Turns Out...

Lots of judges ARE biased...

The 54-year-old judge who last week sentenced former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner to a lenient sentence for sexual assault has been revealed to be an alum and former athlete of Stanford University as well.

Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky gave Turner a sentence of six months in jail and three years probation for sexually assaulting a woman at a campus fraternity party.

While those convicted of sexual assault can face up to 14 years of prison time, Turner was expected to spend only three months of a six-month sentence in county jail after being charged with three felonies including assault with intent to rape.

According to Persky, positive character references and a lack of a criminal record led him to be more lenient on the 20-year-old, who was once an Olympic hopeful. The judge said that prison would have a “severe impact on him.”

According to NBC News, Persky, who attended Stanford University as an undergraduate, was captain of his school’s lacrosse team. He also helped coach the lacrosse team while a law student at UC Berkeley School of Law. It has been suggested that the California judge’s background led him to sympathize with Turner and swayed his sentencing.

Righteous backlash:

Critics are outraged and are demanding justice. Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, told NBC News:

“I think he [Persky] was very persuaded by the background of the young man as an elite athlete.”
A recall petition on Change.org is demanding for the removal of Persky from the bench and has received over 67,000 signatures. It is 7,224 signatures away from reaching its goal of 75,000 supporters. The petition states:

“We the people would like to petition that Judge Aaron Persky be removed from his Judicial position for the lenient sentence he allowed in the Brock Turner rape case. Despite a unanimous guilty verdict, three felony convictions, the objections of 250 Stanford students, Jeff Rosen the district attorney for Santa Clara, as well as the deputy district attorney who likened Turner to ”a predator searching for prey” Judge Persky allowed the lenient sentence suggested by the probation department.

Go get 'im, California voters:

“Judge Persky failed to see that the fact that Brock Turner is a white male star athlete at a prestigious university does not entitle him to leniency. He also failed to send the message that sexual assault is against the law regardless of social class, race, gender or other factors.”

Persky is allegedly campaigning for re-election in the Santa Clara County election to take place on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. His critics, however, have purportedly launched a campaign called “Santa Clara vote Rape Judge OUT.”

You see, you need to focus on the wrongdoers, not the class of people to which he belongs... that kind of "collective punishment" (against all young, white males) only allows boys (he's not a man) like Brock Turner to walk away with his privileges intact.

Focus, if you want justice.
Vote smart.
And never forget: judges really can be biased... based on who they are, and who they sympathize with, underneath those robes. Persky should have recused himself here, and let a non-former-Stanford athlete decide Turner's judicial fate.

Just looks cleaner, you know?
------------------------

ADDED: Related:

Trump has a right to ask if Judge Gonzalo Curiel is fair

If judges aren't seen as impartial, the public will lose faith in the rule of law.

Alberto R. Gonzales·2 days ago

Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration. The two groups are unaffiliated, and Curiel is not a member of NCLR. But Trump may be concerned that the lawyers’ association or its members represent or support the other advocacy organization.

Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered.

Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.

Finally, some have said that Trump’s criticism of the judge reflects on his qualifications to be president. If the criticism is solely based on Curiel’s race, that is something voters will take into account in deciding whether he is fit to be president.

If, however, Trump is acting from a sincere motivation to protect his constitutional right to a fair trial, his willingness to exercise his rights as an American citizen and raising the issue even in the face of severe criticism is surely also something for voters to consider.