Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I admit, I'm terrible about keeping up with local news since I moved here last May. I was starting to do research on who I should vote for in June, and this issue just came to my attention.
I'm curious as to how others on this forum feel about this issue and if you're going to vote to recall Judge Persky, and which candidate you'd choose to replace him.
Both attorneys running to replace him are women. Cindy Seeley Hendrickson has been an assistant district attorney for the Santa Clara County for a long time, and has done extensive work helping sexual assault victims. The other, Angela Storey, is a civil attorney who doesn't have criminal experience, does have experience as a small claims court judge, and is apparently concerned about defendants getting a fair shake. I'm guessing the between-the-lines message there, is she thinks Hendrickson may be unfair or too tough.
I'm really torn. I don't like soft judges, but on the other hand the idea of a judge worrying about making a decision based on public pressure also makes me nervous.
150% against the recall. The Santa Clara County Bar Association and the State Commission on Judicial Performance found no bias. His ruling on the Brock Turner case was deemed appropriate and one he made on the recommendations of the professionals involved as well as the events that led them to court. He did his job. The public's underinformed and largely emotional disapproval of the ruling is not a basis for a recall. Judges don't answer to special interest groups, angry mobs and rabid partisans. And the threat of a recall has been shown to cause judges to increase sentences, especially of the poor and people of color. No good will come of this.
150% against the recall. The Santa Clara County Bar Association and the State Commission on Judicial Performance found no bias. His ruling on the Brock Turner case was deemed appropriate and one he made on the recommendations of the professionals involved as well as the events that led them to court. He did his job. The public's underinformed and largely emotional disapproval of the ruling is not a basis for a recall. Judges don't answer to special interest groups, angry mobs and rabid partisans. And the threat of a recall has been shown to cause judges to increase sentences, especially of the poor and people of color. No good will come of this.
Thanks for responding. I read a little more and it appears that some legislation has been passed since his ruling, establishing a minimum sentence for having sex with an unconscious person of something like 3 years (i'm forgetting exactly), instead of the 6 months he gave the defendant who was convicted.
I really can't fathom only giving someone 6 months, though, even though it was a first offense (first time ever caught, more likely) for what he did. The conviction had something to do with rape with a foreign object. Even those against the recall seem to all agree the sentence was still too light, even though it was legal.
We do have the right to recall public servants who don't serve us well. He's not on the Supreme Court. He's an elected official, after all.
Thanks for responding. I read a little more and it appears that some legislation has been passed since his ruling, establishing a minimum sentence for having sex with an unconscious person of something like 3 years (i'm forgetting exactly), instead of the 6 months he gave the defendant who was convicted.
I really can't fathom only giving someone 6 months, though, even though it was a first offense (first time ever caught, more likely) for what he did. The conviction had something to do with rape with a foreign object. Even those against the recall seem to all agree the sentence was still too light, even though it was legal.
We do have the right to recall public servants who don't serve us well. He's not on the Supreme Court. He's an elected official, after all.
I'm still torn.
I just mean that judges are not to be bullied by the public because they don't understand or even approve of the outcome of any particular case. But I get where you are with it. I didn't follow the case very closely until I heard about the sentencing and I was taken aback. I couldn't understand why someone who was found guilty would get such a light sentence. As a victim advocate, it really, really disturbed me. So I started reading up on the case. The first thing I read was her victim impact statement and it threw up alarms for me. And after my digging, I found that the outrage is largely rooted in false or incomplete information and a defective, very unjust approach to sexual assault and women in general is still very much at work. That is what is driving the recall. Victim blaming is the theme, especially on the alcohol issue, and it is a blatant exploitation of victims and their trauma. Michelle Dauber is not an advocate.
This will have terrible consequences for men, people of color and the poor. I just ask that you consider all the facts and contributors to the case.
I just mean that judges are not to be bullied by the public because they don't understand or even approve of the outcome of any particular case. But I get where you are with it. I didn't follow the case very closely until I heard about the sentencing and I was taken aback. I couldn't understand why someone who was found guilty would get such a light sentence. As a victim advocate, it really, really disturbed me. So I started reading up on the case. The first thing I read was her victim impact statement and it threw up alarms for me. And after my digging, I found that the outrage is largely rooted in false or incomplete information and a defective, very unjust approach to sexual assault and women in general is still very much at work. That is what is driving the recall. Victim blaming is the theme, especially on the alcohol issue, and it is a blatant exploitation of victims and their trauma. Michelle Dauber is not an advocate.
