It is too bad that Judge Persky is leaving the criminal court. He is smart, compassionate and fair. His experience as a deputy district attorney will be missed by victims and defendants alike. He truly tempers justice with mercy as demonstrated by his decades of service to the people.
I wish him well in his next assignment.

"It is too bad that Judge Persky is leaving the criminal court. He is smart, compassionate and fair."

Bull. He went soft on defendants in his court who were charged with sexual assaults. But I guess that doesn't fit into your valentine for him, does it now?

He is fair if you are sex offender. I seriously doubt you talked with any of the victims before you wrote your opinion. I know of at least one who does not share your opinion. In case you need proof, here are her words:

Web Link

This "professor" at Stanford who is leading the pitchforks in this lynching is highly questionable in her motivations. She is a family friend of the rape victim, so she is biased. She's putting too much emphasis on this one case out of hundreds heard by Judge Persky.

Her lack of reason was recently made abundantly clear by her comments on Stanfords "new" policy of not allowing hard liquor at parties attended by undergraduates, whether or not they are underage. If she understands the law, then she should know that Stanford has a degree of liability given that 3/4 of the undergraduates are below the legal drinking age. Yet she mouths off about what a bad policy change this is. Really? It's bad because it will reduce the incidence of unwanted sexual activity at parties. Her rationale was that students will take hard liquor into dorms. Ooops, she didn't notice that having hard liquor is also against the rules in dorm rooms. She's a piece of work.

Another point she tried to make was that being drunk doesn't facilitate the rapist's lack of discretion, only the person being raped. Oh really?

Her family friend was never a student at Stanford. She came on campus on a lark to party. Instead of dwelling on the few such people who are raped, Ms. Dauber should consider the hundreds of non students who are served free liquor on Stanford land whether or not they are of legal drinking age.

Ms. Dauber's vendetta against Judge Persky is just that. She's so would up in her crusade that she overlooks sense and reason in her arguments. Hard liquor might not required to become inebriated, but it works much faster than wine. It was indeed the hard liquor served to the victim which caused her indiscretion of becoming incapacitated in public. Is there no shame in that? Does one case of a rape victim exonerate all the other drunken participants, student or non-student, underage or over 21, who partake of a lax liquor control environment at Stanford? Can Ms. Dauber seriously argue that Stanford makes a BIG MISTAKE in seeking to correct this situation?

She should be fired from the University for her ill reasoned attack on campus policy which is meant to improve the safety of students and visitors. Her PC argument doesn't need to undermine safety on campus.

Impeach M. Dauber. She needs it more than Judge Persky.

And right on cue, the Brock Turner amen corner shows up.

"Lynching"? Check.
"Vendetta"? Check.
Blaming the victim? Check.
Having Brock Turner take the appropriate punishment for his actions? Oh wait...

It's the vigilantes that think they know better than the judge that are the problems. The Brock Turner
issue is CLOSED. The only remaining issue is the lynch mob out for the job of the judge.
So there. And at least Stanford has owned up to its duty to be responsible for the terrible
environment they let go on for so very long.

So, maybe the judge will be recalled. I sure hope someone does something about that hypocritical
Michelle Dauber. She should not be undermining the justice system in the name of some political ideology.

To "Lynching" and "Politically Correct" (obviously the same person posting under different names) - your defense of your friend (or relative?) Judge Persky is an extreme and angry ramble full of name calling and vitriol. Calm down, you only weaken your argument.
Judge Persky favored an athlete and gave him a huge break that many don't feel was fair or even rational. I do understand there has been a long-standing view of "blame the victim" and of excusing alcohol, but one only needs to read Brock Turner's father's sickening comment excusing his son's "moment of action" to see that this young man was probably rarely held accountable for his actions. Judge Persky became a party to that. It's past time to move into the 21st century.
Assaulting someone - drunk, sober, asleep, awake - against their will or knowledge absolutely needs to be seen as the crime it is, and order appropriate punishment. Alcohol is no excuse for any crime. Judge Persky has a responsibility to protect the public and punish crime - and he failed dramatically here. His history shows some serious flaws in this regard, and the people have a right to protest. Recall of judges is rare - but it should definitely be an option. No Judge is God - and the flawed ones need to be called out.

You have to wonder how the Brock Turner/Aaron Persky amen corner will try to explain away THIS:

Web Link