California Today: 2 Views of the Judge Persky Recall

It will be interesting to see if in the future, people begin recalling judges for not being harsh enough on other types of "offenses". Yep, that there is dog-whistle for immigration related things, brown people things. The petarders got this judge. I can't imagine this will lead to good things, from my point of view, but I am quite sure it will lead to "good" things from the point of view of many in the "law and order" camp.

How extraordinary. Mr. Draper is of the opinion we should split California into three states. I presume this is another expression of the titanic insight that led him to invest in the fraud called Theranos. And led others depending on his insight to do the same. And to lose their investments. And finally, this would be the hardened-against-reality insight that has yet to allow Mr. Draper to acknowledge that his investment in Theranos was misguided, at the least. I wish Mr. Draper would move to New Zealand. Perhaps he could be a next-door neighbor to Mr. Thiel. Those of us Californians left behind can figure out how to prepare our state and its people for the 21st century. I think we can do better than Mr. Draper. I know how I'll vote on his misbegotten proposition.

Cordell's description that the recall was an emotional response is just another way of saying women are too emotional and cannot make rational or logical decisions. Judge Persky made his bad sentencing decision 2 years ago. There was nothing emotional about this process which required obtaining enough signatures to get the recall on the June ballot and then campaign for the recall. This took long hours, hard work, good strategy and tough decisions. Judges are elected in California and voters can fire a judge. Cordell implies mercy was called for in sentencing this vile former swimmer.... why? He thought it was ok to rape a woman who was semi conscious or not conscious at all? He made an intentional decision to rape a woman. He was convicted of multiple felonies. The only reason the word mercy is used by some is because this rapist is white, educated at good schools, was a good competitive swimmer for Stanford and his family had money. But a jury found him guilty of FELONIES, more than one, that he RAPED a woman who spoke at sentencing about the life long harm he inflicted on her and took away parts of her. Former Judge Persky decided to rely on a probation report that FOCUSED on the white privilege of this convicted felon and should receive some "mercy," noting that this "boy" will suffer because he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Bad decision. The voters spoke clearly that Persky's judgment was bad and he was not qualified.

Did anyone read the probation report? The accuser said Turner didn't belong in prison.

I live five miles from Stanford, but in a different county. Judges whining about the public removing them is nonsensical. Read the constitution, or just a tiny bit of history. Checks and balances, you work for us. And in this case the judge was a Stanford athlete, just like the defendant. It was stupidity, or better yet hubris, to not recuse himself from the case. He got his due.

I was angry at the shortness of the sentence too, but I don't think that is a reason to go against the rule of law. Change the laws. Recalling Judges who follow the law sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

I have lost my respect for Judge Cordell, who has lived in my neighborhood for several decades because: On Fox news Cordell made light of the white powder sent to Prof. Dauber, implying that Ms. Dauber had lied about the incident. Well, it seems that the same person who sent white powder to Ms. Dauber also sent same to Trump family members. Ms. Dauber was not lying. I didn't even vote for the Sheriff candidate because he was endorsed by Cordell. Voting is going to be simple for me: whoever Cordell endorses, I won't vote for.

Elected officials are employed by the people that elected them. If they run afoul of their bosses, then they can be fired. As to the assumption that harsher sentences will result, I think it is completely off the mark. Rather than imposing harsher sentences, it strikes me that this is a wake-up call to the judiciary to impose meaningful sentences, sentences in which justice and mercy are brought into alignment--a just sentence should be the end result.

I am a liberal feminist and in the case of Judge Persky I think this sets a horrible precedent. Persky used the recommendation by the probation department as part of his decision. The sentence fell within the statutory range. There is no historical evidence that Persky renders light sentences on sex offenders. If a long pattern existed it might be a different story. But Persky had a reputation for intelligence and fairness. Ms. Dauber and the voters are not thinking of unintended consequences -- this can backfire very badly for future defendants.

Don't forget that people who had direct experience with Persky in the courtroom, in many instances saw his bias against women in full blossom. The Stanford swimmer case wasn't the only instance where his prejudices showed. He gave a lot of people reasons to want him out.

When the Iowa Supreme Court followed the federal appeals court in legalizing same-sex marriage, irate conservatives recalled the judges. The left exploded, called it a travesty. It was. The same principle holds for Judge Persky. Our criminal justice system cannot rely on public opinion but on the facts developed in court. And isn't that exactly what we will demand when Robert Mueller brings his charges against the President and his pepes.

