Due to the influx of news and discussion regarding the Stanford rapist case, on Facebook and reddit, this sub in particular, I wanted to get this off my chest.

Let me start by giving a disclaimer that I am in no way condoning the crime. Brock did something wrong and wrongdoing should be punished. Without being more specific, let's move on for now.

/u/takeitbacktakeitback has brought this up in another thread, but it bears repeating here, because I don't think it received enough attention proportionate to the amount of misinterpretation. It's clear to me that Dan Turner in the "20 minutes of action" quote did NOT mean that in the sense of a slang word for a casual sexual encounter, and he definitely didn't mean that his son didn't get "enough" of it. It's clear if you look at the rest of the sentence and letter. He was comparing 20 minutes of taking an action to 20 years of life. It was action and reaction, not "getting some." Also, the rest of the letter is in a serious tone; it wouldn't have made sense for him to suddenly use slang, especially with him being aware of the seriousness of the situation.

You're free to disagree with him and take issue with what he said, especially the fact that he doesn't seem to blame his son for anything. But don't twist his words. For Christ's sake give someone the benefit of the doubt for once. It's just silly and bandwagony to do what everyone else is doing and call him a terrible person just because he is defending his son.

And for that matter, I want to talk about the sentence. The general reaction is that six months is not sufficient, right? But for whom is that to decide? It's not my decision, and it's not yours. I don't know if it's one person's decision to make, but if it were, the most qualified person would be a judge who is, or at least is supposed to be, completely impartial, and whose job it is to give sentences that are fair. It is not the job of the victim, or the perpetrator, or anyone who even remotely has an emotional connection to the case, which includes people who have never met either the victim or perpetrator but who have some sympathy for either party. Justice is not the same as satisfying the hate that's in one's heart, whether that's the victim or a sympathizer. And the full "sentence" includes the rest of Brock's life which will presumably be colored negatively by this case. Obviously the victim has been severely impacted too, and neither is not to be taken lightly. Does he deserve that? I don't know. I'm not taking a stance on whether the consequences are fair or unfair. I'm saying we should let it go. This case has been extremely sensationalized and there's just no need to demonize the perpetrator and family this much. Let's calm down a bit. The wound may be fresh, but it's time to let it heal.