Stupid Privileged White Kid Gets 6 Months for Rape, Father describes it as "20 minutes of action"

[madsircool]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Bricker has this same confusion about “legal” and “right”.

Right according to who? Legal has the benefit of being a part of our democratic process.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@madsircool

Right according to who? Legal has the benefit of being a part of our democratic process.

Don’t tell me you suffer from the same problem… I thought you were well able to realize when each is being discussed and not confuse the two.

[Bricker]

From Vox.

Titled “The recall of the judge who sentenced Brock Turner will end up hurting poor, minority defendants
I’m a public defender. Here’s why the recall vote is no progressive victory.”

Many people were outraged by the light sentence given to Brock Turner, the former Stanford swimmer, after his sexual assault conviction: a mere six months (of which he served three). The sentence inspired a national debate. On Tuesday, voters in Santa Clara County voted to recall Judge Aaron Persky, who imposed that sentence.

That is a terrible mistake, whether or not you agree with the sentence.

This was the first successful recall in California in almost 90 years. Though the recall only involved one judge, its impact will be felt nationwide.
.
.
.
I am not arguing that Turner’s sentence was the right one. Indeed, as a public defender, I am all too aware of the racial and class disparities in sentencing that redounded to Turner’s benefit. I have previously written about the ways privileged criminal defendants often are rewarded precisely because of their privileges. (One need look no further than Harvey Weinstein, who easily posted bail and did not spend a day in jail after his arrest.) But allowing an uninformed public to punish a judge for one unpopular decision jeopardizes the integrity of our entire system.
.
.
.
The recall campaign was led by people lacking any criminal law experience. Many lawyers who have actually appeared before Judge Persky in criminal cases describe him as a thoughtful, smart judge. Even the head prosecutor where Persky presided opposed the recall, noting that Persky was not actually known for leniency and that “most judges in California would have done the same thing” in sentencing Turner. (Indeed, Persky followed the probation department’s sentencing recommendation.)

People without experience in criminal law, confidently asserting claims about criminal law?

I’m shocked.

[Morgenstern]

@Bricker

From Vox.

Titled “The recall of the judge who sentenced Brock Turner will end up hurting poor, minority defendants
I’m a public defender. Here’s why the recall vote is no progressive victory.”

People without experience in criminal law, confidently asserting claims about criminal law?

I’m shocked.

Bricker, as a PD you well know that the punishment fitting the crime is a keystone of the judicial system. Every properly handed down sentence is a lesson to those who feel crime pays. Certainly the judge followed sentencing guidelines, but he lessened the severity of what the defendant had done, and that was considered a misuse of his judicial power by the voters. So, you’re wrong, it was a victory for law and order, progressive or otherwise.

[Tamerlane]

@Bricker

From Vox.

Titled “The recall of the judge who sentenced Brock Turner will end up hurting poor, minority defendants
I’m a public defender. Here’s why the recall vote is no progressive victory.”

@Morgenstern

Certainly the judge followed sentencing guidelines, but he lessened the severity of what the defendant had done, and that was considered a misuse of his judicial power by the voters. So, you’re wrong, it was a victory for law and order, progressive or otherwise.

Honestly, I think both of those POV are correct. I’m pretty conflicted about the whole thing.

[Bricker]

@Morgenstern

Bricker, as a PD you well know that the punishment fitting the crime is a keystone of the judicial system. Every properly handed down sentence is a lesson to those who feel crime pays. Certainly the judge followed sentencing guidelines, but he lessened the severity of what the defendant had done, and that was considered a misuse of his judicial power by the voters. So, you’re wrong, it was a victory for law and order, progressive or otherwise.

What is your response to the author’s conclusions that “Given that the criminal justice system disproportionately targets and prosecutes the poor and people of color, the ones who suffer from judges feeling pressured to sentence harshly are not people with privilege like Turner, but those without privilege?”

Do you have a reaction to this Washington Post writer, who opines:

The light sentence was outrageous. Thus, pulling Persky from the bench seems like a victory for justice. It’s a statement that sexual assault should be taken seriously, that penetrating someone while drunk is not a slap-on-the-wrist offense. It’s a repudiation of the sort of bias that makes the recommended sentence too “severe” for a white, male, upper-middle-class swim star, even when it would have been accepted for anyone else.
.
.
.
What will happen when the rest of California’s elected judges, worried about mob scrutiny, decide that lenient sentencing is a one-way path to joblessness and begin to sentence even more harshly? The people most affected by that calculation won’t be the ones who look like Turner. They’ll be those who most often fall victim to harsh sentencing overall — minorities and the poor.

