The premise of the Stanford graduate’s ruling, where he gave a Stanford student light sentence, was that he deserves to have a few more rapes before being reigned in:
…recalling a judge primarily based on one decision — that, for me, is a step too far.
Ooops, I’m sorry, that is actually the judge explaining why he should be allowed another chance after his own poor judgment. I suppose he also might have considered claiming that he was intoxicated on the bench as that seems also to be some sort of get-out-sentencing card to him:
Prosecutors had asked for a six-year prison sentence. But Persky sided with a recommendation from the county probation department, which said “when compared to other crimes of similar nature” the Turner case “may be considered less serious due to (his) level of intoxication.”
Is it just me or does this sound like someone is arguing that drinks are the cause of violent crimes, as if straight out of a prohibition pamphlet?
The judge’s reasoning seems seriously lacking, self-servingly biased if not just insensitive, and none of this has yet to rehabilitate Stanford’s image. The word in Silicon Valley continues to be that the school seems ethically challenged by design:
There are conflicts of interest here; and questions of power dynamics. […] The school now looks like a giant tech incubator with a football team.