She led the townswomen carrying pitchforks and torches to burn down Judge Aaron Persky’s bench for not having destroyed Brock Turner’s life. But after Stanford shrew, Michelle Dauber, was called to account for the inconsistency of hating whom she wanted to hate despite not hating whom she didn’t, Dauber found herself in a conundrum. How to have it both ways?
When ex-Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner became a registered sex offender for life last Tuesday, he joined a nationwide list of registered sex criminals that has grown dramatically in recent years to more than 800,000.
Even some who have denounced Turner’s six-month jail sentence as too lenient for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman question whether he should spend his life with the stigma and onerous restrictions of a registered sex offender.
Denounced as too lenient? Well, that’s rather harmless. After all, I thought it was too lenient. Ken White thought it was too lenient. Michelle Dauber? She wanted him executed, then castrated, then executed again, this time with the judge, and his little dog too.
But what’s the problem? The problem is the inconsistency between the cries of death to the rapists (yes, I know he wasn’t convicted of rape, but this is their cries, not mine) and the generic social justice dislike of sex offender registries. How can it simultaneously be too lenient and too harsh? Easy-peasy.
Stanford University law professor Michele Dauber, who lambasted Turner’s sentence as too lenient and is leading a campaign to oust the judge who imposed, said requiring the 21-year-old man to be registered as a sex offender until he dies may be too harsh.
“No one should be defined by their worst decision for the rest of their life,” Dauber said in an interview. “Deciding who should be removed, which cases or crimes should qualify would require thoughtful legislation, a fair process and, of course, an unbiased judge.”
Dauber stressed there are many criminals who deserve lifetime registration, but said at some point after at least 10 years on the registry Turner should be given a chance to get off it by proving he has successfully rehabilitated himself.
Don’t try too hard to make sense of Dauber’s “no one” in one breath and “many criminals” in the next. You’ll sprain something, and it won’t be pleasant. And don’t blame Dauber for being facially irrational, as she’s back-pedaling as hard as she can. Much as she whipped up the deeply passionate but intellectually deficient in the first place, she’s now constrained to find a way to pretend the inconsistencies didn’t really happen. It’s not easy, you know.
But even with this Herculean (is there a feminist version of Herculean that would be less sexist?) effort to spin her way back into the social justice fold, how exactly should Brock Turner “prov[e] he has successfully rehabilitated himself”? Is not being convicted of a sex crime good enough? That’s not quite the same as proving rehabilitation? Maybe if he dedicated his life to washing Dauber’s car and other feminist causes? Who knows?
And what of the “many criminals who deserve lifetime registration”? Are there “many”? What makes them “deserve” lifetime registration? That sounds suspiciously like punishment, since only retribution results in what people “deserve.” Is Dauber’s point that a convicted defendant, after completing his sentence, should then spend the rest of his life on a sex offender registry because the judge’s sentence isn’t harsh enough to satisfy her blood lust? It sure seems that way.
But what of the deeply empathetic social justice view, that “No one should be defined by their worst decision for the rest of their life.” Does this mean “no one,” unless Dauber and her ilk hate them enough?
What arises here, as was obvious from the outset, is that the thrust of those who wrap themselves in the pink bow of social justice is a self-serving logical inconsistency. Much as they rail against hate, against the harshness of systemic injustice, they merely demand their personal preference of hate and systemic harshness against those too low on their pyramid of marginalized victims. As for anyone else, those who fail to make the victim cut and are too privileged to deserve such outrages as due process, burn them at the stake.
Dauber reflects the worst of social justice demagoguery, the blatant hypocrisy of picking and choosing who deserves due process and equal protection and who doesn’t based on where they fall on the social justice victimization scale. And those who are willing to squint and scream “lalala” in order to avoid facing the intellectual dishonesty are calling for the subversion of law, the creation of new crimes, to further their political agenda at the expense of basic constitutional rights.
Should they get away with this, and they are, we will be left with the detritus of their feelz for decades to come, laws every bit as bad as those hated today* repeated for the next identity group of hated defendants and sad-eyed survivors.
To add insult to injury, those who would challenge this are attacked as sexist, racist, whatever label will serve to confuse the faithful and the politicians, so they can continue to pursue the inconsistency of criminalizing those they hate while pretending it’s not in direct conflict with their conflicted feigned beliefs. And the social justice warriors perceive no problem with this, because they pray to the one true god.
*At the same time as reformers are seeking to eliminate mandatory minimums, feminists are demanding new mandatory minimums for Brock Turner. Because it’s “different.”