The Stanford rape case

by Stevie_Wonder00 on September 12, 2016 - 9:12pm


Stanford rape case


Article: “Was The Stanford Rapist Actually A Rapist?”

After reading and hearing all about the “Stanford rape case”, I could not help to further inform myself on the controversy which seems to bring up many ethical issues. At it involves a former Stanford University student and athlete from a highly privileged and wealthy family, Brock Turner, who is now convicted as a rapist and sex offender, after he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman around the age of 23 behind a dumpster located on campus. Where he apprehended by two international who were also attending Stanford at that time. Both students testified that they had to intervene and chase him after seen Brock leave the naked unconscious woman on the ground and fled. It wasn’t so long after that the police arrived at the seen where the convicted rapist was held down by the two international student. But what harassed the public attention was the outcome of the trial, that sentenced Brock Turner to 6 months in jail with a fine of 200’000$ instead of the minimum of 10 years for attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object. Not only was the judge accused of being bias, by reducing his sentence because Brock was seen as a white male from a highly classed privileged household but it was argued by the defendant, that time in prison would ruin is future label him for life and destroy his somewhat swimming career as a potential Stanford student with dreams.


Article: “Judge who sentenced Stanford rapist to six months jails Latino man for 3 years for similar crime”

Judge Aaron perky, who was the same judge in the “Stanford rape case” and accuse of being too lenient over the 6 months sentence of the young privileged swimmer from Stanford University, Brock turner, as now imprisoned a man of Latino decent for three years for a similar crime. The newly accused rapist, Ramirez a 32 year old man from El Salvador, admitted in the year 2014 that he had sexually assaulted his female roommate. It is said, in a report made by the police that the man had inserted his fingers in her genitals against the woman free will and freedom, however once he had seen her cry, he then stop and even made apologized to the victim and the police for his previously made actions. The big controversy of this article and event, is compared to the Latino male who was charged of being guilty, had a worst sentence than Brock who was charged for sexual assault with the intent to commit rape on an intoxicated woman and sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with foreign object, meaning his fingers. After such decisions, the judge was highly criticized for not showing any interest whatsoever to somehow reduce M. Ramirez sentence, just like he previously did for Brock Turner.




Both events harasses so many moral and ethical issues. For one the case of rape and how it diminishes the person value, while at the same time taking away the freedom of one self. It is also humanly wrong to do such actions on an individual without their consent. Secondly, the security, justice and equality are put in question. In terms of security, by giving such light consequences to the rapist, the security of the victim is somewhat taking away from her, as she is showed that such actions might happen again as it can go with a minimum of consequence. Justice wise, it is not true justice as the judge made an exception to find a detour around the laws that were applied to reduce the sentence of Brock, who is from a wealthy privileged upper class in society. This comes to show that justice and law can never be truly applied to the rich and the privileged, since they are the ones in control of our society. If we also take a look in terms of equality, we can easily notice that although Ramirez and Brock Turner cases are somewhat alike, their consequence vary greatly, so those the argument defending them, as unlike Ramirez who is from a lower class and the visible minority of our population, brock is part of what we call white privileged and the wealthy. Though moral and ethical opinions on both subject might differ from one individual to the next, I find the decision of the judge unacceptable


Your post is well constructed and shows exactly what is disgusting about the American justice system.
Court decisions regarding minorities are so much more severe than the ones for white Americans. And you are absolutely right: the decision of the judge is unacceptable. This young rich white man deserves the same sentence as everyone else. What is profoundly disgusting here is that the judge acknowledged that there was rape. He just decided to do essentially nothing about a kid who committed the most disgusting crime possible. It goes way further than rape culture. We are not trying to deny whether or not Brock Turner had non-consenting sexual intercourse with an unconscious woman. We just accept it, and that tells a lot about what kind of justice goes on in America. There is no better way to make a nation lose faith in their institutions. The question is: what will it take for justice to be served in America? Should we change the judges’ nomination process?

Great post. I remember seeing this case on the news and on social media and everyone was outraged and shocked by the event. When I saw the title, I had to read it and see your opinion. I completely agree with your point of view. I find it hypocritical that the symbol of law is the lady justice. She wears a blindfold for a reason which is that justice should not take into consideration money, power or race. My values are that everyone should be treated equally no matter what. The main reasons why Brock Turner’s sentence was reduced where because of his lack of criminal record, a said ‘’sincere remorse’’ for the event and the fact that he might have had a couple of drinks. What makes me laugh is that apparently he had sincere remorse. Of course he will have remorse. Not for the action he committed but for the fact that his consequence is jail time. He ran away after he raped her and was chased by two other students and the judge talks about remorse? The only remorse he has is being caught.
During court, his father told the judge and I quote; ‘’ [it’s] a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action’’ His dad makes it seem like rape is no big deal. This quote depicts perfectly rape culture. To continue, I remember seeing a documentary on Netflix called ‘’The Hunting Ground’’ and it talked about how Universities in the US hid reports of sexual assault made by victims because it ruined their reputation of having a safe environment for students. To conclude I would like to leave you on this question: Do you think Stanford University had something to do with the shrinkage of Brock Turner’s sentence?