[Typo_Negative]

In my work as a public defender in Oakland, California, I have observed how the recall effort has changed judges, whether consciously or not, making them more timid about taking risks on defendants who deserve mercy.

Can you explain why Brock Turner deserved mercy?

[Bricker]

An article from that bastion of conservative thought and law and order policing Mother Jones:

To help understand some of the unanticipated ramifications of a recall, Mother Jones recently spoke with Alicia Bannon, a senior counsel at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on fair courts. Here are the key takeaways:

The pressures of an election year push judges to be harder on criminal defendants. Political scientists have found repeatedly that as an election approaches, judges running for their seats become less likely to rule in favor of defendants, including death penalty appellants. They also hand down longer prison sentences in attempts to avoid decisions that could be unpopular with voters, who have historically opposed candidates viewed as being “soft on crime.” “It’s a deeply troubling finding,” Bannon says. “It’s not the job of the judge to make a decision that’s popular.”
.
.
.
Minority defendants have the most to lose. “This is something that isn’t being experienced equally by everyone in our society,” Bannon says. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system mean that any time the system as a whole gets harsher, people of color are disproportionately affected.

Thoughts?

[Slash1972]

@Bricker

Thoughts?

I think it’s horrible that judges care more about their jobs than making sure their sentences are fair.

[Typo_Negative]

Seems like they are saying ‘yeah, there’s racial bias and privilege, and that’s bad…but lets not do anything about it, lest there be even more bias against minority defendants.’

[elbows]

One recall in 90 yrs and the justice system will implode? Get a grip.

Everyone is tired of the weak tea that is, ‘he was following the parole board rec!’. He had recs from the prosecutor too. He chose which to follow, he’s the judge. It IS on him.

And no it’s not ONLY those in the justice system who get a say in shaping it. Every citizen eligible to appear in court gets a say too.

And it’s time for something to change. No, actually, it’s long past time for change, on this front and many others within the justice system.

Fixing it from within, and legislative actions (like 3 strikes) have failed quite spectacularly to produce change. Instead now there are for profit prisons that charge million dollar penalties to the state if they’re not kept full.

I have no problem with this action by the citizens, sending a loud message to justices that it’s the 21st century and time for some changes.

[CaptMurdock]

Bricker, let me ask you this:

If Brock Turner hadn’t been white, hadn’t been attending Stanford, and hadn’t come from a wealthy family, do you think Judge Persky would have given him 6 months?

[mhendo]

@Morgenstern

Bricker, as a PD you well know that the punishment fitting the crime is a keystone of the judicial system. Every properly handed down sentence is a lesson to those who feel crime pays. Certainly the judge followed sentencing guidelines, but he lessened the severity of what the defendant had done, and that was considered a misuse of his judicial power by the voters. So, you’re wrong, it was a victory for law and order, progressive or otherwise.

I can’t agree with this, at least not in its current formulation.

I disagreed strongly with the sentence in this case, and I don’t really care where the sentence recommendation came from. I think Turner should have been punished more severely for what was a heinous crime.

At the same time, though, I don’t like the idea of kicking a judge out of office for a decision in a single case, no matter how much I might disagree with his ruling. This sort of thing leaves the criminal justice system open to all sorts of perverse incentives.

This study from the Brennan Center, a few years back, found that:

The pressures of upcoming re-election campaigns affect judicial decision-making in criminal cases, making judges more likely to impose longer sentences, affirm death sentences, and even override sentences of life imprisonment to impose the death penalty.

The recall of Judge Persky is likely to increase the perceived pressure on judges to be “tough on crime,” especially when elections are on the horizon. And pressure to be “tough on crime,” as the author of the Vox article linked by Bricker notes, often translates to worse outcomes for the poor, and for racial and ethnic minorities, within the criminal justice system.

I will say, though, Bricker, that some of the commentary criticizing the recall seems to take too little account of the distinctions that many progressives (including me) make when talking about criminal justice reform. Progressive criticism of the criminal justice system has often focused on disparate outcomes at all stages of the system (arrests; prosecutions; convictions; sentencing) for particular groups of people, particularly racial and ethnic minorities.

Progressive criticism has also noted the particularly draconian effects when it comes to non-violent crimes, especially those related to drug offenses. In fact, one argument often made by progressives is that, if police and prosecutors stopped racking up arrests and prosecutions of poor people of color for non-violent drug offenses and "quality of life’ crimes, they could focus more of their attention on the really troubling stuff, like crimes of violence.

