The Stanford Rape Case – TFF Special Edition

On this special edition of The Fiamengo File, professor Fiamengo discusses the injustice of holding male students to a higher standard than female students. Fiamengo argues that Turner was also drunk and that there is it cannot be determined whether the victim in his case blacked out before or after giving consent. This is especially important given that the victim claims not to remember the incident, and more importantly, the standard for criminal conviction is supposed to be “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Fiamengo argues that the jury in fact used the condition of “preponderance of evidence” due to decades of feminist insistence on believing the “victim.”

h/t Billy

  • Martin B

    The fact that Turner bolted and ran as soon as he was confronted by the two witnesses tells me he wasn’t too drunk to know what he was doing and that he knew it was wrong.

    • The Butterfly

      There’s lots of wrong things that aren’t rape, though.

      • Martin B

        True. But if you’re porking an UNCONSCIOUS woman in a public place where anyone who happens to walk by can see you, and when two witnesses do happen by you incriminate yourself by bolting and running like a criminal, leaving the unconscious woman behind, then I think it’s a foregone conclusion that your trial won’t go well.

        • The Butterfly

          You apparently didn’t watch the video. There was no porking going on. Dude wasn’t convicted of rape. Dude wasn’t even charged with rape. There was no rape in Stanford.

  • Everyone Else

    You’re right lady, this case stinks.