So I just read this story about the football player from Vanderbilt that egged on his team mates to rape an unconscious woman, gave them condoms, and posted pictures of the rape as it was happening, got 17 years prison. Ok, that's fine and dandy... maybe a little extreme for a guy that didn't actually rape the woman, but compare that to the swimmer from Stanford, Brock Turner who actually raped a girl and got 6 months? Come on, don't tell me there isn't something wrong with this.
Ex-Vandy player gets 17-year prison sentence
Yes, there is something wrong...both judgments... the rapist should be s;pending years, not months and the guy who egged him on should have months in prison.
Well they are two separate cases. One was at Stanford by a swimmer. The other was at Vanderbilt, by a football player. So there is a couple things that can be wrong about this. The judge in the Stanford case could have looked at the swimmer at a high class college, and thought he could turn his life around and just made a mistake... which is poor reasoning. Yet the judge in the Vanderbilt case so this big football player, and thought he was nothing but a neanderthal taking advantage of a poor girl, and deserved a harsh sentence.
Now, oddly enough while at The Ohio State University I wrote a research paper about this, now take into account it was back in 1994, but studies did show that athletes from contact sports like football, hockey, lacrosse, and such, did have a much higher rate of committing assaults and similar crimes than athletes in other sports like track and field and swimming. And overall, athletes had a higher crime rate than your normal students. That's pretty alarming, but that doesn't excuse what is going on with our court system right now.
