That's not even an argument. Just because it's the most common reaction, it doesn't mean it's the only possible reaction.

It may not have been 20 minutes. He was clearly contrasting 20 minutes of something that could ruin his son's life (if perceived by jurors as rape) to his son's age, i.e. 20 years. Also, the way he phrased it works in his son's favour. In all those 20 minutes he dry humped her and inserted his fingers in her, but didn't penetrate her with his penis. He wasn't a sober rapist who took her behind the dumpsters and had sex with her.

Again, not defending the rapist. There were signs of struggle (like bruises) that clearly show there wasn't consent as he claimed.

I think that judging the fairness of a penalty by comparing it to the time of action is very imprecise. We should consider the number of thrust performed for a much better estimate.

Stop saying you're not defending the rapist because it's coming across as that way and yes common reactions are a thing it even gets brought up in court and part of your post highlights this with the girl having bruises, why? Because consent commonly doesn't leave bruises so yes it is an argument whether you want to accept it or not.

The way he phrased it also doesn't work in his son's favour in anyway I don't even get how you think it does the whole statement itself does not help his son it just comes across as a callous statement and your post indicates a lack of understanding of what rape is, It is any sexual act that is forced and is not exclusive to the penis. Are you also suggesting that because he was drunk it's less of a crime?

I am not checking that... 

I just think it's better for someone to be able to say "I was a monster" over "I am a monster"... 

Not to mention shit happens. You pay for stuff you break, but the debt shouldn't downgrade your social status or hamper your social mobility. That's one of those things that irk me. The system is obsessed with punishment rather than corrective consequences. It's obvious the latter are the only way to keep this stuff from happening. The only thing you do by branding people is just blackhanding by other name to serve as an example. 

If you ask me, you will only worsen things. 

Better time to think inside a state prison than trying to live with a dead weight dragging me down all my life... If the father here can't see that, he needs a drink... 

For a second I thought this was a joke article.

Right. So just because it's coming across that way to you, then I'm definitely defending him. Noted.

Yes, I am. If it works that way with murder (premeditated) and under the influence, I don't see why not. The sentence sure as hell is different depending on whether or not the murdered was intoxicated.

And, if you could stick to the facts, that would be great. I understand what a rapist is perfectly fine, hence why I referred to him as a "RAPIST". Also, calling it callous statement again and again doesn't make it a fact either.

But if you're gonna accuse me of things I didn't say or said but you choose to ignore, I'm done. Believe whatever you want. Crucify him if you want. I won't stop you.

I actually agree with Wyrdness. You say you're not defending him but in the same post you are basically saying it is her fault for getting blackout drunk. She made a mistake, one that she will obviously never repeat, but it does not excuse his actions in any way, shape or form. I was saying I would be the most proud person ever of her because of the way she handled the situation and made herself a symbol for others out there. NOT because she was in the situation in the first place. She made one of the worst decisions she will ever make her entire life, but what she got for it was more than just the typical walk of shame the next day after being blackout drunk. She got a mental scar, physical evidence of forceful penetration, distrust for her peers, and then got dragged through court and had to relive it.

She is handling this situation in a much more mature and better way than most, and the way you are approaching it is kind of like you are blaming her. This is the same thing as defending the idiot who put his hands on her, and it's just wrong. So yes, in a way you are certainly defending the guy for what he did simply because you do not agree with what the woman did. I wouldn't approve of my kids drinking, doing drugs, anything illegal, PERIOD. But if they ever made a mistake (which many are liable to do) like this and something like this happened to them, I would be horrified. But then to have them turn it around into something positive for everyone else to look to and to understand, and experience from without ever actually having the experience themselves is pretty damn heroic in my mind. So I am and would be extremely proud of my kid for handling this situation in such a way that others can learn from it, and draw courage to speak out from it.

20 mins too long, what a complete bastard! His dad is a douche as well.

Exactly this, he knocks her for being drunk but he should be let off for also being drunk, well put.