Judges Behaving Badly

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#351

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:43 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:What I want to know is when did rape not become rape? Either he did or he didn't, and the evidence says he did.
It's not rape when the nice young man is a nice young man and one of our kind, n'est-ce pas? *lays finger alongside nose and nods solemnly*
Besides, bitches, amirite?


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9687
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#352

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm

I know, but doesn't change my opinion. Or disgust.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43437
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#353

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:06 pm

"He's such a nice young man . . ."

No. He isn't. He's a rapist. Everything else is bullshit.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8945
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#354

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:44 pm

LeGargantua wrote:The woman is a bit older than that student. They were both drunk. She remembers nothing because she was that drunk. Impossible to know the truth.
Seriously, what the fuck? She was UN-freaking-CONSCIOUS. There were witnesses, and the jury convicted.

And I don't give a fuck who you are. If you are a male and physically capable of penetration, you are sober enough to know better. And if not you should be locked up to protect society.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3716
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#355

Post by DejaMoo » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:48 pm

I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next ten + years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right. But where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.
Image



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9687
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#356

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:08 pm

She was drunk and/or unconscious, THEREFOR she could not have given consent and THEREFOR it is rape, unless you are a white special little snowflake pampered preppy. :sarcasm: Really really need an icon for utter disgust!!!


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43437
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#357

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:29 pm

. . . rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.
No the perpetrator is the rapist. The person being raped is called the victim.

Who the hell wrote that shit?



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11161
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#358

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:36 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
. . . rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.
No the perpetrator is the rapist. The person being raped is called the victim.

Who the hell wrote that shit?
A friend of the rapist. To the judge. Because she's known the sex offender since elementary school, and she knows better than the jury that the Golden Boy couldn't POSSIBLY have done such a horrible horrible thing because he came from a nice family and went to a nice school and is a good swimmer and never raped anyone she knew.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#359

Post by HumbleScribe » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:15 pm

Please correct me if I am wrong:

I have assumed over the years that there are three sentencing recommendations provided to the court. One from the prosecution, one from defense counsel, and one from the probation/whatever department.

These are merely recommendations, right? The judge can choose one over the others, or can make an independent decision based upon factors that are more persuasive or compelling to the bench.

Six months is a travesty for three felonies.

And last question, can't the defendant petition the court to have these convictions expunged from his record after he is off probation? I seem to recall that this is permissible under the California Penal Code. And that these convictions, after purging, only appear in the super-secret database that is not accessible to general law enforcement or public searches of people's records. (At least that is what my retired law librarian friend told me.)



User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#360

Post by p0rtia » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:03 pm

Jim wrote:I'm going to catch flak for this...but he got a lifetime sentence. He can't live in certain places, employees will be informed, and his life will be at the whim of politicians. Plus, he'll become "one of the usual suspects" whenever there's a rape/molestation in his town. Add to that, his neighbors will know also...well he isn't getting off that easy.
See this right here? This is what goes on in the minds of men when they are faced with the choice of speaking up about a crime or keeping silent. The "It'll ruin his life" response. Identifying with the perpetrator and not the victim. IMO. To wander a bit, this is why horrible crimes go unreported in predominately male institutions. Right there, the blue-green algae of limitless abuse.

To wander even more, a recent article about the Sandusky case stated that some six coaches had seen Sandusky havin sexual contact with boys--going back to the 1970s. Six coaches. And I think of Mike McQueary, who actually told Penn State officials what he saw Sandusky doing. And how McQueary was excoriated in his community and in the press, because he did not stop it. He was labeled a coward on ESPN. If I had been there, all the tough guys told themselves, I would have stopped it. Except they wouldn't have. They didn't. Again and again and again. Only McQueary spoke up. And was abhorred.

I was rather heartened to see Mike Golic, of ESPN fame, lay into the judge and the kid in this case. I recall that he was rather harsh with McQueary--just couldn't identify with him. It's all about identifying, y'know. And the utter lack of ability to identify with "the other." Anyway, Golic's words:

"Does this ... judge understand that a girl was assaulted in this? At all?"

Of course Golic is a Notre Dame man.


No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11161
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#361

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:05 pm

:like: :like: :like: :like: :like: :like:


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4415
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#362

Post by Maybenaut » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:00 pm

I dunno. To suggest that the collateral consequences of a sexual assault conviction are harsh doesn't necessarily mean you are identifying with the perpetrator. I think it is possible to believe simultaneously that a sentence in a given case was insufficient in its severity while recognizing at the same time that the consequences of the conviction might be severe.

'Coz that's pretty much how I feel. Six months isn't enough time for assaulting an incapacitated victim next to a dumpster like she was just another piece of trash. But irrespective of the prison sentence, whether it be long or short, the consequences flowing from the conviction can be quite severe. I can recognize that. I don't identify with this shitbird.



