A very astute opinion piece on why Persky should be recalled.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Proponents of the recall cannot name a current judge of the Superior Court in Santa Clara County (out of some 80 of them - a third female) who would have sentenced Brock Turner to prison - even for the short stint now required by a change in state law. Throughout history, the whole system has gone fat too easy on rapists and molesters - in California and across the country. The rest of the world is even worse. But this judge is being scapegoated - used to send a message. Voters have to decide whether sending a message is a good enough reason to recall one judge. In the current environment and with the expected low turnout, the answer will probably be YES to the recall and a good judge will have to find another job.

I dunno Gary. so many see it an undermining the idea of an independent judiciary that they are voting no. I will as well. The campaign is emotionally misguided. The judge acted 100% within the law. 100%. The recall proponents are only interested in some sort of revenge "pelt", not in changing the laws that this judge acted within. Where is the effort to change the laws? No, we just need to hang someone from a tree and feel like we've solved something.

It's chilling that it has come this far, but I'm hoping other voters see through the recall efforts.

Gary has it right. Other judges spoke out, the same frustrating outcome was likely without Persky. But that's reason, and the main theme here is emotion.

I think this perpetrator got off way too lightly. Problems come up, though, if you look hard at arguments from people on the "recall" bandwagon who haven't examined it closely. Besides wreaking revenge, there's little they can change now that hasn't been already.

People who claim to've "reviewed Persky's sentencing record" are routinely wrong: all they've ever seen is Michelle Dauber's half-dozen cherry-picked examples out of 2000 Persky cases. Former Judge LaDoris Cordell said in an interview that you could "find" similar "patterns of bias" for any other sitting Superior-Court judge, including Cordell herself, by the same cherry-picking method. (And Dauber, as other local new media point out, isn't a California attorney, and has argued no Superior Court cases here.)

The law has been changed already to tighten future sentencing. Messages have clearly been sent already. The other judges have explained the sentencing reality they all faced. The perpetrator is beyond reach. What does that leave? Revenge. Punish Persky in the assailant's place. If you think about that motive, it loses weight. An emotional more than a rational response. They'll feel good for a while about getting their scapegoat, and only later really consider the effects of altering the judiciary population. And if they find (way, way too late) that they don't like those effects, we can expect the ageless, valueless excuse: "that wasn't what I intended."

This doesn't make sense. Is the MV Voice editorial board unable to come up with their own opinion? Why use the PA Weekly's? Why give them space? They have their own publication.

The PA Weekly uses the same lack of reasoning the recall campaign does. They call for accountability while acknowledging that Persky followed the law. Judges should not be accountable to public passions, only the law. If public passions result in changes in the law, so be it, but that is the route to be taken, not an end-run around the legislature. And arguments that this recall will not affect judicial independence are make-believe. In this day of rapid-fire Twitter rage, anyone with a story to spin can rally supporters to their cause and raise money to threaten a judge with whom they disagree.

Vote NO on the recall.

"But the probation department recommended just six months"

Isn't this actually the problem?

Turner got a 6 month punishment, of which he served 3 months time. He will have the sex crime reporting with law enforcement for the rest of his life. His career is wrecked, his Stanford education is wrecked. He had to quit Stanford, he had to leave California. The woman suffered no physical injury, did not get pregnant. Judge Persky should not be recalled for this decision.

Reading “• Analysis: the 'pattern' cases” shows that Judge Persky acted correctly in the Turner case.

We're in trouble when ideological extremists try to place their moral beliefs (correct or not) above The Rule of Law. I we voted "NO" because we think that it's highly dangerous when unscrupulous people with no regard or respect for the law start trying to mess with it. Just look at what the Trump Administration is doing in DC! Damaging the US Rule of law. Do we really want the same mob mentality at work in CA?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
We held our noses and voted for Hillary because we viewed her as by far the least of three evils (if you include Bernie Sanders). Politically, we're moderate Independents --- an endangered species in CA. We knew that Trump and Bernie (and their supporters) were total disasters for the USA as soon as they announced they were running.

The recall campaign dismisses the notion that judicial independence is threatened if Judge Persky is removed from the bench. However, another commenter noted that any future victim wanting to put pressure on the court need only call Michele Dauber and get her tweeting. Does that sound like judicial independence to you? Sounds more like hostage-taking to me.