First of all, I would like to begin by mentioning that your post is very good, well structured and presents very clear evidence and presentation of the moral issues that are being the subject of the article that you chose.
When I first read about the Stanford Rape Case I was appalled by the actions of this "star athlete student" and thought to myself: "oh this guy is in for a ride", meaning that I thought he would be stuck in jail for at least 10 years, get a very costly penalty and have his actions stick to him for the rest of his life. However, as I continued my reading, I understood that this rapist would get away with a VERY lenient sentence, all because the judicial system took into consideration that he is white, middle-class and star athlete on the swim team. How is this even possible. This has a name, and it's called white privilege, and I completely agree with you, that if Brock's sentence was looked over, why wasn't Ramirez'? The answer is known from all, and disgusts me deeply.

After finishing reading the article, I was blown away by how dismissive the court was of his case, especially Judge Perky: so I signed the petition to remove him as a judge. How can we tolerate that a judge, supposed to apply the rules, protect citizens and put away bad people be lenient about a case of this gravity. I mean something is wrong, and it's right in our faces but we do nothing because Brock won't be able to "enjoy his steak", and we wouldn't want Stanford's reputation to be tarnished now would we?

I feel like this case didn't even consider the victim... all we heard about was "Brock this", "Brock that", but what about that poor girl who's life was altered and shattered because this idiot only got 6 months in jail? What does this prove? It proves that if you're a white, middle-class male, you can get away with practically anything if you show a bit of empathy. Wait. Empathy? No, Brock didn't even show empathy, he actually tried the victim-blaming technique where he said the girl had drank and it was her fault his fingers ended up in her genitals... Of course I am exaggerating it because this case get's me furious. How is it, that the judicial system would allow the simple fact that this girl had drank to be a reason not to put Brock behind bars for only 6 months? He raped her. End of story. He crossed the line, he assaulted her disgustingly, therefore he should go to prison for minimum 10 years, as the law dictates it.
So, to end this on a positive note, good job on your post, I really think you covered all the important moral aspects of subject, and my question to you is do you think that the judicial system should be revised, should we reform the system or is it fair to leave it the way it is because sometimes it's in our favor, and other times not?

Hello Stevie_Wonder00, I very much enjoyed reading your well-put article. I agree with what you expressed, that this is a racist and moral issue. You brought up a wide variety of many valid points to back up your arguments. Would you happen to have thought of looking at this issue through a feminist point of view? Third wave feminists believe that multiple forms of oppression, in Ramirez’s case classism and racism are exponential and not additive. This means that someone who experiences two forms of oppression is not only double that of someone who experiences one but rather much more. This is none as intersectionality. Through this we can see that Ramirez wasn’t only being discriminated against for his race but that Brock experienced a form of privilege for being a rich white man. Through intersectionality we can see that Brock’s white, male, athletic, upper class attributes put him in the most privileged group in society and that Ramirez’s race, and not belonging to the upper class puts him at a substantial disadvantage. The branch of feminism that looks more closely into intersectionality is called womenism this not only fights for gender equality but all forms of oppression in the world. If you would like to take a further look at intersectionality you can click on the following link: it shows a well put insight on the topic.

I agree with you completely, I think the judge’s decision of lowering Brock Turner’s sentence is unacceptable as well. I believe this is why feminism is so important. Feminism refers to the equality in the political, economic and social factors of men and women. The two points you brought up were great; one being the fact that it hinders the girl takes away her value and freedom of oneself. The second one being how it is humanly wrong to engage in sexual activity without consent. Moreover, the judge’s final decision was dangerous because it shows future perpetrators that it can happen again with a non-severe consequence as it did with Turner. One point you forgot to bring up was the significance of rape culture and how it is dealt with by the justice system. Rape culture is trivializing the act of the rape and essentially downplaying the act making it seem less serious than it actually is. It also includes challenging/ blaming the victim and pitying the perpetrator. This is where my feminism argument comes in; he is supposedly a successful swimmer, which is mentioned in the case for no reason? As if him being a good swimmer has something to do with the case. Moreover, he is a white, male, freshman at an IV league school, the only worry people seem to have is that it will ruin his career, but what about the victim who had to go through this nightmare? One can see that the male clearly has more of a privilege. I think you should read what the victim wrote to her attacker: It is quite graphic I warn you, but it is eye opening and mentions some of the things we have assessed.

To begin with, I totally agree with your opinion, which is very clear, there are a lot of ethical problems regarding this case. The sentence for the aggressor Brock Turner was very light compared to the trauma and despair that the victim has to go through, and he was so lightly sentenced because of his privileges, all the unearned benefits that make one’s life easier than another. First, Turner is white, he is a heterosexual man and he is also from a good family. This are all reasons that we taken into account before delivering his verdict. Privileges, as mentioned above, are unearned, and create huge unfairness, as in this case. As for the victim, she suffers from the results of intersectionality: she is a woman, she is not from a family with as high social standing as Turner’s, and she has been victim of sexual assault a year before this case. All these factors pile up and reinforce each other to make her at a disadvantage facing Turner. The rape culture in nowadays society also directly influenced on the delivering of the verdict. Due to the privileges Turner benefits from, even the judge was pitying him and made his actions way less serious (Turner’s father even referred to Turner’s crime as “20 minutes of action”). Instead, the blame was put on the victim, and she was asked all sorts of questions, and the part of her speech where she affirms: “Lastly [Turner] said, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin a life. A life, one life, yours, you forgot about mine” made me feel how Turner didn’t even seem to realize the impact of his actions, which is very frustrating. I strongly suggest you to read the victim’s whole speech on if you are interested to learn more about it.