Wow. Quite a string of letters in favor of the recall. Nice letter-writing campaign. But here is my question for recallers: How many Superior Court judges in Santa Clara County (out of some 80) would likely have sent Brock Turner to state prison? Women comprise a third of the local bench. Retired Judge LaDoris Cordell has said repeatedly that none of the judges would have sent Turner to prison. Assuming, for the moment, that Judge Cordell is right (or close to right) about that, why did the recallers not recruit any attorneys to run against any of the 25 judges up for election this year? 25 judges just got "elected" to (new) 6-year terms in this county by default when no one ran against them. Is that how judges may be held accountable? When they run unopposed?

Gee, MV Voice, you are displaying an overwhelming editorial bias in favor of the recall in printing only letters from its supporters this week. An embarrassing display of pandering.

Unlike these letter-writers, I don't believe that a judge is supposed to sentence a defendant to satisfy a public whim or send a message to others. A judge's sentence should be targeted toward that particular individual, and should take into account only the law and the facts, not some media spin. Recall supporters claim that Persky is biased because he didn't do what they wanted him to do - be biased for their side, stand with them, wave a flag, send a message. They seem not to understand the concept of neutrality. Multiple outside reviews of his record show no evidence of bias (Commission on Judicial Performance, Santa Clara County Bar Association, AP News). The Mercury News also discounted the allegations of bias. The Turner sentence was in line with the independent recommendation of the probation office. And yet they keep saying he's biased because he's not with them.

Vote NO on the recall.

Vote NO on the Recall

Most of these anti-Pesky letters currently published in the Voice are straight from the SJ Mercury News. Judge Persky followed the rule of law, and among other requirements, he followed the voter initiative to consider probation for first-time offenders, and he considered both sides, as he is required to do. Then he followed the recommendation of the Probation Department, whose job is to conduct a thorough investigation, including interviews, and devise a recommended sentence.

Uninformed people seem to think that the longer the sentence, the quicker the victim will heal, and the more righteous the offender will become--but studies refute these myths. Longer sentences don't help the victim heal faster, and longer sentences actually breed anger and lead to increased recidivism.

Brock Turner was handed stiff sentencing; 6 months in jail, probation for 3 years, rehab, and a life sentence as a registered sex offender. The sex offender designation is a life-altering sentence, especially for a young man, who will now have a very difficult time finding a job, face minimal educational opportunities, face restrictions where he may live, require re-registration every three months for the rest of his life even when he's a senior citizen, and he'll undergo a multitude of other restrictions for the remainder of his life.

Turner and Emily Doe were both highly intoxicated. Turner claims consent, and Emily Doe can't recall a thing. DNA was negative for rape.

Having read the "People v. Brock Allen Turner" court documents, the Commission on Judicial Performance report which cleared Judge Persky of bias and wrongdoing, and other valid documents, I am voting NO on the recall.

The pro-recall letter writers show bias and present false information.

Adolpha Coles talks of elite offenders, and Nicole Bratz asks that elected officials not abuse power “to perpetuate a culture of impunity for privileged sex offenders.”

Phuong Thao Macleod speaks only of Turner’s 6-month sentence, completely omitting the probation, rehab, and the worst sentence of all—Turner’s life-time sexual offender registration. Kim Noll only speaks of a six-month jail sentence and probation, and also omits the worst sentence, Turner’s life-time sex offender designation.

Ms. Caressi falsely states, “This is only one of several instances where Persky has demonstrated concerningly lenient judgment for serious offenders of sex crimes and gender-based violence, particularly for those of privileged status.”

The aforementioned ladies are wrong. Nobody, including Judge Persky, is perpetuating a culture of immunity for privileged sex offenders. Brock turner was raised in a middle-class neighborhood, and his mother is as nurse—no privilege here.

According to the Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge Persky’s decisions “do not provide clear and convincing evidence to support the contention that Judge Persky’s decisions reflect personal bias in favor of white criminal defendants and/or more privileged criminal defendants, or that he takes crimes involving violence against women less seriously.” Additionally, the Santa Clara County Bar Association and the Associated Press, which conducted its own independent investigation, found no evidence of bias.

So ladies, please stick to the truth.

It’s very clear that Persky should be recalled. Judicial independence has its limits. If the decisions by a judge are abhorrent to the general public, then an appropriate check and balance should be a recall.

The pattern of bias is clear, even if many of his judicial brethren choose to ignore it.

Persky gave a sentence in line with the law and the recommendations of the other professionals dealing with Turner. He did what he is supposed to do - base his decision on the merits of the case, not who the people involved are.

The fact that this became a high-profile case means nothing. What we do NOT need is a judge giving harsher sentences to certain defendants because of who they are or because the public has decided to try that defendant in the court of public opinion. Do you REALLY want a judge deciding his cases based on who the litigants are?

If you think the laws aren't harsh enough, then lobby to change them. It is not up to the judge to change the law. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to doing just that. Talk to your congressperson about harsher laws for crime. But keep in mind that it isn't okay to decide later that the law is too harsh because you like the defendant.

NO Recall