An interesting development has happened in the saga of Brock Turner the rapist. Aaorn Persky, the judge from that case who was eventually recalled by the electorate in the first recall election in a century, went on to get a job as a girl’s tennis coach. Once parents realized that they had a judge who they considered pro-rape (lenient sentence in the Brock Turner case, allowing ‘she had fun at a party a year later’ as evidence that a rape victim wasn’t traumatized in another), they opened a petition to have him fired as coach. Shortly after, the district severed ties with him (though they didn’t call it a firing.)
A quote from the petition: “All athletic coaches have to be mandated reporters for harassment and abuse, and Persky’s language during the trial and decision to focus on supporting the rapist more than the survivor Chanel Miller has made it clear he does not respect the bodily autonomy of women and therefore cannot be an appropriate choice for our tennis coach. That is not the type of person our 14-16-year-old girls on the JV Sports team should have for a coach or mentor.”
What’s interesting to me is that I believe it is pretty unprecedented; typically unless judges engage in really egregious conduct like accepting bribes to throw cases, their rulings may get overturned on appeal but they aren’t held personally accountable for what they do, even when it’s patently awful. What do people think of this - is it reasonable for parents to be worried about putting a former judge who (in their eyes) has demonstrated more sympathy for the rapist than the rape victim in charge of coaching their female children? Or should the work of a judge be considered something separate from them personally?
Also, is this actually as unusual as I think it is, or are there other cases like this that I’m just not aware of?
Judges in some places are not elected by the people so there is no real way for the public to hold an unelected judge directly accountable.
If it was a former cop, professional baseball player or FedEx delivery driver, those remarks on the public record would be fair for people to consider, right? Why should a judge have special dispensation to not have his public statements considered?
I think holding a judge somehow (how?) personally responsible would be a great way to make sure people don’t want to be judges anymore.
I didn’t read the links (yet), but based on what you wrote, the people are only angry that he gave Brock a sentence that was too lenient. The problem that I see, is that you’re never going to please everyone. He gave Brock 6 months, and this happens. If he gave Brock 50 years, human rights/anti-jail groups would come after him and I don’t think you’ll ever find a good middle ground where everyone is happy.
The other possible issue I see is that judges will start handing out sentences that are longer that they really should be. If Brock should have had, say, 10 years in jail, maybe the judge will give him 15 years, just to be safe.
Having said all that, when I read your thread title I read it more as ‘legally responsible’ than should you be allowed to treat a judge poorly because you don’t like the way they ruled. We do it everywhere else, right? Someone wears fur and they get paint thrown at them. A business owner makes health care insurance overly difficult for employees to get and we don’t shop at their store. A judge doesn’t give out enough jail time and he can’t be a coach. To a certain extent, that can be a good way to ‘fix the system’ so to speak.
I would happily have signed a petition about his unsuitability as a coach/mentor for females of any age. You are correct that he seems particularly cavalier about the rape being inconsequential to the victim. If a girl were to go to him complaining about being groped by some guy in the locker room, would he dismiss her by telling her that he didn’t leave any bruises, so it was no big deal? he didn’t get his penis into her so nothing happened?
Big question, how would you like him working with your 12 year old daughter … what would you think of your daughter having to go to him with any sort of problem involving her being assaulted?
Agreed. Legally responsible? No, of course not. Their job is to rule on the law. They should be protected - outside corrupt practices - from sanction while doing that.
But there’s legal consequences and social consequences. If enough judges lose jobs coaching - or are generally social sanctioned for their rulings - then perhaps they’re out of step with the times and it’s a sign that laws may need some updating.
I hate to say “it depends,” but it depends. There is such a thing as making a socially outrageous judgment that is legally correct - i.e,. “It is probable that this man did indeed murder this victim, but we simply couldn’t reach the level of beyond-reasonable-doubt to convict, so I acquit him.” (technically, that might be a jury’s job but you get the point.) To socially punish a judge for doing this, is akin to a mob attacking a sports referee for making an unpopular but necessary call.
Now on the other hand, if a judge (or juror) issues a ruling that is egregious for egregious personal reasons, then I think that’s fair game. i.e., “I rule in favor of defendant because he is white and male, and I like to uphold white male privilege.”
What if the judge or jury is just more merciful than the public at large, and issues a lighter sentence than the public would like? I wouldn’t like to see such judges or jurors punished unless it is utterly extreme.
Edit: It would also lead to a slippery slope, or be ripe for abuse. Imagine if, 80 years ago, a judge had ruled in favor of a black defendant and then been vilified by a racist white community for doing so. The whole point of judges and juries is that they should be as removed from public opinion or bias as possible - Lady Justice should be blindfolded.
Just chiming in to say the point is moot. Once those parents realized that they don’t like him, the school has no choice in the matter. You can’t force parents to put their kids under supervision of someone they don’t like, especially for an elective after-school activity. It’s either let the guy go or lose the girl’s tennis team.
I would rather the state give him a new identity or just repeal judicial recall.
