It’s not simply about coming away with a particular conclusion. The Brennan study doesn’t argue that judges consciously and intentionally give harsher sentences as a sort of electoral quid pro quo; in fact, part of the point of the study is to note that political pressures often have effects on judges that the judges themselves might not actually be conscious of.
As I’ve said, this recall isn’t the end of the world, but I’m also not quite sure that it’s much of a solution. I’d be interested to know if anyone has gone through Judge Persky’s rulings to see how consistent he has been in his application of sentencing leniency. For example, what if we found out that this judge had, in fact, been similarly lenient with poor people of color? Would this outweigh, in the minds of criminal justice reformers, the fact that he gave a light sentence to this one particular privileged asshole?
Not for me. It would simply make me think that this idiot was letting rapists go free for years and thank Og we finally put a stop to that.
I’m pissed that the sentence wasn’t proper, IMO, not that the sentence isn’t proper because the kid is white. The reason doesn’t matter as much as the bad thing.
I don’t think the race argument applies in this case. I’m pretty sure the judge didn’t high five the white boy and wink as he let him go. The judge demonstrated he did not understand the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal act. He should be gone.
Meh, I don’t buy the slippery slope argument here. Voters remove a judge for showing leniency in a case where it’s utterly unwarranted, therefore judges will stop showing leniency in cases where it is warranted? Are our judges really so foolish as to think the message the voters are sending here is “leniency is bad”, and not, you know, “leniency for unrepentant rapists is bad”?
Of course there will always be some judges who try to bolster their reelection chances by being “tough on crime”, but that’s a common occurrence already: Elected Judges: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube
I see little reason to think this will change much on that front. Maybe it will convince a few more judges that rape is worth taking seriously, though.
I’m willing to take seriously the idea that getting rid of this judge may send a message that’s somewhat problematic. But compare that to the following: the judge stays, and does this sort of thing again. After all, if looks like he’s still learned nothing from the experience, and that’s with him losing the job; if he’d kept the job, then, what, he’d have kept on keeping on? I don’t see a way I can okay that.
Bringing up social justice is a smokescreen. The issue here is about people who were already convicted of heinous crimes. This is about rape. You know, that thing that is extremely hard to get a conviction. The idea that this will lead to a rapist of color getting a stricter punishment is not persuasive.
As for the claim that you don’t support the ruling, but don’t support punishment for said ruling: that is a contradiction. The only way to prevent someone from doing something wrong is provide consequences for the bad action. If you are against consequences, then you are in effect just virtue signaling. You don’t really think it was wrong.
This judge continued to not realize that he did wrong. He deserved to be recalled. He’s one such judge in 80 years, and no one else is in trouble, so there’s no reason to think this will affect other judges. If other judges are impacted, then bring up that problem.
Don’t bring up where you went to school or how it would affect a school career. Care about the victim, and don’t talk only about how your sentence willnaffect the rapist. If you have trouble doing that, then you should be worried about losing your job. The victim is more important than the guilty. Period.
This isn’t about the people deciding that the accused is guilty. This is about the people saying the guilty should receive commensurate punishment. If jurors are racist and convicting more less privileged people, that is a different problem. Deal with that.
I’ve made clear that I’m somewhat torn on this issue, and that there are complicated issues at play. I’m not sure the recall was the best idea, but I’m not willing to be too critical of it either, precisely because it WAS (IMO) such a lenient sentence for a brutal crime.
But this…
…is idiotic.
By this definition, we should advocate for the recall of every judge who hands down a sentence with which we disagree. Your formulation leaves no room whatsoever for the very flexibility that criminal justice reformers argue needs to be part of the system. There’s a region that sentence guidelines usually have a range of sentences: because thoughtful people recognize that there can be disagreement over appropriate punishment.
Also, if a judge lets a person off with probation for selling a small amount of drugs (a result that I, and many other progressives, would support), what’s to stop a bunch of tough-on-crime conservatives from staging a recall campaign?
For you, of all people, to throw out accusations of virtue signalling is fucking hilarious. Virtue signalling seems to be your life’s work on this message board.
This. All of the counter-arguments seem to have one basis: the idea that other judges are too stupid to know why this judge was recalled. It’s been stated pretty clearly, it’s been stated repeatedly - if any judge comes away thinking the next poor black kid in front of them needs the maximum sentence, he or she shouldn’t be a judge either.
Isn’t that what they call a Straw Man? It assumes something that isn’t likely and draws conclusions from a false premise. What Judges are more likely to take away from this is to sentence more fairly, not more severely.
I’ve seen that, but I’ve also seen the kind of thing BigT is coming from. Identifying with “the kid” is perfectly possible for a nice guy who never did anything wrong. It’s also possible for a former athlete who at some point took advantage of a passed-out woman. That one possibility exists does not deny the other.
The judge was the captain of the lacrosse team at Stanford. That’s only a club sport there. But Brock Turner was at Stanford on a swimming scholarship. And to be honest, I’m actually quite amazed at how far he fell. He had a scholarship to one of the best schools in the country, and competing at a national level in his sport, with the possibility of making the US Olympic team (note that I don’t know if he was good enough for that), and with plans to go to medical school and become a doctor. In short, he had a great future ahead of him. And yet, in January of his freshman year, less than six months after starting school, he threw all of that away.
In my experience with the criminal justice system, the factor which carries by far the most weight is the third. Wealthy family means potential influence in the general area, and specifically the ability to hire excellent legal representation and attendant support (publicists, friendly therapists, etc). And wealthy family means that attending Stanford, or a similarly prestigious school, is more likely.
So let me answer your question: no.
But now let me point out that you asked a compound question, and break it down:
Do I think that if Brock Turner had been a person of color, but attended Stanford and came from a wealth family, would he have gotten the same six month break? Yes, I do.
I think the breaks come from wealth, much more reliably than other factors.
Now, there’s no question that in this country at this time, race correlates uncomfortably well with wealth. But don’t confuse that symptom with the cause: it’s the wealth that smooths the path through the justice system.
But Turner’s family wasn’t particularly wealthy. His father was a civilian Air Force employee, and his mother was a nurse. He went to public school, so probably upper middle class at best. Sure, enough disposable income that he didn’t have a public defender, but I don’t think he hired a dream team like OJ did.
I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, even when I disagree, and this is one of them. I am shocked that some in the law community are predicting Bad Things if they (the community) are held accountable for their actions. I think it’s silly for bloggers to predict that all sentencing will come under pressure for longer sentences when it’s clearly outrage that the sentencing in this case does not match up to other cases.
I do wish there was a less severe punishment other than the judge losing his job. After the uproar it is likely that he would have been more aware of his own biases, which (according to some reports) seem to be few.
It’s not so much wealth as privilege. In strict financial terms, maybe he wasn’t excessively wealthy, but he was certainly privileged. Privilege comes from the sum of many parts, including wealth, color, upbringing, attractiveness, sports prowess, etc. The judge himself basically said his lenient sentence was based on it. Brock already had so many other things to lose that 6 months for him was equal to a much longer sentence for someone else because it included loss of his scholarship, reputation, and future earning potential.
Would his sentence would been the same if he’d been an upper middle-class, high-GPA kid on a swimming scholarship who was also black? Most likely. What if he’d been black and on a football scholarship with an average GPA? Maybe, but not as likely. You can’t point to the one aspect of his privilege that makes the final difference, because it’s all additive.