I think judges should make their rulings independent of immediate popular sentiment. I have seen outstanding judges -- like Supreme Court Justices Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso -- and Rose Bird, too -- voted out of office by pro-death-penalty, right-wing hysteria. So I would be reluctant to vote for the recall of any judge. However, California judges are (unfortunately) answerable to the voters. So as a voter, I have to exercise my judgment on the performance of this or that judge. For me, given my preference for judicial independence, I place a heavy burden on the judge's opponents to show exactly how this particular judge is unfit. Judge Persky's opponents met that burden here. The man is manifestly unfit for the bench. Yes, the judge's rulings were technically within the law -- but they were perverse. Contrary to some of the comments here, there was undoubtedly a rape -- and a very nasty one, at that. I practiced criminal law in California for a number of years and I can guarantee you that if the defendant had been a black high-school drop-out rather than a white middle-class college student, he would have been sentenced to a zillion years. White, middle-class criminals receive relatively light sentences or are not charged at all. In my practice I saw this again and again. Judges may beat their breasts and declare how unprejudiced they are -- but the entire criminal system is pervaded by race and class bias. Persky, too.

To say that Persky was "just following the law" is disingenuous because, while it's true, it's besides the point. Judges have and should have sentencing latitude, but that doesn't mean that judges can use their authority to favor defendants they like. That's corruption, and that's what really got Persky kicked off the bench. Also, it turned out that he had a history of letting sex offenders off easily (yes, mostly white, but then again, his jurisdiction is mostly white, so I don't ascribe that to racism).

I voted to recall the judge. My daughter studied in Stanford (years back I spent a year there in grad school too). But the reason for my vote was different - I think the system is too biased towards white males. I get angry when I read of a poor back father killed by the police for having a broken tail light - and the white male judge sets the policeman free. But a white kid who murders black people in a church is taken to a burger shop before being booked - by white male policemen. Get rid of all these judges starting with CJ Roberts, Alito and co and replace them with more balanced judges from all races and genders. Persky is only the starting point. Not the end of this trend. I hope.

How has no one else mentioned that if we start imposing maximum sentences on people for these sorts of crimes it will disproportionately affect people of color, the same way the drug prohibition did. Brock's sentence should be the rule, not the exception for crimes like this, especially for men of color who are already disproportionately sentenced to longer sentences than white men.

If anyone is to blame for the potential loss of judicial independence, it is JUDGE PERSKY, for giving a ridiculous sentence to a sex offender who happened to be a rich kid from Stanford. I don't believe in super-long sentences, especially for most young offenders. However, Persky basically threw the victim under the bus.

I live in the North of California with the Jefferson proponents. There is no viable discussion of what happens if the split happens. The main push is for gun rights and no taxes. These people are like the dog who chases the car and catches it. That and the complete ignorance of what Jefferson believed. I would beat feet out of here so fast if those crazies got their own state.

Few would accuse me of being liberal, but I wholeheartedly approve of the recall. It is time to start respecting women. 3 months served for rape? Seriously? That's not justice.

US Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren, whose districts cover portions of Santa Clara County, argued strongly against the recall, and strongly in favor of the rule of law in general, and the requirement of a sustainable, democratic republic to have an independent judiciary in particular. Will the same voters who exercised electoral mob rule, now extend their emotions to throw out these leading politicians? As Eshoo and Lofgren noted, subsequent to this case the laws on sentencing have been strengthened dramatically: that's how the law works. What Eshoo and Lofgren did not point out, however: had the attach occurred fewer than two years previous, no more than a misdemeanor could have been charged. Laws were already being strengthened, prior to the attack. Also, what Dauber fails to note is this: had the convicted perpetrator not waived his Miranda rights while still drunk, he would have walked completely. These facts show much remains to be done, both in law and in social mores. And, colleges must continue to deal with the issues of assault, defining more sharply what constitutes consent under laws changed only recently, and diffusing knowledge and standards, not only within the college communities, but throughout society. Venting frustration, not just for this attack, but for all previous unpunished ones, is an expression of mob emotion. The recall was defeated in Palo Alto and Los Altos, BTW. This vote was not for women; it was against the rule of law.