This will have terrible consequences for men, people of color and the poor. I just ask that you consider all the facts and contributors to the case.
I don't understand where you stand on the issues. Your post seems to conflict itself. Can you be more specific?
I admit, I'm terrible about keeping up with local news since I moved here last May. I was starting to do research on who I should vote for in June, and this issue just came to my attention.
I'm curious as to how others on this forum feel about this issue and if you're going to vote to recall Judge Persky, and which candidate you'd choose to replace him.
Both attorneys running to replace him are women. Cindy Seeley Hendrickson has been an assistant district attorney for the Santa Clara County for a long time, and has done extensive work helping sexual assault victims. The other, Angela Storey, is a civil attorney who doesn't have criminal experience, does have experience as a small claims court judge, and is apparently concerned about defendants getting a fair shake. I'm guessing the between-the-lines message there, is she thinks Hendrickson may be unfair or too tough.
I'm really torn. I don't like soft judges, but on the other hand the idea of a judge worrying about making a decision based on public pressure also makes me nervous.
Opinions?
You bring up a lot of good questions with this topic. Your link doesn't seem to work but I was able to do a search on the topic which included a few other unusual sentences issued by the judge.
Regarding the 2 candidates, in general, former prosecutors tend to become more lenient as judges whereas former defense attorneys tend to become more strict. Putting that aside, only 1 of the 2 attorneys you mentioned has criminal experience. I have watched civil attorneys without criminal experience become judges in criminal courts and they struggle with a very steep learning curve. Personally, I wouldn't vote for an attorney who didn't have criminal experience as that is about 90% or so of the courts.
I don't particularly have a problem with recalling judges if their performance is substandard. The prosecutor can appeal a sentence in a conviction but that can often be more of a political decision and isn't always done. A person could file a BAR complaint but that is a narrow kind of investigation. For the public, the one true remedy is either initiating a recall or waiting until the next election to vote the judge out.
I can see that a judge might worry about recalls but those are pretty rare and usually only happen when a judge is making a lot of errors. Even then most substandard judges don't face recalls. And a lot of them don't face opponents running against them at election time either. IMHO, a possibility of recall is one of the tools the public has for ensuring judges discharge their duties responsibly.
From what I've read about this particular case, the Deputy DA requested 6 years and the Probation Officer recommended 4-6 months due to intoxication and remorse by the defendant. Judges normally go with what a probation recommendation suggests but don't have to. In this case, 6 months seems like a light sentence and isn't what I would expect to see given that the defendant apparently admitted at least some culpability. I read in one news article that the same judge delayed sentencing a student convicted of Domestic Violence for a year so that student could play football and the University of Hawaii. I'd probably want to research it more but the above information doesn't make me have a lot of confidence in that judge's ability and sense of responsibility. Put another way, he sounds like a "soft judge."
I don't understand where you stand on the issues. Your post seems to conflict itself. Can you be more specific?
I didn't know much about the case when he was sentenced, so I was as taken aback as many others. After researching and learning of the particulars, coupled with Emily Doe's VIS, I understand why Persky ruled the way he did. Turner was an otherwise good citizen. He had no criminal history or history of predatory behavior and there was nothing to suggest that he targeted her or forced her to the crime scene. He doesn't fit the profile of a rapist. They were both, also, considerably drunk (she was almost 3 times the legal limit and he was over twice the legal limit). All of these played a role in his sentencing.
The public, however, are trying to take him down, quite literally, on the basis of 10 second sound bites from the news and a woeful lack of information or misinformation, the law and victimization in general (City Data has some great examples of this, btw). Michele Dauber, who actually does know better, is exploiting them, victims and their trauma for this recall. I'm not quite sure about her motives, though her posts do have a whiff of misandry. But the bottom line is she is not acting in the best interests of victims, or of women. And, if she succeeds, it will have a negative impact on people of color, the poor and men. It will contribute to our mass incarceration problem when judges start handing out harsher sentences so they don't lose their jobs.
You bring up a lot of good questions with this topic. Your link doesn't seem to work but I was able to do a search on the topic which included a few other unusual sentences issued by the judge.
Regarding the 2 candidates, in general, former prosecutors tend to become more lenient as judges whereas former defense attorneys tend to become more strict. Putting that aside, only 1 of the 2 attorneys you mentioned has criminal experience. I have watched civil attorneys without criminal experience become judges in criminal courts and they struggle with a very steep learning curve. Personally, I wouldn't vote for an attorney who didn't have criminal experience as that is about 90% or so of the courts.
