If you can’t put them in prison, at least take away their privileges.
Well at least his future of serial raping is still open to him.
Beat me to it, again.
That was gonna happen anyway… As a registered sex offender he’ll be barred automatically from many things, either by automatic checking or when for whatever reason, it’s discovered.
While I can’t say I’m unhappy about this at all, I kind of still wish it was a decision made after a thoughtful discussion about “which crimes will we as an organization decide are so egregious or troubling that even after someone has served their sentence and has been deemed safe to release into the community, we will not let them participate in our activities” rather than a snap response to a terrible sentencing decision. And that now they’ve made the decision that rape is a crime that should lead to a lifetime ban, they check their current membership rolls and make sure they’ve consistently applied it to everyone.
I want to feel good that he’s essentially banned from swimming competitions, that he won’t be able to benefit materially as a professional athlete–assuming that was an aspiration of his, but he’ll still be able to enjoy swimming. He may never again be able to swim without feeling a certain sting of what could have been, but that’s minor compared to what I think his victim might feel, and may feel for the rest of her life.
How can you be sure that didn’t happen?
I would think it did. For an established organization like that one to wade into (ha) this highly charged and well-known story without any thoughtful discussion beforehand is hard to imagine.
Oddly, for his own sake, he would have been far better served with getting the 6 years asked for by the prosecutors. Happy that the world is crashing in around him, but but for the absurdly light sentence, this would have been a 3 minute story on the local news.
How can you be sure that didn’t happen?
You’re right. I hadn’t thought that the discussion may have happened a while ago and they’re just publicly making it clear how that existing policy relates to this case. I thoughtlessly assumed it was a heat-of-the-moment response to this case, which was dumb of me.
And maybe I’m being dumb again, but I’m not sure what part of my closing sentence your gif is objecting to (if that’s intended to convey objection). I’m just suggesting that if it’s possible, they should lifetime ban anyone who has been convicted of rape if they haven’t already, otherwise they’re open to accusations of implementing the same type of differential punishment that everyone (myself included) is horrified by in this case. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest they shouldn’t be lifetime banning rapists.
I agree, it’s functionally true he probably wouldn’t have been able to join anyway but that’s not necessarily what this kind of thing is about.
Their announcement was more than just banning Brock Turner. They told us (and everyone who would want to join) they don’t tolerate this and if one of their members had done this, the member would have been subject to severe penalties. They’ve set a precedent and they’ve talked about it publicly.
Them announcing this also sets an example for other sports organizations. They should all be looking at themselves right now and saying “Wait, does our policy cover this? We need to have a policy to cover this. We need to make sure we’re ready in case one of our members does something like this.”
Okay, looks like I misapprehended your meaning. Thanks for the followup.
I am a little worried about the “zero tolerance for sexual misconduct.” Not long ago, sodomy between consenting adults was a felony in some places, regardless of gender. Not long ago, Ted Cruz made a credible run at the presidency. Why can’t we just say “zero tolerance for rape?”
Because that presumably leaves child pornographers and molesters on the inside.
I understand that BB has to walk a fine line between curation and clickbait. It is a commercial enterprise and there are bills to be paid. I’m cool with that. But this story (being banned) was a news item four days ago, so it seems to me that sharks and jumping are in play. Not just here, but all over the interwebs.
In any case, outrage duly noted:
Skip to about 5:00 to see the relevant part, but the whole 6:48 minutes is funny!
It could also mean sex between a coach (someone who has a position of authority or power) and a swimmer who is 18 or older. Also, sexual harassment would be misconduct.
I hear you, but I see that as a problem with the law, not the punishment. Simply put, this is one of the minority of cases where the sex offender registry actually works. Alas, its effect is diluted by being filled up with bullshit listings for homeless people urinating behind trees in public parks, and similar noise obscuring the signal that should warn people about real sexual predators. As it stands, the registry just scares panicky helicopter parents, while anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows its a hopelessly polluted signal. I’m not sure USA Swimming is diligent enough to ban everyone on a sex offender registry; it seems more likely the publicity spurred them to cover their own asses, but at least their community is somewhat protected from one rapist, and that’s better than nothing.
Hey, if they wanna swim, I say have at it. Do you have any idea how hard it is to operate a camera while doing the breaststroke?
@subextraordinaire I agree 100%.
@GulliverFoyle I got signed up for one of those identity theft monitoring services, and for some reason they helpfully send me a monthly digest of all the sex offenders in my neighborhood. Holy hell, there’s one on every block. If I was afraid of creeps I could never leave the house.