Should we hold judges personally accountable for their rulings?

[ASL_v2.0]

@Saint_Cad

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.

Turner’s statement to the judge prior to sentencing is here. It is true that while he seems to express remorse, he never admits that he made a conscious decision to rape the victim and feels his conscious error was to drink to excess which led him to commit an act of rape while intoxicated. It was an imperfect statement, which the judge considered to at least be genuine, and so applied as mitigation in accordance with the statutes for sentencing.

Oh and being drunk apparently is an excuse to try to rape someone - at least as far as mitigating circumstances for sentencing are concerned.

Do you think doing the same thing while sober would make him more or less morally culpable? The judge included that in his reasoning, which I noted you have omitted from your quote. I’ll grant it’s an ugly question to have to consider, whether a rapist is more or less morally culpable while seriously intoxicated, but rape is an ugly thing and so is having to sentence a rapist.

There are ugly jobs in our society. I can imagine few jobs uglier than having to sit in judgement of criminal defendants. And I can think of no better way to ensure that good/capable/qualified people don’t want to risk their careers and their livelihood to stay away from being the ones to sit in those positions and make those decisions than to shun them when we disagree with their legally and ethically acceptable (and here I’m referring to the SCCBA’s letter on the subject) decisions. We should not pin the weight of our broader social problems onto a handful of frontline functionaries operating within the bounds of their profession.

I cannot fathom how someone could, while believing themselves to be a good or just person, take a man who went from a career as a prosecutor to then 13-years as a judge, focus in on one and only one decision that was fully in keeping with the bounds allowed to him by law, and force him to wear it around his neck as an albatross. And I believe that is absolutely what has been done in first recalling him, and then forcing him to (presumably) step down or be fired as a coach of a girl’s high school tennis team. It’s morally abhorrent to me.

[Bone]

@ASL_v2.0

I cannot fathom how someone could, while believing themselves to be a good or just person, take a man who went from a career as a prosecutor to then 13-years as a judge, focus in on one and only one decision that was fully in keeping with the bounds allowed to him by law, and force him to wear it around his neck as an albatross. And I believe that is absolutely what has been done in first recalling him, and then forcing him to (presumably) step down or be fired as a coach of a girl’s high school tennis team. It’s morally abhorrent to me.

The former judge got off easy. The rapist even easier. I don’t give two shits if the rapist was drunk or not and it makes no difference in his culpability. The penalty for raping an unconscious person should be much heavier and I wouldn’t shed a tear if he was incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.

[doreen]

@ASL_v2.0

Turner’s statement to the judge prior to sentencing is here. It is true that while he seems to express remorse, he never admits that he made a conscious decision to rape the victim and feels his conscious error was to drink to excess which led him to commit an act of rape while intoxicated. It was an imperfect statement, which the judge considered to at least be genuine, and so applied as mitigation in accordance with the statutes for sentencing.

Imperfect has got to be the understatement of the year. He barely mentions the victim, when he does, it’s in very general terms. Even when he does mention her, it’s really about him - It debilitates him “to think that my actions have caused her emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair.” Not only has he altered* his *life, “but I’ve also changed [redacted] and her family’s life”. He “never ever meant to intentionally hurt [redacted]”

And he goes on and on about how he’s been shattered by the party culture , how he lost his chance to get a Stanford degree and swim in the Olympics, he’s lost two jobs, he shakes uncontrollably about thinking about “what has happened” and so on. It’s almost as if he was trying to say he’s been punished enough.

just because a sentence might be legally permissible doesn’t mean it’s the right one. And just because law requires him to weigh certain enumerated factors doesn’t mean anyone has to agree that he gave each factor the proper weight. For example, I don’t see how someone who doesn’t seem to believe he did anything wrong when committing a rape can be seen as “not a danger” , nor do I understand giving credit for “remorse” to someone who apparently claimed he didn’t rape the victim because he was “genuine” about feeling the alcohol did it, not him. And I for one, would be a lot more inclined to say “anyone can make a mistake” if it wasn’t for this.. So it’s not one decision, it’s a couple,coincidentally or not both involving college athletes and rape. So if he’s my daughter’s high school tennis coach, why should I feel confident that he will handle it appropriately if she tells him an assistant coach or a football player has sexually assaulted her. And don’t tell me he shouldn’t have lost his job - tell me why I should trust him to handle such a complaint appropriately. Because if none of the parents trust him, none of their daughters’ will be on the tennis team and the school won’t need a coach.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Bone

