The article fails to mention that the defendant was also sentenced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and other stringent conditions of probation. Why are these important terms excluded from the article?
Also, if the recall campaign had not yet filed, how could the Judge object? The article states they had filed only a notice of intent.
The independence of the judiciary is a very important issue to the community. So,We had better get it right.

In the previous article the Voice stated that 90 law professors are against the recall but what is the context for that? E.g. How many law professors are there altogether?

In my opinion, those items were left out of the story for a couple of reasons:

1) This story was not about the original trial, it was about the recall efforts. They only very briefly give the facts of what he was in for and when released.

2) Every person convicted of a sexual assault of any kind has to register as a sex offender. An 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old has to register if that person was convicted for statutory rape.

Although you feel the terms were "stringent conditions" and "important terms", not everyone would use the same adjectives to describe those terms and conditions. If they did, the Judge would not be up for recall.

One thing I would like to see is Persky's record in similar cases. Did he show favoritism toward a privileged Stanford athlete? Or does he do the same for all rapists? Either way, it seems he needs a lesson in judicial ethics.

read this letter, printed in the Voice on Aug 4th:

Web Link

an excerpt:
"The Turner case is not an isolated incident, but rather shows your (Judge Persky) pattern of bias in favor of college athletes, or other white or upper-class defendants who were accused of sexual and domestic violence."

[Post removed: user banned due to persistent violations of terms of use]

Judge Persky followed the probation report recommendations in all 5 cases cited by that politically motivated campaign to fight judicial reason.

See this report in the Chronicle regarding the sentiment of the judges: Web Link

What a lynch mob.

This judge followed THE LAW. He didn't give this guy any breaks.

Your issue is with THE LAW. Not the judge who followed the law.

What happened did not meet the legal definition of RAPE at the time.

The judge doesn't decide what to charge someone with. The District Attorney does.

The judge can't change the evidence or create a new charge.

Recalling a judge who did nothing wrong is not justice. It's a mob mentality.