Medical student convicted of raping another student escapes sentence as “He is young and talented”
Medical student convicted of raping another student escapes sentence as “He is young and talented”
This reminds me of the rapist Brock Turner, aka Allen Turner, the rapist.
Oh Allen Turner? Who started using his middle name instead of Brock Turner? Because he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster? That guy? (Brock/Allen Turner?)
I just want to be sure I'm thinking of the right guy...
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sexual-assault-brock-turner-stanford/index.html
This Brock Allen Turner right?
Does the rapist Brock Allen Turner still live in Oakwood Ohio, a wealthy suburb of Dayton Ohio?
Hey all, anyone who cares about/is interested in knowing more about the crime committed by the rapist Brock Allen Turner should read Know My Name, written by the woman who was actually assaulted, Chanel Miller.
I highly recommend listening to the audio book, as she reads it herself and has a powerful voice.
Yes, the rapist Brock Allen Turner is also the first thing that crossed my mind. How he got away after raping that girl and now is even trying to change his name.
By finding him guilty but not punishing him, he will be made to feel guilty and the chance of him reoffending will be prevented, without socially impairing the man
What a load of horse shit. “Letting him get away with rape penalty free will ensure he doesn’t do it again” is some crazy fucking logic. Seems like knowing there are no consequences for your actions would make repeating the offense significantly more likely.
It's funny that the court would explicitly legitimize the idea that some people deserve to be "socially impaired" and others do not despite committing exactly the same crime.
Funny in the sense that it contradicts the entire foundation that the legal system is based on and makes the court look illegitimate and deliberately corrupt.
I’m sure this concept of non-punishment will now be applied to many other cases across social classes, right?
Right…?
It's a bit like the old sitcom "Night Court" where the judge would find the ladies of the evening guilty as charged and turn them loose with "time served" as their penalty.
This "lack of sentence" is a bit more than time served since the penalty for this crime can still be applied at any time if the offender is in court for anything else.
It's overly lenient and a bad message, but better than letting off manslaughter charges for a defense of "affluenza." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43621839
Hey, it worked great when Susan Collins took that approach with orangeboi in his first term, didn’t it?
…didn’t it…?
What the actual fuck.
Don't worry, that's not the real reason. The real reason is most likely that the perpetrators family is rich and the victim's family isn't.
Regardless of why he got suspension of penalty, if you read anything about the case it wasn't because he or his parents are rich. Personally I think there's more nuance than the clickbait headlines. I think he should not have gotten the penalty suspended but I can understand why that happened. The shortened motivation for this does read like ragebait ofcourse. His future should not have been as important as his cooperation, verifiable truthfulness and the fact he did abuse the state of someone who could not consent. Where that balance ends for punishment ends I find hard to say. But to reduce it to that he's rich is just populist nonsense.
Oh wow, something from Belgium showed up here. Obviously most reactions are the same here. But I would urge everyone to read more details about this. As there much more uncomfortable nuance here. One of those being that the dude is also in agreement he did something wrong. He also gave a relatively accurate description of the events of that evening that got proven with phone records and CCTV at different locations. Making his account of what happened at the least somewhat reliable.
Obviously the woman could not consent because she was drunk as fuck. And she's allowed to get drunk as fuck without being taken advantage off. CCTV showed them kissing at the bar they met. Phone records show he tried to call her friend she was supposed to go home with. CCTV shows them going to that friend's dorm and not getting in and waiting there for half an hour. Then they walk back to his place while kissing on the way there. The morning after his messages to her indicate he wants to continue seeing her. (https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20250402_95297572?journeybuilder=nopaywall but it's in Dutch)
Again, she could not consent, and he as the least drunk of both of them bears the responsibility of this. I do think he should have had some form of punishment above of what he got and for the woman's feeling of safety a restraining order like she asked. And something that would have made mandatory counselling and follow-up possible. Not to mention that although justice in Belgium isn't supposed to be revenge, it should also cause some sort of satisfaction for the victim.
This situation just shows that the definition of rape over the decades has become more complex and nuanced, but unfortunately the tools to deal with this have not. This dude definitely did something wrong, but he's not just a vicious predator.
If they were both drunk, could either of them consent?
It really depends on how drunk you actually were at the time, and that’s what makes cases like this so difficult. Generally speaking, simply being drunk isn’t enough.
Hell, even being blackout drunk isn’t enough. Because you can be blacked out without being passed out; Blackout drunk simply means your brain isn’t recording things to your memory, so you won’t remember it after you sober up. Contrary to popular belief, alcohol doesn’t make you forget existing memories. It just makes it so you don’t ever commit things to memory in the first place. That’s what happens when you’re blackout drunk.
In order to be incapable of consenting, you need to be so drunk that you can’t comprehend what is happening. Because informed consent requires two things: Information anbout what is happening, and enthusiasm. You can have both, even while blackout drunk. Because you forgetting your enthusiasm the next morning doesn’t automatically make it rape. After all, you were informed and enthusiastic when it was happening, so you consented. If you were capable of understanding what was happening and were enthusiastic, it’s not legally considered rape.
