People Of The State Of California v. Brock Turner Brock Turner was a twenty Year old Stanford law student. He was on the all American swim team three years in a row and was riding on a swimming scholarship. To say the least he was a very bright young man who seemed to have an even brighter future ahead. That was all before he made the choice to sexually assault an unconscious and intoxicated female student. On the night of January 17th, 2015, Brock Turner and Emily Doe were both at the same on campus party, where there was lots of under age drinking going on. Her last memory was from about 12:00 am on January 18th just a little while after leaving the party to make a phone call. After that, it was a blur for her. Turner saw this as an opportunity …show more content…
Even from Dan Turner, (Brock Turner’s father) stated that Brock has been through too much already and sentencing would be too much for “20 minutes of action” (Irish Times). This statement on its own makes it very hard to believe that six months was a “fair” sentencing. Considering that the average jail time for a rapist across the United States is in between eight and nine years (SexOffenderAttorney). Considering that any other rapist in the U.S. would be charged with sixteen times the sentencing that Brock received, it is blatantly obvious that Turner was undercharged by a long shot. So why did Brock Turner receive such a short sentence? Many people say that it’s because he’s white, other’s say its bias from Persky since he was a former Stanford graduate. It could be a mix of both, but either way we have a college student who has raped another student on campus and is getting little punishment for doing so. This is bad because it sets an example across America that when a young boy wants a girl, he can just go do what he wants to her with little consequences. Until we fix the justice system that is filled with bias and unjust rulings, people will continue to get away with unspeakable crimes just as Turner
Discussion The court will most likely find that Nick Spears is guilty of driving while intoxicated under Texas penal code. In Texas, a defendant can be convicted of driving while intoxicated if the defendant is (1) intoxicated while (2) operating (3) a motor vehicle and in a (4) public place Tex. Code Ann. §49.04 (Vernon 2011). Although there are some exceptions in the definition of each element of this rule, Spears does not fall under any of those exceptions.
In Steubenville, Ohio, a sixteen-year-old girl was attending a local high school party with her friends. The girl was more intoxicated than others and refused to go home after the party was shut down. She then joined a group of guys who were going to another party and when they get there, the girl was too drunk to remember anything else. Two of the boys that were with her were Trent Mays and Malik Richmond. Both of them were football players at Steubenville High School, which was a big deal in small town Steubenville.
1. Riley vs California Riley vs California is the significant and most popular case which is related to Fourth Amendment decisions in recent history. The court in this case gave ruling and decision related to “search incident to arrest” of cell phone which the police found with the arrestee at the crime location. Different court has different decision based on different point of view. There was unanimous opinion that police should examine the arrestee’s cellphone as part of search incident to arrest.
In 1967 two men robbed a bank in Eustace, Texas. One man, with two pieces of tape on his face, went into the bank, pointed a gun at the cashier and demanded the money. His partner waited outside in a stolen getaway car. Wade and his partner were indicted for the robbery and counsel was appointed. About two weeks later, a FBI agent caused the two men to be part of a lineup consisting of five or six other men at which the bank employees were asked to make an identification, and at which the two men were in fact identified.
The sentencing can be more lenient if you are white because of bias and
Turner’s father, Dan Turner, explained that the imprisonment of his son is not an appropriate punishment because Brock intended to educate other college students about the precariousness of drinking alcohol and the effects that can occur in a result, ("20 minutes”). The point taken from his argument is that Turner plans on creating programs that prevent binge drinking, despite the fact that the case he is involved in, is not surrounded by binge drinking, it is in the means of rape, whether the defendant is intoxicated or not. The victim speaks out in her speech explaining that her case is not thoroughly represented through a program about alcohol consumption, instead a program that prevented rape on a college campus would be more ideal. “You realize, having a drinking problem is different than drinking and then forcefully trying to have sex with someone? Show men how to respect women, not how to drink less”
In Turner v. Safley (1987), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of restricting prisoners Constitutional rights. According to the ruling, the restriction of rights is Constitution if “reasonably related to legitimate penological [i.e. safety] interests.” Jeffs communicates sermons and regulations from prison, and limiting the community between Jeffs and the hierarchy of Short Creek attempts to severe ties between Jeffs and the FLDS. Satinder Singh, an ACLU attorney, said “…prisoners can limit communication, including mail and visits….However, the prison can’t suppress Jeffs free speech rights just because it doesn’t like what he has to say (Singh).” While Jeffs ideologies continue to dictate the infrastructure of Short Creek, minimizing communication enhances the chances of stopping the theocratic rule in Short Creek.