How come no news organization has ever profiled the woman probation officer who recommended the sentence? The larger MeToo story is the exodus of men from the Democratic Party, which disdains them. This will inevitably result in more Republican rule and the dismantling of the social safely net. In other words Democrats have chosen to abandon Social Security and Medicare in order to purchase Diversity and Inclusion. But you can't eat Diversity, and Inclusion won't get you in to see the doctor.

What the people who voted to recall Peskin knew about the case could probably fit on the back of a postage stamp. It’s part of the problem when voters inform themselves from viral snippets of less than 280 characters.

As someone who sat through the Brock Turner trial and heard all the testimony and the judge’s instructions to the jury I need to inform those who were not in the courtroom that this case is not about rape (absolutely no evidence to support it), and there was no attack of the victim. The role of alcohol and excessive consumption thereof had a legal bearing in this case not understood by most and completely ignored by recall advocates. There is consensual behavior and complicity between individuals until the law steps in and relegates one actor a criminal and the other a victim. Judge Persky in ruling as he did in the Turner case lays before us the honest state of the law and how it applies to cases of this nature. He got it right and thus alerts us that we have much to sort out as a society and work to do in providing less toxic environments on college campuses. In bringing about these and related changes is where I would want my progressive women activists neighbors to apply their talents and passion. Instead they have thrown an honorable judge under the bus pursuant to nothing.

3 months in County Jail for sexual assault of an unconscious person? Change was needed. Persky was originally appointed to fill out a term and then ran for election twice - mysteriously - unopposed. An interesting system of “elected” judges. So we had to recall him. Thank you Michelle Dauber for your hard work. You gave voters a choice, and we made one.

I fully support Michelle Dauber's opinion on why Judge Persky needed to be recalled. Our country has a history of judgments within the law, but are later seen in a harsh light. We didn't need to wait to see how awful this ruling was. How negating of the woman it happened to . Seemingly Persky's only concern was for the perpetrator, and how prison time could have had a "severe" impact on his life. In Judge Persky's case in giving Brock Turner a jaw -droppingly light sentence of 6 months in jail ( he served 3 for good behavior) and 3 years probation was outrageous. I wish the 2 bicyclists who saw Brock Turner on top of this woman and tackled him when he ran, should have gotten an award, money a parade etc.

The ouster of a sitting judge over a perceived bias is not unprecedented in California. In 1986 voters removed three California Supreme Court justices, Bird (C.J.), Grodin and Reynoso because of their steadfast refusal to affirm death penalty cases. Voters are generally unaware of judicial decisions but when a gross anomaly occurs, there is a procedure for removal. Government exists on the consent of the governed.

Interesting how the judicial elites do not want to be "judged" by their rulings. How dare the riffraff determine through the democratic process that THEY are unfit! Surely they don't understand how superior, they, the elites are! How dare they!

Neither Dauber nor Cordell mention the most obvious problem with these types of recalls: Judges will now be forewarned that they must over-sentence offenders of all stripes--or risk the wrath of an offended group. Just what we need, more people in jail for longer periods of time....Thank you ever so much, offended uber-feminists.

Cordell, and Dauber for that matter, seem to miss the point here. The "Justice" system is heavily weighted in favor of privilege. Those with money can work the system. Those without, those with the wrong skin color, those with the wrong culture, do not get a fair shake. This is the reason for minimum sentences and the reason for the recall. Persky offered this slime-ball of a kid a slap on the hand while Brian Banks, an african american kid from inner city Long Beach, CA was sentenced to Ten years for a rape that he did not commit, and of which he was later exonerated. Why is a wealthy, white, Stanford Swimmer worth more than Brian Banks? He isn't, and that is what this is about. Persky violated the trust of the people, who are demanding both, that sexual assault be taken seriously, and that the system begin to demonstrate equity in judgement. Our system will never work for the poor, it's greatest flaw, but if we do not hold judges accountable for their decisions, the gifts of privilege will only increase their influence, thus continuing to undermine our system. Persky had to go. His conduct was unconscionable.

"...demonized this judge, who followed the law. It was a very dishonest campaign...a good liar beats the system every time." Cordell is using trump's language, and he is twisting the truth of the Brock Turner case. Clearly he is aligned with Sessions who said that sexual assault is a "misfortune". I would hate to be in his courtroom as a woman in any role.

I voted to recall Judge Persky. While the sentence he imposed on Brock Turner offended me greatly, I voted to recall him primarily based on information that he treats privileged offenders differently by giving them lighter sentences than non-privileged offenders. Once that occurs, there is a complete break-down of the judicial system.

