Rape culture on the grounds of colleges and universities has been, and will more than likely continue to be, a pervasive issue, and more than anything, it must be recognized that contributing factors should not excuse or undermine the significance of the problem. The case of the sexual-assault case that occurred at Stanford University, perpetrated by Brock Turner, a college freshman at the time and now a former member of the university’s swimming, perfectly exemplifies this. Turner was found guilty on three charges for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside of a party held at the Kappa Alpha fraternity house on Stanford’s campus.
Turner’s legal defense included the idea that an unfamiliarity with partying culture led to impaired judgment that culminated in the sexual assault. Differentiating the circumstances and motivations of a crime is an essential part of the judicial process, but only as a matter of determining an appropriate response in relation to the severity of the crime. Therein lies a danger of confusing the influence of extenuating circumstance with condoning the action such as the correlation, not causation, of alcohol and sexual assault.
Public condemnation of the verdict of Turner’s case has been nearly unanimous, given the reprehensible nature of the crime — it only resulted in half a year in county jail, three years of probation, and registration as a sex offender. While a culture of drug and alcohol use on the campuses of institutions of higher learning is a problem in itself, it hardly excuses raping an unconscious woman, because there are plenty of people who can drink at social events without traumatizing someone for the rest of their life.
Court documents from Turner’s case were released to the public June 10 and included items such as a letter from the victim’s sister further illustrating the irrevocable pain caused by Turner’s actions, and a deviation from the naïvety and inexperience that formed part of the former Stanford student’s legal defense. Inspection of Turner’s phone also potentially indicate the possibility of illicit photos were taken of the victim at the time of assault, given messages found in a messaging app on Turner’s phone that correspond to the state of the victim’s bra following the assault. An argument can always be made for the exacerbation of inexcusable behavior when conscious-altering substances are brought into play, but that is not to say the substance should ever be deemed the primary culprit.
Culpability rests on the perpetrator of the action, and attributing a callous disregard for another human being such as that demonstrated by Turner on alcohol will only serve to foster an attitude growing ever sympathetic to sexual assault. The punishment for sexual-assault cases carry a larger significance than the immediate ramifications to the perpetrator.
When the judicial system appears to show leniency toward rapists, it implies leniency toward the continuation of the act itself. Continuing the narrative of irresponsible college students, who due to the factors of a college party culture cannot be held accountable for their actions only worsens a festering culture of sexual misconduct that has become all too common across the nation. The fact of the matter is that even if Turner was unaccustomed to the influence of alcohol upon his actions, it does negate the individual accountability he will have to carry for the rest of his life. The problem with lessening the punishment of a crime based on decision-making that in itself could be innocuous, such as drinking alcohol, is that it has the potential to give the impression that any inexcusable behavior paired with it is acceptable as well.
