What were the chances the unduly passionate would remember the name Aaron Persky once they moved on to the next day’s outrage? Apparently, better than one might expect largely driven by Stanford law and sociology prof Michele Landis Dauber, who was so outraged by Judge Persky not sentencing Brock Turner to death that it became her cause.
While others may have moved on to the outrage of the hour, not Dauber.
Fifty California residents have filed a petition to recall the California judge who drew national criticism for issuing a short jail sentence to Brock Turner, the former Stanford swimmer convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on campus.
The effort to recall Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky — the first official move to get him off the bench since Turner’s sentencing in June 2016 — has garnered endorsements from members of Congress, national women’s rights organizations and leaders in Silicon Valley. They argue that Persky has favored defendants in sexual assault cases and should be held to account for the imbalance.
The play was easy, Persky showed mercy, perhaps too much mercy, to Brock Turner, which outraged the self-serving passions of feminists. But it wasn’t enough for Dauber to attack this particular sentence. Ruining Persky became her cause, and piling on those who could earn fem points was simplistic but all too easy.
“Today we take the first step,” Michele Landis Dauber, a Stanford law professor who is leading the recall committee seeking Persky’s removal, said Monday after filing the petition. “Judge Persky has a long history of leniency in cases involving sexual assault. Here in Silicon Valley, women have had enough.”
This is a quasi-lie. Persky has a history of leniency in cases involving sexual assault. And in cases not involving sexual assault. Persky has a history of leniency in cases involving white male Stanford swimmers. Persky has a history of leniency in cases involving blacks, and females and people who have never been to Stanford and don’t swim.
Sajid A. Khan, a public defender in San Jose, said he is disappointed the recall effort is ongoing, calling it shortsighted: “It sends the message that we want judges to be harsh and punitive in their sentencing rather than merciful and compassionate.”
No, no, the progressive chant goes. That’s not what they want at all. They want judges to hate who they hate and love who they love, and sentence defendants according to their authoritarian demands. Khan isn’t the first, or only, defense lawyer to stand up for Persky. When he moved from criminal to civil cases, the lawyers who practiced before him called it a serious loss.
Roderick O’Connor, a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County and a supporter of Judge Persky’s, called the transfer a “big loss.” He said the judge didn’t deserve to be the target of “hysteria” because he is extremely prudent and fair, according to The Mercury News.
“It’s a shame he’s moving,” he added, “because I believe criminal defendants and prosecutors deserve a judge of Persky’s caliber.”
To the uninitiated, who fail to grasp that an empathetic judge is empathetic to all, not just the people you love, the Turner case was all they needed to know to condemn Persky as the personification of judicial evil. But the uninitiated are easily manipulated by someone like Dauber, lacking the capacity to grasp that the shrieking forces of feminist justice don’t get to micromanage every decision a judge makes.
Dauber and all her angry girls* are spewing a lie. What they demand isn’t an unbiased judge, but a judge biased for them, a judge who will promise to send every Brock Turner to prison forever, plus cancer. These are the cries of Sharia law for feminists, and no judge who imposes a sentence that fails to be harsh enough to sate their blood lust will do.
If you want a hanging judge for your personal cause, then you get a hanging judge. If you wonder why judges are so harsh, so unempathetic, it’s because shrews like Dauber have dedicated their lives to ruining good judges’ careers.
There are two messages and one problem. The first message is do not piss off an identitiarian group that will not hesitate, no matter how insanely foolish or disingenuous, to attack you for it. While defense lawyers do their utmost to present defendants as human beings, flawed perhaps but not unsalvagable, the Daubers threaten to destroy any judge who refuses to burn their hated enemies at the stake. Comply or die, judge.
The second message is that there is no appreciation for the judge who takes a chance, who is merciful in his exercise of discretion. While the lawyers who know him, practice before him, have great respect for Judge Persky, there is no “good judge” group willing to take on the Angry Girls* and call out the lies and self-serving manipulation. You want judges to stand up, take a chance, show some mercy toward the defendant? But you won’t stand up to support the judge if he does and becomes the target of the shrews because the feminists will call you mean names and target you as a rape apologist? Too bad for you, snowflake.
And then there’s the problem: a judge can’t go to war with lies and manipulation, like Dauber can. She suffers no ethical constraints of honesty and integrity, and even if she did, her “truth” in progressive academia would support the lies no matter what. Judge Persky enjoys no such latitude. It’s not a fair fight when one side can lie through its teeth and the other can’t respond.
So if you wonder why judges are so mean and harsh, Dauber’s recall campaign against Persky is part of the answer. Who will stand up for Persky? And doesn’t Dauber look fabulous in her blue dress and jackboots?