UrsaMajor;842719994 said:
I wasn't clear, OB. I am totally in support of the DA's position. My problem with judges being recalled for single verdicts is that it can lead to the end of the independent judiciary (which is why I don't like the idea of judges being elected). Judges often make unpopular decisions--that's their job; we don't vote on constitutional issues or criminal cases by plebiscite. Having said all of that, I, too, am appalled by the sentence and--by extension--by Persky as well.
Let me come at this another way. Of course judges have to make unpopular decisions at times. Of course we shouldn't just toss judges willy nilly for one decision. But what I think many who make your argument are discounting is that many people agree with that principle and would be very hesitant to recall a judge and take that very much into account before deciding that his behavior is disqualifying. I assume if a serial killer were convicted by a jury of killing 50 people and the judge said - 6 months probation, you'd acknowledge that this one, unpopular decision should lead to his removal from the bench. In this case, he didn't just make an unpopular decision. This isn't like the Supreme Court ruling that flag burning is protected speech under the Constitution. It isn't the Rose Bird court making constitutional and legislative interpretations of California law and the US and California Constitutions. This is a judge who said, well the jury convicted of X crime. The people of California have passed sentencing guidelines saying this crime should be punished by X years in jail. Mmmm. No. Because I can.
I would like you to consider the decades, actually centuries, of rape of women enabled by judges making awful decisions. Judges deciding you can't rape your wife. I was given the treat of reading one judge's holding in law school that went like this. Any respectable woman would choose death over rape. Therefore, she would fight to the death to stop the rape. This woman isn't dead. Therefore on some level she must have consented. No rape. This was from the 20th century.
If our judicial system hadn't massively failed on the issue of rape for years, I submit the rate of occurrence of what is misnamed "date rape" or "acquaintance rape" would be dramatically lower. There have been numerous cases since Doody's where judges have similarly said "gee he seems like a good guy that made a mistake and ruining his life doesn't seem to make much sense". I'm going to step out of reality for a minute and assume Doody is an awesome guy. Doody will go on to solve world hunger and do it for free. Well, I'd argue that Doody was a guy for whom the threat of a long prison sentence would have a significant deterrent effect. Had the Doody's of the past gotten put away, Doody doesn't do what Doody did. Because Doody is not punished, later Doody's keep up the legacy. (and for those that are going to say punishment isn't a deterrent, that is significantly untrue and is a misapplication of the conclusion that the death penalty MIGHT not have much deterrent effect as opposed to significant prison sentences). There is a reason the rate of sexual assault is higher at elite private schools than public schools. Rich boys think they will get away with it because rich boys get away with it.
When people pass a law to get a conviction. When the DA actually has the guts to try the case. When the jury ignores the usual blame the victim argument and returns a guilty verdict and the last line of defense for the rapists are judges who look at the criminal and think "there but for the grace of God go I", it needs to be stopped. I ask you, which precedent would you rather set? You have to pick one. Judges are exceeding rarely recalled. Rape victims are abused by the judicial system daily. IMO, a few strategic recalled would be an extremely effective way of speeding up justice that is a long time overdue. The next time a judge looks at Doody, remembers his own Frat days, and feels sorry for Doody, I want him asking whether Doody is worth throwing his career away over.
