And I understand that. But the problem I see is, if it’s not permissible to object to something for good reasons if somebody else is objecting to it for all the wrong reasons, it becomes impossible to object to much of anything.
If a group whose postions I generally oppose takes what appears to be the same position on a specific issue as I do, that’s a good reason to look hard at my own position and my reasons for holding it, yes. But it’s not a good reason to automatically switch over and say ‘if they’re agin it, I must be for it, or at least I must shut up about it’.
And the issue here isn’t only that that specific rich white kid already got off. It’s whether the next rich white kid will expect that they’ll also get off; and whether the next rich white kid’s victim – whether or not they’re themselves rich and/or white – will feel themselves unable to seek justice, or to try to protect other future potential victims, because they’ll expect their rapist to get at most a handslap combined with sympathy from the judge.
Exactly. If you want systemic change, you need a systemic remedy, such as appeals that correct a wrong case and set the legal standard that all other sentencing judges have to comply with.
Piling on to one judge “pour encourager les autres” based on whether the case triggered media and public activism is no substitute for systemic remedies. It doesn’t give the prosecutors any way to seek to correct the error in cases that don’t attract media and public attention but are just as egregiously bad.
Which is why I have serious misgivings about holding judges “personally accountable,” particularly when we start treating judges who are put in a decision to decide the fate of sex offenders as if they are themselves sex offenders because they made an unpopular decision, the law requires them to justify their unpopular decision in light of certain things, and we’re outraged that they even dared to consider “certain things” in their decision.
Yes. Do you want judges saying to themselves “I have to do the best possible job of applying the law to the facts of this case, even if it’s unpopular. If I’m wrong the appeals court will fix it.”
Or do you want judges saying “I want to keep my job, so I’m going to give the result that will keep people happy with me, even if I don’t think that’s the correct legal result.”
Job security coupled with appeals are a way better judicial system than no appeals and the random chance of recall.
The bit about holding judges legally accountable for rulings isn’t what I was getting at, but rather holding them socially accountable, as in “I don’t want that guy who thinks rape is not as big a deal as the consequences possibly messing up this rapists career hanging out around my friends or coaching my daughter” or “I don’t want to hang around with someone who thinks that if a rape victim is capable of having fun a year after her rape, she’s clearly not traumatized”. The point about judges getting death threats for rulings in desegregation cases and the like also isn’t really what I was getting at, I presume the people doing that were categorizing it as ‘extreme disregard of law and morality’ like taking a bribe or fixing trials, and in any case is far beyond deciding that they’re not an appropriate person to supervise children or hang out with.
I haven’t seen any good argument for not holding a judge accountable for their rulings in the sense of objecting to having them as a teacher/coach/daycare worker or declining to be friends with them. A lot of people do seem to object, but I’m not seeing an argument for why it’s wrong, and there are a number of people who agree with my position.
I have no desire to have judges saying “I have to apply the lowest sentence I can get away with to this rich white guy, clearly the risk of a prison sentence impacting his life is a much bigger deal than the damage he already did to her life”, which is what happened in the original case. Overall I think that judges, prosecutors, and the police should be held accountable for much, much more than they are now and that “I was just following the law” is much like “I was just following orders”, but that’s not the topic of this thread.
The parents aren’t piling on the judge “pour encourager les autres.” They’re refusing to let him coach their teenage daughters “pour prevente le rape.” The OP, and associated link, make this extremely clear. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand here.
You are creating a false dilemma between the actual facts and a straw man.
Well you are. You have called his (very proper) weighing of factors as being somehow showing he didn’t “take sexual assault seriously.”
Which is ridiculous, but here we are.
I think the main problem is that most people (RickJay included) have a rather warped idea of criminal procedure and practice. The impressions that people get are from popular media. And that, is even in the most “realistic” productions, is going to be abbreviated.
Sentencing on TV typically takes place in a few seconds the Judge says something like Sentence you to life and take him own, maybe preceding with a cathartic scolding and then the film ends as the wronged heroine gets justice and is embraced by her family, maybe reconciling with love interest.
