MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Recalling Aaron Persky, the Judge Who Showed Brock Turner Leniency, Is a Mistake That Will Haunt Progressives

California voters just encouraged judges to show no mercy.

PerskyPatrick Tehan/TNS/NewscomResidents of Santa Clara County, California, voted yesterday to recall Aaron Persky, the superior court judge widely criticized for sentencing Stanford student Brock Turner to just six months in prison.

Turner was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting an incapacitated woman. Prosecutors had sought a six-year sentence, but Persky thought Turner probably wasn't a danger to others and was concerned a lengthier prison stint would adversely impact him.

This outraged Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber—whose daughter is friends with Turner's victim—and so Dauber launched a now-successful campaign to have Persky recalled from office. The point of the recall was to hold "white, privileged men accountable," Dauber told The New York Times.

The prison component of Turner's sentence was indeed lenient. But a simple fact has often been absent from this conversation: The six-month sentence wasn't Persky's idea, but rather the recommendation of the probation department. And even if Turner should have spent more time behind bars, he is still registered as a sex offender and likely will be for the rest of his life. He will have trouble finding a place to live, holding a job, and interacting with young people. Sex offenders are treated as pariahs and must obey onerous restrictions, even in cases where they pose almost no risk to others.

But even people who can't muster any sympathy for Turner should still be concerned about what message Persky's recall will send. I understand why members of the Stanford community were upset about the lenient treatment of Turner, and it's easy to imagine white privilege had something to do with it. (The California Commission on Judicial Performance, it must be noted, found no "clear and convincing evidence of bias" in Persky's decision-making.) But this recall is likely to encourage judges to be tougher in general lest angry voters come for them too. This was a blow to leniency for all criminal defendants.

Evidence already exists that judges impose harsher sentences around election time. According to a 2015 Brennan Center study, "The pressures of upcoming re-election campaigns affect judicial decision-making in criminal cases, making judges more likely to impose longer sentences, affirm death sentences, and even override sentences of life imprisonment to impose the death penalty." When judges are subjected to normal political considerations, they unsurprisingly behave like politicians, for whom being tough on crime is usually a winning stance.

That's one reason LaDoris Cordell, a retired California judge and self-described liberal feminist, vehemently opposed the recall effort, according to The Times:

Ms. Cordell wears her liberal stripes proudly, but she said she is worried the recall effort could influence judges who might otherwise show leniency in criminal sentencing, undermining a longtime goal to decrease the prison population. The impulse toward harsher sentencing, she said, is reminiscent of the measures that have fed large increases of prison populations, like California's three-strikes law, which imposed an automatic life sentence for a third felony conviction.

Progressives who support criminal justice reform, the repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing, an end to mass incarceration, and rehabilitation should pause before cheering the recall of Judge Persky. The window to punish Turner has shut. The next person to come before a California judge might be a far less privileged defendant, hoping for mercy and less likely to get it.

Photo Credit: Patrick Tehan/TNS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eidde||

    "The point of the recall was to hold "white, privileged men accountable," Dauber told The New York Times."

    Just like the point of the Cosby trial is to hold black, privileged men accountable?

    If Dauber were a man, she'd be a racist dick.

  • Mazakon||

    Wonder if she was a fan of the Woodward verdict last year.

  • ||

    To think she managed to her way is grotesque.

    Anyone using 'white privilege' in any capacity should be viewed with immediate skepticism; even scorn.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Should be investigated for Marxism.

  • Lexicon B'Devil||

    Anyone who isn't talking about "white privilege" ESPECIALLy in the context of the justice system, should be held with contempt and extreme doubt.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Robbie has clearly drawn the boiling wrath of the same mystical bigot libertarian-impersonators that have polluted our platform and caused women to cross the street to avoid us. So how about a Robbie article on why rape and lynch mob mentality are not as embarrassingly evident in godless Canada? Canada also has a functioning Libertarian Party, but one that does not reinforce Comstock Law prohibitionism in its platform.

  • Eidde||

    All I did was call Dauber a racist, nothing mystical about that.

  • Chris Cat||

    You sir are a mystical bigot Canadian impersonator with a Comstock law fetish! I'm crossing the street right now to avoid you and your inexplicable rape and lynch mob mentality. And your pollution! So there!