Judges need to be held responsible to their constituents as any elected official. If more people did their due diligence about judges currently on the bench perhaps we would have less mandatory sentencing, gender bias or judges voting from their political view. Judges are meant to follow the law, not their own prejudices. However, the current laws when dealing with women and children need to be updated to protect these people as human beings with equal rights, not as the chattel they have historically been considered.

Having worked inside the criminal justice system for over 25 years (newly retired), I know that most Judges get it right when it comes to pronouncing sentence. Moreover, it is patently unfair to evaluate any Judge solely on one case. That being said however, if bias for or against a defendant is allowed to infect the sentencing process then any Judge has failed justice, and in my opinion is therefore not following his or her oath of office. From the reports in this matter, it is apparent that this Judge only looked at the background of the offender and failed to give proper weight to both the rights the victim and the community to have a fair and just sentence. Judges who must stand for election have to expect that they will be held accountable for their decisions especially if they fail to give proper weight to the rights of the victim, or fail to deter future criminal activity in the communities they serve.

The entire attempt to recall Persky is a gross distortion of the entire idea of judicial independence, for political reasons. Persky sentenced Brock Turner after consulting with the Santa Clara County probation department. He's been defended, by among others, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office. The sentence was absolutely standard, and completely in keeping with practices that have been in place for many years. What's going on here, then, is a judge who did exactly what has always been done -- nothing unusual here -- and instead of going through the process of gathering consensus for modifying sentencing guidelines, say, instead is recalled. The message here is brutal and straightforward -- "If you cross this group, you will lose your job." The entire point of judges in the first place is to allow them to independently use their judgement. Pesky is being attacked solely for doing just that. If this recall succeeds, the entire concept of an independent judiciary in California will go down as well. Justice is not provided by angry mobs, no matter what the cause. This case is incredibly destructive.

The problem was not that Turner did not get the maximum penalty. The problem was that he did not even get the minimum.

The judge followed the law. He was given a sentencing recommendation which he followed. To do differently would have probably been biased and unjust. So he did the right thing. The recall movement amounted to a vindictive action by angry people who want to impose more damage upon the convicted individual than upon others who committed the same offense. People do that to satisfy their personal feelings of outrage not justice.

The recall is a huge loss for men. Not just men falsely charged with a crime -but men falsely accused of abuse in divorce and child custody disputes. The California Bar has expressed concern that false accusations are being used frequently in such matter. Besides the Family courts, they are used in restraining order courts - for example, a woman losing her custody fight in Family court will then go to restraining order court and accuse the man of molesting the child . The fact she previously lost the custody fight is an obvious red flag, but the judge will often award a restraining order to her - because the feminist lobby is so strong, he is afraid not to. This will now get far, far, far worse - before, the judge was scared he would be criticized and maybe someone might run against him in a few years - now, he's scared he will be thrown out in a recall - and, in the time before the recall takes place, be subjected to countless communciations - even threats - for not toeing the extremist line. The extremists have lobbied for decades, ever since "No Fault"divorce came out in the 1960s, for means by which they can get back to controlling this area of law. Now the fools who would not go their homework before voting have given it to them.

Re splitting California: a waste of time and of scarce government resources. And an example of our flawed voter initiative process. The other 49 States are never going to vote to dilute their power in the Senate, so even if California voters pass it, it will die at the Federal level. If billionaire Californian's have money they want to burn use it on something worthwhile, like solving the housing crisis.

Surely the judge’s sentence was also based on race and class. Had the perpetrator been black and poorly educated when he attacked the unconscious woman, he would have received a much longer sentence. I’m disappointed that reports about the recall campaign ignored the implications of race and class.

The leader of the recall, Michele Dauber, managed to get media organizations to agree to not publish anything which disfavored the recall, and in particular, not to publish any information about her personally which she did not want published. I do not understand the rules of media in this era, where print newspapers are almost gone, but clearly the media, even very large scale media such as the New York Times have gone along with it. This is very sad - it means the public will assume they have been given all available relevant information on the topic, when in fact the most interesting has been suppressed.

Maybe Judge Cordell should be removed as well, not only for refusing to see the terribly sexist and rapey attitude of her former co-worker, but also for being anti-democratic to boot! The people spoke. We are still, at least on paper, a democracy. A majority of voters chose to recall a judge with whom they deeply disagree. The judge should honor the will of the people, if nothing else. --- www.rimaregas.com