|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved putting a decision on the June 5 ballot for whether voters should recall Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky, the judge who became controversial over a sentence he handed down to a former Stanford University swimmer convicted of sexual assault.
Recall Judge Aaron Persky campaign volunteers collected more than 94,000 signatures from county voters for the proposed recall for Persky’s seat. Those signatures were turned into the county Registrar of Voters for verification on Jan. 11 and passed the testing of a random sample of signatures by Jan. 23.
On Tuesday, seats in the Board of Supervisors chambers were filled with community leaders who gave one-minute remarks on the proposal.
Michele Dauber, chair of the recall campaign, noted that the reason why many people were there was because of the comments of Emily Doe, the victim of former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner.
Persky came into the public spotlight after he sentenced Turner in 2016 to six months in Santa Clara County Jail. Turner’s sentence was cut in half for good behavior, meaning he spent three months behind bars when he initially faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in state prison.
“When Emily Doe heard that Turner had been given a six-month sentence, she was ‘struck silent,'” Dauber said. “But today, the voters of Santa Clara County have spoken loud and clear.”
Los Gatos resident Leslie Logan discussed the image she felt was being painted of those who volunteered with the recall campaign, describing it as the “dismissive and often misogynistic representation of an uninformed, misguided, angry mob who couldn’t possibly understand the intricacies of the criminal justice system.”
Logan, a survivor of sexual assault, said that she stands with the recall because she understands the complexity of rape culture “all too well.”
Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell spoke against the recall, saying there are women all over the political spectrum who are not misogynistic and respect sexual assault victims who are opposed to the recall.
“The effect of this kind of attack, not founded on facts, is to rack up sentences to encourage judges to look over their shoulders,” Russell said.
Stan Voyles, a retired Santa Clara County prosecutor, scrutinized Dauber’s background while speaking outside of the meeting room. Voyles said that she had never handled a criminal case or been a part of a single bar organization.
“She’s a bright lady, but unless you know how things operate in criminal courts, you really can’t make an opinion about this stuff,” Voyles said.
Voyles said the recall campaign comparing Turner’s case and another case Persky handled, in which 32-year-old Raul Ramirez was given a three-year sentence, does not add up because they were convicted of different charges.
He said that Ramirez got the minimum mandatory sentence he could have received for his crime.
The recall campaign’s official website mentions Ramirez’s case in arguing that “Persky has a longstanding pattern of bias in favor of privileged defendants. Less privileged defendants evidently do not receive the same level of solicitude from him.”
Voyles said his overall mission was “stopping the falsehoods that the recall campaign spread.”
“Either they have no clue as to what is going on, or they are liars, or both,” Voyles said.
Voyles did not speak during the public comment portion of the meeting.
LaDoris Cordell, a civil rights advocate and retired judge, spoke in favor of Persky. She said that judges want to do the right thing, and sometimes the right thing may be a more lenient option.
“If it’s a sexual assault case, judges are now going to think twice about doing what they believe to be right in following the law because of fear that they’re going to be targeted with misinformation, lies and distortion,” Cordell said.
Cordell said that the six-month sentence recommendation that Persky received came from a female probation officer.
“The judge did not have to follow the recommendation, but he did what most county and state of California judges do and listened to it. This was within the law,” Cordell said.
She said that Persky has not spoken out himself because by law he is not allowed to discuss active cases, and the Turner case is still in an appeals process right now.
Dauber spoke against the criticism that the recall campaign was becoming more about emotions and less about the facts.
“We were extremely detail-oriented and this campaign has been extensively reported by independent journalists,” Dauber said.
Both campaigns plan on sending volunteers out to talk to voters about the recall placed on the ballot in the next few months.
By
By
By
On June 5, 2018 VOTE YES to recall judge Persky!
Vota Si! Retira de mandado a Persky!
Votare si per ricordare Persky!
Evidently, the Board had no choice but to add the item to the June ballot. This was just an opportunity for an early debate. While I am so far voting against the recall, I would say to retired Judge LaDoris Cordell that judges SHOULD START THINKING TWICE about punishing sex offenders because sex offenders have been treated far too leniently in California and across the nation (and around the world).
Removal of a sitting judge based on the disagreement of a case is no good. Mob rule will never work, rightfully so, and the quest for revenge I find very distasteful. I would have liked a harsher punishment for Turner as well, but that’s a second topic. I won’t be part of the pitchfork and torch crowd screaming “REVENGE”.
Why not to recall the district attorney who did not pursue the appeal of judge Persky’s decision? Why not to initiate campaign to rewrite the law that allowed arguably unjust sentence?
