People v. Turner
TL:DR version: Brock Turner (a white, male, Student Athlete at Stanford) and an unnamed girl, got completely and intentionally drunk, where she went voluntarily behind a dumpster, and they made out and he fingered her and dry humped her, but she passed out and he left her there. And some students tackled him and claimed he'd raped her. Because he was white, male and student athlete, he was accused of sexual assault (that some mis-stated as rape), he had to have his life ruined, and she got nothing but remorse. But Brock only got 6 months Prison time... and 3 years probation, and a scarlet letter of forever being labelled a sex offender (as the Parole Board suggested). The mob of SJW's were outraged. Examples must be make! The penalty for poor drunken judgement for men should be death... and for Women? It should be death and ruination for the men, because when both are drunk and she makes bad decisions, the privileged white male is always at fault! The mob turned their attention to the Judge in this case for following the state's guidelines, and he was recalled and ruined as well -- which is the progressives fucking over their own cause, as now no judge can afford to be lenient or use discretion in cases like this, under threat of mob rule.
This thing was bad enough, but the prosecutor demanded 14 years of prison (presumably to make a name for himself). While the Parole Board asked for a more reasonable first offense punishment of 6 months (and 3 years probation and the scarlet letter of conviction and being labelled a sex offender for life), more in line with reason and the state's guidelines. Brock's Dad (Dan Turner) wrote a letter to the Judge before sentencing, complaining that the prosecutor was going overboard. And expounded Brock's accomplishments, virtues and remorse, had one line which said 14 years was a, "steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."
That any man is free to the "all men are rapists" crowd, is enough to trigger most SJW mob's buttons... but that this guy's Dad would protest his son's ruination for being convicted on hearsay, and little hard evidence of doing something she may or may not have wanted to do at the time but later regrets, was too much for them. They went from ballistic and insane, to hyper-ballistic, foaming at the mouth, and had to crucify Brock and anyone involved in the case.
Once the judge showed the leniency of taking the State Parole Board's recommendation, it meant the Judge must be destroyed too! If the Judge was allowed to show a fraction of discretion for a privileged white student athlete (on a first time offense) that the SJW mob repeatedly demanded for any minorities with repeat violent convictions, that might prove that justice was blind, and not trying to make up for past wrongs or other injustice, and they could NEVER, ever tolerate that! Burn the witch!!
So all the hate the SJW's have for whites, males, athletes, and injustice, got redirected from Brock, to Aaron Persky: the judge making the ruling. And believe me, if there's one things the SJW's have is baggage and hate!
Persky won re-election five days after the sentencing. but the mob had to make an example of what happens to judges who follows the state's guidelines! Man-hating feminist activist and Professor Michele Dauber, of the Stanford Law School, was longtime gasoline thrower on campus sexual assault, and family friend of the victim, made it her personal vendetta to get Persky destroyed by her mob of haters, and started a committee to recall Persky. And while there was some back and forth legal maneuvering (as this was unusual), California repeatedly chooses the wrong path -- and this was no different. So the Persky recall was allowed to continue, based on no valid reasons.
The sane and rational warned that if Persky was recalled for doing his job and following guidelines, then there would be no future leniency allowed, in a system that was often way too inflexible and harsh as it was.
- 70 public defenders has petitioned in support of Persky, warning against "mass incarceration" brought upon by state legislatures or indiscreet judges, and fearing that the backlash against Persky could hurt their clients (mostly poor African and Latino) by compelling judges to give out harsh sentences.
- Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan wrote "rather than using robotic, one size fits all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender"
- The Santa Clara County public defender said she is "alarmed by the hysteria" about the Turner sentence
- Even the Santa Clara County district attorney (Jeff Rosen), whose office prosecuted Turner, did not appeal the sentence, and stated, "While I strongly disagree with the sentence that Judge Persky issued in the Brock Turner case, I do not believe he should be removed from his judgeship"... "Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system"
- Danny Cevallos stated that judges enjoy a modicum of independence from public pressure, and "there are no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, based on this sentence alone." And that it, "raises the question: is removing judges good for the spirit of the judiciary system, especially when the judge's sole transgression is a legal sentence" where he correctly applied the law
- The Santa Clara County Bar Association has released a statement saying that removing Persky would be a "threat to judicial independence" and weighs just one of his 13 years of decisions too heavily, saying they see "no credible assertions that in issuing the sentence, Judge Persky violated the law or his ethical obligations or acted in bad faith."
- Similarly, other sitting judges (both state and federal) and legal commentators have defended Persky's decision, noted that the sentence might, in their opinion, be disproportionate due to the life-long consequences of a criminal conviction and sex offender registration, and called on the bar to protect the independence of the judiciary.
- The California Commission on Judicial Performance found that he had not abused his discretion and he was supported by dozens of law school professors, retired judges and the Santa Clara Bar Association.
The white male students life was ruined, but that wasn't good enough -- the SJW's had to ruin the life of a Judge for complying with the guidelines given him by California law and the probation board, and more importantly, for not being enough of an activist (e.g. someone that ignores the law, and abides by the mob hate demands instead). And the female involved that showed the poor judgement to get black-out drunk, and lead to ruining two people's lives? Her identity is protected, and is a bit of a celebrity, and is deified by the SJW's as a model citizen.
Come to college, make bad decisions, hurt others -- as long as it's only men that pay the price, that's fine.... because to some feminists, the only justice is unequal justice. If you doubt that, ask youself if a roles are reversed, do you really thinka female and minority assailant or judge would be who the SJW mob would have to make examples of, and ruin their lives? If you're at all honest, you know this wasn't about Justice, but SJW's demanding symbolic human sacrifice.
Pretend you're not a progressive and can count to 3:
- A judge followed the letter of the law, the probation boards recommendation, and showed leniency for a first drunken offense (with a lot of ambiguity and little hard evidence)...
- SJW's harassed, bullied and destroyed the Judges career for it. (In the name of tolerance and compassion for the little folks).
- .... and how is the next judge going to react when he has a little discretion?
The answer is obvious to the rational, and will come to a shock to the SJW's. No judge in California can afford to show any judicial discretion or compassion, because if they do, they risk angering the mob of ruinous, angry little trolls, that will pervert the actual case into something bigger and broader, about everything wrong with the society, and they'll be hung for that. It's the Stanford Witch Trials. Although to be fair, some in the Salem Witch Trials later felt remorse and grew as people.... I'm not so sure Stanford graduates are capable of that. I know that because the proponents all claim they needed to set an example... in other words, even if they're wrong in this case, they think they're right because one injustice rationalizes their own (instead of teaching them to strive to be better). And if those are the rules they play by, those are the rules the other side will play by too. So real justice is dying, and all we'll be left with is the whims of the mob.
So I don't know if the Judge should have giving a stricter punishment or not. What I do know is that I don't know enough to recall a judge for following the state's guidelines, and 99.9% of the people that voted to burn the witch, didn't have a fucking clue. That means knee-jerk ruining a man's life for political correctness is the new normal in California.... and that's a sad commentary on the state of the state.
- Dan Turner's Letter: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2852614-Letter-from-Brock-Turner-s-Father.html
- Political activism like this was, leads to forced sentences, and that leads to laws and injustices like the following: https://mobile.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/us/25-years-for-a-slice-of-pizza.html