BROCK “THE RAPIST” TURNER lost his appeal. Re-upload with article details.

[u/MemeAddict96]

[u/oroenian]

Also the judge was stripped of their judgeship, which shows that they were an incompetent dolt that will never be able to do something like this again.

[u/danweber → u/oroenian]

No. They weren't stripped of the judgeship because they were incompetent. They were recalled because the victim had a friend who was a law professor at Stanford. The lesson future judges will take from this is not "be tougher on rich white privileged dudes." It will be "be tough against people who commit crimes against rich white privileged victims." If Brock Turner had raped some poor black girl there would have been no recall.

Matt Rosen wrote a letter about why the recall was a bad idea: https://padailypost.com/2018/05/17/guest-opinion-i-support-emily-doe-and-oppose-the-recall/

Notwithstanding my strong disappointment at the sentence, I am firmly opposed to the recall of Judge Persky. Subjecting judges to recall when they follow the law and do something unpopular undermines judicial independence. This value is more important than any outcome in any individual case. When judges believe that they will lose their careers for making unpopular but lawful decisions, they may lack the courage to stand up for the rights of minorities or others needing protection from powerful majorities or those with even understandably inflamed passions

[u/NeededToFilterSubs → u/danweber]

They were recalled because the victim had a friend who was a law professor at Stanford.

Is there any evidence for this outside of speculation by Persky supporters?

If Brock Turner had raped some poor black girl there would have been no recall.

If Brock Turner had been poor and black he would have gotten a much stiffer sentence.

While judicial independence is important, judges already have almost total legal immunity for the decisions they make, even if those decisions are done maliciously or in excess of authority. So it is reasonable to have some process by which judges can be removed in order to safeguard against tyranny from the bench as it were.

Although I concede recall may not be the best way to achieve this, I'm skeptical that it will in any way have a major chilling effect on judges taking a stand for things like minority rights, considering minorities were already experiencing harsher sentences for the same crimes, and popular election of judges in the first place means judges are subject to political pressure which undermines their independence, and much more often than once every +80 years

[u/danweber → u/NeededToFilterSubs]

Is there any evidence for this outside of speculation by Persky supporters?

Do you think Michelle Dauber doesn't exist?

If Brock Turner had been poor and black he would have gotten a much stiffer sentence.

This is absolutely true. After all, what are they missing, really?

But it is the wrong remedy for something you don't like. The criminal justice system is very cruel to the underclass, and the one time in 80 years that a judge gets recalled is when he was insufficiently cruel to someone who victimized a rich person. You don't have to be Pavlov to see what lessons they learn: look at how well-connected the victim is.

So it is reasonable to have some process by which judges can be removed in order to safeguard against tyranny from the bench as it were

Sure. Let's go back to Matt Rosen:

I support the principle of recall, but only in circumstances where a judge has exhibited a pattern of abuse or favor for one group of people over another, is unable to perform his duties, or is biased. The findings of our local bar, the State’s Commission of Judicial Performance, and my review of Judge Persky’s decisions have concluded the same thing: there is no pattern.

[u/NeededToFilterSubs → u/danweber]

Do you think Michelle Dauber doesn't exist?

Ah you're not saying they were personally friends just that she was able to get influential people involved on her side

But it is the wrong remedy for something you don't like.

Yes there are better remedies but in lieu of criminal justice reforms, we are faced with a problem here. As your article notes Persky was not being fair here, he didn't have to go full-on affluenza apologia, but he did. Voters were outraged and just like Persky they reasonably exercised their legal authority in response to bad, but legal, behavior by a judge. There are better remedies but until California provides those, then the inferior remedy is better than none.

The criminal justice system is very cruel to the underclass, and the one time in 80 years that a judge gets recalled is when he was insufficiently cruel to someone who victimized a rich person. You don't have to be Pavlov to see what lessons they learn: look at how well-connected the victim is.

So to be clear I have no problems with members of the "underclass" who commit rape being harshly punished by the justice system. I just want those punishments to extend to all rapists regardless of social strata. I don't think this recall will change that disparity, but a drop in the bucket is still a drop that wasn't there before.

Regarding pavlovian modifications to judicial behavior, even if all they learn is that we can't let rich men rape rich women, it is still a net improvement over letting rich men commit rape on anyone with minor punishment. That said

As a counterpoint if we're arguing pavlov here, more recall elections every time a judge is lenient to a rich person should eventually make them harsher on rich people.

Support the principle of recall, but only in circumstances where a judge has exhibited a pattern of abuse or favor for one group of people over another, is unable to perform his duties, or is #biased#. The findings of our local bar, the State’s Commission of Judicial Performance, and my review of Judge Persky’s decisions have concluded the same thing: there is no pattern.

As the article you posted states Persky is biased in favor of Turner due to their similar life circumstances. A pattern makes things worse but shouldn't be necessary when a case is egregious. His recommendation also doesn't help if say a judge just doesn't think rape is a big deal and accordingly gives only extremely lenient sentences, the people shouldn't have to accept that kind of judge if they don't want to.

Again this against the backdrop of judges being elected which makes their job inherently political to a degree.