We Had Our Own Brock Turner Situation in the Valley
The sentencing of Brock Turner by California Judge Aaron Persky has sparked a national discussion of how we hold young drunk college men accountable for sexual assault. The general sentiment is that Persky was far too lenient, sentencing the Stanford University student and swimmer to just three months in jail and probation. There is now a recall effort underway to remove Persky from the bench.
But if one were to read the judge’s comments in their entirety, they do follow a line of reasoning that appears understandable. To understand the controversy surrounding Persky’s ruling, it helps to have a comparable case.
Here in Western Mass, we had a very similar case with a very different outcome. Patrick Durocher was convicted of sexual assault and was sentence by Judge Mary-Lou Rupp to three to five years in prison in March. The cases and the judge’s comments at sentencing are uncannily similar.
Durocher, like Turner, was an attractive, athletic, university freshman, from a privileged and supportive community at the time of the incident. He too was convicted of assaulting a too-drunk-to-consent woman on campus. And similarly, this assault was interrupted by passers-by, who then became witnesses for the prosecution.
Here is what Judge Rupp of the Hampshire County court said at Durocher’s sentencing:
“In this case before me we have not just the accused and convicted, but the victim. These are two young, smart, apparently hard-working people with seemingly bright futures ahead of them who now face, both of them I suspect, long term, perhaps lifelong changes in their lives’ paths.
“In making this decision I have considered all mitigating circumstances; that is, your youth, you were 19 at the time of the incident, lack of any kind of criminal record, I take into account that we now have numerous studies on the development of the adolescent brain and exactly what that means with regard to decisions young people make. I take into account also that it appears at least that on the day in question your judgement was impaired to some degree by your alcohol that you had consumed that night. I take all of that into account when imposing a sentence here.”
Persky, like Rupp, also started his comments noting that here is a case where two lives are impacted. He then went on to discuss mitigating factors. Here is how Persky summarized his justification for probation and three months jail rather than serious prison time:
“The mitigating factors that I’ve considered are that the defendant, Mr. Turner, has no prior criminal record.
I have also considered the fact that he was legally intoxicated at the time of the incident. Pursuant to the evidence at trial, this does affect judgment. And as I indicated previously … it’s not an excuse. But it is a factor. And I think it is a factor that, when trying to assess moral culpability in this situation, is mitigating.
And, finally, I find another factor reasonably related to the sentencing decision is the character evidence — provided both at trial and in connection with this sentencing hearing — the character evidence with respect to Mr. Turner’s past up until the point of the incident.”
Why then did the two judges come to very different sentences? Unless sexual assault of a non-consenting women is considered a serious crime by judges, then mitigating factors will carry more weight at sentencing , and young men on college campus will not be held accountable for their criminal acts.
Todd Crosset is a UMass professor in the Mark H. McCormack Department of Sport Management in the Isenberg School of Management. He can be contacted at tcrosset@isenberg.umass.edu.
