Mae West was a lawyer? :eek:
“Why don’t you come up and sue me sometime?”
When their career consists of making the decision of whether or not to ruin other people’s lives, absolutely. Also, I find it odd that you find the case too disturbing to even read about, but have no problem with letting someone continue to decide criminal cases who thinks that an annoying summer (3 months in jail) is an appropriate sentence for clear-cut rape that not only has witnesses but also pictures that the attacker sent to friends bragging about the rape.
Maybe it is odd. Saying that I have ‘no problem’ with Persky trying cases is an overstatement. I feel strongly about this case in two ways, first as a victim of this loathsome rape culture myself, and second as a person who despises the mob justice mentality that has taken over our approach to social justice issues. I question the effectiveness of our current strategy to combat issues like this. in fact, I question whether we even have a strategy at all.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing was released recently and it certainly calls into question Persky’s decision making skills - especially since his job is decision making.
For example, Persky found that Turner’s drunkenness was a mitigating factor, despite admiting that it was not an excuse:
How on earth does being drunk “weigh in Turner’s favor”?
It’s entirely reasonable to press Persky on why he thinks drunkenness weighs in a convicted rapist’s favor and also, to want to know are there other crimes where Persky might find drunkeness to mitigate the perpetrator’s moral culpability. It’s also reasonable to want to know if Persky has applied this standard before, of believing that drunkeness alleves some of a rapist’s guilt. And does he apply the same standard for drugs? What if Turner was on weed? Would that lessen his moral capability? It’s reasonable to expect Turner to explain why or why not.
And how does this fit in with the sentencing guidelines for California? Do the laws in California direct judges to go easy on judgement-impaired rapists or is this just did Persky just wing it?
Finally, it’s reasonable to decide, as a society, that we don’t want judges who think rapists are less culpable if they’re drunk.
Aaron Persky didn’t just make one bad decision. He made a whole string of them. There’s more in that article I cited, I just focused on the drunkenness part. It’s reasonable to want to get to the bottom of why Persky’s made so many lousy decisions. It’s also reasonable to want to curtail his ability to make life altering decisions if his decision making process is thoroughly flawed.
An excuse is an acceptable reason for doing an illegal act. By contrast, mitigation explains the defendant’s mens rea (mental reasoning) and reduces the penalty.
Excuse means Not Guilty. Mitigation means Guilty with possible reductions in sentence.
Ok, I see what you’re getting at with excuse vs. mitigation.
It still leaves me wondering what other crimes Aaron Persky feels should should be mitigated and result in a reduced penalty if the perpetrator is drunk.
Do drunk murderers have a reduced penalty because their mens rea is impaired? Drunk embezzelers? Drunk car thiefs?
And is it only drinking which causes the mens rea to be impaired sufficiently to result in a reduced penalty? If Brock Turner had been high on LSD, instead of drunk, would he likewise have received a reduced penalty?
And has Aaron Persky made a habit of reducing the penalty for people who have been found guilty of sexual assault, if they were drunk at the time?
And do the California laws make allowance for drunkenness as being a mitigating factor, generally, or is this just Persky’s take on the matter?
Frankly, pointing out that “mitigating”, in this instance, is a legal term which can result in a reduced sentence due to the perpetrator’s impaired mens rea doesn’t change my larger point, which is that it’s reasonable to raise all sorts of questions about Persky’s decision making skills, and his continued employment to exercise those skills.
“He was drunk, therefore his mental reasoning was impaired when he committed sexual assault, so I’ll give him a reduced penalty” is a thoroughly questionable decision.
[hijack]
She was the defendant, accused of some vague loose morals crime. (She had been seen climbing into somebody’s bedroom window, IIRC.) And giving snotty answers to the judge.
[/hijack]
Quite honestly I would be much more willing to render a guilty verdict if I felt the judge was going to hand down a reasonable sentence, I don’t consider years in prison reasonable. In this case many have complained how the perpetrator got off easy, I disagree, I feel that many others have gotten unfairly harsh (and socially unproductive) sentences.
According to one of the articles I read (about the prosecutors getting him thrown off of subsequent cases), it seemed to suggest that he did too have some history of making overly lenient decisions, or maybe it was dismissing some cases too easily that probably shouldn’t have been dismissed. I’ll see if I can dig up a quote . . .
Found it: This article:
Prosecutors remove judge in Stanford swimmer sex assault case from new sex crimes case, L. A. Times, June 14, . . .
. . . mentions in passing another case, not sex-crime related, that Persky dismissed before the jury could deliberate, which didn’t sit well with the DA.
Psst - post 12 in this thread. 
Yes, pretty much. Saying something is wrong but not actually providing consequences when you are able to do so means you didn’t actually think that that thing is wrong. We would be avoiding addressing that very cultural issue.
If someone with similar thinking as this judge thinks they can do what this judge does without any personal consequences (and inherently less outrage since it will have happened before), they will do it. If those consequences are not large enough, they may still do it.
Plus, we have to assure future victims that this won’t happen to them, making them not want to report. And to tell the future rapists that they won’t get such a lucky break.
There is a type of sympathy you can have, but not one that precludes actually creating the consequences necessary to prevent the action from happening again.
The only possible argument I could see is a disagreement over what punishment is appropriate. But, as far as I know, he has never apologized, let along promised to do better, so I argue can’t be trusted on the bench. Both refusing to sit on a jury with him and trying to get him recalled are attempts to prevent him from doing so.
As for ruining his career–it’s not really a concern of mine relative to the damage not doing so would do. We need to send a message–you do not give a ridiculously reduced sentence like this. You do not treat rape as “20 minutes of action” or act like “both sides did something wrong.”
It’s rape–take it seriously as a judge or lose your job.
Psst – Tell Spice Weasel, because she still didn’t know of his other questionable decision in Post 20. 