  • Chris Cat||

    You sir are a mystical bigot Canadian impersonator with a Comstock law fetish! I'm crossing the street right now to avoid you and your inexplicable rape and lynch mob mentality. And your pollution! So there!

  • MarkLastname||

    Not to mention men already get much harsher sentences for the same crime - including sexual assault - than women.

  • BambiB||

    If it results in judges handing down death penalties to criminal aliens, it will be worth it.

  • Lexicon B'Devil||

    A wealthy celebrity vs. a nobody? So a black man has to be millionaire entertainment legend to get the same treatment as a nobody white kid? I bet Cosby serves more time than Turner.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Speaking of leniency, word is that Trump is preparing to pardon Alice Johnson, and possibly dozens of others as well.

    The cognitive dissonance this will cause among the TDS-addled crew of Reason might make all their heads explode.

  • Calidissident||

    I have to give Trump credit for this, it's a good move. I hope he moves beyond pardoning/commuting only those who have celebrity advocates, but it's a start.

    If you want to see actual TDS, a large number of people in the politics sub on Reddit (a very left-leaning crew in general) are attacking Trump for this and playing up her crime while defending her original sentence. For some reason I can't imagine any of them making that argument if Obama had commuted her sentence.

  • Eman||

    I can't watch that anymore since they acted affirmatively in getting that host with the two first names.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    If this case was anything other than "rape" the sentence wouldn't have been a big deal. The guy was accused of rape which means he's guilty of rape and honestly should have been executed.

    The fact that he's a fairly well-to-do, popular white kid is what the anger is really about.

  • Just Say'n||

    See, morality.

    Everyone in this scenario made a moral judgement that cannot be quantified by "science". One side thought that judicial independence was superior to punishment, while the other side thought that punishment was more important than judicial independence.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I don't disagree with that. Did I say something somewhere that makes you think I would or are you just agreeing with different words?

  • Just Say'n||

    No. I suppose I was just being annoying

  • Social Justice is neither||

    He wasn't accused of "rape" so if we're dealing with actual facts then in your words "the sentence wouldn't have been a big deal" except it is with the delusional punish the penis feminists & their fan club.

  • Eman||

    I don't know what a penis feminist is, and I don't think I really want to. I could be wrong though.

  • Mezzanine||

    All he did was grab her by the pussy.

  • BadLib||

    He was initially charged with rape but when the prosecutors discovered they had no evidence of rape (notably, the rape kit results showed none of Turner's DNA), they dropped the rape charges. He plead guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted rape.

    In reality, both him and the woman were flirting with each other at a party with plenty of alcohol around. They were likely headed towards a "hookup". However, she was a bit more drunk than he was and he proceeded to feel her up when she was unable to give consent (due to incapacity rising from her decision to get drunk as a skunk).

    If they had both been only as drunk as Turner and they had actual sex, both probably could have been charged and convicted of rape as both were unable to give informed consent but both would likely have been performing sex acts on/with the other. I'm waiting for a creative prosecutor to charge both in a situation like that -- there's no reason that the man is the one who gets charged in cases where both are drunk and the woman is also performing sexual acts. #GiveADrunkABJGotoJail

  • Lexicon B'Devil||

    The rape was witnessed by others. Just stop.

  • Malvolio||

    Wait, Turner was actually CONVICTED of rape, and no one, including Turner, claims the conviction was unjust or untrue.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Progressives" and feminists who advocate criminal justice reform and reduction of the prison population have not yet figured out that most men in prison have committed crimes of violence, with a large proportion of those being sex crimes. Significantly reducing the prison population will necessarily mean shorter sentences, or no prison time, for many violent and sexual offenders. Talk to a "progressive" about reducing imprisonment and you'll find they suffer from the delusion that large numbers of prison inmates are there for smoking pot or traffic offenses.

  • ||

    have not yet figured out that most men in prison have committed crimes of violence, with a large proportion of those being sex crimes.

    While it doesn't refute the idea, "Significantly reducing the prison population will necessarily mean shorter sentences, or no prison time, for many violent and sexual offenders." the idea that the majority of offenders or offenses is for sex crimes is not true. Not even close.

