Stanford student gets six months for rape

[catcul]

Aaron Persky has been fired.

[catcul]

This story just keeps going.

Aaron Persky, the judge who was recalled because of the Brock Turner sentencing, is now the junior varsity tennis coach for Lynbrook High School in San Jose, CA. Why anyone would hire a person who has demonstrated such little respect for women to coach young girls is beyond me.

[catcul]

It looks like Judge Persky has been recalled. Good riddance!

As for Brock Turner, in his appeal, his lawyer said that Turner only wanted outercourse. Doing that with an unconscious person is still sexual assault.

Medical Definition of outercourse
: physical sexual activity between individuals that typically includes stimulation of the genitalia but does not involve penetration of the vagina or anus with the penis some people do not include oral sex in outercourse because it can cause transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV

[TheHuckster]

You're not entirely wrong, I'm just saying it's weird that the sentence increased instead of decreasing like you'd expect.

I can't agree or disagree because I can't find the case catcul was referring to, so I don't know the specifics of it.

[s_stabeler]

You're not entirely wrong, I'm just saying it's weird that the sentence increased instead of decreasing like you'd expect.

[TheHuckster]

It doesn't have to be a henious mistake- not least because there's no such thing, since henious implies it was deliberate

Ok, let me reword it: A serious flaw in the prosecution, either caused by a stupid technicality or deliberately misleading the jury.

but yes, when an appeal isn't merely an attempt to get away lightly, I disfavour increasing the sentence, on the grounds that it would discourage people from making legitimate appeals. If it's merely appealing for a lighter sentence for no good reason, then sure, increase the sentence.

It's a brand new trial, though. There's no way to prevent something like this from happening because, by definition, nothing in the prior trial can be considered. The judge has to hear the testimony and evidence as if it's a trial that's never been heard before, and if the judge believes, based on this, the sentence should be X, the fact that it was Y before shouldn't have any bearing.

That may be true, but that's why I compared the sentence to the minimum time you have to spend in prison for murder. it is kinda harsh when a kidnapper spends nearly 4 times longer behind bars than he would have if he had outright killed his victim.

Minimum sentence does not mean everyone just gets 25 years. It's a minimum. A good portion of first degree murders are a life sentence, and it's based on the circumstances behind the crime. An abused wife who shoots her husband to death premeditated is likely going to get 25 versus someone who kidnaps and tortures to death a child. I guarantee you if Elizabeth Smart were killed, her kidnapper wouldn't get 25 years.

[s_stabeler]

I'd think that's not generally true. Otherwise, if in the Stanford case it was found that there was indeed some kind of heinous mistake by the prosecution that grants the defendant the appeal, you would think it's unfair if the subsequent trial gave him a harsher sentence.

It doesn't have to be a henious mistake- not least because there's no such thing, since henious implies it was deliberate- but yes, when an appeal isn't merely an attempt to get away lightly, I disfavour increasing the sentence, on the grounds that it would discourage people from making legitimate appeals. If it's merely appealing for a lighter sentence for no good reason, then sure, increase the sentence.

Basically, I see it as equivalent to the custom you occasionally see of increasing the punishment for a kid who appeals a punishment a teacher imposed on them to the Principal (or whoever can overrule the teacher) for no good reason- however, if the kid had a good reason for the appeal (say if there was an actual question about if the teacher was even allowed to impose the punishment they did)
then the principal would merely confirm the existing punishment at worst.

Something tells me this is not just an innocent kidnapping case. Often times kidnappings are almost a thinly veiled euphemism for sadistic acts by the criminal in question. I mean, I've heard people refer to Elizabeth Smart as a "kidnapping" case but obviously her kidnapper did a lot more harm than just that, and deserved a life sentence for his actions.

That may be true, but that's why I compared the sentence to the minimum time you have to spend in prison for murder. it is kinda harsh when a kidnapper spends nearly 4 times longer behind bars than he would have if he had outright killed his victim.

[catcul]

I wouldn't say he's subject to it. There's just a petition asking for it to happen.