I don't particularly have a problem with recalling judges if their performance is substandard. The prosecutor can appeal a sentence in a conviction but that can often be more of a political decision and isn't always done. A person could file a BAR complaint but that is a narrow kind of investigation. For the public, the one true remedy is either initiating a recall or waiting until the next election to vote the judge out.
I can see that a judge might worry about recalls but those are pretty rare and usually only happen when a judge is making a lot of errors. Even then most substandard judges don't face recalls. And a lot of them don't face opponents running against them at election time either. IMHO, a possibility of recall is one of the tools the public has for ensuring judges discharge their duties responsibly.
From what I've read about this particular case, the Deputy DA requested 6 years and the Probation Officer recommended 4-6 months due to intoxication and remorse by the defendant. Judges normally go with what a probation recommendation suggests but don't have to. In this case, 6 months seems like a light sentence and isn't what I would expect to see given that the defendant apparently admitted at least some culpability. I read in one news article that the same judge delayed sentencing a student convicted of Domestic Violence for a year so that student could play football and the University of Hawaii. I'd probably want to research it more but the above information doesn't make me have a lot of confidence in that judge's ability and sense of responsibility. Put another way, he sounds like a "soft judge."
This is so helpful. Thank you. I'm especially glad to have the info regarding prosecutors not being overly harsh if they later become judges.
I witnessed a civil attorney who had been appointed to be a judge when a post was vacated and she was a mess. She lacked confidence and just was way out of her comfort zone. When it was time to have to actually run for her position, her opponent, a former prosecutor and criminal attorney, made mincemeat out of her in a debate I saw. She actually even stopped practicing law for a few years after that. I met her when she'd gone back to private practice and was a friend of a friend in a nonprofit I was involved with that needed a lawyer to write a cease and desist letter for them. I went to that meeting and thought she was the worst choice. Even as a civil attorney she just had no confidence or the ability to stand up to anyone.
This is why I was concerned about the civil attorney who was running. I thought it would be deja vu for someone to become a judge with no criminal experience, let alone the confidence to manage a courtroom with very confident prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys.
I also really appreciate that you shared your research regarding the judge facing recall and the former decision to let another student play ball and delaying sentencing. That really gets my goat.
I didn't know much about the case when he was sentenced, so I was as taken aback as many others. After researching and learning of the particulars, coupled with Emily Doe's VIS, I understand why Persky ruled the way he did. Turner was an otherwise good citizen. He had no criminal history or history of predatory behavior and there was nothing to suggest that he targeted her or forced her to the crime scene. He doesn't fit the profile of a rapist. They were both, also, considerably drunk (she was almost 3 times the legal limit and he was over twice the legal limit). All of these played a role in his sentencing.
The public, however, are trying to take him down, quite literally, on the basis of 10 second sound bites from the news and a woeful lack of information or misinformation, the law and victimization in general (City Data has some great examples of this, btw). Michele Dauber, who actually does know better, is exploiting them, victims and their trauma for this recall. I'm not quite sure about her motives, though her posts do have a whiff of misandry. But the bottom line is she is not acting in the best interests of victims, or of women. And, if she succeeds, it will have a negative impact on people of color, the poor and men. It will contribute to our mass incarceration problem when judges start handing out harsher sentences so they don't lose their jobs.
Hopefully that helps.
Thank you for your perspective. I did find her victim impact statement online here:
I have to disagree that he should have been given any leniency simply because he didn't have a criminal record - yet. The problem is minimizing rape as if it's not just as violent a crime as a deliberate attempted murder or stabbing.
This kind of behavior doesn't come out just because someone is drunk. His behavior shows how he thinks. Alcohol doesn't turn people into rapists.
I don't think people should get a pass simply because a violent crime is a first time offense. It would have been appropriate for him to get at least the midway point between what the prosecutor wanted and the probation officer wanted, which would have been around 3 years.
But, you don't just get a slap on the wrist for raping a girl. And the fact that two passers-by saw him in the process of raping her and chased him down when he ran, and one of them was crying hysterically over what he'd seen - shows that his wasn't some mistaken situation where he honestly believed he had consent.
From the articles I've read online, it appears to be a consensus that the sentence was shockingly light. So, I'm going to go with that.
And now that I know this judge has let other offenders delay sentencing so they could finish a sports season, I'm also appalled at that. This guy doesn't understand the issue or take it as seriously as our society demands now.
So, I've made my decision. I'm voting to remove Judge Persky from his position, and vote for Cindy Seeley Hendrickson.
Thank you for the informative thread. Wish local publications could be as enlightening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
