I wrote about a couple of judge-advocates today - one from Kentucky, who advocated his religious beliefs on marriage in his courtroom while promoting his novel and acting out his invented procedures from the novel.
Another is about a military veteran judge who was giving leniency to violent felons who were military veterans and advocating for them even after he gave them "house arrest" and probation instead of 20 years in prison in accordance with charges.
By the way, I did not discern any public outrage from that sentence - where a trained-to-kill man is being unleashed upon the community, and 50 more such people are hatching in the Veterans Treatment court.
Yet, public outrage with judicial decisions which look pretty much like advocacy for the defendants still happen.
For example, a petition has been launched to take from the bench the judge who sentenced a rapist convicted by a jury to 6 months in jail plus probation - for a felony, where, as of yesterday, 152,000 signatures have been collected.
The public outrage is complete with an Assemblywoman's public request to the judge to resign, and threatening to "exhaust other measures for holding him accountable" if he does not resign.
On the one hand, a judge must not be swayed by public opinion, and pressure from outside sources should not sway judicial decisions.
On the other hand, the public is obviously capable of seeing things through and seeing that Judge Aaron Persky, a former athlete, had a soft spot for another former athlete, convicted felon Brock Turner - and thus thought it too tough to hold him fully accountable for rape he was convicted of by the jury.
Yet, I am sure that if the prosecution would have asked the judge to recuse because of his background as an athlete, the judge would have laughed the prosecution out of the courtroom by telling them that his background as an white male athlete is "too attenuated" to recuse him from this case.
And, nevertheless, his background mattered - and he did act as an advocate for his "brother" athlete-the-rapist.
So, next time a judge tells you that his background is not important and is "too attenuated" for the appearance of impropriety charge - remember this case.
And remember Judge Holder's case.
And remember Judge Philpot's case.
Because the judge's background matters - and judges often engage in advocacy for the parties they deem attenuated to.
Here it is the rapist who was an athlete.
In another blog here I described a judge who gave leniency (in an ex parte hearing, without the presence or notification to the prosecution) to a sex offender probationer who sang in the church choir at the church the judge attended.
Judges know they are immune from prosecution.
And they do engage in advocacy on behalf of parties they favor.
And the only reason, unfortunately, for calls for resignation of Judge Persky is because of the storm in social media.
If people are silent, judges advocates will proceed fixing cases for those they favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment