"So challenges to the very legitimacy of this election are unfair, undemocratic and directly contradicted by the law. Those who don't like the recall provision have every right to seek a change in the Constitution, but they have no right to criticize those who are availing themselves of the legal opportunity to challenge the fitness of Judge Persky to remain on the bench."

This.

I have not been impressed with the level of conversation in this debate over the past year. I agree with the recall but more importantly I agree with our right to put a recall on the ballot. People can vote for or against the recall of Perky itself but the argument that this is an inappropriate use of our legally protected right, is misleading, unfair, and deceiving. Debate on the merits, please.

Bravo, Palo Alto Weekly!

This is a straw man argument. A disappointing tactic for an excellent paper like the weekly.

The people I talk to who oppose the recall (including a female judge who works alongside Judge Persky) do so based on the merits of the case and Judge Perksy's overall judicial performance.

Does any reasonable person claim that this recall process that is specified in the state constitution is illegitimate? Or is that an argument that you created because it's easy to win.

And "disrespected a jury"? Really? Must all sentences be excessive (i.e. more than the probation department recommends) to make sure that juries are respected?

Wait a moment please. Let's take another angle on this issue of the suitability of the Judge's sentence of 6 months and a lifetime necessity of being tagged as a sexual predator. Seems to me that a fundamental concern in our jail and prison system has been the duality of the purpose; ie is it principally hurtful punishment or is it establishing a rehabilitative opportunity, so that upon final release the person has a chance to become a functioning member of our broader community, rather than a more hardened and abused individual?
I've thought that significant weight has to be on the latter and that's one of the things that set our detention systems and institutions in the same class as systems in Western European countries, like France and Germany. Do we want to become addicted to punishment regimes such as those in Russia and Israel (for different reasons perhaps)?
Of course there must be punishment, especially in this case, but I've read Persky's judgment that the bad guy here is not at all likely to recommit this kind of crime, and is not a danger. I'll agree with that. So why lock him up in a place where he will be subjected to many other dire dangers?
You might like to look at book called "Crimes Unspoken" by Professor Gephardt completely examining the issue of rape following WWII in Germany. We all wrongly assumed it was principally an issue of those monstrous Russians, but in fact there were very many rapes by American soldiers in the years 1945-49. None of the "perps" had the benefit of rehabilitation, instead being sent by their commanders quickly back to US base assignments so that they wouldn't be subject to trials. That's a good example of just kicking the can down the road. In a way sending somebody to a horrible existence in American prisons is a similar way of passing the problem on to the future. Of course there are those who genuinely deserve to be locked up for very long periods or even for life. We have to make serious commitments to educating young men to really understand their responsivities in these sexual assault activities. We also have to lean very heavily on the institutions like Stanford who don't regulate opportunities at all well.

[Post removed; there was never a move to impeach Judge Persky.]

Thanks to the Weekly for this excellent editorial. It so clearly makes the case that the San Jose Mercury News also made. It's time for Persky to leave the bench.

There might be example of sexual predators who were encouraged by a slight slap on the hand to change their ways and reform, I never heard of even one. Does anyone believe that women are now safer around Brock Turner after this ridiculously light sentence?

The realityis that judges like Persky who seem to have more sympathy for the offender than the victim make women, inadvertently, less safe, and inadvertently encourage the rape culture. There can be only one reasonable conclusion in my opinion. Aaron Persky must be recalled. A very enthusiastic YES on the recall.

Amen. The bottom line here, is that Mr. Persky serves in an elected office. As such, he is indeed subject to the will and whim of the people. In essence, this recall simply changes the date Mr. Persky next faces the voters from 2022 to 2018.

My intention is to treat the June ballot in the same way I would treat any other ballot. Look at the candidates, decide who I feel would best serve the community, and vote for that person.

Absolutely, both the pro-recall and anti-recall campaigns are extremely flawed. All campaigns work to present their position in the most favorable light, and, unfortunately, experience suggests we should never accept their words at face value.

Personally, I have taken advantage of Google to read reports and opinions from the sources I believe are most credible. Given the national -- and even international -- prominence of the Brock Turner case, there is far more information available than we would normally find for a local judgeship.

My own conclusion is that Mr. Persky should be recalled. I feel there is more than sufficient evidence to question his objectivity. If a friend or family member were to suffer an assault, I would want someone else to govern any criminal or civil proceedings.

@Addison: apparently, yes. I agree that this is a disappointing editorial. But not a surprising one. Should this recall succeed, a bad thing will have been made worse. And a regrettable approach to justice will be validated. If judges can be removed for following the law, what’s next?

The decision by the PA Weekly to support this terribly wrong effort to recall Judge Persky is shameful. This recall effort not only unfairly damages Judge Persky, most importantly it damages our judicial system in very serious and insidious ways. Clearly PA Weekly does not fully understand judicial due process, constituri9nal law, or checks and balances. If Santa Clara voters support this recall they are only voting to damage the integrity of the judicial system,. The importance of our judiciary being protected from political fights [portion removed] and emotionally based ballot measures, is extremely important for all of us. The judiciary must be able to follow the law and interpret it [portion removed.]

"If judges can be removed for following the law, what’s next?"

A more relevant question: if judges do not punish those found guilty of serious crimes by a jury of their peers, what's next?

Giving laughably lenient sentences [portion removed] means that laws don't matter. How can we just sit back and do nothing if those convicted of sexually assaulting women in our community do not suffer consequences? And don't tell me that whatever mental anguish Brock Turner has experienced is commensurate [portion removed.]

In the old South, communities conspired to undermine the justice system by refusing to testify against those who committed lynchings, and if that didn't work, judges did so by handing out suspended sentences. Perky's slaps on the wrists [portion removed] are the contemporary equivalent of this kind of undermining of justice.

This is about law and order. [Portion removed.] Persky's behavior is a sabotage of our system of justice and a profound insult to the victims of these crimes.

The recall process doe not damage the judicial system, it protects society. This judge makes women less safe. He has sent sends a message by his ridiculously and scandalously slap on the wrist that sexual assault, one of the most heinous crimes imaginable s not a big deal, and that offenders deserve more sympathy and consideration than the victims. He has sent a message that jocks should somehow be largely immune from consequences of violence against women.

This recall is absolutely the proper, moral and smart thing to do if we value women's safety.

I have only one question for those opposing Persky's recall: Should your daughter ever be the victim of sexual assault, heaven forbid, would you want Aaron Persky to be the judge in the trial of her assailant?

[Post removed.]

@Mauricio: fair question. I have thought about this and I am glad to be able to answer while not overwhelmed by the emotions I would feel if my daughter was harmed in that way. My answer is YES. Were my daughter a victim of sexual assault I would want a judge who knew and applied the law, who listened to all testimony, who availed him or herself of all information and resources available to reach a just decision and impose a fair sentence. I would not want to wonder if the judge was concerned about what would sit well with the public b/c that would mean justice for my daughter depended on what way the wind was blowing rather than the law.

If you had asked if I would be comfortable accepting the fact that an imperfect system would be the vehicle available to reach justice for my daughter, my honest answer is that I would be scared and anxious about that. Nothing can change the past and I'd somehow have to come to grips with that. I know I'd not want my daughter to have to be at the center of a storm such as this one. The situation is bad enough; recall will only make it worse b/c it is yet another wrong.

@mauricio -- You say "I have only one question for those opposing Persky's recall: Should your daughter ever be the victim of sexual assault, heaven forbid, would you want Aaron Persky to be the judge in the trial of her assailant?"

No, there are other judges I'd prefer. But that is true for nearly every single case that is tried -- the prosecutors prefer some judges, the defendants prefer others. So what? The point is that this should NOT be grounds for a recall. Being a judge should not require winning a popularity contest. And that is what this recall puts at risk.