Nate Parker Nate Parker was born November 18 1979 in Norfolk Virginia. He is an actor, producer, and director. He is known for these 3 movies, The Birth of a Nation, Non Stop, and The Great Debates. He has been married to Sara DiSanto since 2007 and they have 4 children together. In 2002 he was NCAA All-American in wrestling at 141 lbs.
To be a privileged Caucasian male in America is to be found guilty of three counts of sexual assault and receive a recommended sentence of six years out of the maximum fourteen that these crimes carry. Brock Turner is the privileged student of Stanford University that ended up being sentenced to only six months out of the six years but, only served a brief ninety days in county jail. People vs. Turner features young college student Brock turner and his crimes of sexual assault against an unconscious ‘Jane Doe’ behind a garage dumpster. Although physical and eyewitness testimony concluded that Jane Doe was unconscious during the time of the assault and for the following hours, Brock Turner stated the encounters were consensual. As the case unraveled
The United States Supreme Court case Stanford vs. Kentucky was a national debate that permitted the hypocrisy of the death penalty, which at the time stated that all offenders who were of the age sixteen years or older at the time of their crime would receive the punishment of execution. The case took place on the day of March 27, 1989, and was officially decided on June 26, 1989. The argument began when Kevin Stanford, who was seventeen years old at the time, shot and killed twenty year old Barbel Poore on January 7, 1981. Stanford’s was trialed as an adult and was convicted of murder, first-degree robbery, and first-degree sodomy, and as a result received 45 years in prison as a punishment. Stanford declared that “he has the constitutional
However, Emily Doe will feel the effects of Turner’s actions for the rest of her life. Turner should have been sentenced to jail for longer than six months because six months in jail is not enough of a punishment to make
Since the beginning, humans have been held to certain standards regarding morality our rights as humans. History shows us leaders and rulers who, in their reign of power, have misused their power and attacked human’s rights to agency and liberty. By looking at all the wars, violence, criminals, and acts of immorality that humans have accomplished, many assume that humans are not good at fighting for the rights of others. However, in every war, and every act of violence, there is an opposing force. There will always be someone fighting for the good of others, whether it be one person or a whole army, which comes to show that humans are essentially good at fighting for the rights of others.
The Brock Turner case is a very controversial case that spark debate on the subject of white male privilege and the abuse of power. People speculate that the only reason Turner received such a minimal sentence is because his parents are affluent and influential, due to their success and status as a white professional. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. Many people saw this as unfair to the girl that was raped and to everyone else impacted by this man 's crime. The judge 's name is Aaron Persky.
To begin with, excessive is the uncontested right of a police officer. The use of force to a police officer is necessary to apprehend or subdue a suspect of a committed crime. When a police officer use of force exceeds the necessary use of force of a particular situation to complete their lawful purpose. In particular, use force for self-defense, for example, a suspect tried to assault one of the police officers in a crime scene, so the other police officer teasers the suspect to protect his or her fellow officer. However, if the police officer uses his or her right to force for unlawful or self-defense purpose, it is then deemed unethical and illegal.
May 25, 1997, Sherrice Iverson, a 7-year-old girl lost the chance to grow up and live a full life. Jeremey Strohmeyer, a teenage boy walked into the women’s bathroom and intentionally molested and strangled the innocent child. David Cash was a key factor to whether that girl had a chance to a future or not. Choosing to ignore what he witnessed, he walked out of the bathroom leaving the teenage boy and 7 year old girl alone. Because of Cash’s decision, it created a controversial debate of whether he should continue to go to Berkeley.