The former judge got off easy. The rapist even easier. I don’t give two shits if the rapist was drunk or not and it makes no difference in his culpability. The penalty for raping an unconscious person should be much heavier and I wouldn’t shed a tear if he was incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.

shrug That at least would be an easy decision, and no more judges would ever have to put their careers, their livelihoods on the line for a rapist. Heck, why not just put 'em all to death? Don’t let my concern for judicial independence fool you. I actually am at least theoretically in support of the death penalty, though I do recognize there are serious flaws to its actual application.

@doreen

So if he’s my daughter’s high school tennis coach, why should I feel confident that he will handle it appropriately if she tells him an assistant coach or a football player has sexually assaulted her. And don’t tell me he shouldn’t have lost his job - tell me why I should trust him to handle such a complaint appropriately. Because if none of the parents trust him, none of their daughters’ will be on the tennis team and the school won’t need a coach.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of the portions of your post I left out of the above quote. I’ll grant that at best it was a judgment call that Persky made, one that I personally am not sure I’d have made, but then I’m not a judge: he is. I can only say with confidence that I think the personal consequences he has endured are in excess of what I think he deserves to be subjected to for having been a long-term public servant, who put himself in a position to have to make the sort of difficult decisions that I’d wager most of us would be loathe to make ourselves.

But as to the part above that I did quote, I would say that there is a difference between reporting a sexual assault and assessing the consequences of a sexual assault for the convicted defendant. I think it is wrong to equate the two, as if having one’s judgement questioned for a case involving the latter must necessarily bring one’s judgment into question for the former as well (and not only bring it into question, apparently, but make it highly suspect, to the point of being unemployable as a girl’s tennis coach). He may have made a bad call by not sentencing Turner to at least a prison term of a number of years (as opposed to jail, which in the US tends to be where shorter, less than one year sentences are served), but I don’t doubt for a minute that he’d be less likely to relay a report of an assault to the proper authorities than any other coach or mentor. Let’s not forget, he was a prosecutor before he was a judge. My entering assumption is that he must have been a pretty good prosecutor (by which I mean effective at putting criminals in jail) if he was later made a judge.

[aruvqan]

@doreen

And he goes on and on about how he’s been shattered by the party culture , how he lost his chance to get a Stanford degree and swim in the Olympics, he’s lost two jobs, he shakes uncontrollably about thinking about “what has happened” and so on. It’s almost as if he was trying to say he’s been punished enough.
.

And my abusive ex would be soooooo apologetic, bring me roses and treat me like a princess, swearing that it would never happen again yet I did end up with a week in a medically induced coma for a head injury caused by his slamming me into the corner of a wall, after a sprained wrist, bruised ribs from being kicked with a work boot, and assorted other injuries. Oddly enough, he tended to be very careful to not hit me in the face … so which time of being apologetic and swearing that it would never happen again was he serious and which times was he not. When he was calling me and stalking me, when was he serious and when was he not?

[Sitnam]

It is strange to me getting fired from a job seems to be such a big deal to so many. I mean, he may never have the chance again to pull down high school girls tennis coach money, but I’ll bet Starbucks is hiring.

People have gotten fired for being an asshole since there were jobs and assholes.

[doreen]

@ASL_v2.0

He may have made a bad call by not sentencing Turner to at least a prison term of a number of years (as opposed to jail, which in the US tends to be where shorter, less than one year sentences are served), but I don’t doubt for a minute that he’d be less likely to relay a report of an assault to the proper authorities than any other coach or mentor. Let’s not forget, he was a prosecutor before he was a judge. My entering assumption is that he must have been a pretty good prosecutor (by which I mean effective at putting criminals in jail) if he was later made a judge.

I do doubt that he’d be just as likely to report it as anyone else - because just because he was a good prosecutor doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a great big blind spot about athletes and rape. I mean, the very same district attorney who said “Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system.” had Persky removed from a sexual battery case.