    But it's not difficult to show that progressive notion of progress for the sake of progress (or because someone says it is) is shot through with shallow and magical thinking. Regardless of the number of people in prison for the crime, unless you specifically say "We're going to lessen sentences for everyone *except sex offenders*.", you're going to reduce sentences for all manner of sex offenders. And if you say "We're going to reduce sentences for everyone except sex offenders.", then it rather obviously leads into a question about murders, manslaughters, and regular non-sexual assaults being granted leeway while sex crimes aren't.

  • lap83||

    I'm sure there wouldn't be any horrible incentives created for sex offenders if rape is punished more severely than murder

  • Vernon Depner||

    ...the idea that the majority of offenders or offenses is for sex crimes is not true.

    Yeah, that's why I didn't say that.

    And if you say "We're going to reduce sentences for everyone except sex offenders.", then it rather obviously leads into a question about murders, manslaughters, and regular non-sexual assaults being granted leeway while sex crimes aren't.

    And that was my point. It doesn't lead to that question for "progressives" because they live in a fantasy world in which a substantial number of prison inmates are there for minor drug offenses, victimless rules violations, and property crimes, and in which innocent Black men are routinely railroaded into prison. What they want is for all those Black inmates who are innocent or minor offenders to be released to make room for all the white rapists they are convinced are running loose.

  • hassan_isabad_subar||

    You're about half right. A little over half are violent crimes (including sexual assault) and the other half are the fantasy world you apparently don't believe exists. At least according to the statistics from prison policy.

  • ||

    At least according to the statistics from prison policy.

    This is key as well especially with regard to rape and drug offenses. Not that it should wholly reverse statistics or classifications, but there's an equivocation between forcing someone to dump out a cash register at gunpoint without shooting them, molesting someone and then beating them unconscious, and pulling a gun on a dealer who's taken your money and given you oregano.

    Again, not to say that all the criminals in prison are any one of the three cases, but the three cases are all treated as roughly equally violent in classification even though only one involves actual physical violence. Even if you take the stats at face value, they've distinctly distilled out context and causality that is pertinent to the larger question about decreased sentencing based on crime/motive.

  • ||

    Yeah, that's why I didn't say that.

    Sure, you said, "most men in prison have committed crimes of violence" which isn't true and "a large proportion of those being sex crimes", which also isn't true.

    they live in a fantasy world in which a substantial number of prison inmates are there for minor drug offenses, victimless rules violations, and property crimes, and in which innocent Black men are routinely railroaded into prison

    This isn't necessarily a fantasy.

    I don't disagree with your point, just that you seem unclear on the facts, which means it's between pointless and counterproductive to bring them up in support of your argument.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Your "facts" are not relevant. You linked to info about prisoners in Federal prisons, while the vast majority of convicts are in state prisons, and are a very different population with respect to their offenses, and statistics about the rate of commission of crimes, which is not the same thing as rates and durations of incarcerations.

  • ||

    You linked to info about prisoners in Federal prisons, while the vast majority of convicts are in state prisons, and are a very different population with respect to their offenses, and statistics about the rate of commission of crimes, which is not the same thing as rates and durations of incarcerations.

    The UCR is voluntary reporting at the departmental level. Again, see lap83 and hassan_isabad_subar's statements above. The stats don't unequivocally support your assertion, not even close, and are a distraction from the principled moral point you're trying to make.

    What they want is for all those Black inmates who are innocent or minor offenders to be released to make room for all the white rapists they are convinced are running loose.

    Right. The false equivocation isn't the absolute or relative numbers of prisoners as much as it is the degree of violence/harm. Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. aren't leaving a trail of Hadiya Pendleton's and Philando Castile's in their wake.

  • VinniUSMC||

    There is no overlap between "Drug Offenses" and "violent offenders"?

    Man, have I got a bridge to sell you.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Consequences are irrelevant when it comes to identity politics virtue signaling.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's cute how you think that progressives actually care about criminal justice reform.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because they are all uniformly evil acting with evil motives. Got it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yup. That's exactly what I said. You're clever.

    It is curious though how only progressives ever get the benefit of the doubt. They riot over speech- well that guy was saying mean things and both sides or something. They support stiffer prison sentences- well that's different because white privilege or something made-up.

  • damikesc||

    Conservatives do not get said benefit of the doubt as well. "His support of 'free speech' is just a desire to be racist" and the like.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Because they are all uniformly evil acting with evil motives. Got it."

