I was reading through some “Room for Debate” articles and I had read an article titled “A Judge and an Unpopular Sentence”. It was about a Standford University student, Brock Turner, raping an unconscious woman after a fraternity party. The debate is about the sentence the judge had given Turner, six months and three years of probation. For a little context, the judge took into account that throwing him in prison or jail would have a severe impact on his life. His father even went so far as to send the judge a letter explaining that any sort of punishment would be, “a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action.” The judge made his decision on the six months and three years of probation and people are debating whether or not the judge should be recalled to give Turner a harsher punishment.
One debater said that it would be too extreme to bring back a judge just because the public did not favor his punishment and that the judge should be able to make an independent decision without having to be recalled. Other debaters disagreed and said that it was not a fair punishment at all. They explained that other people would have gotten about 14 years of jail time if they did that. It seems Turner got a slap on the wrist compared to 14 years. The other debaters said that recalling the judge is very necessary and that because they gave him such a light sentence for a heavy felony, it’s as if committing a felony like this on campus is different from committing it anywhere else. I definitely agree with recalling the judge. I don’t think he should’ve gotten such a light sentence. Turner committed a felony and he has to learn that his actions have severe consequences. Should the judge be recalled? Should Turner be given a longer and harsher sentence? Or does the judge deserve an independent decision?
I agree that Brock Turner should've received a harsher sentence since 6 months is really nothing. I'm not sure on what a "proper" punishment is but I do believe that this shows obvious bias in courts. Brock here is a Stanford student and the judge could have cast aside what he did, as it's taken that the student is smart. I know this might sound harsh but in that case I don't think judges at all should have an independent decision considering every human being has a subconscious bias making it corrupt, but that's just how I see it.
ReplyDeleteI would like a bit more context to the case itself, but going off on what was said I do believe that the rapist should have gotten more time in prison. The judge himself possibly looked upon the student with mercy and it may have helped that the student probably ha good lawyers considering he was a Stanford student and considering he did that he probably wasn't there on a scholarship. As for the argument of felony crimes punishment being more than six months the argument could be said, but something are considered felonies that aren't the worst. At the end it should be focused on how bad the felony was and that's how the punishment should fit. However this is all personal opinion so take of it what you want.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe the rapist should have gotten a harsher punishment. Just "20 minutes of action" could lead to many years or decades of pain for the victim. But I do hesitate to say yes to your title question, "should a felony have a harsher sentence than six months?" On the surface I definitely want to say yes, absolutely. But I do know that a lot of times people charged with felonies are racially targeted people who committed a small crime or no crime at all. Making the felony sentence longer would affect those undeserving people. I think this question's answer lies in a large gray area, but to simplify the answer - if the felony is a true felony such as this rape, then yes it should be lengthened by a lot. But if the accused is obviously not guilty, he or she should not be in that trial in the first place. I also think that those charged with felonies should not be marked with a stain their whole life that lets everyone know they committed such a crime. If they want to change but have that mark on them they will have a hard time finding a job and possibly end up committing another crime in vengeance or just to get by. In conclusion, if the felony was actually a felony the convicted should get a longer sentence than six months, but when their term has been served they should have the right to rejoin society if they wish to change for the better.
ReplyDelete