And that’s a surprisingly high threshold to beat. You usually need to prove to the courts that you were basically passed out (and therefore unable to be informed about what was happening) before they’ll consider it rape.
Even if people would colloquially consider drunk sex rape, that’s not typically how the courts view it. And that’s a large part of why so many accused rapists get off without a guilty verdict; The victim basically has to prove that they were missing either information or enthusiasm to overcome the accused’s “they consented to it” defense. And if the victim was blacked out and doesn’t even remember the evening, that becomes extremely difficult to do without outside witnesses corroborating that the victim was passed out and/or combative.
And hell, in cases like the Brock Turner one, even when the victim proves that she was passed out, the rapist can still get away with just a slap on the wrist.
And how do you determine who raped who if it's a question about how drunk you were? I have had a lot of nights out in my teens (european), where I have no clue what happened after midnight, but didn't get home until 05:00. If I had sex with someone pretty much equally as drunk, who did the raping?
Oh... you didn't hear
There are different levels of being drunk. She was so drunk she blacked out and had trouble walking. He As drunk but can supply a recollection of what happened. There's nuance like I said, but someone who can recollect events and relies on his rational actions where he called her friends can logically be considered to be more responsible for not taking into consideration she was too drunk to be able to consent.
To add to this, the university decided to suspend him. The court did also order him to pay a fine to the victim.
The conviction will not appear on the man’s criminal record. However, if he reoffends, he will be sentenced for this rape as well as for the new offence.
Why wait to be proven wrong? I don't understand. Rapists shouldn't be doctors.
Doctors get one rape...
He claims that he asked her several times if she consented and that he had been given the impression that she did.
In his summing up the judge said “It has been proven that sexual intercourse took place at a time that she was in a state that meant that she couldn’t possibly consent to it. The offence is serious and unacceptable.”
Wow, we can both read! That's awesome. Now one of us just has to work on their comprehension and maybe even finish the article next time...
So if he’s gonna rape as a med student, he’s definitely gonna rape as a doctor. And that judge is a rapist too, judging from their warped views
I thought the same thing. The judge is too lenient and I question their morality.
He probably did something similar in his past. Maybe raped a drunk girl at a party or similar while in undergrad. Never got caught for it, and never went on to do it again. So he figured if he can learn his lesson and not repeat the crime, why not this kid? Justice to the victims isn't even considered.
He was training to be a gynecologist, so definitely would rape again. Don’t wish for him to have another victim but sounds like a second offense gets him a sentence for the first one as well.
Seems like his goal from the beginning
At getting away with rape.
This truly is a prison planet.
And when I say I don't trust judges and that the justice system of most places is broken for giving a single person the final decision power, based on whatever they think is right, people say I'm trolling.
Judges pull decisions out of their ass to fulfill whatever interest they have. Or sometimes just because they are stupid.
Good judges are super rare.
Yeah in this case I think it's more a case of "hey this guy looks kind of like my son". In this case I think it led to a miscarriage of justice, but I think in other cases that kind of thinking could protect against excessively harsh punishments. In the end I think it comes down to inequality. Bigger inequality shrinks the pool of people judges can intuitively relate to, which in turn makes judgements more unequal.
And that is why DEI policies were first on the chopping block sadly.
" By finding him guilty but not punishing him, he will be made to feel guilty and the chance of him reoffending will be prevented, without socially impairing the man "
So that judge is either a rapist or an idiot.
Ok I can understand if he was caught with pot, drug paraphernalia, or drunk driving (without injuring someone).
But raping someone? Idc if you’re talented or have a bright future you should have it on your record or face a punishment like probation
Translation: this guy has wealth parents and is spoiled to high heaven
I remember an officer in the USCG accused of rape while I worked as a welder on base. Guy had to paint the fire lane on curbs for a month while his superiors quietly hushed up the incident so as to not disturb the guys advancement prospects (he was the kid of some higher rank admin).
I'm sure that taught him a lesson
/s
The man hasn't been named by Belgian media. 😠
Internet detectives, hear my call! Find the name of this rapist so that we may plaster it everywhere like the rapist Brock Turner!
Just like Brock Turner, the rapist!
Oh Brock Allen Turner, the rapist who now goes by Allen Turner?
And people wonder why there are vigilantes.
If we are going to be ol fashioned then we are going to be ol fashioned.... If there is no justice we will go and find justice. We're even seeing this with the likes of Saint Luigi. People just don't understand history. FAFO
The Kidnap Years: The Astonishing True History of the Forgotten Kidnapping Epidemic That Shook Depression-Era America David Stout
Wow that's actually crazy. Ty
You should try Afghanistan, it's full of vigilantes that you seem to like.
And his victim wasn't also young and talented? Are they concerned about how the victim will go on when this fucker walks back on campus?
Judges who do this need to be... whatever the judge equivalent of disbarred is. It's wrong.
