California Moves Back to Mandatory Minimums in Response to Brock Turner
This week the California State Legislature stunningly passed AB 2888 by a 66-0 vote. The legislation sponsored by, among others, local Assemblymember Bill Dodd attempts to close what is seen as a loophole allowing a probation sentence for Brock Turner in the Stanford rape case.
As Bill Dodd claims in his press release, “Sexually assaulting an unconscious or intoxicated victim is a terrible crime and our laws need to reflect that. Letting felons convicted of such crimes get off with probation discourages other survivors from coming forward and sends the message that raping incapacitated victims is no big deal.”
Assemblymember Dodd adds, “This bill is about more than sentencing, it’s about supporting victims and changing the culture on our college campuses to help prevent future crimes. I urge Governor Brown to join the legislature in standing with victims and building a culture that suppresses these reprehensible crimes.”
As Katie McDonough argues this week in Fusion, on the surface the law treats rape by force differently from rape committed against an unconscious person, where the former has a mandatory three-year minimum sentence and the latter does not.
But Ms. McDonough notes that “there are a few major problems with this approach.” She cites studies that show “that mandatory minimums have ‘no apparent deterrent effect’ and ‘are ineffective as a crime control measure.’ And decades of mandatory minimums for drug crimes show that they hit black and Latino men much more harshly than their white peers, even though they use drugs at similar rates.”
In short, “mandatory minimums probably won’t stop the next Brock Turner—and there will be a next one—from committing sexual assault.”
Mashable this morning points out the difference between Brock Turner’s sentence and that of Brian Banks, wrongly convicted of rape. Both were star athletes. Mr. Banks was African American.
Katie McDonough, quoting from a 2013 report by The Sentencing Project, argues against the notion that mandatory minimums eliminate discretion – they simply shift it from judges to prosecutors who decide which charges to bring, and this shift actually benefits white defendants like Brock Turner.
The research from the Sentencing Project shows “prosecutors request substantial assistance departures at higher rates for ‘salvageable’ and ‘sympathetic’ defendants—those who are white, female, and have children. A 2001 analysis of more than 77,000 cases in the federal system from 1991 to 1994 revealed that black and Hispanic male defendants were significantly less likely to receive substantial assistance departures than white male defendants.”
In short, Ms. McDonough argues, “mandatory minimums don’t solve racial disparities in sentencing. They entrench the old disparities and create new ones.”
Is There Really a ‘Ferguson Effect’?
As an article in Governing ponders, “Some say police officers are increasingly reluctant to intervene in dangerous situations, fueling a crime wave in cities throughout the nation.” The theory emerged out of Ferguson following the highly-publicized 2014 incident in the St. Louis suburb.
Governing reports that the “latest research on the issue, conducted by University of Missouri–St. Louis professor Richard Rosenfeld for the Justice Department, found a spike in homicides between 2014 and 2015. The number of murders in 56 large cities rose an average of nearly 17 percent in that one year — the steepest annual increase since at least the 1980s — and 12 cities recorded spikes exceeding 50 percent.”
Most striking, they report, was that the cities with the ten largest increases also had the largest African American populations.
But there are caveats to this theory. Governing writes, “It’s not yet known just how widespread the increase in crime is; the one-year jump in the murder rate follows decades of decline; and recent national trends for other types of crime aren’t yet available. Overall crime rates in a different sample of 30 large cities reviewed by the Brennan Center for Justice were essentially unchanged last year.”
Moreover, “there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that ‘de-policing’ has led to a nationwide crime wave. In New York, for example, no relationship has been found between crime rates and a reduction in aggressive stop-and-frisk police tactics.”
There is “a second version of the Ferguson theory that is gaining traction. It contends that heightened racial tensions and a distrust in police are contributing to higher crime rates. L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck cited the lack of public trust in police as the ‘real Ferguson effect’ in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. Weaker links between law enforcement and the community make police less effective, he wrote.”