    Jeff gets one right!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I disagree. The fight against white privilege and rape culture is so important that it supersedes my general left-libertarian opposition to incarceration. Turner's sentence should have been much longer, and the judge's career should be over.

  • Vernon Depner||

    What punishment would you recommend for young women who support and participate in the rape culture by attending wild parties at which young women are given free alcohol and drugs in the hope that they will become intoxicated enough to put out for strangers or at least be easy to rape?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Women have every right to attend parties, drink alcohol, wear skimpy clothing, dance provocatively — and still have people respect them when they say "No." To suggest women are at all responsible for rape culture is to engage in slut-shaming and victim-blaming.

  • lap83||

    And if they are too intoxicated to say no or yes, feminists have a right to use their freshly raped bodies as a soapbox to screech about rape culture

  • Vernon Depner||

    Women have every right to go to a wild party, drink alcohol, wear skimpy clothing, and dance provocatively in order to attract sexual attention and get laid.To call women who engage in drunken sex at a drunken sex party "victims" and deny them responsibility for their choices and actions is infantilizing women and denying their agency as equal persons.

  • NoVaNick||

    infantilizing and denying agency are the two cornerstones of pretty much all "Progressive" policies...

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    These women should also own maximizing the probability that they will attract a sexual predator who might do something despicable to them, while at the same time acknowledging the acts of the predator are illegal and morally repugnant. Both at the same time.

  • Mezzanine||

    Also a woman's right to say yes while wasted and then wake up sober in the morning and change it to no.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    While I always defend women's natural and human rights to wear mini skirts and spike heels, what about "Women Who Rape"?

  • Vernon Depner||

    I've been watching for the family of one these preppy boys kicked out of school or prosecuted for Retroactive Rape to file a lawsuit against the family of the girl involved for seducing him and ruining his life. So far I haven't seen any such case, but I still believe it's coming.

  • Qsl||

    Problem being, even for a left-libertarian such as yourself, is this sets the stage for any judge to be recalled for any decision the public doesn't like. Everyone has a pet peeve, and now the door is open for that to be expressed judicially in the most direct terms, excising legislators from the process. Go Team!

    This also leaves me in the uncomfortable position of trying to decide which flavor of libertarianism is the most batshit and hyperbolic. I thought sloganeering libertarians had a lock on that level of self-serving hypocrisy, but now I'm not so sure.

  • retiredfire||

    "...and the judge's career should be over"
    And how do you feel about the members of the probation department that recommended the sentence?
    A recommendation this judge, routinely follows, as he did in this case?
    Get informed, it may not fit the prog narrative, but it will make you smarter.

  • AustinRoth||

    Progs got to prog.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Ah, rule by the mob. Welcome to the new Jacobinism.

  • Rich||

    it's easy to imagine white privilege had something to do with it.

    That's easy for *you* to imagine!

  • RaiseYourRights||

    Wow, you missed the point. Judge Vincent Chiarello's name (out of 24 other judges up for re-election in Santa Clara County) was placed on the ballot right before Judge Persky's name by the VOTERS as well. WHY? It was an election yesterday! Judge Vincent Chiarello gave Alycia Mesiti to her father because he accused her mother of being depressed. The father then drugged her, raped her, gave her to his friends to rape, videotaped all of it and watched it for years on Judge Chiarello's jurisdiction of Alycia. He killed Alycia and buried her in his backyard and only admitted to it a few months before Judge Chiarello ran for re-election because he was facing a JURY trial and they were asked to give the father the death penalty. We failed to oust Judge Chiarello right along with Judge Persky but whatever mumbo jumbo you are selling is simply not the case. Are you aware that only 1 incumbant judge out of 155 judges up for re-election in Los Angeles County had his name put on the ballot???? That's what you should have been focusing on

  • XM||

    There was obviously an election yesterday. Recalls (especially at local levels) happen in election days.

    You clearly didn't read Robbie's article.

  • Longtobefree||

    The lynch mob speaks; out with the judge that listens to board recommendations
    The six-month sentence wasn't Persky's idea, but rather the recommendation of the probation department

    The racist speaks; down with whites, just because they are white
    The point of the recall was to hold "white, privileged men accountable," Dauber told The New York Times

    The feminist speaks; He is a rapist, even though the rape charges were dropped
    Turner was indicted on five charges:
    rape of an intoxicated person
    rape of an unconscious person
    sexual penetration (by foreign object) of an unconscious woman
    sexual penetration (by foreign object) of an intoxicated woman
    assault with intent to commit rape
    These were summarized as "two counts of rape, two counts of penetration and one count of assault with intent to rape". The two formal charges of rape under California state law were dropped at a preliminary hearing on October 7, 2015, after DNA testing revealed no genetic evidence of genital-to-genital contact.