Right, being a judge should not require a popularity contest. Persky would have been quite unpopular in the Stanford athletic community had he sentenced Turner to several years in a state prison like he should have. Being a judge requires handing out justice, which he certainly did not do.

One knock on Persky is that he is lenient on Stanford athletes because he was one. He played lacrosse, a non-NCAA club sport at Stanford. This is vastly different from being a NCAA college athlete. I don't think he shows the claimed bias but the continuous knock on this part of his background prompted me to explore that a little. I wasn't too surprised to learn that the inference has been left to hang out there as an exaggeration that fits a narrative.

Annette wrote:

"One knock on Persky is that he is lenient on Stanford athletes because he was one. He played lacrosse, a non-NCAA club sport at Stanford. This is vastly different from being a NCAA college athlete."

----------

A-ha! So now we can speculate that Mr. Persky is really only a wannabe Stanford athlete who has been lenient in order to curry favor with a group to which he only wishes to belong.

The key question is whether or not Mr. Persky is objective. The narrative explaining any bias is far less critical.

I support the recall and will vote that way.

I found the Weekly's editorial supporting the recall disappointing.

Generally I'm in line with the editorials but this one I not. I believe this recall action is a bad course to have taken and if it is successful will be a future stain on the county. Recalls, while clearly lawful as the Weekly points out, should be used when judges break the law or when there is no mechanism for removal such as the judicial review. The fact that there have been no recall in the las 86 years does not mean that it will continue to be rare. It probably means the judicial review in place has worked well enough.

Clearly a recall can easily be abused in our present environment with social media and the use of paid signature gatherers. This action now is very emotionally charged and does not seem to be a fact based decision. The only facts seem to be an impulse for punishment [portion removed.]

The great majority of working attorneys and judges in Santa Clara County consider Judge Persky to be a good judge and do not support his recall. He has not enriched himself, not broken any law, only used his power to try to give a humane sentence given the facts of the case.

I think the idea that future victims of sexual attacks are not going to stay silent because of this case, nor do I think judges are going to largely alter their actions in light of this, both victims and judges are human beings and most are stronger than that. As to the idea that the nation was stunned by the verdict I don't recall seeing any examples of persons wandering our nation's streets in a daze after this was announced.

What I have seen are some very ugly public exhibits on the part of the recall's supporters and very scandalous campaign signs and flyers. That alone should give pause to those supporting this campaign-how far are you ready to go. This is a mean spirited action and it will hurt those pushing it as well as Judge Persky if it wins. As for the Weekly, your banner appears on a very ugly flyer just sent out by the pro forces, not good company to keep.

The above post is very typical of the trump style accusations against the recall proponents. They engage in abuse, they are mean spirited, their main motivation is to punish.

The poster just knows that no sexual assault victim would have stay silence because of Persky's extremely lenient sentence, he must have conducted an exhaustive study of the matter among women.

"The great majority of working attorneys and judges in Santa Clara County consider Judge Persky to be a good judge and do not support his recall."
Oh yes, attorneys are notorious for being arbiters of truth, honesty and impartiality(this is extreme sarcasm by the way).

And of course, not one word of sympathy for the victim.

The recent flyers promoting the recall are campaign ugliness at its worst. And wrong on many levels.

First, they seek to promote misinformation (aka these days as fake news) about the judge.

Second, knowing how unpopular Trump is in this county they seek to infer that Persky is like Trump. Ironically, they employ a quintessential Trump tool: repetition of false information. Say something often enough and people will recollect that when they vote.

Third, they seek to appeal to emotion rather than reason. If recall was the right course of action, the campaign would be based on facts and merit, not smear tactics and innuendo.

But who can be surprised given that the Recall Persky campaign’s communications director is a former partner at the public affairs group that was behind the horrendous Willie Horton ad? (See: Daily Post article by Allison Levitsky). Persky has been criticized for who he hired to lead his defense campaign, yet the dirt slinging is being done by those promoting the recall.