And given how this country doesn't seem to give a crap about it's treatment of rape/harassment/assault victims, I have my doubts about a recall happening.

It looks like the petition is successful. The people can make this judge lose his bench.

[TheHuckster]

actually, I don't find that particularly amusing.
1) his appeal was perfectly reasonable, and I dislike cases where a reasonable appellant is disadvantaged due to appealingf

I'd think that's not generally true. Otherwise, if in the Stanford case it was found that there was indeed some kind of heinous mistake by the prosecution that grants the defendant the appeal, you would think it's unfair if the subsequent trial gave him a harsher sentence.

2) that seems a long sentence for kidnapping when murder carries a 25 year tariff. (what that means is that you must serve at least 25 years before you are eligible for parole except under special circumstances (usually humanitarian reasons)) so the kidnappper probably has a case that the punishment is excessive. For just kidnapping- not kidnap/murder or similar- I'd have thought 10-15 years would be more appropriate, 20 years at the outside.

Something tells me this is not just an innocent kidnapping case. Often times kidnappings are almost a thinly veiled euphemism for sadistic acts by the criminal in question. I mean, I've heard people refer to Elizabeth Smart as a "kidnapping" case but obviously her kidnapper did a lot more harm than just that, and deserved a life sentence for his actions.

[s_stabeler]

actually, I don't find that particularly amusing.
1) his appeal was perfectly reasonable, and I dislike cases where a reasonable appellant is disadvantaged due to appealing
2) that seems a long sentence for kidnapping when murder carries a 25 year tariff. (what that means is that you must serve at least 25 years before you are eligible for parole except under special circumstances (usually humanitarian reasons)) so the kidnappper probably has a case that the punishment is excessive. For just kidnapping- not kidnap/murder or similar- I'd have thought 10-15 years would be more appropriate, 20 years at the outside.

[catcul]

This latest story reminds me of the kidnapper in Oklahoma who was sentenced to 65 years in prison. He appealed his case and won. The prosecutor in his first case told the jury that they didn't need to worry because the kidnapper would out early on parole, which wasn't true. So, he was granted a new trial with a new judge, a new prosecutor, and a new jury.

The new jury sentenced him to 90 years.

[s_stabeler]

1) on appeal, the original trial is vacated- basically, the court says "the defendant is entitled to a fair trial, and the previous trial wasn't a fair trial. Try again"
2) Double Jeopardy is meant as protection against the prosecution simply charging someone multiple times for the same offence. (obviously if someone breaks more than one law, you can prosecute them on multiple charges simultaneously, while if someone murders two people at different times, you can prosecute them for the subsequent murder separately (they just don't usually bother if they can prosecute simultaneously. And yes, if you are convicted of murdering someone but they aren't actually dead, then if you murder them later you can be prosecuted for the second murder, even if it would raise a couple of eyebrows.) In this case, it's the defendant asking for a new trial, so Double Jeopardy isn't the issue. it's more that the defendant needs to prove the new trial wouldn't simply be a rehash of the old one.

[TheHuckster]

I thought you couldn't get convicted twice for the same crime?

You can't. This is different, as he's trying to get his current conviction overturned by claiming it's a mistrial. Mistrials are stricken from the record and it's basically a redo of the same trial.

Mistrials are only given if something happened during the trial that may have caused the jury to make a verdict under incorrect circumstances:

- A juror is biased (e.g. was found to be familiar with the case outside of testimony in the courtroom, or had some kind of bias that may have caused them to enter a verdict in bad faith)

- The prosecutor or defendant entered invalid evidence

- Testimony was found to be made via coercion or bribery (e.g. the prosecutor or defendant illegally coaxed a witness to say a certain thing)

[Tama]

I thought you couldn't get convicted twice for the same crime?

[catcul]

It looks like someone can't leave well enough alone. Brock Turner is appealing his sexual assault conviction and asking for a new trial. If his appeal succeeds, he might actually be sent to a real prison if he gets convicted again.