In real life, it does not happen like that. In real life lots of stuff gets submitted, either orally or in writing, usually both. The defence will be putting everything forward in mitigation, to get the lowest possible sentence. And the judge will have to consider it.
I can well imagine that seems like unwarranted praise to a layman, especially if they are unaware of the context of the case and practice generally.
Someone said, upthread, that if a judge considered a law to be immoral, that he should just “make a fucking illegal decision.” Not only is that Kim Davis logic (Davis refused to grant gay marriage licenses even though the law required her to, because it ran afoul of her morality,) but such an illegal decision would probably just be overturned by a higher court anyway.
As I recall, this was the approach taken by Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, when he directed the entire state court system not to follow the Constitution, because he believed that same-sex marriage was immoral and contrary to a higher law than the US Constitution.
You’re okay with that particular public official relying on his personal sense of morality to conclude that implementing same-sex marriage would result in great evil, I take it?
How about it undermines the neutrality and independence of the judiciary in a way that would have the net effect of harming marginalized defendants?
Again, the way people are talking about the judge in the Turner case “I wouldn’t want him coaching young girls, I wouldn’t want him mentoring any children at all for that matter,” it’s like you think he’s as bad as a sex offender himself. I’d be curious to know who else you people would like to affix scarlet letters to. I mean, it goes without saying that convicted sex offenders (all of them, not just the white privileged male ones, right?) should be a permanent underclass, but their judges too?
And at the risk of being accused of whataboutism…what about defense attorneys? Didn’t Brock Turner’s defense attorney have some good things to say about him? Should he be allowed to coach children’s soccer? Should any other defense attorney who has ever said nice things about their defendant? After all, the judge wouldn’t have said all those “nice things” about Turner as part of his (required) justification for giving a relatively light sentence if it hadn’t been offered as mitigation by one of them damn defense attorneys, standing up for a rapist.
The judge stated clearly and unequivocably that he had more sympathy for the unrepentant perpetrator of rape than he did for the victim of the rape, and that his sentencing was based on concern for the effect of punishment on the unrepentant rapist, while completely disregarding the effect of the rape on the victim. Further, this wasn’t a mandated sentence - while legal, giving such a low sentence was entirely his own decision, he wasn’t required to do it under any law. (And the reason I say ‘unrepentant’ is that Brock the rapist maintains that the unconscious girl consented to sex with him; he doesn’t even acknowledge that he did anything to repent for.)
But lets cut through your ridiculous hyperbole - the two consequences I stated for the judge in this case were that he not be allowed to coach a high school girls’ tennis team, and that I would not be friends with him. Are you saying that a parent isn’t allowed any say as to who is put in charge of their children? Or that I as an individual am not allowed to decide who I hang out with or allow into my home? That if I decide that I don’t want to be friends with someone who thinks that rape is no big deal and whiny crybabies should stop ruining the careers of rich swimmers over it, and don’t want them in my house or in charge of my daughters while they’re going to an away game where they wear skimpy outfits to compete, that I am creating a block of ‘second class citizens’? This in spite of me having no power over anything but their interactions with me and my family? It sounds like you’re arguing that people don’t have the right of free association, that if the ever decide that they don’t personally like someone they’re somehow obligated to spend time with that person, which is a rather bizarre position to take.
It’s fascinating to consider that, on one hand, people tend to use ‘rape or murder’ as the default shorthand for ‘really bad crimes that use of deadly force is justified to prevent’ and on the other hand argue that ‘deciding that you don’t want to hang out with someone who thinks rape is no big deal is too much, and you’re creating second-class citizens by doing so’.
Okay, so if and when I have time to read the full sentencing decision (if it’s publicly available online) I’m going to get back to you. I suspect your position is based on cherry-picked facts. Not cherry-picked deliberately by you, mind you, but various media organizations more interested in shocking headlines than in balanced reporting. But I guess I’ll have to go straight to the source for that, if I have time and if I can find it. If you happen to know already where it may be posted online, I would be glad to give it a look.
