More on that Stanford Judge...

or,

Close, but no Cigar!

A legal writer at the Volokh blog on the Washington Post, undertakes an examination of how the Stanford rapist might have fared in sentencing had the Stanford-alum judge recused himself (because he was a former Stanford athlete and strong supporter unable to act impartially here) or simply followed the guidelines in other jurisdictions:

The federal sentencing guidelines strongly suggest that the swimmer’s six-month sentence was far too short.  The general federal sentencing guideline for violating Section 2242 (found in Section 2A3.1) is a level 30, which translates (for a first-time offender) into a recommended sentence of 97 to 121 months — more than one order of magnitude higher than the six-month jail sentence imposed. To be sure, this is a recommended sentence for a sex crime on a federal enclave. But it is hard to see any real difference, for these purposes, between such a crime on, for example, a military base or the Stanford University campus.

The federal sentencing guidelines also provide a useful contrast to the reasons reportedly given by the California judge for giving the swimmer such a lenient sentence.  For example, the judge noted that the offense was the swimmer’s first. But the sentencing guideline just discussed recommends a 97-month minimum sentence for a first-time offender.

The judge also noted that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime. But here again, the federal sentencing guidelines take a different approach. The guidelines (Section 5K2.13) exclude a downward departure where “the significantly reduced mental capacity was caused by the voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants.”

The guidelines similarly rule out the idea that the swimmer should have received credit for “accepting responsibility” for his crime, but only after a jury trial that traumatized the victim. The guidelines recognize a downward adjustment to recommended sentences for those who accept responsibility (Section 3E1.1), but explain that the adjustment is “not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse.”

The guidelines also rule out any suggestion that a victim in such circumstances should in any way be blamed for the crime. The guidelines permit a downward departure only where “the victim’s wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense” (Section 5K2.10). Here there is no suggestion of wrongful conduct that somehow “provoked” the offense, much less significantly provoked the offense.

Where the author of this article goes off track into inconsistency though, is this:

But in the absence of any evidence of a pattern of problems, I am skeptical that a judge should be removed from office for a single decision. And even recalling a judge changes little beyond that one courtroom. In fairness to the judge, it should also be noted that the recommendation he received from the probation office was apparently for a short jail term...

The judge's judgement failed him badly here, and since there is no going back now and undoing his mistake (first in not recusing himself; second in the horribly short sentencing he imposed), he should suffer the consequences.

No, no, a thousand times no:
not calls to visit violence upon him, (just as sane people do NOT want to see the swimmer sexually assaulted himself during his 6-month sentence in the friendly confines of county jail...)  For those who incite criminal violence are criminals themselves, whether battering innocent white Trump supporters in the streets, or those calling for physical action against the Stanford-rapist judge...

But just like it only took "20 minutes of action" (and no remorse immediately shown when he sobered up and learned what the Swedish bikers caught him doing...) to end the Stanford swimmers life as he knew it, so the judge must pay.

California voters should now work with all their might to peaceably remove him from office for the consequences of his poor decision here (yes: even if it was his very first time, and he now sees -- because of the public outrage -- the grave, unfixable error in his sentencing decision).  He screwed up this one big-time, and that justifies putting someone with better judgement on the bench.

I think voting him out the next go-around is the answer.

For far too long in this country, we have given passes to men like this -- the judge and the rapist-swimmer -- when they screw up, big time.  It is why George W. Bush comes out of hiding every now and then, to help promote a book or his bathtub paintings.  Because he was essentially given a pass for his poor judgement and grevious mistakes that have killed so many, and displaced so many others... not to mention have crippled the U.S. economy into the forsee-able future (how long do you think will American taxpayers be paying for these wars??  Even longer, I suspect, if Hillary Clinton is elected and continues down the same road that Bush and Obama were marching...)

In Asia, often, corporate leaders take their own lives when their actions cause deaths, or demonstrate dishonor when their intentional business acts permanently harm others...  I do not believe in suicide, but something of that level of remorse would surely be welcomed if undertaken by our corporate bosses in America today...

The point is:  your decisions have consequences.
Even if made out of ignorance.

The arrogance of who you are (a star swimmer, an otherwise "smart" judge, a profitable owner or CEO, the president of the United States); or how brief in the course of a lifetime, or career, that decision was, proportionally compared to all the "good acts" undertaken, matters not in the aftermath of what your poor decision-making created... especially if the harm done to others is so huge.

Until men and boys, and women and girls too, understand -- or conceive -- this: it's really not going to get any better, here or elsewhere...  If we really respect life, we ought to understand that by nature, a "quickie" wrong decision can be just as severe as if the person acted that way every second of his life, or on multiple occasions.  That's the nature of life, and consequences.

So,
Oust the judge, I say.
He can always find other work, if he's so smart.
And maybe others will learn from his errors, and mistakes like this won't keep being repeated...

The Volokh writer -- who does a good job early in his legal research of comparable sentencing guidelines -- doesn't really get it yet either:

I hope reformers in California think more broadly than targeting one individual and try to determine whether the system itself malfunctioned. ... But clearly something is amiss in California when conviction for such a terrible crime can lead to such a shockingly light sentence.

Don't blame the system!*
Put the blame squarely on the person in the position who screwed up, so badly: It's the only way to ensure Change, and in the end, that's what we are really after... Right?

Sooner, rather than later.
The 21st century has stepped it up a bit, in case you have not noticed...
---------------------------------

* and don't insult our intelligence anymore by telling us you relied on "bad advice"... you were the decider; own the consequences of your actions:

In fairness to the judge, it should also be noted that the recommendation he received from the probation office was apparently for a short jail term. ... I hope reformers in California think more broadly than targeting one individual and try to determine whether the system itself malfunctioned.

I hope reformers in California think more broadly than targeting one individual and try to determine whether the system itself malfunctioned. 

 No, no, no!  Stop thinking, or making excuses, like that already.

The Volokh writer is flailing here, because he assumes other people in that judge's robes would have screwed it up so badly; I don't think so.  I think the Stanford-athlete bias, whether he was conscious of it or not, led to his error in judgement.  He was tested, and he failed.

Still, the writer strongly concludes:

But clearly something is amiss in California when conviction for such a terrible crime can lead to such a shockingly light sentence.

Now, the California voters need to take the actions to start fixing things...

Change don't come easy, afterall.  And rarely are those who are comfortably ensconced considered societal change-makers.  Let's shake that up, shall we?