May 24, 2016
The Hon. Aaron Persky
Santa Clara County Superior Court
Palo Alto Courthouse
Re:

Sentencing of Brock Turner

Dear Judge Persky:
I write regarding the sentencing of Brock Turner in connection with his convictions for
felony sex crimes committed in January 2015 on the Stanford campus. As a professor at
Stanford Law School for the past 15 years, I have been deeply involved in efforts to
improve Stanford’s prevention and response to sexual assault on campus. From 2011-13 I
was the faculty co-chair of the Board on Judicial Affairs, in which capacity I helped lead
a process to reform Stanford’s sexual assault policies. I also teach a class on campus
sexual assault at Stanford, and have continued to work on the issue.
The victim in this case has been a close friend of my daughter since middle school and I
know her well. A lenient sentence of probation or a few months in jail is simply not
commensurate with the severity of the harm Brock Turner inflicted on her, nor will it
deter future similar assaults at Stanford.
Having known the victim in this case extremely well for more than 10 years, my family
and I are crushed and heartbroken at her victimization. She and my daughter were
inseparable friends in middle and high school. They slept over at each other’s homes
frequently, and she joined our family on a backpacking trip to Yosemite. We stayed in
touch over the years as she attended college and when she returned to the area we were
delighted to see her again.
She is a lovely, warm, talented, funny girl from a close, loving, involved family. She was
always a brilliant and diligent student, and to our knowledge she never got in any trouble.
She was extremely trustworthy. I never worried when my daughter was going to hang out
with her in high school because I knew that she would look out for my daughter. Her high
school classmates voted her “best personality” because she is such a caring and
compassionate person. This is a young woman who has countless friends and who was
admired by all the parents of the girls in their high school social set.
The California Penal Code prescribes a statutory sentencing range with minimum
sentences of two to three years of incarceration for the crimes for which Turner was
convicted.1 It is my understanding that the conviction for assault with intent to commit
rape means that Turner can only receive probation or a lesser sentence if the court makes
a finding that the defendant’s case is an “unusual case where the interests of justice
                                                        
1 Cal. Penal Code Section 220 provides for a sentence of 2, 4, or 6 years; Cal. Penal Code Section 289(d)
and 289(e) both provide for a sentence of 3, 6, or 8 years.

 would best be served” by a downward departure.2 The determination as to whether the
case is “unusual” is made in light of the factors in Rule 4.413 of the 2016 California
Rules of Court, including whether the crime is “substantially less serious than the
circumstances typically present in other cases,” and the defendant’s youth or lack of
criminal record.3 For the reasons described below, I do not believe that such a finding is
appropriate in this case. I urge the court to sentence Turner in accordance with the
statutory guidelines.
First, the facts in this case are very serious. Turner and the victim were strangers. He took
advantage of her extreme intoxication, her momentary isolation from her sister and
friend, and her defenselessness after she lost consciousness. He degraded and humiliated
her by assaulting her in public, forcing his fingers into her vagina in a dirty and pineneedle strewn area, and then left her half naked with her dress pushed up over her head
and with her vagina exposed in the dirt next to a dumpster. He was on top of her thrusting
against her vagina with his body weight while she was exposed and helpless to resist. She
was completely unconscious. Passers-by could observe the assault, and observe her in
that utterly defiled condition. Had Good Samaritans not intervened, she likely would have
been raped in public. The victim is suffering the effects of this assault and is likely to
continue to suffer greatly for many years as a result of the defendant’s actions.
These facts are not “substantially less serious” than other cases. The opposite is true. The
facts here are in some ways especially egregious when compared with many other
assaults on campus. The fact that this sexual assault occurred in public and that the victim
was observed being penetrated and assaulted while her genitals were exposed to view is
more serious and more traumatizing than many other cases. Witnesses described the
condition of the victim and the assault as very upsetting. This attack simply cannot
reasonably be characterized as “substantially less serious” than other such assaults.
Probation or a short stay in the county jail would not reflect its severity.
Second, the fact that Turner is young or that he has no prior convictions should not be a
basis for finding that the case is “unusual.” Campus assault cases almost always involve
youthful offenders like Turner who lack prior criminal records, and who have supportive
families, teachers, mentors and coaches. Particularly at Stanford, offenders typically have
done well in school, and have participated in athletics and community service as well as
church or scouting. They have been the captains of their debate teams, volunteered for
non-profits, and tutored underprivileged children. Like Turner, perpetrators of campus
assault often meet their victims at parties and target girls who are very drunk; usually
they have had a few drinks themselves. A finding that these sorts of facts make a case
“unusual” could well apply to virtually every campus rape case at Stanford, as well as at
many other colleges throughout California. These facts make it hard to sustain the idea
that this assault is “unusual” in any meaningful sense.
                                                        
