law

Brock Turner: Convicted Rapist

Current Affairs

I stand completely horrified and at a loss of words at the recent decision made in prosecuting “aspiring athlete” Brock Turner, a student at Stanford University, who raped a student whilst she was unconscious. His conviction was an embarrassing six month sentence in prison, of which he may only serve half. 3 months in prison for raping a girl because she wasn’t conscious to stop him.

I’ve read multiple reports justifying the (lack of) conviction of the rapist, Turner, with one being it’s legally not classified as “rape” as she was unconscious and therefore couldn’t NOT give consent… The absurdity of this makes my head hurt. If this is the case, serious changes ought to be made to the legal system whereby we concentrate on the legal definition of “rape” to include denying a woman the right to consent. What’s furthermore worrying is the fact that this is being used as an excuse to justify such a ridiculously lenient sentence. Yes, Turner had no prior criminal convictions, and he may have had good character references but the fact remains, he is still and always will be a rapist now. Another justification by the Judge, Aaron Persky, for a short sentence was because prison would severely impact the rapist¹. Judge, I think that’s what we’re all hoping for –  a severe impact on a rapist who took the choice of consent from a girl so he could engage in sexual intercourse with her.

The real issue at the forefront of most minds is the correlation between race and prison sentence, and the privilege that comes with being wealthy and white in America. Apparently, it puts you above the law. Aaron Persky, and Dan Turner, father of Brock Turner, have both set out the example that rape is okay – if you’re white. A girl will now face the rest of her life knowing that justice has not been served for a crime against her; that her right to say no was stripped from her, and the perpetrator shall not pay the price, because he’s too delicate. We must ask ourselves what would be different had the athlete been black, Middle Eastern or South Asian? A tougher prison sentence, for one. No remorse, either, I imagine. Judge Persky has brushed a rape of an unconscious woman under the carpet by labelling it as a “drunken mistake” which suffices as mitigating circumstances and thus results in virtually no prison time. What an abhorrent example this sets for our generation, and the future.

I do not care that Brock Turner was an aspiring athlete. That’ll never change what he’s done to his victim; she may never recover from his attack. Turner’s father wrote a letter to the judge which sickened majority of the population; he showed an utter disregard for his son’s attack and instead attempted to draw significant attention to Turner’s character. It’s concerning to see someone show almost no remorse for his son’s actions in comparison to the apparent trauma his son is now enduring. You cannot blame “party culture” for Turner’s rape, either; it was Brock Turner’s choice to commit a sexual attack on a vulnerable woman. He took advantage of her and he must serve his time accordingly.

A further chilling aspect to the Stanford Rape Case is the Turners’ quick decision to hire private investigators and the most expensive lawyers in order to save Turner’s reputation. For a rapist to take the stand and claim he believed his victim was “enjoying” being raped by him, and his desperate attempt to appear “confused” instead of a rapist makes us all shudder in simultaneous disgust and disbelief. Dan Turner even commented on Twitter, saying his son now suffers from “anxiety and depression.” That’s the least he deserves for this crime. There appears to be not a single expression of remorse or guilt by the rapist; a girl can now no longer live her life the way she planned because her future was snatched from her by a boy who will serve only three months in prison for it.

It’s horrifying that cases such as this are common worldwide; I can only pray the victim finds peace within herself and with life. However, I hope she takes some solace in knowing that men and women worldwide are publicly condemning the conviction. She represents the countless victims of sexual assault and rape, who’ve been silenced by the justice system. We are with you, and we will always fight for you. Henceforth, this case will be defined and dominated by people worldwide fighting for justice for people who have suffered at the hands of rapists and sexual predators. We have no interest in Brock Turner’s life pre-rape: by God’s grace, he’ll be stripped of all his privileges and future aspirations.

We all want justice – for you.

The victim’s statement can be found here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html

Sources:

¹http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/06/father-stanford-university-student-brock-turner-sexual-assault-statement

Featured image: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11904740/brock-turner-stanford-assault-pastor-letter

Mental vs Physical Health

Mental Health Activism & Awareness

I was reading up on the law recently (as one does in their free time, of course) and something struck me as particularly concerning.

Context: I was looking to apply for my student loan for this September when I visited the Disability Allowance section. I have no physical disability (minus asthma but I don’t really consider that a disability in the scheme of things) but I wondered if suffering from mental health conditions qualified as a disability in the eyes of the law and if it did, to what extent?

Here’s the tricky part; it does. Kind of. From studying law at college, I remember how important it is to pay close attention to the use of particular diction in legislation. For example, the Equality Act 2010 specifically states that a disabled person must “have an impairment that is either physical or mental… must have adverse effects which are substantial, long-term and affects normal day-to-day activities.” If all factors stated above are met, the person is thereby classified as disabled, legally. But what is classified as an “impairment?” Can mild forms of mental health conditions still be classified as impairments?

The issue I have with this legislation is that there is an awful lot of grey area with regards to what can be classified as a disability and where the line is drawn between disability and an “impairment” which does not warrant the term disability. Usually, an act will define its own terms. For example, they’ll say something along the lines of “used in its ordinary meaning.” However, there is an element of subjectiveness and discretion in this act. Nevertheless, there is very little subjectiveness associated with physical disability. In the act, examples are given of where there should be no deliberation over disability; specifically, an obese woman who has trouble breathing because she’s overweight. The law  points out that the reason behind her breathing difficulties (her obesity) should NOT be referenced. She is automatically classified as disabled, due to her breathing problems. Fair enough.