[Saint_Cad]

@Bone

The penalty for raping an unconscious person should be much heavier

Interestingly enough, the judge does mention that. Then immediately glosses over that to tell how hard this has been on Turner.

Oh, and I’m not as culpable for my actions when I choose to drink will be a great defense if ever caught for drunk driving. :rolleyes:

And I love how an honest statement of “it wasn’t my fault, it was the alcohol’s fault” can any way be mitigating just because it was genuine.

So ultimately the judge used every excuse to give Turner a favorable sentence and gave no deference to anything that indicated a longer prison stay.

[puddleglum]

@Saint_Cad

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?

In the sentencing statement, which was easy to find, Persky goes through each criteria that California law says a judge must go through in deciding a sentence. One of them is impact of a prison sentence on the defendant. It is literally Persky’s job to do that and every judge that follows the law does so.

As for not thinking Turner would be a danger to others, it is also part of the criteria that is mandatory for judges to consider. If you are mad at him for following the law, then your beef is with the law.

[iiandyiiii]

@puddleglum

In the sentencing statement, which was easy to find, Persky goes through each criteria that California law says a judge must go through in deciding a sentence. One of them is impact of a prison sentence on the defendant. It is literally Persky’s job to do that and every judge that follows the law does so.

As for not thinking Turner would be a danger to others, it is also part of the criteria that is mandatory for judges to consider. If you are mad at him for following the law, then your beef is with the law.

If he was following guidelines, then that just reinforces how much the rules are different for rich people, and white people, and especially rich white people.

[Bone]

@puddleglum

In the sentencing statement, which was easy to find, Persky goes through each criteria that California law says a judge must go through in deciding a sentence. One of them is impact of a prison sentence on the defendant. It is literally Persky’s job to do that and every judge that follows the law does so.

As for not thinking Turner would be a danger to others, it is also part of the criteria that is mandatory for judges to consider. If you are mad at him for following the law, then your beef is with the law.

You’re implying the former judge had no discretion in the sentence that was delivered. Yes he needed to go through the required elements, but that elides over his deference to the rapist. He could have said, yes this would impact the rapist, but that impact is well deserved, etc. Maximum sentence allowable would still be following the law.

[Saint_Cad]

@puddleglum

In the sentencing statement, which was easy to find, Persky goes through each criteria that California law says a judge must go through in deciding a sentence. One of them is impact of a prison sentence on the defendant. It is literally Persky’s job to do that and every judge that follows the law does so.

As for not thinking Turner would be a danger to others, it is also part of the criteria that is mandatory for judges to consider. If you are mad at him for following the law, then your beef is with the law.

No one is arguing that. What we are arguing is that the judge chose to interpret every mitigating factor in favor of Turner even to the point of not making sense (it was not his fault completely because he was drunk, he shows no remorse or responsibility but his statement was genuine) and completely ignores any mitigating circumstances (like the victim being unconcious, the prosecuter’s recommendations) that would indicate more time in prison.

[Corry_El]

@Velocity

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.

More than a slippery slope IMO. The idea that ‘what the public thinks’ at any given moment, public agitation often dominated by extremes and the ignorant, should always be immediately carried into effect, is just wrong. It’s the wrong way to run things. Checks and balances and isolation of some govt functions from direct public recourse are necessary to have a reasonably well run society. Whereas there is no perfect society. If one thinks the system is ‘broken’ now, wait till serious stuff really depends what a Twitter Mob thinks at a given moment.

As to OP example I didn’t brush up it on purpose because making general rules according to exceptions is a generally bad idea. I also think that public outrage about persistently lenient sentences for particular crimes/situations tends to get factored in over time by most judges even if they don’t admit it. Whereas trying to make a system which works in every case is again impossible. The over-democratization of the justice system by legislating minimum sentences doesn’t have a good general track record IMO. And I’m skeptical of ‘but this is different, we are the woke and righteous, not the benighted people of the past’ which is such a common mode on the internet now.

Show me an example of coordinated harassing people in their private lives who were exercising their rights or legally carrying out official duties and I’ll be against it most times, either direction left/right (though let’s face it, one side is now way more in favor of that). Though there are exceptions to that rule like any other. And obviously it doesn’t mean you have to socialize with people you don’t want to socialize with, for any reason.