    The progressive speaks; The testimony of the intoxicated, unconscious, victim must be believed
    Turner was a student athlete at Stanford, when he sexually penetrated an intoxicated and unconscious 22-year-old woman (referred to as "Emily Doe") with his fingers. - Her (victim) statement described her suffering in vivid detail, dissecting and criticizing Turner's actions both during and after the assault, and criticizing the probation department's recommendation of a short sentence for Turner

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I never saw any comparisons with other similar sentences. The outrage was perfectly understandable, but was it also understandable for lots of other cases which didn't get the publicity? Was the proposed sentence normal for similar cases?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This outraged Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber—whose daughter is friends with Turner's victim...

    Hell hath no recall...

  • Magnitogorsk||

    Americans' lust for throwing people in cages is insatiable. 6 months in prison is a long ass time, but people act like it's a slap on the wrist. That's not even getting into the sex offender registry portion of the punishment

  • NoVaNick||

    Aint no mob rule like the blue mob rule

  • damikesc||

    I understand why members of the Stanford community were upset about the lenient treatment of Turner, and it's easy to imagine white privilege had something to do with it.

    No, it is not.

    Bob, if you want to be a racist, own it.

    But white privilege is racism and bullshit.

  • General Skarr's Prize Petunias||

    He did say "easy to imagine."

    If there's one thing progs are good at, it's imagining. Just look at every single one of Kirkland's posts.

  • Rockabilly||

    If a progressive communist is white then their very words, thoughts, and deeds come from that white privilege so they should be discounted because it's based on the racism which gives them that privilege.

  • Tony||

    Epic clash of progressive priorities yo.

  • buybuydandavis||

    You just have to properly calibrate your intersectionality properly.

    Accused white man bad and deserves punishment. He is the patriarchy.

    Convicted white man not so bad and deserves mercy. He was oppressed by the patriarchy.

  • Tony||

    Seems like a nice balance to be honest.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good article. Part of the problem may be the LP needlessly copying Prohibition Party platform abortion verbiage the effect of which is to single out and gratuitously discriminate against women. Instead of voting Libertarian they vote to have males sexually abused by the inmate with the most cigarettes (and make electric power scarce, expensive and unreliable). We libertarians have allowed christianofascist infiltrators mutate the platform that once shaped Roe v. Wade into something abhorrent that now threatens the legal individuality libertarians gained for women in 1973. If women now prefer added violence of law to LP recommendations, that Trojan Horse plank is part of the problem.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    No one pays attention to your babbling. Do you expect them to?

  • Benitacanova||

    Leniency for sex assault - no way. There were witnesses. Every case is different. This judge had to go.

  • Tony||

    What's lenient about destroying his life forever?

  • thisbrucesmith||

    The rationale is that her life is also destroyed forever. This is seen as justification for "proportionality," but it also tacitly assumes that she has no hope for healing or closure. It effectively throws her under the bus, too.

    "...I would not feel all alone...Everybody must get stoned." -- Bob Dylan

  • Tony||

    Not to mention "eye for an eye" is not how civilization does law anymore.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're clearly just trying to preserve your white privilege.

  • Tony||

    It would be silly to expect someone who won the lottery to give it all away.

    That's why we have to extract 40% of it by force.

  • Anna Clare||

    Turner destroyed his life, not the judge. The sentence merely holds Turner accountable for his actions; actions he freely undertook.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    So now Reason writers use "white privilege" as an off the cuff, descriptive term that has actual meaning? Sheesh.

  • XM||

    To be fair, Rob didn't say this was an example of white privilege. He mentioned that it was easy for the supporters of recall to imagine the situation as such.

    But it wasn't, and a commission found no evidence of bias.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    A drunk chick got non-consensually finger blasted (agency violated) by a drunk idiot and now a judge's career is wrecked because he followed the recommendations of the parole board; recommendations that were carefully considered and based on the actual facts of the case.

