what Turner did was entirely wrong and unjust, the sentence Judge Aaron Persky gave Turner wasn’t.

Turner was a 20 year old male student attending Stanford University. The author states that on January 28, 2016 Turner “was indicted on five charges to include: rape, felony assault and attempted rape.” Two Stanford international students from Sweden testified that they intervened because during the night of assault, they found turner with the unconscious woman. Turner fled the scene once the two students saw him but they chased Turner down and waited until the police arrived on Stanford’s campus. Once he was arrested, Turner was released the same day after posting $150,000 bail.

Because Turner’s sentence was only 6 months in jail, the public was outraged. The author provides examples of the public being outraged by mentioning the “Numerous cases [that have] surfaced in the media to shed light on the partial treatment Turner was given, including: Brian Keith Banks and more recently, Raul Ramirez.” The author also explains that the public also had “many protests and petitions have been enacted in attempt to remove Judge Aaron Persky from his justice position” due to his unjust sentencing for Turner. By explaining that the public was putting the blame on Turner and the judge, the author brings up her main point of the California law. This law has “blurred lines on what constitutes rape”, defining it as a” non-consensual act of sexual intercourse.” The law is not specific and doesn’t classify fingers or foreign objects into the category of “intercourse”. Considering this, the actions of Turner were not judged as rape.

The author then brings up the point that although Turner committed a wrongful act in the eyes of a human being, the law protects this man. The author’s editorial was successful because she provided many examples of why the case was a hot topic on the media and how the public was reacting. She solidified her argument by bringing her main point of why the case sentence was just under the California law. Before I read the authors post, I had no idea about the California law and it changed my perspective of who to point fingers at in the People v. Turner case. Although I would have liked her to go in depth about changing the law and making a difference, her argument was to the point and clear.