http://ktla.com/2016/06/09/ex-stanford-swimmer-brock-turner-expected-to-be-released-3-months-early-jail-records/ Here’s your answer
Thanks, jym626, but I still don’t understand. How can they know in advance that he will have good behavior? And is that mandatory? It is probably not rational, but talk of early release before he even starts serving his sentence is what outrages me.
“How can they know in advance that he will have good behavior? And is that mandatory?”
Exactly!
And the fact that he lied about past drug/alcohol use, should negate the ‘good’ behavior option - IMO
The judge seems to think that the loss of scholarship and a swimming career is ‘punishment’. That may be, but it is not punishment within the judicial system and should have had no bearing on the sentence.
Lots of talk in the new recently about biased judges - this judge clearly was biased
I thought I read Turner has to stay drug and alcohol free during his probation period. Can anyone confirm that requirement?
Plenty of kids lose their scholarships and/ or career if, for instance they have a career ending injury. Other students are expelled from college for honor code or other disciplinary reasons. But they likely didn’t rape an unconscious girl by a dumpster.
Exactly. In that package, the lasting harm done to the victim is not even a consideration.
“I thought I read Turner has to stay drug and alcohol free during his probation period. Can anyone confirm that requirement?”
I read that too. Also said he has to stay out of venues where alcohol is a primary aspect.
Affluenza teen also had that condition, and that is what ended up doing him in.
The petition has more than 1 million signatures now. It could reach 1.5 million very soon.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/06/us/stanford-rape-case/
Was there any requirement of counseling for Turner as a part of his sentence/rehabilitation? IIRC Owen Labrie had to participate in something of the sort. Seems like it would be warranted in this case.
From what I can tell, the reason they are expecting him to serve only three months is in CA, because of jail overcrowding, they almost routinely cut down time served as long as the person doesn’t cause them too much trouble to try and free up space in the jail. This seemed to happen a lot with celebrity cases, like Lindsey Lohan, where they get a couple of months and serve maybe a month, and so forth.
@nottelling:
I don’t think anyone was arguing that the kid should have received the maximum sentence, most people know that for first offenders sentences are generally lighter than the max, unless the crime they commit (and I think you pointed this out) had special aspects to it that would make giving the max justified. I think what people were arguing is that the law as written seems to specify a 2 year minimum sentence for the crime he was convicted of and why the judge gave him only 6 months. From what I read the judge has that discretion (that CA minimum sentences are not binding on a judge) and was within his rights doing what he did.
Question, you said that in CA that an appeals court could invalidate the sentence and basically get him re-sentenced, while other people posted stuff here and other places I read, that seemed to imply that if resentenced he could only get up to the original sentence. On what basis could an appelate court rule in such a way as to get Turner a longer sentence, would that imply that the judge overstepped his discretion?
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/beware-the-adorable-rapist/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=30477721&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9QJYRt-D1EoOIanaLWyLHRgcMKCcZSFb2kLWqV3X_78gI09XDkQCp8cOmWfj_1VtXM_tiOk9r4qhM8qQwm1hx2UVUgXWCZodNkfExsHXlcqn_514k&_hsmi=30477721&rf=1
Article written by a former sex-crimes prosecutor.
Brock Turner lied. Took acid with Kristian.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/10/3786949/brock-turner-lied-probation-officer/
IN RE: post #872, I am shocked they didn’t redact the names and phone numbers of the friends Turner was calling.
Re probation in California in response to @pizzagirl’s question: The judge is required to CONSIDER whether probation would be appropriate based on a whole host of factors that must be weighed. The Stanford law professor’s letter considers only a couple of those factors; I’m assuming she was responding to points made in the probation report in choosing to address only those factors.
(Some of the factors weighing in favor of probation under the law undeniably favor more privileged defendants. For example, a stable family life is a factor that favors probation (for reasons to complicated to explain on my iPhone).