The law was changed – the change had been pursued by Samta Clara County’s DA in light of the Brock Turner case.. An appeal by the prosecution would have been futile as the judge acted well within the law then in effect. I have not read the basis for Brock Turner’s appeal.
This case will set a precedent…tricky, tricky, unfortunately, there has to be punishment in place for first time sexual offenders, even though there is no criminal background, but the apprehensible nature of the crime needs to be reviewed and the proper punishment to go with it , such as in Brock Turner’s case. I think recalling Persky is definitely the right thing to do.
Extremely dangerous precedent! Recalling any judge because you don’t like the outcome is asking for trouble. The judge made a decision based on what the parole board recommended. He did what he was supposed to do. If you don’t like the policy or the law than have it changed. You can also vote the judge out of office at the next election. If every judge is facing mob rule, I guarantee they will begin to make decisions on what is popular and not what is the rule of law. Does anyone read history or are you all a bunch of sheep ready to jump off the cliff?
These people are absolutely letting their emotions run away with them. Dauber has no trial experience and knows little of the practicality of the criminal justice system. She must know how inexperienced she is. The truth is that laws HAVE been changed as a result of this case. That being true, any criticism of the judge is saying he should have gone counter to the law in the first place. The probation report authored by a female specialist recommended the sentence that Persky imposed. That sentence wouldn’t be allowed now under the new laws.
Vote no on recall! It’s a very bad precedent.
Funny all these ppl talking about emotions. The situation is straightforward:
There’s one victim who is marked for life, and there’s one perpetrator who’s getting away with his crime, thanks to a Judge who instead of representing Justice prefered to let the social status of the criminal, the rapist, influence his judgement. What is complicated to understand with people’s outrage? The hypocrisy of those saying “no” is mind bogling: if it was your sister, your wife, your daughter who was the victim, would you really feel that Justice was served with a slap on the wrist?? It has nothing to do with emotions. It has to do with people getting tired of partial Justice, driven by influence. What are sentences like this doing for the victim and for the fight against sex crimes? Stop smoking marijuana before thinking.
@Appealing and No On Recall The law WAS changed as a result of Judge Perskys actions and I am SICK and TIRED of people using the totally FLAWED Probation Report….Turned lied thru his teeth that was the basis for the Probation officers report…Persky conveniently USED the flawed report to justify his actions…Even at Sentencing,the Prosecutors brought out the lies that Turner told over and OVER …what was Perskys reaction???? he dismissed the FACTS…In a totally unprecedented action,the Probation People went to the jail to interview Turner and when he lied again..he was confronted by them and his probation was altered…They KNEW their report was flawed…Why do all the No on Recall people keep using this probation disaster to depend Persky??? I think EVERYONE should read ALL 410 pages of the Court documents and then make a determination of Persky’s fitness to be on the Bench….It IS not a great thing to recall a Judge BUT a VERY GOOD action if the Judge has shown poor judgement…Persky showed terrible judgement a number of times and deserves to be recalled….I find it hysterical the No people try to defend Persky by demonizing Dauber….totally ridiculous…FOCUS on Persky and his egregious actions!!!!
You can tell a weak argument when it is about a person who was involved with the campaign to put the matter on the ballot.
We are the ones who get to decide whether to recall the judge, not the supervisors, not the ones who collected the signatures. We were the ones who made him a judge when we voted for him, too.
A judge elected by popular vote should be responsible to the voters, and it makes no sense to say that he should not be: if he is recalled, it just hastens a process that would have taken place at the next election. As with other elected officials, he is subject to recall, and it is hardly setting a precedent to recall a public servant who no longer acts in the manner the public wishes.
If you want to vote for or against the recall based on whether this judge did the right thing, that is the reason California’s Constitution has a recall. You can say that it is bad to recall an elected official because he is a judge, but that is not what our Constitution says.
Well actually, Judge Persky was not elected by any votes. After being appointed to fill a vacancy, only he filed to run for the seat. No one else ran and Judge Persky was “elected” by default. Like almost all of the judges of the superior court, Judge Persky ran for his seat subsequently and continued to win by default when no other candidate sought the seat. When no one runs against an incumbent judge, the judge’s name does npt even appear on the ballot.
Gary, thank you for informative reply. “The law was changed” — could you please provide specifics of the change, e.g. Senate bill or the new code section, please?
Sure. In 2016: AB701 and AB2888
I just saw retired Judge LaDoris Cordell on MSNBC (Cable 60 in my town) attacking the recall. No proponent appeared.
Among other things, Judge Cordell stated that no judge of the Superior Court in Santa Clara County would have sentenced Brock Turner to state prison. The DA’s Ofgice had sought a prison sentemce. That is why I have maintained this is a case about society – not about one judge. Society and judges have not treated sexually based offenses as the horrendous crimes they are.