WTF.
Not just journalists, but just look at the OP itself. One of the issues of the “rapist” Brock Turner is that he was not convicted of rape, rather of a variety of sexual assault. and the sentence was in consonance with the guidelines and requirements in the jurisdiction for cases with the facts such as his.
In the same way, the McDonald’s, they were serving coffee which could cause third-degree burns, it was much higher than what was normally sold, they knew that it could cause such injuries and there had been earlier cases where people had suffered burns.
That depends on your judgment, I suppose. 
Full details of the case here,, but the basic history is this:
-she severely burned her crotch with coffee that was served dangerously hot.
-she asked McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover medical treatment and lost wages associated with her 8 days in the hospital and 3 weeks of aftercare. McDonald’s offered $800.
-She retained a lawyer, who requested a $30K settlement. No deal. It ultimately went to trial.
-During the trial, it was discovered that in the preceding ten years, McD’s had recorded 700 incidents of coffee burns, some of them severe enough to merit $500K settlements. The critical detail is that in spite of all these injuries, McD’s steadfastly refused to serve their coffee at a safer temperature.
-The jury ultimately awarded Libeck $200K for compensatory damages. The rest was punitive damages, intended to motivate McD’s to stop serving such fucking hot coffee.
In light of those facts, do you really believe the jury had run amok in deciding that McDonald’s needed to be punished in order to get them to change their behavior? Do you believe $2.7M was way more than necessary to compel McDonald’s to serve cooler coffee?
I know some people whose responses to cases of sexual assault or rape I avoid like the plague, because their response to accurate reporting is always to decide that the reporters are wrong and that it’s the fault of feminists.
OK, so someone is accused of doing whatever. Depending on what it was, the people involved, sex, age, etc. the law calls it different things. The reporters accurately report what the possible charge is according to the actual legal system.
If it’s rape? The reporters are calling it rape only because the feminists say so.
If it’s sexual assault? The reporters are calling it sexual assault only because the feminists say so.
If it’s forcible assault, but not of a sexual nature? Again, the fault of the feminists.
And when someone points out that the law actually describes that act as falling under that label, and therefore the reporting is accurate as per the law and that if the loudmouth disagrees, he should badger his representative about it (preferably without calling her a cunt)? The person pointing this out better not be a woman, because in that case it is all her personal fault.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard them blame pickpocketing on feminism, but if it ever happens I will sadly not be surprised.
700 incidents in 10 years is 70 incidents a year. McDonalds sells about a billion cups of coffee a year. 70 incidents out of a billion seems like a pretty safe product to me. In light of those facts I think 2.7 million was way more than necessary.
Judges being out of touch is an example of the Chinese Robber fallacy. Since there are lots of judges and people are occasionally foolish it stands to reason that it would be easy to find examples of judges acting foolish. That does not mean that judges are more likely to be foolish or out of touch then the ordinary person.
Despite being a law and order type, when I looked into the details of the Stanford sexual assault I thought the judge acted appropriately. I have not looked into the affluenza case at all so I have no opinion on that judge’s actions.
Look, I don’t give two shits about that old lady or McDonald’s terrible coffee. It was just an example of a celebrated high damages award that was illusory in that the judge pruned it back pretty severely immediately, but that got no press.
My point is that sometimes judges do things that ARE common-sensical that don’t get the press, or that some things that seem absurd and fantastic may be the result of a lot of negotiation and/or factors that we, the consumers of the press’ product, may not be aware of, since we weren’t part of the legal process for that case.
Aaron Persky had only been on the bench since 2002, and is subject to reelection as a California judicial officer anyway. Hardly an indictment of the life tenure system.
The statutory minimum sentence was two years. The probation department recommended a “moderate” jail term, though I agree that says more about the capacity of California’s prisons than it does about the judge.
IMHO, the real issue was Turner’s father, whose idiotic comments made the situation far worse than it ever would have been otherwise.
If that is the case -and I’m not disputing it - in your jurisdiction, what incentive is there for a lawyer to talk to the media about ongoing matters, especially criminal matters?
This may be something of a snarky response, but every time I read this thread title I can’t help but think:
The difference between judges and common sense is that judges hear evidence from both sides and consider the actual law when rendering a well-thought-out opinion, whereas common sense is fine with jumping to conclusions based on assumptions.
Which is not to say that judges are infallible, but anytime I hear the media getting excited about some court case, I assume the reporters didn’t bother to investigate the details.
Several of the jurors in that case were later quoted to the effect that they picked a largish number (two days worth of coffee revenue for the chain) precisely BECAUSE the company acted as though 70 people getting hurt, some of them fairly seriously, was no big deal.
If nearly $3 million was only a couple of days worth of revenue on coffee, how much in punitive damages do you think would have been necessary to get McDonalds to change the serving temperature of their coffee? (McDonalds OWN quality assurance manager testified at trial that at the serving temperature the chain used, the coffee was unfit for human consumption, so it’s not like the temperature was required for health, safety, or taste reasons.)
Whenever someone feels the need to inform that the justice system needs an injection of “common sense”, its invariably followed by some “brilliant” ideas that amount to scrapping important procedural principles. Like, not rejecting confessions induced by whipping with hosepipes and waterboarding. Sadly,this is not a theoretical answer or even a one time thing.
Two years was not a hard minimum, residual judicial and executive discretion was maintained to grant probation, and the sentence was actually more than what the department had recommended.
Here are the judges reasonings. He seems to have followed the applicable laws, and exercised his discretion fairly. At least some of the things he has been criticised for (like the perpetrators age and harm) he was actually bound to consider.
[QUOTE=dracoi]
Which is not to say that judges are infallible, but anytime I hear the media getting excited about some court case, I assume the reporters didn’t bother to investigate the details.
[/QUOTE]
I presume that. And that presumption has never been rebutted.
My ex worked on the McD coffee case.
I saw the pictures.
She deserved every cent.
My commiserations to you for having an ex who works in a law office.
A judge has to follow the law, it’s up to the legislature to pass common sense laws … better to ask what is it about being a legislator that warps their common sense … then the answer is bribery.
It’s a flawed system, no doubt, but the Free Press tells us about these shortcomings and We the People can make the needed changes.
None. I don’t.
Well, that’s why they have juries.
Everyone should watch the movie “Hot Coffee” (available on Netflix.) It goes into the details of that case, as well as several others. The photos they showed of Libeck’s injuries were horrifying.
Well, the idea is that a few months of prison is serious consequences for someone like Brock.
It’s a serious consequence for anyone who doesn’t have an extensive litany of prior arrests and convictions. And parole is hugely limiting and intrusive. The Sex Offender Registry adds another layer of punishment.
This is no way makes me think that an effective 3 months in prison was sufficient punishment for his actions.