In a surprising turn of events, Brock Turner is attempting to appeal his felony convictions, asserting that what occurred was not a crime. Back in January 2014, Turner, then 19, was apprehended after two students riding bicycles witnessed him assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster at Stanford University. The students intervened, tackled him, and called the authorities. One of the witnesses was so shaken by the incident that he struggled to recount the details during the police interview.
Turner faced serious charges, including rape of an intoxicated person and assault with intent to commit rape. He was released on a $150,000 bail and later convicted on three of the five counts he faced. Despite the gravity of the offenses, he received a mere six-month jail sentence from Judge Aaron Persky, serving only half of that time before being released.
Now, Turner is filing for an appeal. His legal team argues that he was denied due process during the trial, claiming the prosecution’s repeated references to the crime occurring “behind a dumpster” prejudiced the jury. They contend that the setting of the incident was misrepresented as being “in the open,” which they believe unfairly biased the jury against Turner. They argue that the dumpster reference implied a level of moral depravity that was unwarranted.
Moreover, Turner’s lawyers assert that he was not allowed to present character witnesses to portray him in a more favorable light. John Thompson, one of his legal advisors, stated, “What we are saying is that what happened is not a crime.” This appeal raises eyebrows, especially when considering the nature of the assault.
Turner’s team has highlighted three main disadvantages during the trial: limited evidence of Turner’s character was presented, the jury was not allowed to consider lesser charges, and they were subjected to what they called “extensive dumpster propaganda.” It’s difficult to fathom how one could suggest there should be a lesser offense for such heinous acts, especially when they involve the violation of an unconscious individual.
In a world where such arguments are made, it’s hard to feel safe. Turner’s father even lamented the impact of his son’s conviction, framing it as an overreaction to a “20 minutes of action” that he believes has unfairly altered his son’s future. This perspective is troubling and exemplifies a disconnect from the severity of the crimes committed.
For those interested in family planning, you might want to check out Make a Mom, an at-home insemination company that offers a reusable option. If you’re curious about how at-home insemination works, take a look at this guide. You can also join a supportive community in the Make a Mom Facebook group for discussions on sperm donor matching. And if you’re exploring options, consider the Cryobaby at-home insemination kit or the BabyMaker home intracervical insemination syringe kit combo as reliable solutions. For further resources on infertility, Mount Sinai offers excellent information.
In summary, Brock Turner’s appeal to his conviction highlights a troubling perspective on accountability and justice, leaving many questioning the implications of his legal arguments.
Leave a Reply