However, when looking into the mental health aspect of this law, I came across a sticking point. As per the act, in order to be classified as disabled, one’s “impairment” must affect one’s daily life as well as being a long-term condition. In particular, the act uses an example of social anxiety and panic attacks; it states that if a person’s anxiety is so severe that it warrants having to travel at certain times of the day to avoid the rush hour then yes, they are classified as disabled. However, if one doesn’t need to make changes, to their routine for example, in accordance to their condition, it is not classified as an impairment, nor is it classified as debilitating enough to warrant the term “disability.”

This stood out to be as considerably worrying due to the high percentage of people who suffer from mental health conditions in silence because they’ve known nothing else. For sufferers of severe mental health conditions, there are certain requirements within the field of treatment which contribute to their condition being a disability. But what about those who suffer from mild anxiety, mild social anxiety, mild depression etc? Where do they stand in the eyes of the law? Where do I stand, someone who is still overcoming their health condition day by day, without altering anything in their routine?

Ultimately, this all comes down to the fact that mental and physical health will never be treated equally. Ironic, considering the name of the above act. The act states that cancer and HIV are automatically classed as a disability (rightly so) thereby reiterating a distinction and distinct lack of equality between mental and physical health. There should not be any grey area in the law regarding mental health, if there is no element of subjectivity for physical disabilities. That is unfair not to mention unequal. Until schizophrenia is treated with the same importance as cancer, we will be stuck in a unequal society, trapped by the stigmatisation of mental health.

A x

An Open Letter to Damien Echols

Original Writing

Damien,

I doubt you’ll even see this post, let alone read it but I want to share your story, and the effect it’s had, with everyone I know. I find myself even asking people if they’ve heard of the Robin Hood Hills murders simply to talk about you.

I was first introduced to the case when I saw Devils Knot on TV. Naturally, one’s interest peaks when hearing a film is based on a true story, so hear me out before you dismiss this as just another superficial fangirl who only got her information from wikipedia and the wm3 website. I didn’t realise the enormity of the case, or the horrendous details of it either until I carefully researched the murders inside out, including looking at crime scene photos, crime lab photos/reports, evidence reports and interview transcripts.

Watching Devils Knot in no way influenced my view on your guilt or innocence, Damien. It was just another ‘true story’ drama. Understanding the details of the case helped me come to the conclusion that you are innocent. But I’m not writing this to tell you how well I know your case because no one knows it better than you. People are so quick to judge you as being guilty, even having the audacity to cite evidence and reports, but we’re all bystanders in a fight that should never have been initiated in the first place.

Your life was stripped from you for nearly two decades and you still managed to find the strength to share your experience with the world. Critics say your biography isn’t written well, it doesn’t flow or have “transition”, and it’s “bitter.” If I spent 18 years in prison, I’d be bitter too, to say in the least. More so than not, I’m finding people attacking your style of writing and I think people are forgetting that you are a human being first.

What’s more enchanting is your ability to find light in your darkest hours. You pushed forward despite the ever-growing number of obstacles pulling you back, and that’s something I can’t possibly fathom. I’m full of nothing but gratitude and admiration for you.

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: thank you. Thank you for finding it within yourself to share your brightest and darkest hours with the world, and for standing true to yourself in the face of disgusting corruption. I can only wish you a lifetime of peace with the monsters who put you in those cells and with the battles you fight on a daily basis.

And to the three angels who lost their lives in such devastatingly tragic circumstances, I pray you are resting peacefully. May you get the justice you so desperately deserve. You will never be forgotten.

Anisah

 

“Assisted Dying”, or “Assisted Killing?”

Current Affairs

I’m incredibly disappointed to learn that 330 MPs rejected the idea of allowing a terminally ill patient to end their lives with medical supervision, despite many doctors agreeing to administer the drugs and take part in it.

I understand the cons of the bill; the possibility of vulnerable patients being exploited by their families and pushed to end their lives. That patients may feel the need to end their own life to stop the misery and pain of their loved ones. I get that. However, I am of the opinion that those 330 MPs acted with complete selfishness and possible religious bias.

I am not terminally ill, so I cannot speak for those who are. I also strongly oppose the categorisation of people who qualify for the ‘right to die’ – those who only have 6 months to live. What about everyone else? What about those who have been suffering from constant pain for months and even years on end? What about those with absolutely no quality of life? According to the Guardian, “one in five people who travel to Switzerland for assisted-dying are from the United Kingdom.” Surely the statistics speak for themselves?

I’ve watched and read a fair few interviews with people who suffer from motor neurone disease and their biggest fears were living a life of complete paralysis, wheelchair bound and in pain without the ability to speak coherently and express their distress. For MPs to deny these people that right to me, is a complete failure of morality within the establishment of law-making.

Another obstacle in this debate is the concept of religion. In many religions such as my own, it is forbidden to take one’s own life. Full stop. There are no ifs, no buts; just no. I understand that life is precious and a gift; we only get one and we ought to do all we can to preserve it. But I will never understand the point in living if there’s nothing to live for because an illness or health condition is prohibiting you from doing so, and instead you’re sentenced to a life of pain and misery.

I sincerely hope this isn’t the end of the debate on assisted dying. We ought to give these people a chance to do as they please with their own lives, as they’re the ones living it. Not us. For authoritative figures to simply dismiss this chance in the name of “ethics” is simply incomprehensible and morally unacceptable.