Brock Turner case - Emily Doe reveals her identity
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This case does raise interesting questions on the appropriate punishment for cases involving sexual activity where both parties are intoxicated. Yes, I understand and agree with the legal reality that you cannot consent to sex if you're intoxicated. But that's something that should be applied to cases where one party is intoxicated and the other party isn't, IMO.
In this case specifically, I have no problem with the fact that Turner has to register as a sex offender for life. While both Turner and Miller were legally intoxicated, Turner testified that he remembered everything from that night, while Miller was passed out per the two eyewitness statements. Still, unless the argument is that Turner dragged Miller to that location while she was unconscious, I proceed under the assumption that Miller was conscious and was able to proceed under her own power to the location where she was found, before passing out. Note, if both Turner and Miller were intoxicated to the point where no one remembered anything, I'd be willing to be more forgiving. But if you remember everything that happened that night, even in your legally intoxicated state, I proceed under the assumption that you were aware enough to know that you shouldn't finger a passed out person. Also, if you don't think you're doing anything wrong, why run away when confronted?
Having written all of that, I don't know if the jail sentence was light under the then standard (from what I'm reading, it was in line with accepted practice), so I won't criticize that.
This case does raise interesting questions on the appropriate punishment for cases involving sexual activity where both parties are intoxicated. Yes, I understand and agree with the legal reality that you cannot consent to sex if you're intoxicated. But that's something that should be applied to cases where one party is intoxicated and the other party isn't, IMO.
In this case specifically, I have no problem with the fact that Turner has to register as a sex offender for life. While both Turner and Miller were legally intoxicated, Turner testified that he remembered everything from that night, while Miller was passed out per the two eyewitness statements. Still, unless the argument is that Turner dragged Miller to that location while she was unconscious, I proceed under the assumption that Miller was conscious and was able to proceed under her own power to the location where she was found, before passing out. Note, if both Turner and Miller were intoxicated to the point where no one remembered anything, I'd be willing to be more forgiving. But if you remember everything that happened that night, even in your legally intoxicated state, I proceed under the assumption that you were aware enough to know that you shouldn't finger a passed out person. Also, if you don't think you're doing anything wrong, why run away when confronted?
Having written all of that, I don't know if the jail sentence was light under the then standard (from what I'm reading, it was in line with accepted practice), so I won't criticize that.
Turner states he left the scene to vomit as the men on bicycles were approaching. It would be interesting if LE had searched for vomit, backing up his story. Maybe they did, I don't know.
And I disagree that a full grown adult woman can't consent to sex while she's intoxicated, if she got that way herself and wasn't drugged, and in fact, had planned to get very drunk that night.
That's just adult responsibility. A woman who intends to get drunk and have sex should be allowed to. And an adult man who is responding to her willingness shouldn't be ruined for life.
The thing is, sex is nuanced. Most people want, in general, to have a sex life. It's not like she got drunk and he shot her in the head, which would clearly indicate she wasn't interested in that.
We've sort of lost our minds. And as more and more men refuse to interact with women, as seems to be happening because they don't want their lives ruined, maybe the pendulum will swing back to normal.
But if you remember everything that happened that night, even in your legally intoxicated state, I proceed under the assumption that you were aware enough to know that you shouldn't finger a passed out person.
Memory, during or after the fact, doesn't mean his judgment wasn't impaired under the influence.
Quote:
Also, if you don't think you're doing anything wrong, why run away when confronted?
.
If you're in the middle of the thing and someone comes at you out of nowhere, chances are good you're going to run.
Memory, during or after the fact, doesn't mean his judgment wasn't impaired under the influence.
If you're in the middle of the thing and someone comes at you out of nowhere, chances are good you're going to run.
To your first point, sure. I'm not claiming that his judgment wasn't impaired, but rather just proceeding under the assumption that he was sober enough to know what he was doing was wrong.
As for running if caught engaged in sexual activity, I wouldn't want to stick around out of embarrassment, but certainly wouldn't run away as Brock Turner did and laugh about the situation. The witness testimony made it seem that he engaged in a full on sprint to get out of there after being confronted about Miller's unconscious state.
I can't say how many times I've had to literally DRAG my friends away, bodily, when they wanted to leave a girls night out with some very drunk guy, and they were intending to go somewhere for sex. That was in my 20's, I'm now in my 50's, and I just had to do that again a couple months ago. For the love of Jesus, I had to literally pull a woman away and stick her in our UBER when she was trying to go home with some stranger for sex.
That happens. Both genders get completely plastered, and want to run off together and have sex. Thank God for the normal people who are around you, if there are any, who can cart you home before this happens.
Turner states he left the scene to vomit as the men on bicycles were approaching. It would be interesting if LE had searched for vomit, backing up his story. Maybe they did, I don't know.
And I disagree that a full grown adult woman can't consent to sex while she's intoxicated, if she got that way herself and wasn't drugged, and in fact, had planned to get very drunk that night.
That's just adult responsibility. A woman who intends to get drunk and have sex should be allowed to. And an adult man who is responding to her willingness shouldn't be ruined for life.
The thing is, sex is nuanced. Most people want, in general, to have a sex life. It's not like she got drunk and he shot her in the head, which would clearly indicate she wasn't interested in that.
We've sort of lost our minds. And as more and more men refuse to interact with women, as seems to be happening because they don't want their lives ruined, maybe the pendulum will swing back to normal.
I'm going to go with the Swedish students' testimony (who happened to stumble upon Turner and Miller and who didn't know either Turner or Miller) over what Turner claims. According to the Swedes, Turner didn't start to run until he was confronted and one of them asked "What the **** are you doing? She's unconscious."
My point about being unable to consent while intoxicated was just stating a legal fact. Note, I think that you should be able to consent to sexual activity, too, even if you've had some drinks and still have your whereabouts around you. Or, in the alternative, that no criminal liability should apply if both parties are intoxicated. Of course, any consent you gave goes out the window if you pass out, which is a big part of the issue here.
To your first point, sure. I'm not claiming that his judgment wasn't impaired, but rather just proceeding under the assumption that he was sober enough to know what he was doing was wrong.
How? One doesn't have to black out to be intoxicated/impaired, so how do you determine that he was "sober enough" to know what he was doing was wrong, or what "sober enough" is for him?
You're also operating on the assumption that a) he knew when she passed out and b) that she passed out. No one has established that.
Quote:
As for running if caught engaged in sexual activity, I wouldn't want to stick around out of embarrassment, but certainly wouldn't run away as Brock Turner did and laugh about the situation. The witness testimony made it seem that he engaged in a full on sprint to get out of there after being confronted about Miller's unconscious state.
What you would do in his situation is really irrelevant. He was the one in that situation, drunk, being confronted by a stranger in an aggressive manner. Running would actually be totally reasonable, whether or not he was guilty. And even guilty people don't want to get their butts kicked.
Here is some useful info from an expert on alcohol intoxication who testified at the trial:
1) Alcohol “can lead people to engage in behaviors when they're drinking that they might not otherwise engage in when sober and they might even later regret.
2) A black out is a “period of amnesia during drinking in which the person is fully conscious and aware to be able to engage in all kinds of activities – walking, talking, driving a car, dancing, having sex, etc., they're simply not just forming memories for those events.”
3) “She also testified that there are a number of studies that show that people are inaccurate in judging another person's level of intoxication, and the accuracy deteriorates further if the observing person is also intoxicated.”
4) “Regarding [Miller’s] voicemail, she agreed that the person in the voicemail ‘sounds extremely intoxicated’. When asked whether the phone call changes her opinion that Ms. Doe could voluntarily engage in activities, Dr. Fromme answered, ‘The brain regions that govern decisions and voluntary activities are different than those that govern speech’ because different functions are driven by different brain regions.’”
Exactly. Why would he finger her if she was unconscious? And the witnesses who said she was unconscious were discredited - they said they saw him having intercourse with her. But the forensic exam proved that didn't happen. If they couldn't see that hue had his pants on how could they see that she was unconscious? They couldn't. And there are records- even a voicemail recording- of her phone calls from just a few minutes before she was found. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.
I care about civil liberties and human rights.
Well I'll take the first question on - why would someone have sex with an animal? Why would someone have sex with a dead person? Why would someone rape their wife? Why would someone........I mean the list goes on and on. That question doesn't even begin to apply. The rest sounds like cherry picked fake news to support your own beliefs that nothing will ever change.
Doubting that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
