https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/drew-clinton-brock-turner-rape-b1993568.html
I wish that the headline were incorrect or hyperbolic; but, I read the damn transcript -- this decision is as bad as it sounds.
The defense tried to argue that the victim was able to consent and did. The defense admitted that the victim, who was sixteen at the time, was drunk to the point of vomiting and passing out intermittently. Still, the defense was trying to argue that she could consent because nobody intervened before the assault. That's not an argument. Nobody has a positive obligation to intervene.
Still, even if I'm missing something, by the judge's own words he still believed that Drew Clinton was guilty. If the judge had seriously reevaluated the evidence and decided that his verdict was wrong (this was a bench trial, not a jury trial) I'd kinda-sorta get it. That's not what happened.
The silver lining is that the judge has apparently been relegated to small claims; but, no, five months in jail isn't sufficient for what Drew Clinton did.
exactly even I am shocked
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit