I totally agree. He should have had a way longer sentence for A LOT of different reasons. But there is one, in particular, I still cannot wrap my head around...

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons he got such a light sentence was that he was drunk and therefore had impaired reasoning skills (or some bullshit)... even though he was 19-20 yrs old (illegal in the US).
I just don't understand how breaking a law ON TOP of a deplorable crime could lead to a lighter sentence. Even if he was 21+, being drunk is not an acceptable reason to justify raping an unconscious human.

Of course, being an under-aged drunkard is ######NOT AT ALL! the worst thing he did that evening... so, I can understand maybe not adding an additional charge on top of assault charges. But wtf... breaking another law should never serve as a loophole to reduce your sentence.

I do not know what it is like to be the judge on such high profile case like that, but I am sure this sentence was a tremendously difficult decision/balancing act for him. I have some sympathy for the dude, and there may be some info we just don't know about.
But I ~100% think he made the wrong decision.