Turner sent photos of the victim’s breast to his friends while assaulting her.
From the above link, we also learn that he was a bully in high school according to an acquaintance.
From the grandparents:
See, if they had only kept quiet, the public would never have to know they think being raped is somehow as much of a crime as raping someone is. How dare she press charges against the guy who violated her, when she was basically asking for it by being drunk! Aargh, with supporters like this, he doesn’t need enemies.
After reading her letter, I wondered whether anyone ever investigated whether she’d been unintentionally drugged. It doesn’t sound like she binged drunk that night, so her unexpectedly losing consciousness at just the right time for Turner to pounce on her behind a dumpster seems weirdly coincidental. Does anyone know anything about this?
The Thames Valley Police prepared a cartoon video that might help stupid people grasp the concept of sexual consent.
I saw that a few weeks ago. It’s excellent.
I defended the judge earlier. As he had access to facts (eg the probation report) which we didn’t have I thought there was something there which would justify the leniency of the sentence.
Now that we can see the information it contained I am astonished that he came to such a decision. The guy was a sexual predator in the making.
I now say fuck this judge, he’s a total wanker.
They still do that, but it’s not what it used to be. These days they do a background check before letting you join. That said I’m like 90% sure the check is just to see whether you are actively sought by the Law and/or escaped from prison or somesuch ; a past conviction for shit behaviour is par for the course.
However, the false name is purely cosmetic : the Legion admin knows exactly who you are and what you did ; they won’t deliver ID for your Legion name ; and when you leave the Legion or get kicked out you have to resume your former identity (though if you’ve finished your 5 year contract, you do still get a brand new French citizenship out of the deal - assuming the Legion itself doesn’t fuck you out of it, which they often do to keep people re-signing the contract).
In my opinion, that comment crosses a line I’m not comfortable with.
But in the judge’s opinion? Hey, just make sure to keep it under twenty minutes.
That has to be the most awful, disgusting people collected together that I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading about. I feel dirty after all that. And you know, low income trashy people really get their share of vitriol aimed at them, but who knew it could really be a bunch of soulless, rich assholes that were the true despicable scum? I’d rather hang out with the Springer types any day than these vipers-in-hiding, delusional, entitled fuckers any day.
ETA: I also think that judge was payed off somehow. He should be disbarred.
They’re working on that.
Do you have any basis for making such an assertion?
I think they are upper middle class assholes according to Mom’s letter. 
Thank God.
Now days, doesn’t that qualify them for a rich designation?
Well, I’m an upper middle class asshole and I see the difference between me and rich. But I don’t seem to be as upper middle class or as much of an ass hat.
And I’m perfectly willing to admit my kids can be fuck ups - my son BARELY passed Spanish and only though the good graces of his teacher who let him turn in his final project after school ended so he could squeak by with a D-. My daughter is going through a severe cycle of teenage selfish angst along with inheriting my depression and anxiety - making her appear to be a true pain in the ass.
Thank God.
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I don’t agree with recall of a judge over a particular decision. It undercuts the independence of the judiciary, by making them more likely to consider harsher sentences, to preserve their own jobs, not because they think the convicted person deserves it, as argued by a former prosecutor in the article linked up-thread: Judicial Recall Will Inevitably Lead to Harsher Sentences
I would argue that the answer is in broad appeal rights on sentence, so that if the trial judge makes an error, based on the applicable law and the facts of the case, the prosecutor can appeal it and have another court take a look at it. The overall goal is to have the convicted person receive a fair and just sentence, based on the applicable legal principles.
Going after the judge here just seems a proxy for outrage over the sentence, because there’s apparently no way to appeal the sentence and have it corrected on appeal.
Recall or impeachment of a judge should be limited to clear misconduct in office (taking a bribe, diddling expense accounts, etc), not an error in judgment in a particular case.
This is the important part. For my WAG, I do believe money (or something equivalent) changed hands. Because I simply cannot fathom a judge having all that damning information at their fingers tips and then sentencing that prick the way he did, all the while knowing the results would end up vilified on the national stage. The man is a Stanford alumni, so my hunch is that the connection begins there. And if the cumulative effect somehow doesn’t reach the level of misconduct, I fear more for our society facing this sort of Kangaroo Kourt and they’re contempt for the victims, than I do for a possible nebulous “harsher sentencing.”
Well, I’m not prepared to assume a judge committed a criminal offence without seeing strong evidence of it.
And, broader rights of appeal would achieve the goal you seek: establishing uniform standards for sentencing, based on legal rulings from the appellate courts, rather than each judge assessing whether a particular sentence will cause outrage in the court of public opinion.
I understand and I applaud you being a lot more level-headed on this issue than I am, because the very emotional nature can indeed have too much impact. However, I’ll concede that broader rights of appeal does sound more promising. Unfortunately, I bet the wait for that to be put into place and be useful, will take a very long time indeed.
Well, if those political operatives mentioned in the article I linked to would take a long view of it and take the view that changing the system may be more effective for their goals than getting one judge kicked off the bench, then maybe change could happen. But they seem focussed on disciplining this one judge rather than making systemic change.
I agree, but, not by accident, changing the system is complicated and not widely understood.
And this reaction DOES send a message, though I doubt they’ll get the judge removed.