2

Cal. Penal Code Section 1203.065(b).
2016 Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 4.413. Even if the court determines that the case is “unusual” pursuant to
Rule 413, it is not required to grant probation. The statute also requires that “the interests of justice would
be best served” by probation. The granting or denial of probation is a discretionary exercise, taking into
account the criteria in Rule 4.414.
3

 Even if the court determines that the fact of Turner’s youth and lack of a criminal record
makes this an “unusual case,” that does not mean that the interests of justice would best
be served by a grant of probation or a sentence shorter than the statutory minimum. Any
grant of probation is discretionary and considered in light of the criteria in Rule 414 of
the California Rules of Court. Many of those factors strongly argue against probation in
this case, including the nature, seriousness and circumstances of the crime compared to
other such crimes; the vulnerability of the victim; the infliction of physical or emotional
injury on the victim; and the lack of any provocation that caused the defendant to commit
the crime. In particular, the court is also urged to consider the need to deter similar crimes
from occurring in the future.
With respect to the specific deterrence of Turner, in my view it would be a mistake to
make an exception for him. As an elite college athlete, Turner is someone who has
benefitted from many advantages in his life. He has a loving and supportive family; it is
of course upsetting to see the pain that he has caused them by committing this crime. But
these are not advantages that justify leniency. If anything, they suggest that he is entitled
to less latitude than someone who was born into poverty, gangs, and drugs and had little
choice but to participate in crime in order to survive. Turner had every advantage in life
and he squandered it, which only adds insult to society’s injury and the injury of his
victim. A grant of probation will likely serve to reinforce the message that the ordinary
rules do not apply. If the court wishes to deter Mr. Turner from future sex crimes, it may
well be that the best way to do so is to adhere to the statutory sentencing guideline.
With respect to general deterrence, the argument against probation or a downward
departure from the statutory minimum is even stronger. At Stanford, assaults that are very
similar to this case are unfortunately all too frequent. Stanford recently surveyed the
student body regarding sexual assault and found that 43.3% of senior female
undergraduate students experienced nonconsensual sexual assault or misconduct during
their four years at Stanford. Of those students reporting assault or misconduct involving
penetration or oral sex, more than two-thirds indicated that the act was accomplished by
taking advantage of the victim while that person was drunk or high.4 In 84.9% of cases,
the alleged perpetrator was another Stanford student. Forty percent of victims reported
having no prior relationship with the alleged perpetrator.5
Despite these high rates of victimization, reporting remains very low, particularly
reporting to law enforcement. Only 2.7% of students who experienced any kind of
nonconsensual sexual contact reported it to the university, including only 12.5% of those
who were sexually assaulted.6 One possible reason for these low rates of reporting is
found in the survey data showing that fewer than half of women students believe that it is
very likely that Stanford would take reports of assault seriously; only a third of women
believe it is very likely that Stanford would help them to contact the police. Even more
                                                        
4

Stanford University Campus Climate Survey Report (2015), at 24-25, available at:
https://provost.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2015_stanford_campus_climate_survey_report-2.pdf
5
Id. at 26.
6
Id. at 26.

 disturbingly, fewer than half of undergraduate men (and only 28% of women) believe tit
is very likely that Stanford will hold a student who was found responsible for sexual
assault accountable.
As these data make clear, the most “unusual” circumstance in this case is that it happened
in public where there were eyewitnesses. As a result, Turner was apprehended, charged,
and convicted. This case has a wide audience at Stanford. Students will pay close
attention to the court’s sentencing determination. A sentence that adheres to the statutory
guidelines would communicate that there is no privilege to violate others because one is a
star athlete at Stanford, but rather that the seriousness of the offense is understood. This
would likely help to deter future sexual assaults. Conversely, a sentence of probation
based on “unusual” circumstances could well send the message that assaults committed at
parties on Stanford campus, especially by elite athletes, are not taken as seriously by the
law. This would be particularly troubling in light of the fact, discussed above, that the
circumstances of this assault are in some ways worse than in many other campus assaults.
It is hard to see how the “interests of justice” support a lenient result. Indeed, they require
the opposite. I hope the court will consider the potential deterrent impact of its sentencing
determination on the Stanford community.
Like deterrence, rehabilitation is also an important purpose of punishment. I sincerely
hope that Mr. Turner is able to turn his life around in the future. No one should be
defined by his worst mistake. In this regard, I note that the minimum ranges for his
crimes are two to three years, which would amount to a relatively short prison sentence.
If the court adheres to the statutory minimums, Turner will be out of prison by the time
he is 22. He will have plenty of opportunity to finish his education, put this behind him,
and have a second chance at his life. But he will do that having first learned that the
penalties for sexual assault are serious and no special exceptions will be made for him.
This important lesson will ultimately aid in Turner’s rehabilitation because it will help
him take responsibility for what he did and to avoid the consequences of reoffending.
I urge the court not to sentence Turner to probation or to a term of incarceration less than
the statutory guidelines for his offenses.
This letter is submitted in my private and personal capacity, and not as a representative of
Stanford University.
Very truly yours,

Michele Landis Dauber