HumbleScribe
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Zzyzx Road
Occupation: Green eye-shade wearing bean counter

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#363

Post by HumbleScribe » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:09 pm

More news out of Sta. Clara County Superior Court system regarding the sentence handed down by Judge Persky on that Stanford rape trial:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jurors ... li=BBnb7Kz

How does this affect the jury system, if many potential jurors are repulsed by this judge? It seems to me that the heart of our criminal justice system is empaneling an impartial jury. If the people have no faith in the bench, then what?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23773
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#364

Post by bob » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:13 pm

The practical solution is for the presiding judge to "temporarily" reassign the judge to non-jury matters.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15309
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#365

Post by Suranis » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:19 pm

Someone posted this on another forum, and it should be said
I've pointed this out but the laws in California are light on sexual assault, which is what he was convicted for. In Georgia, if you get aggravated sexual battery (insertion of foreign objects without consent) you can get 25 years. There's no such law on the books in California. I've pointed this out to several of the screaming people yelling rape culture that their vaunted state of California is the problem, not really the judge. The hardest sentence he could give for a sexual assault is four years if he got a felony, and that's the absolute max. As a misdemeanor the most he could get was what he got, 6 months.

Hell even normal sexual assault in GA gets you a year, minimum. When I point out that it's California that has the rape culture problem, the masses get even more upset
If true, then the laws need to be changed in California, but screaming at a Judge for following the law is ignoring the very big elephant in the room.

Plus this is a very good example of a targeted outrage thing to me. This is just one of a wide range of stories pumped out to get the masses acting like a lynch mob and casting doubt on judges. When everyone sets themselves up as uninformed Judge and Jurys without even knowing the facts of the case then things go real bad real fast. Hell the whole thing of "here's a black dude who got a much longer sentence therefore white privilege raaaaarrrrghhhh!" then that basically means nothing as the guy is in another state and the circumstances could be different and you could dig out a white guy who did a long stretch as well, so where is the white privilige in this.

I prefer to respect the judgement of the guy that was sitting on the hot seat at the time. If you disagree with the sentance the right way is to call for reform, not to ask for the Judge to be fired or attacked which I'm seeing happen on facebook right now. Respect the office for goodness sake, and if you care enough then take the time research the bloody laws he was sentenced under before going off on a screaming rant.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#366

Post by vic » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:35 pm

Suranis wrote:Someone posted this on another forum, and it should be said
I've pointed this out but the laws in California are light on sexual assault, which is what he was convicted for. In Georgia, if you get aggravated sexual battery (insertion of foreign objects without consent) you can get 25 years. There's no such law on the books in California. I've pointed this out to several of the screaming people yelling rape culture that their vaunted state of California is the problem, not really the judge. The hardest sentence he could give for a sexual assault is four years if he got a felony, and that's the absolute max. As a misdemeanor the most he could get was what he got, 6 months.

Hell even normal sexual assault in GA gets you a year, minimum. When I point out that it's California that has the rape culture problem, the masses get even more upset
If true, then the laws need to be changed in California, but screaming at a Judge for following the law is ignoring the very big elephant in the room.

Plus this is a very good example of a targeted outrage thing to me. This is just one of a wide range of stories pumped out to get the masses acting like a lynch mob and casting doubt on judges. When everyone sets themselves up as uninformed Judge and Jurys without even knowing the facts of the case then things go real bad real fast. Hell the whole thing of "here's a black dude who got a much longer sentence therefore white privilege raaaaarrrrghhhh!" then that basically means nothing as the guy is in another state and the circumstances could be different and you could dig out a white guy who did a long stretch as well, so where is the white privilige in this.

I prefer to respect the judgement of the guy that was sitting on the hot seat at the time. If you disagree with the sentance the right way is to call for reform, not to ask for the Judge to be fired or attacked which I'm seeing happen on facebook right now. Respect the office for goodness sake, and if you care enough then take the time research the bloody laws he was sentenced under before going off on a screaming rant.
I'm not sure if I trust that information. He was found guilty of three felonies, not misdemeanors. And the maximum sentence for the crimes he was found guilty of was 14 years, not the slap on the wrist that person implied; the prosecution recommended six years.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroo ... ncing.aspx
The sentence follows a trial and a jury’s verdict in late March that found Turner guilty of three felony charges: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated/unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetration of an unconscious person.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... -prison-or
PALO ALTO -- Branding former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner a "continued threat to the community," prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence him this week to six years in state prison for sexually assaulting an unconscious intoxicated woman outside a campus frat party.

