Then explain why drunk drivers are punished merely for driving while sober drivers are not.
Because being drunk in itself makes one less fit to drive safely than when one is sober; therefore anyone driving while drunk is significantly increasing their chances of causing an accident. Therefore combining choosing to get drunk and choosing to drive a car in that state amounts to choosing to significantly increase one’s chances of killing or maiming somebody. It’s not getting drunk in itself that’s being punished, it’s driving while physically unfit to drive.
Most people who get drunk don’t commit rape, or at any rate don’t commit a rape that they wouldn’t commit if they were sober. Therefore choosing to get drunk, even in the company of others, doesn’t amount to choosing to increase one’s chances of committing rape – at least, except for a person who has a history of committing sexual assault while drunk but is able to restrain themselves while sober; in which case I, at least, would argue that that person shouldn’t be drinking. I don’t see how to write a law to that effect, though, except in cases where there’s already been a conviction, in which case staying sober could certainly be a condition of the sentence.
He did say it–with his actions. People do this thing where they say one thing with their words, while their actions show something else.
He gave the lowest sentence he could to this rapist, and his stated reasons were that it would hurt this guy’s reputation and life prospects. He considered rape a youthful indiscretion. And despite all of the backlash, he held firm on all of this.
There is no reason to believe that he wouldn’t also think that anyone on the tennis team getting raped shouldn’t hurt someone’s reputation, and thus not report. It would be consistent with his previous actions and refusal to apologize.
Someone who thinks rape is less important than saving the perpetrator’s reputation is not someone who can be trusted to report rape. It doesn’t matter that the guy is a judge.
No, the problem is that people in the legal profession often seem entirely concerned with the legalities of a situation, when legality is not is what is being discussed. They often forget that those in the legal profession still exist within a society, and their actions still can have social consequences.
Sure, you can argue that Persky anything inappropriate from a legal perspective. No one in this thread has argued he has.
But what is going on here is not legal consequences, nor illegal action. The situation here is people in society reacting to Persky as a member of said society. They are using their freedoms of speech and association to speak out against the guy, and to threaten not to allow their children to associate with the school unless they fire him. The school then used its freedom of association to fire the guy.
These people have the legal right to do what they are doing, as these are basic freedoms. No democracy would want to remove these freedoms.
Like it or not, Persky’s sentencing included aspects that touch on society, and the minimization of rape. He said things that reflect his own personal beliefs, rather than requirements of the law. And thus people in a society will react to those stated beliefs, rather than just see him as performing the duties of the law.
What’s fascinating to me is that they seem narrowly focused on arguing that what the judge did was not illegal even though there is not a single person who claims that the judge did anything illegal, but also object strenuously to people who aren’t judges behaving in a completely legal manner with regards to picking coaches for their children and their own friends. There’s a very big double standard that they won’t even acknowledge; if “it was technically legal so it’s perfectly fine” is valid for the judge, the same standard should apply to parents and individuals who are also not breaking any laws by objecting to a coach or deciding not to interact socially with the judge.
You are arguing that his required rationalizations as a judge, where he was required to consider both defense and prosecution arguments in an adversarial system, weight both mitigating factors and aggravating factors, must necessarily be carried over into his performance as a tennis coach on the grounds that “there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t.” I think your logic is faulty, in part because I don’t think you’ve demonstrated a reason to believe “he would,” either. Even if I grant that he was overly lenient as a judge.
A justice system that stops at “thing bad,” and can’t be bothered to explicitly consider factors beyond guilt and innocence in imposing sentence (to include mitigating circumstances and, yes, the impact of the sentence on the offender too) isn’t a justice system, it’s a law code, and more worthy of a Bronze Age tribe fixated on keeping some deity or “great king” happy than a modern society that values human life and well-being to include, yes, even the life of the guilty.
-
I don’t know who “they” refers to, but it certainly must not include me. If it did, it would be a straw man and I wouldn’t want to accuse you of that.
-
What’s fascinating to me is that the title of the thread begins with “should,” not “may.” And yet both you and others (but certainly not all, or exclusively) seem to want to frame this as being about whether or not parents are “allowed” or “have a right” to do something (may). I don’t believe anyone is arguing they can’t, only that they shouldn’t. And, as in point 1, I believe I have stated why I believe they shouldn’t, even as you continue to insist that no one can come up with an explanation for why they shouldn’t.
There is a huge difference between something being legal to do and what the is legally mandated. What Persky did was not “technically legal”, it was mandated by the law.
That law was passed by the California legislature and was binding on the judge when he acted. Apparently every California legislature and the governor should also be a pariah, the probation officer should be a pariah, and every defense attorney who ever represented someone accused of rape.
Those persecuting Perksy are doing what is perfectly legal, but immoral. What people should want from a judge first and foremost is that they follow the law, and trying to hurt a judge for doing his job is an attack on the rule of law.
What Persky did was most definitely not mandated by the law. If you believe that it was, quote for us exactly what law compelled him to give the minimum sentence to an unrepentant recidivist criminal. Yes, he was required to consider various factors, no he was not compelled weigh them in a way that reached the decision he eventually made. The repeated claim that what he did was mandated by law is simply false, and it would be nice if you would stop making the false claim, especially when you continue to accuse other posters of “dishonesty” and claim that the parents in this case are lying with no evidence to support said claim.
Again, not one single person has objected to him following the law. And your claim that it is ‘immoral’ for parents to not want a rape apologist coaching their children is, again, completely unsupported.
[quote=“ASL_v2.0, post:126, topic:840127”]
What’s fascinating to me is that you made the bold but completely unsupported claim that parents choosing not to have a rape apologist coach their children “undermines the neutrality and independence of the judiciary in a way that would have the net effect of harming marginalized defendants?” and that you “don’t think Persky has done anything worthy of being shunned in a just society.” And yet now you claim (through implication) that it would be a strawman for me to state that you “object strenuously” to what the parents did. It is simply not anywhere remotely close to a strawman to use the phrase “object strenuously” to describe statements like “How about it undermines the neutrality and independence of the judiciary in a way that would have the net effect of harming marginalized defendants?” or “I don’t think Persky has done anything worthy of being shunned in a just society.”
And I don’t believe that anyone claimed that anyone is arguing that they can’t. Seriously, are you saying that “Jim objects strenuously to what Hal did” means “Jim believes that Hal can’t have done what he did” and not “Jim believes that Hal shouldn’t have done what he did”?