I voted NO.

IT WAS RAPE PEOPLE !!! That's a felony crime for which I prefer a mandatory death penalty or life in prison PERIOD. T

Reviews of Persky's rulings in sexual assault trials show a pattern of lenience for "the boys who need to pursue their dreams". Rape is a violent attack not only on the body of a girl/woman (using a penis instead of a fist); it is also a violent attack on a girl/woman's spirit and vitality... an attack from which many women do not recover... ever.

So, let's take the premise that any male who uses this arrogant, vicious controlling act against a female does by that act agree to forego his future. That sounds fair to me.

GET RID OF THIS TWISTED boys clubber JUDGE.

Funny, but this editorial is a carbon copy of the one that ran in the weekly last week. I thought the voice was an independent paper from the weekly and had its own editorial staff. Apparently now. Is the voice worried about upsetting Michelle dauber?
Regardless, articles in the weekly, the daily post and the voice have concluded that the 6 cases that the pro recall campaign cite as evidence of persky being a biased judge, so no such pattern at all.
So I am really surprised that the voice did not exercise some real independence and show spine spine with its editorial, unlike the weekly. Of course both papers are connected to bill Johnson.

I have no idea who 'bill Johnson' might be, but feel the Voice most certainly lost credibility with this endorsement. The issue is not whether rape is wrong; it's one of the integrity of our court system. Too bad we can't recall Supreme Court Justices. I would be open to that idea.

Bob— bill Johnson is the CEO of embracadero media. Embarcadero media publishes the weekly, the voice and the Mello Park weekly.
The weekly has always been a big supporter of everything the daubers stand for.
Despite their own stories discrediting the main claims of the antipersky forces, they still come out this editorial. The most ridiculous claims in the editorial are the ones at the end where they claim that persky disrespected a jury and abused his discretion. One wonders who really wrote the editorial.

Persky should be recalled. There are some voters who will always side with rapists, but in this area they should be in the minority.

Rape is a very serious crime and each instance hurts many more people than the victim. The judge erred and needs to be replaced.

Agreed— quite the overheated rhetoric. No one is siding with rapists. But your comment is typical of the low road taken by dauber and the recall persky campaign.
And if you were actually familiar with the case, you would know that a charge of rape was never made against turner.
Why do you lie and distort the facts?

A MODEST PROPOSAL

In the future, why don’t we let the public vote on the sentence for any high profile case? That would save us the trouble of getting frustrated with judges after the fact. It would also dispense with the facade of judicial independence.

I strongly disagree with the Brock Turner sentence. But I don’t see why one bad decision is a reason to remove a judge who has presided over thousands of cases in his over 15 years on the bench. Just a week ago, the MV Voice ran a thoughtful piece scrutinizing the alleged “pattern” of cases appearing in the anti-Persky attack ads. Now, the MV Voice runs an editorial arguing that one bad decision is enough.

This is shameful. A recall should be used for cases of true judicial misconduct— not to object to a sentencing decision in one high profile case.

Shame indeed. The previous poster argues that since the crime was not technically rape, but simply sexual assault, that the judge’s obvious favoritism toward to the defendant should go unanswered.

It is typical right-wing nonsense to whitewash sexual crimes against women and the voters have had enough! A message will be sent that the judge is responsible for sentencing properly and not merely copying the probation department recommendation.

If our right-wing friends think that judicial recalls are unfair, then change the law. Eliminate the recall! In the meantime, it will be used in the same way that Persky used the law to send Brock back onto the streets. By the way, guess where Brock is serving is probation? He’s on Hawaii! That’s right, the judge let him leave the state and go to an island paradise.

Repeal!

@Shame - You err in believing that those opposed to the recall are right-wingers who minimize sex crimes against women. Judge Persky enjoys the support of Hon. LaDoris Cordell, a staunch feminist, and Nancy Clark, a former board member of the Support Network for Battered Women. Indeed, I know many, many women who feel that the recall effort undermines feminism. What many recall supporters are ignoring is that attacks on the judiciary have historically been launched by conservatives against judges they felt were too "soft" on crime. It is indeed ironic that many recall supporters fail to see how they have now allied themselves with those they used to criticize.