I support a whole raft of criminal justice reforms, in areas as varied as police procedure, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, mandatory minimums, sentencing more generally, sex offender registries, and changes to the criminal law. I think that sentencing in our criminal justice system is often too harsh, and that there are many areas where we need to allow more discretion, and a greater ability to take a person’s circumstances into account.

At the same time, though, I’m not sure that the place to start in fixing the criminal justice system is in handing out more lenient sentences to predators who take advantage of intoxicated women for the purpose of committing a crime of sexual violence. And I’m particularly troubled when it seems that the very circumstances that should have made clear to this asshole that what he did was wrong—a comfortable and privileged upbringing, and a high-quality education—are deployed as reasons why he should not be subjected to a harsh penalty for his crime. Like Tamerlane, I’m conflicted about this issue.

Edit : while I was typing, Bricker’s post about the Brennan Center made a similar point about judges and elections.

[Morgenstern]

@Bricker

What is your response to the author’s conclusions that “Given that the criminal justice system disproportionately targets and prosecutes the poor and people of color, the ones who suffer from judges feeling pressured to sentence harshly are not people with privilege like Turner, but those without privilege?”

Do you have a reaction to this Washington Post writer, who opines:

A victory for justice would be never having an inappropriate sentence again. Either one that’s too severe or one that, as the punishment herein, is way too lenient. Is removing judges who fail to understand the severity of a sexual assault a bad thing?

I don’t know how many judges I’ve voted for that ran unopposed. Probably 90% The 10% that lost did something like drive through the park drunk, or let a kid off after he raped a co-ed.

California has (or had) a determinate sentence law. If a defendant is convicted of singing too loud in church then the judge reviews both the mitigation and the aggravation to the crime, and thereafter states, for the record, why he chose to impose the min, middle, or max sentence, as dictated by law. Our only recourse is to remove those judges who don’t see that some crimes are more serious and in need of something more than a slap on the wrist

Everyone wins when all sentences are legally appropriate and color blind.

[Eonwe]

@Vox

I am all too aware of the racial and class disparities in sentencing that redounded to Turner’s benefit. I have previously written about the ways privileged criminal defendants often are rewarded precisely because of their privileges.
<snip>
Many lawyers who have actually appeared before Judge Persky in criminal cases describe him as a thoughtful, smart judge. Even the head prosecutor where Persky presided opposed the recall, noting that Persky was not actually known for leniency and that “most judges in California would have done the same thing” in sentencing Turner.
<snip>
“most judges in California would have done the same thing” in sentencing Turner.

So, it sounds like he agrees that Persky sentenced Turner relatively lightly because of Turner’s race and/or class, but that somehow this is compatible with being “thoughtful”. And, since all the other judges in CA enact equally “thoughtful” lesser sentences for white men, people shouldn’t have recalled Persky? It sounds like the author concedes that the judge is only thoughtful and smart when inspired to be so by the demographic of the accused.

Also from the article:

I have also heard stories from other lawyers. One told me that after earning an acquittal for a young client with no criminal record, he was told by the judge how relieved he was by the decision, which meant the judge would not have to sentence him. The judge clearly felt the young man did not deserve a harsh sentence, had he been convicted, but he was worried about creating a “Brock Turner problem” for himself, he said.

This is, frankly, a bullshit excuse by a frightened man who doesn’t even understand what the issue is. It’s akin to the stories about men who refuse to collaborate with female colleagues out of fear that they will unintentionally trigger the Female Snowflake Misogyny Response and end up falsely accused of harassment and have their careers ruined. If the takeaway here from other judges is “all lenient sentencing is perhaps going to cost me my job,” they’re not paying any attention to the problem that so many have with the Turner case.

It’s true that judges should be insulated from the whims of the hoi polloi. They are, after all, not meant to a simple an instrument of mob justice, but a reasoned antidote to mob justice. However, that doesn’t mean that judges aren’t ultimately accountable to the people. Lacking term limits, a recall vote seems reasonable.

If judges start losing their jobs left and right, maybe it’d be worth looking at whether or not a recall vote gives the people too much ‘uneducated’ power. But one in 90 years hardly strikes me as inappropriate meddling in judicial authority.

And, frankly, if a judge can’t mete out justice in a gender/racially/class-blind way, then there is no justice and they should feel put on notice. It’s 2018 and it’s time to get with the program.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@mhendo

At the same time, though, I don’t like the idea of kicking a judge out of office for a decision in a single case, no matter how much I might disagree with his ruling. This sort of thing leaves the criminal justice system open to all sorts of perverse incentives.