I hope people will see through the degrading tactics of this campaign and vote against the recall and for the preservation of judicial independence.

There is no false information coming from the recall campaign, only Trump-like accusation from the NO campaign.

FACTS:Persky, a former Stanford athlete, has a pattern of bias favoring athletes and other privileged perpetrators of violence against women. Persky adjusted the sentences of two different college football players convicted of domestic violence, allowing them to accommodate their football schedules. In another case, he allowed a software engineer convicted of severely beating his fiancée to serve weekend jail.

Persky sentenced a Sunnyvale man convicted of felony child pornography to only four days in jail. This sentence was set by Persky not the DA. The man, Robert Chain, had dozens of images of little girls, including an infant, being sexually abused. Persky also said he would be “receptive” to reducing Chain’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor after only one year of probation — contrary to the probation recommendation.

Even some of Persky’s supporters have criticized his judgment. Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky called the Turner sentence “grossly inadequate punishment” and “an “abuse of discretion.” Former Santa Clara County Judge Ron Del Pozzo called Turner’s six month sentence “inconsistent with the jury’s verdict” and said the expected a four-to-six year prison sentence based on other similar cases in our county.

Excerpt from an April 26, 2018 article in the Daily Post about the debate at Stanford Law School between Stanford Professor Mark Lemley and UC Berkeley's law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky:

"But Chemerinsky said Lemley and the recall campaign are cherry picking six cases out of Persky’s 15-year career as a judge. During that time he has handled more than 2,000 cases. Chemerinsky also said by recalling Persky judges will constantly be looking over their shoulder and handing down harsher sentences, which will likely affect Latinos and African American defendants more than white defendants."

Tremendously disappointing editorial. My respect for the Weekly editorial staff is gone.

I have no quarrel with putting a recall on the ballot. But the Editors clearly have not read the case.

They have not read, or understood, the at-the-time matter of legal emphasis in Santa Clara County, that the justice system's first duty is toward rehabilitation, not incarceration. The have applied a *desired* law to guide their expectation for what the outcome *should have been*; as opposed to applying the law *as it existed during the actual trial*. [Portion removed due to inaccuracy.] They have failed to account for the fact that the DA's office did not charge the perpetrator with a higher level of offense -- for which the perpetrator likely would have been found guilty, and as a consequence received a longer sentence -- and instead have made Judge Persky the scapegoat for the DA's shortcomings.

Any voter who votes in favor of the recall, is voting for the end of the rule of law.

The responsibility of every judge is not to the public whim, it is to the law. There are members of the public who seek to hold Judge Persky accountable for all past indictments, trials, outcomes, and sentences, which fell short of their sense of justice -- not to hold him accountable for this particular trial.

[Portion removed.] Should they succeed, it marks the beginning of the end of the rule of law in Santa Clara County. Have a complaint with the outcome of this trial? Then address it the right way: change the law; vote in representatives who will enact laws to effect those changes; give the legal system, in other words, the tools to do the work of We the People. In that light, if the recall succeeds, then it is a judgement, not of Judge Persky, but of us all and our own failures.

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

For those unwilling to shoot from the hip, or have a knee-jerk reaction, I recommend reading the Wiki page on the matter. And then go and read the trial transcript.

Web Link

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

Those who are interested might consider reading the Commission on Judicial Performance regarding Judge Persky and People v Turner:

Web Link

The end of the rule of law is when a judge doesn't hand out justice, but lets privileged athletes get away with destroying the lives of women.

@Mauricio: your comments provoke me to think more about this recall issue. 6 cases out of 2000 cases is less than 1%. That means that those seeking to fully discredit Judge Persky found nothing on which to hang a recall argument in over 99% of the cases he has heard. Add to this the credible deconstruction of the recall side's take on the six cases. Judge Persky has been an effective jurist and that is no doubt why he enjoys wide support in the legal community. Finally, in the case that brought all this to an ugly boil, Persky followed the law AND the recommendation of the Probation Dept. AND he was cleared by the Judicial Council.