The “two versions of the Ferguson theory are not mutually exclusive,” but Professor Rosenfeld “thinks concerns around police legitimacy are more plausible.”
“If there is some kind of a Ferguson effect at work,” he says, “it has got to extend beyond de-policing.”
Governing writes, “Testing this emerging hypothesis, however, is difficult. Research by Yale University professor Tom Tyler suggests that procedural fairness influences the perception of police legitimacy, which in turn acts as a strong determinant of public compliance with laws and a willingness to cooperate with investigations. A July Gallup poll found 67 percent of blacks felt they were treated less fairly than whites by police, a rate that’s remained fairly constant over time. Similarly, a recent Pew Research Center poll reported 18 percent of blacks said they’d been stopped unfairly in the previous 12 months, compared to just 3 percent for whites surveyed. While law enforcement agencies have worked to strengthen local ties via community policing efforts, Aziz [Malik Aziz, heading the National Black Police Association] says, they’ve often failed to engage groups of African-Americans with negative perceptions of police.”
Atlanta Grand Jury Issues Murder Indictment in Fatal Police Shooting of Unarmed Man
Sound familiar? This time it was late June in Atlanta where a young Atlanta police officer “responded to a call of a suspicious person at an apartment complex in the city. When he arrived, he said he saw a 2011 Silver Ford Fusion driving away. Burns shot his gun at the vehicle, striking the man inside — 22-year-old Deravis Caine Rogers — in the head. Rogers died. He was unarmed,” the Washington Post reported.
The officer, James Burns, initially “claimed the man drove at him and that he feared for his life.” However, “the Associated Press reported that an internal investigation determined the officer used unnecessary and excessive force — an uncommon action in the state of Georgia, where nearly all officer-involved shootings are deemed justified. Burns was fired in early July by Atlanta’s police chief, according to the AP.”
This week, a grand jury took it another step and charged Mr. Burns with felony murder.
The Post continues, “It’s a rare move, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation, which showed that from 2010 to 2015, not one fatal police shooting had gone to trial. Of the 171 fatal shootings tracked during that time period, the AJC investigation shows only one officer was indicted by a grand jury for manslaughter, a charge the judge threw out 24 hours later.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If Brock Turner did what he’s accused of doing, thats beyond disgusting & reprehensible. Shame on him.
Any knee jerk response from politicians is equally bad. Just trying to get votes.
The horrific crime of raping a drunk passed out party goer has been around probably for centuries. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of politicians are putting on their righteous indignation faces to grab votes. Pathetic.
How will this knee jerk law protect an innocent young man who gets drunk w/ a young woman at a party, gets consent from her, & is later falsely accused, w/ tons of d.n.a. evidence?
Plz don’t reply that young people are going to miraculously stop drinking and making love.
And no need to reply that rape is not making love. Well aware of that.
Accidentally pressed the ” report coment ” on my own comment. VG staff, plz disregard. (This day’s off to a great start ♡)
Maybe you should take a break from digital devices and unwind.
There’s lots of time to do stuff when you don’t watch t.v. But thanks for your concern, really. ♡
Three thoughts on the Dodd bill in response to the Brock sentencing decision.
1. Anyone who believes that an alcohol and testosterone driven young male is going to stop and consider “oh yeah, considering the effects of AB2888 maybe I shouldn’t rape this women” is delusional.
2. I do not have evidence, but I sincerely doubt that thinking that a young man is more likely to get a prison sentence is going to make it any easier for rape victims to come forward. In my experience as a gynecologist, reluctance to come forward in cases of unconscious rape is more about personal guilt, shame and difficulty normalizing one’s own life than it is about imprisonment of the perpetrator, unlike with violent or forced rape in which physical fear of the actual perpetrator and desire for them to be incarcerated is much more likely to be the case.
3. I think that there are many less damaging, less expensive , equitable and ways to send the message that “that raping incapacitated victims is no big deal” than mandatory prison sentences.