[puddleglum]

@Saint_Cad

Interestingly enough, the judge does mention that. Then immediately glosses over that to tell how hard this has been on Turner.

Oh, and I’m not as culpable for my actions when I choose to drink will be a great defense if ever caught for drunk driving. :rolleyes:

And I love how an honest statement of “it wasn’t my fault, it was the alcohol’s fault” can any way be mitigating just because it was genuine.

So ultimately the judge used every excuse to give Turner a favorable sentence and gave no deference to anything that indicated a longer prison stay.

According to California law Rule 4.413: One of the factors overcoming presumption of ineligibility for probation is youth and no significant record of previous crimes. Clearly Turner qualifies.

According to Rule 4.414 a judge is to take into account:

The Facts relating to the crime:

(1) The nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the crime as compared to other instances of the same crime; The judge found that this does not apply.

(2) Whether the defendant was armed with or used a weapon; Turner was not.

(3) The vulnerability of the victim; Judge weighted against Turner.

(4) Whether the defendant inflicted physical or emotional injury; Judge weighted against Turner.

(5) The degree of monetary loss to the victim; Does not apply to Turner

(6) Whether the defendant was an active or a passive participant;** Does not apply to this crime**

(7) Whether the crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, which is unlikely to recur; Does not apply to this crime

(8) Whether the manner in which the crime was carried out demonstrated criminal sophistication or professionalism on the part of the defendant;** Does not apply to Turner.**

(9) Whether the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the crime. Does not apply to Turner.

So of the 9 criteria, 7 apply to the Crime and 3 go against Turner and 4 favorable to Turner.

Fact related to the defendant:
(1) Prior record of criminal conduct, whether as an adult or a juvenile, including the recency and frequency of prior crimes; and whether the prior record indicates a pattern of regular or increasingly serious criminal conduct; Favorable to Turner

(2) Prior performance and present status on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole; Not Applicable

(3) Willingness to comply with the terms of probation; Favorable to Turner

(4) Ability to comply with reasonable terms of probation as indicated by the defendant’s age, education, health, mental faculties, history of alcohol or other substance abuse, family background and ties, employment and military service history, and other relevant factors; Favorable to Turner

(5) The likely effect of imprisonment on the defendant and his or her dependents; Favorable to Turner

(6) The adverse collateral consequences on the defendant’s life resulting from the felony conviction; Favorable to Turner

(7) Whether the defendant is remorseful; and Judge was conflicted because Turner expresses remorse for hurting the victim but did not admit culpability. The judge thought Turner’s remorse was sincere.

(8) The likelihood that if not imprisoned the defendant will be a danger to others Favorable to Turner

There are 8 Defendant factors, 7 apply and they are all favorable to Turner.
In total there are 14 applicable factors according to the law and 11 are favorable to Turner. It is therefore quite reasonable to grant him probation as part of his sentence.

[thorny_locust]

@puddleglum

(7) Whether the crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, which is unlikely to recur; Does not apply to this crime

Why would it not apply to this crime?

Being in the presence of a drunk person is not an unusual circumstance for many people, and it seems to me that it’s a situation which is indeed likely to recur. The fact that the answer to the question is “no” doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply; it means that it does apply, and IMO should have counted against Turner.

@puddleglum

(7) Whether the defendant is remorseful; and Judge was conflicted because Turner expresses remorse for hurting the victim but did not admit culpability. The judge thought Turner’s remorse was sincere.

Entirely a judgement call; and reads rather as if it’s based on ‘he’s being honest that he doesn’t think it was his fault.’ If Turner doesn’t think it was his fault, then he seems far more likely to do it again.

@puddleglum

(8) The likelihood that if not imprisoned the defendant will be a danger to others Favorable to Turner

Entirely a judgement call; and I don’t see the basis for calling it that way.

In addition, while all of those items are indeed to be considered, is there anything saying they all have to be weighted equally – in particular that the damage caused to the victim by the crime has to be weighted exactly equally with the damage expected to be caused to the perpetrator by the sentence?

[bump]

@puzzlegal

What’s happening here is that future employers are taking his work-history into account, just as they would for any other employee. In particular, his actions suggest that he isn’t fit to counsel or mentor teenage girls, which is a critical component to this job.