Sadly, recalling this judge does more harm than good. Wrongs will not be righted and women will not be safer; I think it is going to take education spend to see progress on that front. On the good news front, the recall debate and the Turner case have served an educational purpose and raised awareness about a serious problem.

Annette, violence against women is one of the most serious issues in our society. It's so pervasive that it may qualify as an existential issue for females. The fact that Persky is arguebly fine when he is presiding over other issues such as a dispute between tenants and landlords is immaterial. The fact that he is such a failure with this extremely crucial issue, a national crisis really, that involves the literal destruction of women's lives should give you pause, especially as a woman. I hope you never get to experience it, but if you had a daughter, imagine how you would feel if you were in the shoes of Emiliy Doe's mother, and would you feel your daughter, the victim, was safe after such a verdict.

Judge Persky was only a criminal court judge for 19 months, from January 2015 to August 2016. During that time he sentenced approximately 64 cases involving sexual or domestic violence or child pornography and he showed bias in many of those cases. In at least one case what he did was flatly unlawful.

What Annette is saying is the equivalent of saying of a doctor that he only left a scissors inside six patients or he only amputated the wrong arm 6 times or of an Uber driver that he only got in 6 crashes. The voters are entitled to decide that he's had more than enough at-bats and vote him off the team.

I am really aghast at the extremes to which Persky's friends, neighbors, and colleagues are willing to go to defend their fellow privileged Stanford friend. Enough is enough.

In my view the argument that Persky should be spared from recall because with the exception of the pattern of letting sexual and domestic abuse offenders off the hook he has handled 2000 cases without too much outcry is akin to an attorney defending a bank robber saying to the jury that the prosecution was cherry picking the one time his client actually robbed the bank and ignoring the 2000 times he walked by the bank without robbing it.

My point is that I think there are good reasons the DA and so many legal scholars and lawyers and judges stand against the recall and in support of the judge. For one, the judge's decision, while controversial, was lawful. Secondly, there is legitimate, valid concern about the damage that can follow a recall of this sort. While privilege and circling the wagons are claims that fit the recall narrative I do not think they are at play here. LaDoris Cordell circling her wagon around a judge described as the recall campaign describes Persky? I sincerely doubt that. The very fact that she is a leader of the No Recall campaign should give the undecided pause.

Annette is my real name and I am a woman. I will not feel safer should this recall succeed. In fact, I will feel less safe because that will mean that public opinion (described in ugly, deleted terms in other posts) has supplanted law and reason. That never works out well. Better, I think, to spend the energy and money changing laws and procedures in need of improvement.

Should this recall succeed, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. I hope we can avoid that.

Have you considered the many legal scholars and professionals who support the recall? Are you aware that the initial reaction of LeDoris Cordell after the verdict was harsh criticism and saying that it is a result of white privilege? What caused her to change her position? I overheard her at the PA JCC gym telling a women whose opinion she tried to change that she doesn't consider this to be sexual assault at all, but just "two drunk horney kids messing around" and that she wouldn't have given Brock Turner any jail time had she handled that trial. Why has she gone to the other side in such an extreme way and are you comfortable depending on her opinions in shaping yours?

If a surgeon left a scalpel in a patient's stomach would he get off by claiming that he had conducted 2000 surgeries in which he didn't leave a scalpel in a patient's stomach. how is removing a bad judge with a pattern of letting sexual offenders off the hook a bad thing and something that would make you feel less safe. how would leaving him in place make you more safe? It makes no sense.

The recall campaign wants to remove Persky from office because of a supposed pattern of bias. That so-called pattern has been thoroughly disproven time and again. Even the Palo Alto Weekly wrote up an article looking at those cases in detail and what emerges is a picture of a judge who works with both sides to come up with a solution that both protects the victims and offer the defendants an opportunity to better themselves and become contributing members of society. Most of the cases cited were plea deals - arrangements agreeable to both defense and prosectors. Can anyone supporting the recall honestly say that they have looked at anything besides the recall website? The Mercury News called these bias allegations "weak".