I imagine a lot of that has to do with how few cases are so high profile. Out of the hundreds of thousands of cases that go through the court system in a year, how many do you hear about. Maybe 10 or 20 on the federal level? Another hundred or so on your local news that are in your state? There’s probably plenty of controversial things going on in all those other cases no one outside of the courtroom ever hears about.
I’m sure, if you looked through all the other rape cases, Brock wasn’t the only person to receive such a light sentence. We also have to remember that (at least IMO) we can’t give someone a harsher sentence simply because their case has so much attention. I understand the idea of making an example out of someone (though I never much liked the concept), but hopefully a judge and jury aren’t swayed by what’s trending on social media.
PS, I realize this sounds like I’m defending the judge, that’s not the case. 6 months may not have been enough, but you don’t want it changed to 50 years (if it should be, for example, 10) simply because everyone on twitter is talking about it.
Luckily, the court of popular opinion will make his ‘sentence’ much, much longer.
ETA, I’m still curious why he thought, after a case like that, doing anything that involved the phrase ‘all girls’ would be a good idea. There’s still plenty of options for him, but none of them should be around ‘all girls’. Even if he knows he would never do anything wrong, he should still understand what people (and parents) are going to think.
Yes, as in why would that judge think it’s a good idea to work with a group made up entirely of people that felt he wronged them. You’d think that judge would know that of all the things he can do in life, hanging out with a group of girls every day after school probably isn’t one of them.
When they did, they were. Which is why they seldom did. Ditto with DAs and defense attorneys. Which was of course very wrong, and I think a good example of how “holding judges accountable” can go terribly wrong.
Yale has put video recordings of several semester-long courses online, including one about the death penalty. An entire segment is dedicated to how the risk of recall or losing an election can have the effect of making judges less than impartial, and create unfair bias against defendants accused of heinous crimes.
Video 1 of 2 is the lecture, video 2 is an interview as part of that same course with a former Tennessee State Supreme Court justice who lost re-election (and thereby narrowly lost out on becoming the first female Chief Justice of Tennessee’s Supreme Court) due to a ruling she made as an appellate judge years before. Very often (and in the specific case described in video 2) the judge’s unpopular ruling may be a mere pretext for the opposition or the recall campaign, with a less noble purpose (like, say, a lobbyist upset a judge ruled against their industrial backers) as the real cause.
So, I don’t know if the judge who decided Turner’s case was a turd or not, but I do worry that public outcry and the reaction it provokes may not always be in the interest of justice.
This sentence sounds like the girl’s tennis team is of the unanimous opinion that the judge “wronged them”. I’m skeptical that’s the case. Some women feel like he “wronged them” (and some of those might even be on the tennis team), but that opinion isn’t unanimous among women, correct?
You don’t seem to understand how sentencing works. State laws specify sentencing maximums for criminal cases. In California, someone convicted of rape can receive up to 8 years in jail. 30 or 50 years was never a possibility.
Turner was convicted on three counts. Each one was punishable by up to 8 years in prison. Sentenced to the maximum for each count and ordered to serve the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently (unlikely but possible), Turner could have been sentenced to a maximum of 24 years. The fact he was sentenced to 6 months probation was outrageous not only because it was such a light sentence fo such a horrific crime but because of the judge’s reasoning that a prison sentence would be too hard on the defendant.
Wouldn’t you agree that the basis for sentencing should be the nature of the crime, itself and not how hard the sentence might be on the guilty party? Life imprisonment is pretty hard on anybody, and execution, of course, is even harder.
This is the real problem with focussing on revenge on the judge. What people should really be using their energy on is getting the law changed to allow appeals against sentence.
When this thread started, I asked if appeals against sentence are allowed in the US, or are barred as a form of double jeopardy. The answer I got from law-talking US Dopers was that sentence appeals are constitutional, but are not common
Alright then. Give the prosecutor the power to appeal light sentences. Make the prosecutor have to advance good arguments for a higher sentence, based on the statutory provisions governing sentences. Give the defence the power to try to rebut those arguments, based on legal principles. Then have the appellate court rule.
If you want to ensure a just sentence in all cases, not just the ones where a pretty white girl is raped at a fancy university (not trying to discount her experience, but that’s what seems to have triggered the intense media coverage here), then change the law to allow for a systemic review of sentences that don’t meet the necessary legal standards. That way, you can have principled review in every case of a light sentence, not just the ones that catch the media attention. And it gives the defence the power to appeal what seems to be an excessive sentence, also a valuable measure.
All the talk about recalling the judge here “because it will make the other judges sit up and take notice” really is about the same as saying “be careful outdoors, you don’t want to be struck by lightning”. The media pack and the intense scrutiny doesn’t happen with every case of a light sentence, so it’s not really a systemic remedy. All it tells the judges is to be careful not to get a mob mad at you, for whatever reason. Here, it was a sentence the mob thought was too light. In another case, say a case involving political protests, the mob might find a sentence too heavy. There’s not predicting what the mob will get upset about. And in any even, that’s not what we want judges to do. We want them to sentence according to the laws and the facts, not worry whether what they think is the just and appropriate sentence will get the mob angry at them.
Giving the prosecutor the power to appeal light sentences is a true systemic remedy.
