Stanford offender’s life sentence

The victim fought back with words of rage. “ I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught,” she wrote in a 12-page statement at the sentencing of ____ ____, the former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting her. “He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me.” Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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.

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

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.

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.