So, since a few women support keeping on Persky, everyone should believe that he enjoys the support of all women? The anti-recall coalition keeps publishing misinformation. Most liberal orgs support the recall and most conservatives support keeping the judge in place. Those are the facts.

@Oh - you are good at twisting words. I did not say he enjoys the support of all women. And it is humorous that you believe it is the anti-recall campaign that is putting out misinformation. Persky is ethically bound from speaking about his cases, so the recall campaign has taken full advantage of that and painted a picture of him that is infused with mischaracterizations and deceptions. Read some objective articles about Persky's cases (i.e., not the recall website). and you will see that the recall campaign has been the one disseminating misinformation.

And don't think for a second that the liberal groups that have allied themselves with the recall campaign are doing so altruistically. This is all about coalition-building and vote-getting. Individual politicians are likely receiving support from the same donors as the recall campaign. And if the recall succeeds in pressuring judges into giving out harsher sentences, then politicians won't have to shoulder the blame when mass incarceration of minorities goes up. They can still stand on their soapboxes arguing for sentencing reform, all the while knowing it won't matter if judges feel threatened by recalls. Very two-faced, indeed.

It is amazing how emotional this topic has become. Sigh.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
“And if the recall succeeds in pressuring judges into giving out harsher sentences, then politicians won't have to shoulder the blame when mass incarceration of minorities goes up.”

How dare Carol invoke racial discrimination when talking about this issue. Remember, we have a judge with a proven track record for giving out light sentences to privileged, white, sex criminals! Racism already exists there. The recall sends a message to keep it fair.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Definitely voting Yes on this important recall.

@ Lies - Does your use of quotation marks around "she" imply that you think I'm not really a woman? Because I can assure you I am. And trying to use shame into pressuring voters to support the recall is a dubious strategy.

As for your allegation that Persky has a track record of racism, that has been debunked over and over by credible organizations. If you read the MV-Voice article about his cases, you will see that they cover an African-American, a Pacific Islander, an Asian, a Latino, and a white man. Doesn't sound like a pattern to me.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

In response to Vote no on recall you said:

“Turner got a 6 month punishment, of which he served 3 months time. He will have the sex crime reporting with law enforcement for the rest of his life. His career is wrecked, his Stanford education is wrecked. He had to quit Stanford, he had to leave California. The woman suffered no physical injury, did not get pregnant. Judge Persky should not be recalled for this decision.”

Oh poor Turner, he didn’t physically touch another person without proper consent, engaged in sexual activity without consent, and violated one of our most cherished trusts, using another for his sexual gratification. What alternative reality are you basing that one must be accountable for their actions. I am MALE and I CANNOT tolerate this kind of abuse of another.

He got off light in my point of view. He is lucky he did not live in a justice system that would require equal actions done to him. The idea that he had to quit Stanford is laughable, it is a PRIVILEGE to attend college NOT A RIGHT. He has PROVEN himself a danger to others, so he DESERVES the increased scrutiny of his actions by registering as a sex offender. He did NOT HAVE TO LEAVE California THAT was his CHOICE. Just like he had the CHOICE either to conduct himself properly in the first place.

So give me a break. A MAN OF QUALITY EMBRACES WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND DIGNITY

HE DOES NOT POSSESS THAT QUALITY

This recall is a political campaign having nothing to do with right and wrong, bias of a judge, or facts per se. But the proponents aren't honest. They do claim that they have evidence of bias, which would be a concern. Except they do not. They cherry pick 5 cases and none of these is very compelling. The damage they do is not as much by their political campaign of solidarity with a female victim as it is about lies that allegedly justify their wishes logically. So that's why I voted no. Perpetuating this myth that there has been specific bias on the part of judges is the real danger. How can the laws be changed after the fact and then this one judge did something wrong by applying the law as it existed at the time? Aren't they really saying that they find the judge not sufficiently prejudiced to their way of thinking?


Also, consider, the facts and history show there is clear bias because the entire judicial system finds sexual abuse to be mainly an all-male set of defendants. Isn't this unfair on the face of it? The few female defendants really get privileged treatment.