Even more telling is that recent polling shows that support for the recall has slipped. This is most likely due to voters finding out that the recall is based on spin and distortion. Recent letters to the Mercury News and the Los Altos Town Crier feature women who originally supported the recall but changed their minds once they learned more details about the Turner trial. These were not on-the-fence voters but women who avidly supported the recall until they learned more. I give them credit for being informed voters, using facts, not emotion. I will be voting NO.

The problem with this recall is that is sends exactly the wrong message.

Proponents want to SEND a message to other judges - don't give a sex offender merely a slap on the wrist (and yes, I personally believe that Judge Persky was too lenient, although within legal bounds).

The message that will be HEARD, however is this - Always err on the side of harshness, because you have a family to feed. You'll never be fired for spending taxpayer dollars for longer sentences. Fairness, second chances, and personal judgement are wonderful ideals in theory but simply too dangerous because all errors must be on side of harshness.

Annette wrote:

"LaDoris Cordell circling her wagon around a judge described as the recall campaign describes Persky? I sincerely doubt that. The very fact that she is a leader of the No Recall campaign should give the undecided pause."

----------

While former Judge LaDoris Cordell has an impressive background, her behavior in leading the anti-recall campaign has been far from exemplary.

When it was reported that pro-recall leader Michelle Dauber received a rape threat in an envelope containing white powder, Ms. Cordell made false statements suggesting that it was Ms. Dauber herself, or one of her associates, who had mailed the letter to in order garner publicity.

For example, see Web Link or Web Link

After the FBI identified and arrested a suspect -- who was not associated with the recall campaign -- Ms. Cordell did not issue an apology.

Indeed, Ms. Cordell herself has exhibited questionable judgement in this case, too.

No man who perpetrated violent acts against women has ever changed his ways and repented after being a lenient sentence from a judge. the opposite is true. Erring on the side of harshness when violence against women is concerned is actually the right thing to do. Letting offenders off the hook only puts women at greater risk, and I'm stunned by women who want to save a judge who has shown an undeniable pattern of letting men who commit violence against women off the hook from recall.

LeDoris Cordell should not be the reference recall opponent base their decision on. Her behavior since the verdict has been contradictory, even bizarre and very offensive.

LaDoris Cordell is a strong civil rights leader and advocate for women. She is well-regarded throughout the legal community. [Portion removed.]

I would take Cordell's word over Dauber's any day.
Vote NO on the recall.

Dolores Huerta is a civil rights legend. She says:

"Judge Aaron Persky should not be in a position to determine the sentences of rapists and domestic abusers. The women of Santa Clara County deserve a judge who will protect and stand with survivors -- not perpetrators. he is biased and should be voted out."

Anita Hill, another women's rights legend, also supports the recall of Judge Persky. She wrote to the campaign:

""I am keeping up with your heroic efforts to recall Aaron Persky. Thank you for continuing to rid the judiciary of judges who don't understand the seriousness of rape...Please know that I and many others support you. You have already prevailed in making the public aware of horrific crimes. The voters in June will follow your lead."

VOTE YES on the recall of Judge Persky.

Please read this really excellent, impartial analysis of the cases being presented as evidence of Persky's bias:

Web Link

and then make an informed decision. It really does come down to the details.

Beyond this, I have a teenage daughter. I don't believe that recalling Persky will make her safer. Also, I see no reason to distrust the Santa Clara County probation department.

