It is not disputed that [the defendant] took the victim, by then intoxicated, behind a dumpster, stripped her half naked and had his way. He faced up to 14 years imprisonment for [his acts]. The prosecutor recommended six years. The judge, Aaron Persky, imposed a sentence of six months in the county jail to be followed by three years' probation (the actual time served will probably be three months or less).
Judge Persky observed that a stiffer sentence would have a "severe impact" on Turner's life. He had previously received a letter from Turner's father saying that his son's arrest had, among other things, ruined his appetite for rib eye steak, and that any incarceration would be "a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action."
From the public outcry that followed, there has arisen a movement to recall Judge Persky. Is recall warranted because of one episode of what many regard as extreme leniency?
It is for this one, yes.
An independent judiciary is an indispensable component of constitutional democracy. It would be the rare case in which mere disagreement with a sentence, no matter how earnest or well-founded, would warrant a judge's removal.
There is a difference, though, between judicial independence, on the one hand, and utter lack of accountability to the citizens who look to the court for justice and must live under its rulings. A ruling in even one case can display a mindset so out of touch with basic decency, and so oblivious to the suffering of victims, as to amount to a forfeiture by the judge of the trust without which essential public confidence in courts cannot survive.
It is true that Mr. Turner is likely to face serious consequences from prison time. But to elevate this fact to the fulcrum of judgment -- while, for any practical purpose, ignoring the shattering, lifelong consequences of the violence Turner inflicted on his victim -- reflects an imbalance so lopsided that it amounts to an abuse of office.
A judge must balance mercy with justice. Judge Persky doubtless reflected long and hard about this sentence. That, of course, is exactly the problem. That such an unserious outcome is the product of reflection showcases, rather than undermines, the reason Judge Persky should be required to step down.
<< Collective Guilt a/k/a White Males Stink | Main | The Cruelty of Brock Turner's Defense Lawyer >>
Should the "20 Minutes of Action" Judge Be Removed?
I have previously argued that Judge Aaron Persky, who imposed a six-month jail sentence on the man who grossly violated an inebriated woman, should be recalled.
I advanced this position notwithstanding the opinion of the defendant's father that all his son did was "20 minutes of action" -- a phrase that will live in infamy if I have anything to say about it, not because it's appalling, but because it's revealing. In 40 years of practicing law, I have never seen the defense attitude toward victims put more honestly or more succinctly.
The court's lenient sentence, and what should become of Judge Persky, is the talk of the legal blogosphere, see, e.g., Doug Berman's entry here, and is today's lead topic in the New York Times "Room for Debate." The NYT asked three legal scholars to chime in, and me too. The debate presents as diverse and thoughtful a discussion as I have seen.
I have criticized the NYT more than once, and will do so again, but I thank it for seeking a conservative viewpoint and allowing me to speak my piece.
My contribution to the discussion was as follows:
He also should seriously consider resigning .
Some argue that a recall is unfair , but I disagree .
The electorate would have an opportunity to vote .
I agree that resigning is the best course. Everyone makes mistakes, but a judgeship is too powerful a position to allow a mistake like this.
Leniency is not always a bad thing, but this is leniency gone nuts.