In the mean time…
People are free to associate with whomever, yes. I am simply arguing that I don’t think Persky has done anything worthy of being shunned in a just society, even by parents of teenage tennis players.
And since you’ve accused me of making a “radical claim” (your words), referring to my concerns that judicial independence may be jeopardized by the sort of social consequences you advocate, allow me to at least offer evidence that it’s not just my own personal fringe hypothesis:
As for the other key citation mentioned, the one from the Santa Clara County Bar Association, I think it’s only fair that I link to it directly since you’ve accused me, again, of making a “radical claim” for suggesting basically the same thing as a bunch of lawyers who would, apart from defendants, be the most likely to feel the direct effects of such an outcome:
While the statement was made specifically in response to (ultimately successful) recall attempts, it also speaks to concerns over the broader social drawback judges may face, and why that’s bad:
If Judge Persky followed the recommendation of the probation officer in this case, then shouldn’t the probation officer be fired, on the same basis that Persky was recalled? The probation officer obviously reached the same conclusion as Persky. How can we afford to have a probation officer, a public official, with that mind-set making recommendations on sentence?
My position is based on the judge’s own words on the matter, which are relevant facts, but do take your time and read whatever you’re going to read.
And I think that your idea that a ‘just society’ would require parents to be fine with having their teenage daughters coached by a man who thinks that rape is no big deal and that protecting the career of the unrepentant rapist is more important than the damage he did to the victim, and would force me to hang out with him shows that your ‘just society’ would not be at all ‘just’ in my eyes, and in fact would be downright Orwellian.
You can’t change your statement, then say that my description of the original was unfair. You stated that “it undermines…” not anything about “may be jeopordized”, softening your statement from the one I called radical means that you’re stepping away from what I objected to.
Both of your cites are irrelevant as they discuss the recall election, which is specifically not the topic of this thread, and was explicitly not what you said “it undermines” about originally. The Santa Clara County Bar Association seems to make a more general statement about the possible impact of judges feeling social reprecussions, but fails to support it with anything but bald assertion. It certainly doesn’t say anything specific to the topic of forcing people to be friends with a pro-rapist judge.
Where does the judge state clearly and unequivocally that he had more sympathy for the unrepentant perpetrator of rape than he did for the victim of the rape, and that his sentencing was based on concern for the effect of punishment on the unrepentant rapist, while completely disregarding the effect of the rape on the victim?
I really don’t understand that parents should be compelled to have this guy as their daughters coach. Surely they should have the right to withdraw their children if they are uneasy about something even if the coach used to be a judge.
Strangely enough it’s hard to find Persky’s statement’s but I found this quote from him in an article.
“A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him … I think he will not be a danger to others.”
As to the first, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?
As to the second, he tried to rape an unconcious woman and has no remorse for it. Who would let their daughter date him thinking he wouldn’t do it again?
Re: Saint Cad
I found the full statement available at The Guardian.
Haven’t given it a full read yet because, well, I do have other things that I do besides post on the dope, as I’m sure all of us do. It is, of course a worthy exercise, and one that I feel obliged to do because so much of what has been attributed to Judge Persky has come from his statement.
Of note, after a cursory read, it would appear he was required BY LAW to consider both mitigating and aggravating circumstances in imposing his sentence. I feel the cherry picking from news outlets has come from somewhat unfairly quoting his statements about mitigating circumstances, as if he made those statements freely and in isolation, with no obligation to mention mitigating factors in judging the sentence.
The statement about the severe impact a prison term would have on Turner was, for instance, one of the mitigating factors he was to consider, IAW California law. Had he not considered it, the defense might have had grounds for appeal.
So basically everything was interpreted in Turner’s favor. All the victim wanted was him to take ownership of what he did and he couldn’t even do that. Oh and being drunk apparently is an excuse to try to rape someone - at least as far as mitigating circumstances for sentencing are concerned.