John Pavlovitz has eloquently put together a scathing reply, condemning Brock's father for focusing on the wrong side of the issue.
"If [his son's] life has been “deeply altered” it is because he has horribly altered another human being; because he made a reprehensible choice to take advantage of someone for his own pleasure. This young woman will be dealing with this for far longer than the embarrassingly short six months your son is being penalized. She will endure the unthinkable trauma of his “20 minutes of action” for the duration of her lifetime, and the fact that you seem unaware of this fact is exactly why we have a problem."
He explains that Turner's attempt to gain the public's sympathies by mentioning his son's favourite things and giving him a personality is irrelevant, and should not have any bearing given the circumstances.
"I understand you trying to humanize your son in your letter; talking to the judge about his favorite snacks and swim practice and about the memories that are sweet for you as his father—but to be honest I don’t give a damn and if his victim was your daughter I’m quite sure you wouldn’t either."
And finally, he reaches out in understanding, being a father himself. But he explains where the father's responsibilities should lie.
"You love your son and you should. But love him enough to teach him to own the terrible decisions he’s made, to pay the debt to society as prescribed, and then to find a redemptive path to walk, doing the great work in the world that you say he will."
He ended the letter with a final plea: "As one father to another: help us teach our children to do better—by letting them see us do better."