Those “perverse incentives” have been around for how many years and invoked how many times? Isn’t this the first time in 90 years? So I think we can relax about this being an emerging trend.

@mhendo

This study from the Brennan Center, a few years back, found that:The recall of Judge Persky is likely to increase the perceived pressure on judges to be “tough on crime,” especially when elections are on the horizon. And pressure to be “tough on crime,” as the author of the Vox article linked by Bricker notes, often translates to worse outcomes for the poor, and for racial and ethnic minorities, within the criminal justice system.

Any judge who comes away with this as a conclusion will likely face a recall too at some point because they clearly don’t get it. Only a fucking buffoon would conflate this one case with “all crimes must be punished more harshly”" and such a buffoon does not deserve to be sitting in judgement of others, IMO.

The voters are saying “this is broken and we want it fixed; if it will not fix itself, WE’LL fix it, as is our right AND responsibility as Americans.”

ETA: Eonwe posted as I was typing. Nice to see that his post and mine are similar.

[mhendo]

@Eonwe

So, it sounds like he agrees that Persky sentenced Turner relatively lightly because of Turner’s race and/or class, but that somehow this is compatible with being “thoughtful”. And, since all the other judges in CA enact equally “thoughtful” lesser sentences for white men, people shouldn’t have recalled Persky? It sounds like the author concedes that the judge is only thoughtful and smart when inspired to be so by the demographic of the accused.

Yeah, this is why, despite my misgivings about recalls for a single case, I can’t completely get on board with the criticisms that I’ve read of this recall.

Part of criminal justice reform needs to involve breaking out of the mindset that automatically gives people sentencing credit for being white and privileged. The fact that this is how it’s always been done doesn’t mean that it’s a good way of meting out justice, especially not for crimes of violence.

[Eonwe]

Also, I should add that I 100% believe in restorative justice, and imagine an America where the way we treat criminals of all types looks much less like punishment. I’m not necessarily going to argue that in some objective sense Turner needs X years of punishment in order to meet the crime. However, a system which reliably give X years of punishment for a crime committed by, say, a poor black man and X-Y for the same crime committed by a white Ivy League student is fundamentally broken.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@mhendo

Yeah, this is why, despite my misgivings about recalls for a single case, I can’t completely get on board with the criticisms that I’ve read of this recall.

I can totally understand this attitude.

@mhendo

Part of criminal justice reform needs to involve breaking out of the mindset that automatically gives people sentencing credit for being white and privileged. The fact that this is how it’s always been done doesn’t mean that it’s a good way of meting out justice, especially not for crimes of violence.

[thumbs up]

@Eonwe

Also, I should add that I 100% believe in restorative justice, and imagine an America where the way we treat criminals of all types looks much less like punishment. I’m not necessarily going to argue that in some objective sense Turner needs X years of punishment in order to meet the crime. However, a system which reliably give X years of punishment for a crime committed by, say, a poor black man and X-Y for the same crime committed by a white Ivy League student is fundamentally broken.

[thumbs up]

[Morgenstern]

The Brennan report is nearsighted.

Most judges run unopposed. So that’s not really a concern. Judges do have some discretion in sentencing though, but not conviction. Jurys convict. Judges sentence according to statutory guidelines.

Back in the old days, CA had an indeterminate sentencing law. That meaning the defendant got a sentence like 15 to life. He has no idea if he’s going to do 15, or life when he arrived at the prison gate. So CA changed to determinate sentencing. Instead of xx to life, Joe now gets a sentence of min/med/max. It’s codified by crime. Judges have to justify, on the record, the mitigation that justifies reducing the sentence to the min, or the aggravation that justifies imposing the max. The middle is sort of the default. The sentencing is as appealable as the verdict.

There is some confusing that charges for some felonies wobble between felony or misdemeanor, and that decision is made by the prosecution, and can be vetoed by a judge for appropriate reasons. So I suppose, a judge may error on the side of felony.

This “judges clean up their act” for election years is pretty foolish I think. Although, Rose Bird, of CA Supreme Court fame was voted out of office for being perceived as anti-death penalty. She made a last ditch effort to show she wasn’t, but it was too late. Voters spoke and she became unemployed.

Also, the judge in Hunnington Beach (I believe) who threatened to give a police officer a 45 caliber vasectomy in open court got removed too I believe, but I don’t remember if it was the voters or not.

Not only that, but to run against a judge you also have to be an attorney. It’s not something attorneys really want to do unless there’s a major issue.