Brock Turner is back in the news — and he still doesn’t understand what he did wrong.
There are so many things wrong with this statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the “outercourse” defense is so patently ridiculous that it reads like a headline from the Onion. For those who, like me, were confused by the phrase, “outercourse” is a sexual health term that could refer to almost any form of sexual contact besides vaginal sex. Turner’s legal team is arguing that, because he kept his pants on, he never intended to engage in vaginal intercourse — and that, as a result, his behavior did not amount to attempted rape.
The issues with this position are obvious. While California law used to define rape as forcible sexual intercourse, the “outercourse” explanation relies on an outdated and narrow view of sexual violence. And, as Christina Cauterucci pointed out in Slate, requiring direct evidence of intent would make it nearly impossible to convict anyone of attempted rape. In Turner’s case, the situation was more clear-cut than most: Two Swedish graduate students came upon him lying on top of her, with her underwear ripped off, dress around her waist and legs spread helplessly. If intent in this kind of situation can be questioned, what is to stop any perpetrator from invoking this defense when caught?
The appeal is unlikely to work in front of a trio of justices who were described as “skeptical” and “poker-faced” by the Mercury News, but it does make something else clear: Turner and his team still do not grasp the gravity of his crime. If they did, they would not try to weasel out of the already lenient penalties he received. Nor would they force the survivor — who wrote and read out a gut-wrenching letter describing her experiences in court — to live through yet another trial. Turner may have been given a light sentence because the judge believed he showed a “genuine feeling of remorse,” but his actions now, like his behavior in 2015, reek of entitlement rather than guilt.
Turner’s sentence in 2016 sent the dispiriting message that perpetrators could get away with a slap on the wrist if they came from a privileged background and had character references. On this appeal, the three-judge panel can send out a better signal: They can show that it is not acceptable for men to assault women under any circumstance, and that perpetrators cannot get away with attempted rape on technicalities. Here’s hoping men like Turner actually get the message.
Mili Mitra is an intern with The Washington Post’s editorial board.
