Yes, sorry! Not nitpicky, I used the wrong country entirely, and even the wrong continent! 
Do you know if such a thing is possible in us law though?
“he is supposed to feel fortunate that his punishment was so light, express contrition and attempt to reform his life”
I am glad that our legal system takes into account that humans are flawed, biased, and self-interested beings, not idealized moral actors. You wouldn’t need a legal system at all if people acted the way they are supposed to. There would be no crime. I want to build a functioning society given the presence of evil. If you want to encourage repentance and reflection, you need a religion, not a criminal justice system.
There is a conflict if you simultaneously believe (1) that Judge Persky is incompetent or pro-rapist and (2) that we shouldn’t demand as a matter of routine that appellate courts review what trial judges do. The more you think Judge Persky doesn’t belong in his position, the more you ought to appreciate that we have a built-in, independent check on his power.
“It is legal to file an appeal. That doesn’t make it right.”
We don’t get to pick who has the “right” to file an appeal. That avenue must be open to all who are convicted of a crime.
Yes, it’s normal he can file an appeal.
It’s not that he can’t recognize he got a sentence that was much lighter than what he could/should have received, that he was guilty of rape and got six months in jail, with three off for good behavior when he could have received 3-8 years.
I hope the new trial (if any) will give a longer sentence.
He has the legal right to file an appeal. I support his legal right to file an appeal. But he’s morally wrong to do it.
If he were to get a new trial, what are the possible outcomes? Are they limited?
Sure. Lawyers can decline cases unless they are court appointed then sometimes they just can’t say no.
especially read last two paragraphs
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/02/brock-turner-appeals-sexual-assault-conviction/
@QuantMech - don’t forget the two witnesses who intervened and held him for police. May more men be like them! I think of them when I need a break from all the bad news out there. I believe the majority of men would do the same as the Swedes.
“He has the legal right to file an appeal. I support his legal right to file an appeal. But he’s morally wrong to do it.”
Morals have nothing to do with one’s right to appeal a conviction.
I get that you are disgusted with him and outraged he has appealed, but ones right to appeal a conviction isn’t, and should never be, based upon that some find the defendant morally wrong to do so.
They certainly don’t, which is why it confuses me when I say I think Turner is wrong to appeal his conviction and you try to interpret it as any kind of commentary on his legal right to appeal. I wasn’t talking about his legal right and I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
I did not say he has no right to appeal. OK? Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. I can say someone is wrong to exercise a legal right. And in this case, I say it. He has the right to appeal. He should not appeal.
The sentencing guidelines at that point in time in terms of probation plus jail, if I recall, were within the guidelines with the jail time and probation. Is appealing the only way to get removed from the sex registry? That seems pretty harsh so maybe they are looking for middle ground. Seems like a risky move but maybe he doesn’t care if he goes back to jail for a few more months if they can get rid of the registry…he won’t go back for years I don’t think.
Just read an interesting tidbit after googling Brock: his photo is next to the section on rape in a college criminal justice textbook: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/where-is-brock-turner-now-141890
“I did not say he has no right to appeal. OK? Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. I can say someone is wrong to exercise a legal right. And in this case, I say it. He has the right to appeal. He should not appeal.”
That is not our decision to make, IMO. It is up to the appeals court to decide if there is any merit to his appeal or not.
IMO, he is no different than anyone else convicted of any crime. We are not the judges of who should appeal or not, nor should we be.
I believe sentencing laws and the rape definition were changed in a California following his first trial (largely in reaction to his trial and sentencing) which means he could face a much worse sentence in a retrial. Although, he may be hoping the victim had decided to move on from the past and won’t be as cooperative or that witness memories are more fuzzy (or perhaps that the witnesses aren’t even available).
If a defendant appeals and is granted a new trial, a new and possibly more severe sentence could be imposed if there is a second conviction. A court in the US can’t just increase a sentence without an appeal being granted and a retrial held. I do believe, however, that a court can reduce a sentence in the US on appeal without a new trial. Note that although I am an attorney, I have not studied criminal law or procedure in 35 years and have never practiced in the field, but I do watch a lot of true crime TV.
In South Africa, it appears that the prosecution can appeal a sentence as being too lenient and that seems to be what happened in the Pistorius case.
From what I read, Brock Turner wants to be relieved of his obligation to register as a lifelong sex offender. Perhaps his attorneys are hoping that with the negative press surrounding the trial judge, an appellate court will be willing to do that.
IMHO, Brock Turner AND his dad are scum.
People are trying to recall Judge Persky because they think the judge was too lenient, not too strict.
@emilybee, this is a message board, not a court of law. It’s a place where people express their opinions. If I say a dress on the Expensive and Ugly thread is expensive and ugly and no one should buy it, I’m not saying they should be legally barred from buying it. Similarly, if I say Turner should not appeal, I’m not saying he should be legally barred from appealing, I’m saying he shouldn’t appeal. I’m allowed to have opinions and express them.
^I think Cardinal Fang is saying Brock Turner should have the common sense not to appeal his conviction and the decency to realize his sentence was very lenient. He has the right to but he shouldn’t (if he were a decent human being with an ounce of common sense).