If the recall campaign wants to invoke feminist activists, they should consider this article written by Meaghan Ybos, a rape survivor, who feels that the Turner sentence was a success story:

"The outrage over the supposedly lenient sentence misunderstands the consequences of Turner’s conviction, which includes lifetime registration as a sex offender, and vilifies individualized sentencing"
"Furthermore, advocates like Dauber have falsely characterized Turner’s sentence as a slap on the wrist, but his punishment also involves much more than the number of hours he was caged"

Web Link

Dennis, back in 1979, a female classmate of mine was sexually assaulted by a Brock Turner type, a jock who came from a privileged family. He was convicted by a jury but the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. My friend was devastated and outraged by the very lenient sentence, couldn't cope despite therapy, and eventually committed suicide. Her attacker ended up raping an underage girl and sent to prison for a long time. This is a typical outcome of letting men who assault women off the hook. A lenient sentence does not give them pause, it encourages them. Judge Persky has all but declared that he would continue to give similar slaps on the wrist in similar cases when he said he didn't regret his decision and would do it all over again.

You are very wrong. Your daughter is absolutely less safe with judges like Persky on the bench.

[Post removed.]

The merits are that many voters decided to sign a petition to place Judge Aaron Persky's name on the June 5, 2018 and voters decided to place Judge Vincent Chiarello's name on the ballot as well for his disregard for Alycia Mesiti's life. The father finally admitted a few months ago that he had drugged, raped, vidoetaped and killed his own daughter after accusing the mother of being unfit. Judge Chiarello essentially erased the mother of Alycia from her life. Judge Vincent Chiarello's name appears before Judge Persky's name and we are asking for a vote of "No Confidence" on the line beneath his name. Its an election, the merits are that we the voter have a right to both of these judge's names on your June 5, 2018 ballot and we did.

Web Link

"The lawyer representing the judge who handed accused rapist Brock Turner a lenient sentence is claiming that the victim did not write the viral impact statement she read in court.....McManis claimed he had “a report from someone whose judgment I respect” that the statement was instead “written by a professional battered women’s advocate from the YWCA,” though he admitted that he had not “independently verified” this claim."

Read the article. Somebody's playing dirty pool.

The more I read comments supporting the recall and recall campaign fliers the more concerned I am about the direction our society is going. On the one hand we decry the enormous prison population in the U.S. On the other, we seem to want vengeance-laced punishment for all crimes. Period. What has happened to the goal of rehabilitation? Or the assumption that judges, working with all involved parties (district attorney, involved lawyers, probation officers) are in the best position to make lawful, reasoned sentencing decisions? And in the Turner case, how is that the requirement to register as a sex offender FOR LIFE is not seen as sufficiently harsh to satisfy critics of the sentence?

There's an argument to be made that Persky's decision was courageous. He had to know it would be unpopular, had to know the public outcry would be great, had to know an enormous movement would come down on him personally. And yet he sentenced Turner as he did. Jail, not prison, and even then less time than was wanted by many. He did this in concert with the Probation Dept. and as the person obliged to consider all testimony, all circumstances, and the law. I think we should want judges who do that. And if we want to give our judges different tools, we need to change the law, as was done after the Turner sentence. Much has been accomplished as a result of that sentence. Recall would not be an accomplishment. Nothing will get worse for Turner or better for Emily Doe. And society will not be safer.

Concerns about judicial independence are valid and serious. I will vote against the Recall and for society.

Annette. why do you think he expected an outcry? He was willing to ignore the photos taken of Turner violating the terms of his parole by indulging in drink and drugs with his sister and others. Turner's parents' statements seemed to care nothing about the victim. I remember the mother complaining that her son no longer liked his favorite foods.

No evidence of remorse or rehabilitation on Turner's part. For his appeal, his lawyer claimed the case should be dismissed because "dumpster" was the wrong term when it was really a "three-sided trash receptacle" or somesuch.

While I agree with you on the issue of judicial independence, what's being doine about all the judges now making outrageous rulings AND statements re crimes against women and girls. Among other non-white-male groups.

Just this week A Stockton judge just let some wealthy older guy who pleaded no contest off with home arrest for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl. He didn't even have to register as a sex offender.

This is not a plea for you to vote either way.

I want to pass on this Huffington Post article: Web Link

The article is not pro- or anti-recall per se. Please, even if your mind is made up, I encourage you to read it to the end. Thank you.

[Portion removed.]