Stanford offender’s life sentence

Join the discussion

1. NPS June 16, 2016

   Wow. I’m pleasantly surprised that this was penned by Debra Saunders. She is an ultra-conservative political columnist. For her to question the registry and advocate a tiered registry is really big.

   • Robin L. June 17, 2016

     Hold up NPS: Before you praise Debra Saunders, one should note Saunders’ claim that the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) advocates a tiered registry that “limit[s] lifetime registration to kidnappers and violent predators” is both misleading and erroneus. Under a tiered registry, people who score unfavorably on the Static-99R — which will include a disproportionate amount of NON-VIOLENT offenders (since the Static-99R perversely gives 1 point for non-contact offenses, and 0 points of violent offenses) — will still be subject to lifetime registration. ‘The devil is in the details,’ and Debra Saunders obviously did not do her research concerning CASOMB’s tiered proposal. Just another example of how the media spins untrue claims as fact.

2. anonymously June 17, 2016

   Is there another Debra J. Saunders that wrote this? There appears to be one that works for the SMART office, who is a different one than the conservative columnist. But, really either of them writing this intelligent piece is a breakthrough.

3. jo June 17, 2016

   Punishment. It is being called and recognized as what it is, a life sentence without chance of parole.

4. Thomson June 17, 2016

   Some good points by Debra Saunders. Except for what she says about CASOMB limiting lifetime registration under a tier registry. Not exactly true, as lifetime registration would not just be limited to “kidnappers” and “violent” sex offenders under a tier registry… but also people who just happen to score high on the Static-99R scam (even non-violent, first-time offenders). The real story should be on all the logical fallacies behind the Static 99 tests, the lack of transparency of its data, how it lumps all type of sex offenders into its so-called actuarial model, how its accuracy has proved about 29 percent (i.e. much worse than chance), and the Canadian scam artists (sorry, “developers”) who invented it. Just my 2 cents.

5. ab June 17, 2016

   I want everyone to imagine waking up in a hospital and being told by medical personnel that they believe you sexually assaulted or perhaps raped. Then realizing you have no memory of anything sexual happening. Maybe you think its possible you gave consent. Until regardless of what you think is invalidated by test results revealing that your blood alcohol level was 3 times higher than the legal limit. It is sickening that we live in a society where other people under various circumstances are allowed final say in what you are allowed to claim about yourself. At this point I am expected to throw in a sentence or more clarifying the context of the perspective of such an individual as being the automatic victim. Though I will not concede to any biases just because they are common in the United States or elsewhere. It is possible that the person in this unfortunate position could be the instigator rather than someone who had no agency, but we won’t likely ever know.

   Instead we place blame on the one who had a blood alcohol level two times the legal limit. The person who still was too drunk to consent. That’s something people forget in cases like this: consent goes both ways.

   Both individuals have life sentences. One is public and the other is private. Neither will ever be able to tell what really happened, society has made up its mind and in the end a relatively short experience shared by two people is forever defined in ways which caused and continue to cause great damage for both.