Right- the thinking goes more like “This guy’s an asshole who condones rape… we don’t want him around our girls.”, not that they have some sort of overall problem with his judicial record or philosophy.

[Saint_Cad]

(3) The vulnerability of the victim; Judge weighted against Turner.

(4) Whether the defendant inflicted physical or emotional injury; Judge weighted against Turner.

I don’t think so. The judge may have mentioned it but I don’t anyone actually thinks he considered those mitigating circumstances against Turner on the sentence.

(5) The likely effect of imprisonment on the defendant and his or her dependents; Favorable to Turner

(6) The adverse collateral consequences on the defendant’s life resulting from the felony conviction; Favorable to Turner

News flash. Going to prison sucks. You know what else sucks? Being raped.

(7) Whether the defendant is remorseful; and Judge was conflicted because Turner expresses remorse for hurting the victim but did not admit culpability. The judge thought Turner’s remorse was sincere.

Strange almost no one else felt that way. From the victim

“Unfortunately, after reading the defendant’s statement, I am severely disappointed and feel that he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol,” she wrote. “Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try and dilute rape with a suggestion of promiscuity. By definition rape is the absence of promiscuity, rape is the absence of consent, and it perturbs me deeply that he can’t even see that distinction.”

Oh and his statement lied about her condition saying she was concious when eyewitnesses testified she was not. And he admitted he was ticketed for underage drinking before but that did not deter him from drinking (didn’t the Judge say he was not likely to re-commit the crime? Even though he had a history re-commiting crimes) and later he said he never had trouble with law enforcement before (Forgot about that ticket for underage drinking?). But he does talk about regretting that’s night . . . oh wait he regrets it because of the negative effects on HIS life. He lost 2 jobs. Boo Hoo. Papers write articles about him. Boo Hoo. 11 pages and he manages only TWO SENTENCES acknowledging his actions hurt her. He spent more time in the letter denying her raped her. Sincere? Yeah. I sincerely think I did nothing wrong. Explain how that should mitigate his sentence in his favor.

[RickJay]

@Northern_Piper

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?

Persky’s being recalled was a decision made by the voters. Probation officers aren’t elected officials.

@AK84

I think the main problem is that most people (RickJay included) have a rather warped idea of criminal procedure and practice.

You simply aren’t listening. I’m not criticizing how he did his job, nor have I suggested he should have ignored the law or had Turner executed. The parents the OP refers to are not turning him down for a job as a judge. I really don’t think you understand the issue. It’s not about whether or not Persky’s decision was legally correct.

[Saint_Cad]

And just to be clear, Turner’s dad who said that the sentence was too harsh for “20 minutes of action” should not be in a position of mentorship of high school girls either.

[Pantastic]

@ASL_v2.0

I cannot fathom how someone could, while believing themselves to be a good or just person, take a man who went from a career as a prosecutor to then 13-years as a judge, focus in on one and only one decision that was fully in keeping with the bounds allowed to him by law, and force him to wear it around his neck as an albatross. And I believe that is absolutely what has been done in first recalling him, and then forcing him to (presumably) step down or be fired as a coach of a girl’s high school tennis team. It’s morally abhorrent to me.

I cannot fathom how someone could, while beleiving themselves to be a good or just person, object to parents not wanting a rape apologist coaching their teenage daughters on a sports team. How someone can find it “morally abhorrent” that parents would object to putting in charge of their female children a man who feels that if a male illegally drinks alcohol and rapes said children, the illegal alcohol use should at least partially excuse his actions.

You and puddlegum both seem intently, narrowly focused on whether what the judge did was technically legal. Yet no one in this thread, including the OP (me), or the parents petitioning to remove him as coach has stated that their position is based on him doing anything illegal; the objection is on moral and possibly ethical grounds. To make an analogy, in Rhode Island it’s actually legal to drug your spouse unconscious and then have sex with them, even if the two of you are separated and they’ve made it clear they no longer want sex with you under any circumstances. If parents objected to having their girls coached by a man who bragged about drugging and raping his wife until the divorce papers finally went through, arguing ‘but what he did was legal’ would make no sense at all.