Anyone searching for Aaron Persky on Internet will find this case on top, probably for the rest of his professional career. Google doesn’t forget and doesn’t forgive. He’ll have to live with the stain.
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.
(ETA: and also possibly my favorite movie. )
4 Likes
I fear that Biden, by mentioning her solid steel spine, may have outed Jane Doe 
This is your first exposure to Alice’s Restaurant?
Oy vey, kids these days! 
It was a crucible time in U.S. history, and we could use some of what we learned then about standing against torture and warmongering.
14 Likes
I’m not sure of that, typically a potential juror will be asked to volunteer any biases they may have that could prevent them from being a fair an impartial juror. Most of that is done by prescreening forms, but I doubt that they included questions about the judge him self. My recollection is that any responses to this are considered safe as long as they are honest.
The judge had two options, he could have said that he felt that didn’t prejudice the juror and he would have to serve anyways, or he could release them. If instead the judge picked the first option and the juror still refused it could be contempt of court.
3 Likes
and standing against alcohol/opioid abuse, and against narcissism, and also against litterin’… and creatin’ a nuisance.
5 Likes
You are awesome! Internet high-five
7 Likes
He’s spent several decades trying to atone for his Anita Hill failure.
No, it isn’t. It’s been a staple of my American Thanksgiving preperation for 20+ years including listening to it on Public radio
4 Likes
Thanks for clarifying…I couldn’t tell from your first response what was what!
2 Likes
Someone linked to this piece on Slate recently. The headline is a little bit sensational, but it makes an interesting point about how going after judges maybe isn’t something that should be encouraged.
I’ll be over here on the group W bench … I’ll save some room for many of our regulars here on BB, although we might have to get a few extra benches built.
5 Likes
I mean the movie. Watch the movie. This is the Group W bench.
4 Likes
The problem with removing the victim impact statement is that it gives the character statement for the defendant nothing to weigh against.
The sentencing portion of the trial is supposed to be about whether this particular person deserves the full force of the legal system, or whether that person should be given leniency, and the defense is allowed to give statements asking for leniency. It’s not fair to have that side of the argument represented and not the “well, there’s a reason there’s an upper end to these punishments” side.
Now, if you wanted to remove both sides of the equation, and boil it down to, “This is the person’s previous criminal record, and those are the only facts that we’ll use to determine sentencing,” well, that’d still be unfair and prejudiced against certain groups of people, but maybe it’d be less unfair than the current system.
7 Likes
I think this is pretty representative of the myriad problems with that Slate Op-Ed. It argues against the recall and the victim’s statement reading from a very context-less “spherical cow” standpoint where there’s some kind of level legal playing field. It whines a lot about “you wouldn’t like it if the other team used these tactics” and “what are you doing to our sacred institutions” and does a lot of confusing liberalism/progressiveness with democracy/government structures in ways that the amazing Atlantic article* someone linked to recently would find altogether irresponsible.
He makes the argument that electing judges is a bad idea. I don’t disagree. But then he follow that by arguing that is follows that recall campaigns are “even worse” and “setting a bad precedent.” (then goes on to show that the precedent has already been pretty well set, many times over in the past by others, soooo…) Basically arguing that we should be working on longer term, larger structural changes rather than having to fight dirty in a dirty system. This just rings to me as a “go slow, don’t rock the boat” argument that can only be made by someone who doesn’t really grasp the immediacy and severity of the situation.
*ETA: Yes, the one @daneel listed below
looks like @wrecksdart had posted it in a few places
3 Likes
This one?
2 Likes
Ok. As long as the stolen property wasn’t several bottles of chloroform and boxes of viagra.
1 Like
It’s a hell of a good, and scary, article.
Yeah, I read it from the other link. However, I have an issue about allowing the use of character references by the defense and not allowing victim impact statements. I think the argument made by the author could have been stronger if he addressed that concern as well.
2 Likes
No. I don’t think you do get it. The Vice President has been seen to publicly stake his claim to the bodies of attractive women and girls that he meets. It’s all a part of rape culture. Is it rape to give someone an unsolicited shoulder rub? Of course not. I’m not saying they’re the same thing, or in the same league. Nevertheless, rape is a product of a culture where consent is not taken into account. And for the Vice President to assume this righteous mantle without acknowledging his own part in rape culture is disingenuous.