David wrote:
> In short, “mandatory minimums probably won’t stop the next Brock Turner
If Brock Turner got 20 years (vs. 90 days) you better believe that guys would think twice about raping drunk girls…
Tia wrote:
> I think that there are many less damaging, less expensive , equitable and
> ways to send the message that “that raping incapacitated victims is no
> big deal” than mandatory prison sentences.
There is no better place for convicted rapists and murders than prison and once we let out EVERY single person in for “drug possession” we will have plenty of room to keep the murders and rapists in for a LONG time…
the research says otherwise. why? they aren’t acting in calculation.
people commit crimes that are life sentence crimes all the time.
Germany is on the right track re: prisons.
The puritanical American culture is unlikely to embrace such a humane program. It runs counter to the philosophy of punishment for sins.
Biddlin,
Yep.
“once we let out EVERY single person in for “drug possession”” So your theory that people taking drugs are less likely to commit murder and rape? In an interesting idea as many murders and rapes seem to have drug use in them somewhere.
quielo
“In an interesting idea as many murders and rapes seem to have drug use in them somewhere.”
This is a fallacy. Just because many murderers and rapists have used drugs, does not mean that the majority of people who use drugs are murderers and rapists. I am quite sure that no one here is suggesting that individuals who have committed violent crimes should be released. However, many of us believe that those who are incarcerated for non violent crimes such as simple possession of drugs for their own use should most certainly be released.
South of Davis
“If Brock Turner got 20 years (vs. 90 days) you better believe that guys would think twice about raping drunk girls…”
No they wouldn’t. For the very simple reason that they will not know about it.
Once we have passed this event by about two weeks in the news cycle, most of the young men who would be tempted to commit this crime won’t know who Brock Turner is, what he did, or what his sentences was. Those of us reading and commenting on the Vanguard will know, but when I asked my 24 year old son about it, he was clueless. Essentially a “Brock who….?” moment. And this from a man in a committed relationship, in college, who knows what I would consider a reasonable amount about what is going on in the world around him.
ignored in the comments – yet another unarmed black man killed by the police and this time a grand jury indicted the cop.
Re : quielo’s comment re: doing crimes while high. When a person batters their spouse, he/she might get drunk first. But alcohol doesn’t turn someone into a mean drunk. The person was probably already pissed off, then planned to drink, then hit their partner.
Alcohol does not cause the domestic violence. Might be the same scenario for illegal drug use/ violent crime.
Another theory, if drugs were legal & rx’d by an M.D., no need to commit burglary to pawn stuff to get $ to buy medication. Maybe. I don’t know for sure.
quielo
“In an interesting idea as many murders and rapes seem to have drug use in them somewhere.”
This is a fallacy. Just because many murderers and rapists have used drugs, does not mean that the majority of people who use drugs are murderers and rapists. I am quite sure that no one here is suggesting that individuals who have committed violent crimes should be released. However, many of us believe that those who are incarcerated for non violent crimes such as simple possession of drugs for their own use should most certainly be released.
Hi Tia,
“does not mean that the majority of people who use drugs are murderers and rapists” of course not, but that is not what I wrote.
The Brock Turner case was a crime of opportunity and the hardest to prevent. It’s not as if he made a plan to commit a crime and the lack of a planning stage makes intervention/prevention difficult.
I am not advocating for imprisoning all drug users but neither do I believe it’s a lifestyle choice and they should be free to do as they please.
Hi quielo
“I am not advocating for imprisoning all drug users but neither do I believe it’s a lifestyle choice and they should be free to do as they please.”
I would like to differentiate between drug users and drug addicts. The casual drug user is usually no more problem to society than the recreational drinker of alcohol except for the fact that we have forced them into obtaining their drugs of choice illegally. I do not see imprisoning people for what would cause no more problems than would alcohol if we did not criminalize it as a good societal strategy.