    I feel bad for the girl who got fingered, I feel bad for the judge for being the new target of progressive pitchforks, and I actually feel bad for Turner because permanently registered as a sex offender for this seems ridiculous.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I feel bad for the girl who got fingered,

    Difficult to imagine a less persuasive declaration of sympathy

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Right, because you and your comrades have a monopoly on compassion?

  • buybuydandavis||

    That's what they think, in their hatred of everyone and everything.

    SJWs Always Project.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It turns out that nonconsensual group-groping is a tradition in deeply religious communities such as the former Ottoman Empire. A bunch of religious conservatives gang up on a girl and digitally violate her, as in a recent chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian series "Fauda" on Netflix. Alcohol prohibition is also popular in that same region. Nearly everybody who matters loves the Prophet and hates the very thought of profit. That forms the consensus, so that females have no say in laws involving birth control--laws the Republican Party evidently admires and seeks to resuscitate.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Is it the Left or the Right that works relentlessly to import those deeply religious communities to the West?

  • Mark22||

    It turns out that nonconsensual group-groping is a tradition in deeply religious communities such as the former Ottoman Empire. A bunch of religious conservative [Muslims] gang up on a girl and digitally violate her,

    So you are saying that Islam is, in fact, a religion that oppresses and abuses women? Great that you finally admit it.

    Alcohol prohibition is also popular in that same region.

    You mean people are trying to keep women from getting so drunk that they don't even know whether they consented to sexual intercourse? Oh the horror!

    Nearly everybody who matters loves the Prophet and hates the very thought of profit.

    So, like the Democrats then?

    That forms the consensus, so that females have no say in laws involving birth control--laws the Republican Party evidently admires and seeks to resuscitate.

    I believe the Republican party just wants women to pay for their own abortions and birth control products, you know, like they do in many other progressive countries.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Right on. Hank is especially full of the usual crap.

  • Mark22||

    A drunk chick got non-consensually finger blasted

    How do you know it was non-consensual?

    (agency violated)

    She had enough agency to choose getting a blood alcohol level of 0.22% and consent to go home with a drunk creep.

  • Darr247||

    How many times do you suppose he was raped during that 6 months in prison?

  • Empress Trudy||

    Maybe all felonies should be capital crimes. Would that make statists happy?

  • Vernon Depner||

    If that only applied to white men, yes.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "but Persky thought Turner probably wasn't a danger to others and was concerned a lengthier prison stint would adversely impact him."

    That's kind of the point of prison - to adversely impact the offender.

    "That's one reason LaDoris Cordell, a retired California judge and self-described liberal feminist, vehemently opposed the recall effort"

    The main reason is that Progressives, and particularly apparatchik Progressives, think the apparatchik class should rule without any accountability to the filthy peasants.

  • Mark22||

    The main reason is that Progressives, and particularly apparatchik Progressives, think the apparatchik class should rule without any accountability to the filthy peasants.

    Stanford and Palo Alto are the Versailles of the US: if you're there, you are an ultra-privileged apparatchik. Why should filthy peasants care whether apparatchiks-in-training go on a drinking binge and do stupid things behind a dumpster?

  • Mark22||

    This outraged Stanford law professor Michelle Dauber wants society to protect a women's right to drink herself into a stupor and go home with whoever she likes, safely! That's what we're paying taxes for! Why do you hate women?

    FTFY

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    Mark22 - precisely right - she wants perfect safety for women to do things which are extremely reckless - and whatever the cost of that safety, it's worth it .

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    Mark22 - precisely right - she wants perfect safety for women to do things which are extremely reckless - and whatever the cost of that safety, it's worth it .

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    I have done extensive research - independent original research - using primary sources and documents - and the whole thing is pretty much a big lie concocted by this leftwing sociology professor - she is a tenured law professor and makes a point of being described as such but she got her undergrad degree in sociology and never passed the Bar exam in any state - and even her research is about sociology - so she's an activist sociology professor.

    The narrative this professor - presented as a 'friend of the Emily Doe family" - has sold to the public is pretty much a pack of lies - it could be Turner assaulted Emily Doe - it also could be it's a drunken hookup gone bad. There was no rape, and Turner did not stuff pine needles in Does' vagina -that was a lie Doe told in her famous speech -it was not the only one.

    The details are long but the back story is a very interesting story about propaganda - that is really the big story here - everything the public belives is wrong, because the MSM did no fact checking so this radical's lies are commonly accepted.