Re why I was talking about maximum sentences in a prior post: I was only doing that because Ucbalumus keeps quoting from statutes in a misleading way. I was responding to his quoting of those statutes. The max sentence here was 6 years, and the Stanford law professor leading the recall effort thinks he should have gotten 2-3 years. Ucbalumnus keeps quoting statutory ranges that have been struck down as unconstitutional (except in limited circumstances).
Re appealing the sentence in response to @musicprnt : Many people are stating that this sentence “is a perversion of justice” or saying that it somehow was otherwise unlawful. If the judge had actually abused his discretion UNDER THE LAW, or imposed a sentence that was unauthorized UNDER THE LAW, then the prosecution could appeal that sentence. In other words, if the sentence was truly unlawful, there’s a remedy for that, in the Court of Appeal. But most people I’ve talked to who actually practice in this area think that the sentence was LEGALLY proper and thus NOT subject to appeal (even though they disagree strongly with the ruling).
The reason I think that is relevant is that there are judges who every day have their rulings reversed by the Court of Appeal for making legal errors, for abusing their discretion, for violating the constitutional rights of the litigants who appear before them. Some of the judges have ruling after ruling reversed because they do not follow the law, yet they remain on the bench. (And I DO NOT think that simply because a judge’s ruling is reversed means that the judge did something wrong. Often there is no clear answer.) If you are going to go after a judge, go after one who time and time again refuses to follow the law.
Even apart from legal rulings, there are other judges who commit actual misconduct – violations of the ethical rules – and those judges also often remain on the bench. (You can read about them on the website of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, if you are interested).
What’s extraordinary here is that people are calling for this judge to be thrown off the bench for ONE decision that they disagree with – when the decision may have been well within the judge’s discretion and PERFECTLY LEGAL. (If it decision was ILLEGAL, there would be no need to throw him off the bench because the Court of Appeal could correct the ruling). That’s what I think is really dangerous – saying we are going to start throwing judges off the bench when they make decisions we disagree with, even when we can find no legal error and even when the judge acted within the judge’s discretion under the law. I think that is a very dangerous precedent.
And it really bothers me that people are accusing this judge of racial bias when there is no evidence of that.
Just so it is clear: I strongly disagree with the ruling. But I don’t think the judge should be recalled.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/usa-swimming-bans-stanford-student-brock-turner-life/story?id=39752826
Lifetime ban from USA Swimming.
The judge represents us. Society. That is his burden when he took the job.
What the judge did was legal and wrong. The judge didn’t represent us and he wasn’t even thinking about the victim.
The judgment of the judge was lacking. I kind of want a judge to have good judgment, but that’s just me. 
The person who is leading the recall movement movement is a law professor at Stanford, the place of the attack.
Is she a quack?
This judge is very fortunate because it is probably too late for this election. Recall movements are tough.
I doubt Judge Persky is going to be running unopposed next time.
Wow–suspect his legal team will want to appeal that ban as well. Sounds like they will be busy racking up hours. $$$$
The Stanford professor is not a quack; she’s a very powerful friend of the victim. She is doing everything in her power to help her young friend who was the victim of a terrible crime and who was not well-served by the judicial system. I get why she is angry. I get why she is doing what she is doing. Most victims don’t have such powerful allies working for them.
Judges ABSOLUTELY DO NOT represent us. They are supposed to act independently, and are NOT supposed to be influenced by political pressure in deciding individual cases. One of the very worst things you can say about a judge is that a ruling was influenced by outside political pressure. Judges are supposed to exist inside a little bubble where their only concerns are the evidence and the law. They do NOT have constituents, and they are NOT supposed to be swayed by public opinion in doing their job. I totally disagree with you on this one @dstark.
Agree that judges are supposed to follow the law and NOT be swayed by popular (or unpopular) opinion. They should not be removed for the exercise of their discretion on ONE case alone.
I personally feel the sentence was far too lenient but don’t believe this ALONE is grounds for seeking this judge’s removal. I also agree that if he sentenced below what is allowable, prosecution would have grounds to appeal.