Drug addicts on the other hand are under the influence of an illness that for most is beyond their control. This is true whether their drug of choice is alcohol, or some other substance that we again have arbitrarily defined as illegal. Their problem is entirely different and requires treatment, perhaps in a confined facility, perhaps not depending upon their degree of motivation and adherence to a treatment plan. Imprisonment will do nothing to improve their situation, especially since in many prisons drugs are readily obtainable ( at a cost).
“differentiate between drug users and drug addicts.” I’m not sure exactly how you do that. Addiction, and I agree alcohol is just another drug, is a behavior diagnosis. At one time life insurance companies used to run a serum test called “carbohydrate deficient transferrin” which would indicate the total amount of ethanol someone had consumed over time, something like Hemoglobin A1c for alcohol. However even measuring total alcohol consumption was not the same as a behavioral diagnosis but apparently it was close enough for the insurance companies.
With people using all sorts of stuff how do you plan to sort them out?
Delia
“Alcohol does not cause the domestic violence”
I have a slightly different perspective. While it is true that the alcohol does not, in and of itself, cause domestic violence, it can definitely prove to be a major factor. Alcohol has a disinhibitory effect on many people. This is why many of us get silly or more outgoing when inebriated than we are normally. What alcohol can do is to take an aggressive or angry individual who would ordinarily keep these tendencies in check and cause them to effectively lose control. Many other drugs have similar effects and can exaggerate an individual’s underlying tendencies.
Hi Tia,
Years ago I went to a seminar re domestic violence and an ex w.e.a.v.e counselor stated that the batterers they interviewed stated they planned their drunken binge and they knew if they drank they would probably hit their partner but they still got drunk.This seminar was circa 1985 so maybe there is better research now. Sorry if this is old outdated stuff.
Or maybe you are saying the same thing.
Delia
What I believe is that domestic violence is multifactorial. I believe that some offenders may have this much insight into their behaviors and might be able to adequately predict their behaviors. I believe that others simply do not think about their actions in advance and others simply do not see cause and effect in the same way that most of us do. There may be some binge drinkers who plan in advance, however, there are clearly others who start drinking and then simply do not realize how much they have had or have no sense of their own limitations. And as in my previous post, I believe that there is a wide spectrum of behaviors. One thing on which I suspect that we would agree is that there are some people who just carry their anger close to the surface and do not need the “help” of alcohol or any other substance to choose someone they see as vulnerable to take out their fury on.
Another reason it takes a village. Ladies, plan your partying to make sure your girlfriends are not left behind somewhere dangerous and alone.
“Another reason it takes a village. Ladies, plan your partying to make sure your girlfriends are not left behind somewhere dangerous and alone.”
I would extend this advice to the men as well. It is not ok to drink to the point of loss of self control. It is not ok to take advantage of anyone’s weakness. And it is not ok to leave your friend behind to ruin his life and the life of a young woman because he is out of control. Both men and women should take complete responsibility for their own actions and help their friends to do the same.
Excellent point. Hope men out there read your words.
I want to applaud the tipsy taxi servi ce and also Sac Co. designated driver volunteers, which used to be organized by an ex c.h.p. officer.
If it is still in existence. I urge anyone with a few hours to volunteer.
The night I volunteered two young women called for assistance because about 6 drunk guys had their car surrounded and were accusing them of being “teases”. One brave young man was trying to pull the guys away from the car so they could leave. No bouncer at the bar, it all occurred in the parking lot of a nice bar in Rancho. The women weren’t ready to drive home yet because they knew how many drinks they had. I drove them home, the other volunteer drove their cars home for them.
Law enforcement were called on the guys but they scrambled out of there, drunk. Hope the bar owner got at least one license plate because none of them should have been on the road.
It takes a village.
I don’t understand why some men can’t take a polite “no” for an answer. If we even smile politely at you in a friendly (not the least bit flirtatious) way, we can be labeled a tease. If we don’t smile, we’re labeled a cold b*&tch. It becomes exhausting at times. Kinda glad I’m too old & invisible to most men. Some days I wish I was in Europe, where they seem to value older women. Other days I really enjoy the annonymity.
♡