  • KeithEns||

    The sad part of our descent into tribalism is our lust for blood, zero tolerance, and inability to deal with the tragedies as people.

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    In a Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman, this professor Michele Dauber admitted she "saw' the famous "Emily Doe" statement and sent it out to media with help of one of the producers of the now-discredited documentary about sexual assault on campus, "The Hunting Ground" - highly touted by CNN just a few years back - they promoted it, bought the rights, aired in once - and now you will never hear them even mention it, very likely because the men who were falsely accused will sue if they do.

    Anyway, the "Emily Doe" statement, which most local observers suspect Dauber helped "Emily Doe" to right, is full of highly inflammatory flat out lies - such as the claim Brock Turner "jabbed fingers and pine needles and debris" into her vagina- he did put his fingers in - he says with consent - therefore, one would think, not "jabbed" - by the way, the typical reason for that would be to pleasure the woman.- another by the way - the "penetration by a foreign object" charge refers to his fingers - nothing else, there is no evidence of anything else.

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    The lie about pine needles served two purposes - 1. It removed any suspicion Emily Doe had consented as Turner claimed - because everyone can imagine a drunk girl - a binge drinking party girl to be precise - consenting to sex with a stranger - but no one believes she would consent to having pine needles shoved into her - 2. The pine needles claim also caused intense anger at Turner, for being worse then a "rapist" (there was no rape) but also a sadist - no one wants that king of person loose after only six months of course.

    This lie was not the only one - but it was probably the most inflammatory.

    Two others - that Turner is rich - no, that family is not rich at all - Dauber used that lie to fuel hatred based on class envy - as a Stanford Prof making $350K per year and living in a $4M house in Palo Alto, Dauber knows people envy and resent the rich - and in fact she still talks about Turner and privilege - a code word for wealth.

    The last one designed to generate hate - the claim the judge was racially biased- but this was in relation to a sentence given a Latino that Persky himself did hot determine - pure lies there too.

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    This professor had a daughter, Amanda Dauber, commit suicide, and she hides it now, but at one point was claiming online her older brother had molested the girl when she was about 4 or 5 - the local media has made agreements with Dauber to keep this under wraps - really under wraps, to the extent that if you put it in the Comments of the local papers they remove it, even though it's not a TOS violation - in fact, you don't get any reason, even on your account - or even notice - it just disappears - she provides them very easy content, they provide her censorship.

    The personal tragedy of her daughter being molested and later committing suicide may be what is driving this professor, but whatever sympathy we have for that- she's a dangerous and extremely dishonest fanatic.

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    This professor had a daughter, Amanda Dauber, commit suicide, and she hides it now, but at one point was claiming online her older brother had molested the girl when she was about 4 or 5 - the local media has made agreements with Dauber to keep this under wraps - really under wraps, to the extent that if you put it in the Comments of the local papers they remove it, even though it's not a TOS violation - in fact, you don't get any reason, even on your account - or even notice - it just disappears - she provides them very easy content, they provide her censorship.

    The personal tragedy of her daughter being molested and later committing suicide may be what is driving this professor, but whatever sympathy we have for that- she's a dangerous and extremely dishonest fanatic.

  • BrockTurnerFacts||

    My last Comment for now the Professor Michele Dauber probably planned the entire false narrative -that this was a rape - it was not - that Turner is from a rich family - he is not - that Emily Doe was "gravely injured" - she was not injured at all - that Judge Persky abused Emily Doe - he did not, he followed the probation report.

    The fact the professor went after Persky, without ever saying one word about the Probation report, tells you its' not about leniency towards Turner - the place to address that is to get probation to stop recommending leniency - more important than one judge because they make reports to ALL judges in the county. And it is well proven all the other complaints against Persky were likewise bogus -

    This was never about this judge, Persky - - no, this was about recalling ANY judge, and the purpose was to scare all the rest into toeing her extremist feminist line, throughout the state and country for that matter. Despite her claims of "rape culture" the reality is, she used men's concern with abuse of women to ensure she got the votes she needed to further an extremist feminist agenda, because Dauber has admitted, in interviews with feminist websites, it's not just about sexual assault, it's about "divorce, child custody and other issues women care about" - in other words, about total domination of the courts by feminists zealots.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online