Butprobation officials recommended a much lighter penalty of six months in county jail, largely because he has no prior criminal record and their belief that he is genuinely remorseful, according to prosecution and defense sentencing memos.
:snippity:
The maximum sentence he faces is 14 years in state prison. Because the crime of assault with intent to commit rape is ranked as a serious, violent offense under California law, Persky must make a finding of "unusual circumstances" for Turner to be eligible to serve time in county jail instead of prison. Regardless of the sentence, Turner will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
:snippity:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23773
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#367

Post by bob » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:28 pm

Because the crime of assault with intent to commit rape is ranked as a serious, violent offense under California law, Persky must make a finding of "unusual circumstances" for Turner to be eligible to serve time in county jail instead of prison.
Herein is the rub: California law presumed a multiyear prison sentence should have been imposed, but also provided the judge with the discretion to override that presumption.

Trial judges apply the law; if they get it wrong, judges above them will (usually) correct the error. But trial judges are also tasked to apply discretion, which judges above rarely can (or will) override.

Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Lani
Posts: 3389
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#368

Post by Lani » Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:19 pm

It gets worse. From the LA Times today:
The Santa Clara County Superior Court released the entire case file early Friday on former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman behind a dumpster on campus.

The document release follows growing public outrage over Turner’s sentencing. The court file contains 471 pages of documents, including police reports, medical treatments, witness statements, letters and photographs. The names of the victim and her sister have been redacted from the court documents.
:snippity:
1) Turner lied about never partying and taking drugs before enrolling at Stanford, prosecutors said.
:snippity:
4) Turner “creeped” out another woman at a party the weekend before the assault.
:snippity:
5) Turner tried to kiss and grope the victim’s sister before the sexual assault.
:snippity:
“Even though he was twice rejected by Jane Doe 2, he felt it was acceptable to pursue her sister, Jane Doe 1, later that night when she was alone and inebriated. He purposefully took her to an isolated area, away from all the party goers, to an area that was dimly lit, and assaulted her on the ground behind a dumpster. He deliberately took advantage of the fact that she was so intoxicated that she could not form a sentence, let alone keep her eyes open or stand. This behavior is not typical assaultive behavior that you find on campus, but it is more akin to a predator who is searching for prey. The prey in the case was a young woman who drank too much and was unable to protect herself.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html


Insert signature here: ____________________________________________________

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#369

Post by Jim » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:47 pm

The punishment continues...it has now cost him his competitive swimming career.

USA Swimming bans Brock Turner for life
The U.S. governing body for the sport of swimming on Friday banned ex-Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner, whose six-month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman has stirred widespread outrage.

Condemning Turner's "crime and actions," USA Swimming said that he is not a current organization member and is ineligible for membership.
"Brock Turner's membership with USA Swimming expired at the end of the calendar year 2014 and he was not a member at the time of his crime or since then," USA Swimming spokesman Scott Leightman said. "As a result, USA Swimming doesn't have any jurisdiction over Brock Turner."



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4415
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#370

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:37 pm

What shitty reprting. The headline's a little misleading. Nowhere in the article does USA Swimming say he's "banned for life." They say he's not currently a member, hasn't been a member since 2014, and is ineligible for membership, but they don't say why. And they say since he's not a member they have no jurisdiction over him, whatever that means. The author expects the reader to fill in the blanks and assume that since he's ineligible for membership in USA Swimming, it must be because if this incident. I'm not saying it's not; I'm just saying they did a crappy job connecting the dots.



User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9021
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#371

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:34 am

Maybenaut wrote:What shitty reprting. The headline's a little misleading. Nowhere in the article does USA Swimming say he's "banned for life." They say he's not currently a member, hasn't been a member since 2014, and is ineligible for membership, but they don't say why. And they say since he's not a member they have no jurisdiction over him, whatever that means. The author expects the reader to fill in the blanks and assume that since he's ineligible for membership in USA Swimming, it must be because if this incident. I'm not saying it's not; I'm just saying they did a crappy job connecting the dots.
"Had he been a member, he would have been subject to the USA Swimming Code of Conduct," the statement said.

"USA Swimming strictly prohibits and has zero tolerance for sexual misconduct, with firm Code of Conduct policies in place, and severe penalties, including a permanent ban of membership, for those who violate the Code of Conduct."



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4415
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#372

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:25 am

I'm an idiot.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25766
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#373

Post by Foggy » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:49 am

Coffee. You need moar coffee. :bighug:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 4415
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#374

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:28 am

Foggy wrote:Coffee. You need moar coffee. :bighug:
I made that post late last night. What I really needed was less beer and moar sleep :)



User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Judges Behaving Badly

#375

Post by dunstvangeet » Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:14 am

Maybenaut wrote:What I really needed was less beer and moar sleep :)
Heretic! Nobody needs less beer! :bar:



Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”