Voters must decide judge’s fate
Con: Effort to recall driven by mob’s thirst for punishment
Nothing shows better how far the #MeToo pendulum has swung than the reckless recall of Judge Aaron Persky from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. In this era of “credible allegations” with no proof required, some of them anonymous, every instance of finger-pointing seems to end up under the rubric of sexual assault or harassment. Without any checks and balances and driven by outrage, these cases of sexual misconduct become as heinous as the emotional hysteria that they generate. And today, unfortunately, judgment and sentencing in a court of law is expected to emulate the court of public opinion.
In this tainted atmosphere, there’s a campaign to disrobe Judge Persky because his sentencing did not quench #MeToo’s thirst for Draconian punishment. The murky happenings surrounding the Stanford campus assault involving a swimmer and an unidentified woman beg for some serious questioning.
Why would the swimmer admit to having any sexual contact if he didn’t believe it was consensual?
How is it that Emily Doe doesn’t remember anything?
Was she conscious and agreeable at first, after they walked together behind the dumpster and laid down? When did she pass out?
Was the swimmer aware that she had passed out?
This was a frat house party full of alcohol and raging hormones. Because of all these unfilled blanks, the case should have never gone to trial.
In her statement about the incident that she says she has no recollection of, Emily Doe says, “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice.” Did the swimmer take her voice away, or was it the four whiskeys, the two vodkas, and the beer she drank?
This is not about blaming the victim, but about asking if the victim bears any responsibility over her actions, and consequently the predicament that she found herself in.
Monica Lassettre, the probation officer who wrote recommendations for the swimmer’s sentence, advised leniency because of his high level of intoxication. When passing sentence, Judge Persky took into account that the reasoning and comprehension powers of both Emily Doe and the swimmer were highly impaired, that the actions described might not have occurred under normal circumstances, that there was no rape or violence involved, and the possibility that the interaction was consensual. However, in the most heavy-handed part of the sentence, the swimmer, who was charged over a nebulous sexual encounter and had no prior history of sexual crimes, had to register as a sex offender for life.
The recall was opposed by the Santa Clara County Public Defender, who said she was “alarmed by the hysteria” that the swimmer’s sentence had generated.
The Santa Clara County Bar Association stated: “If judges had to fear direct, personal repercussions as a result of their decisions in individual cases, the rule of law would suffer.”
And Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen, who prosecuted the swimmer and will not appeal the sentence, said that “Judicial independence is a critical part of the U.S. justice system” and opposes the recall.
The puritanical footprint that’s part of our idiosyncrasy has always viewed sex not as a function of the body but as some sinful desire of the mind. This perception obscures our judgment and raises the gravity of our sexual interactions. Rape, forceful unwanted sex, lewd unwanted behavior, and sexual harassment, are crimes that should be punished accordingly. However, the #MeToo inquisition fails in addressing that guilt might not always be one-sided.
Judge Persky should not be recalled because he correctly applied the law within the parameters that the law gave him.