The Campaign For DA

6.09.2016

Blurred Lines Indeed


The former Stanford student, 20, was "convicted on three counts of sexual assault last week and Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky sentenced him to just six months in county jail and probation, saying that a longer sentence in prison would 'severely impact' the college swimmer’s life.

  • Ok, this post has nothing to do with the sentence. This has to do with how you, the public, are being pandered to by a Congressman. 
  • First, the Congressman is Ted Poe from Texas and a former prosecutor and district judge. He isn't dumb.
  • Or is he? The case he is arguing about is a California state prosecution.  It was not a federal case. Congress has nothing to do with state prosecutions. It's high school Civics 101.
  • And even if it were a federal case, he's out of order to even have an official opinion on a criminal judgment and sentence. He only makes laws. He has nothing to do with how they are enforced or interpreted or applied.  He would lose on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" if the question concerned Separation of Powers.
  • The defendant idiotically appealed (unless he is seeking an acquittal instead of a retrial) the case. But Poe shows a complete misunderstanding for the basic framework of criminal law: "Poe also said he is 'glad this arrogant defendant has appealed his case,' adding that this appeal will give the court an opportunity to give the former Stanford swimmer a harsher sentence." That's just flat wrong. An appellate court can reverse a case but Poe seems to think they can just change a sentence and make it higher on appeal. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 
  • He is grandstanding about an issue he has nothing to do with. And he knows it.


19 comments:

Anonymous said...

One thing that is never mentioned in all this hoopla about the sentence is that the victim told the court she didn't believe her rapist belonged behind bars. While I also think the sentence was absurdly light, it is consistent with what the victim herself wanted.

Anonymous said...

The defendant could appeal and win, giving him a re-trial. At the new trial, if he's found guilty again, the new judge could sentence him to a harsher sentence than the one from the original trial.

Or, maybe you read something into the congressman's statement that no one else read. Because it, in fact, does give the court "an opportunity" for a harsher sentence.

Stay Classy

Anonymous said...

So what? Your boy Barack does it all the time.

Anonymous said...

BREAKING NEWS: Today, a politician ran his mouth about something wholly unrelated to his job duties in an attempt to pander for votes.

Anonymous said...

Yep, the "sound byte" mentality is SO overused it's sickening.

Anonymous said...

This is civics lesson gold, Skipper. If congress has nothing to do with state prosecutions, why Is Arizona or Texas threatened with lawsuits by Obammy if they pass laws that give them authority to enforce their own immigration laws but yet will protect cities that pass unconstitutional laws that give them sanctuary city status to protect people that break the law?

Anonymous said...

It's a good thing that Trump didn't weigh in on the Judge's decision.

Anonymous said...

11:28 has a good question there, Bu. Care to make up something senseless and whiny as a retort?

Anonymous said...

10:11,

Except this quote is directly from the victim's statement:

"I told the probation officer I do not want Brock to rot away in prison. I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars."

Source: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroom/newsreleases/Documents/B-Turner%20VIS.pdf

So now you are free to fully support a harsher sentence without worrying about going against the victim's wishes.

Anonymous said...

11:28 the liberal view regarding the law is that the law is used to reward those who believe what the liberal believes and the law is used to punish those who do not hence, the contitution is the living,, breathing, ever changing document that really does not say what it really says. The president is able to use the IRS to punish his political enemies, yet nary a word from our kind host. Mrs. Clinton can break the law, lie about it, stall, delay, and shake down those seeking access to the state department, through the Clinton Foundation, yet no comment from our host. He is ok with all of this because he shares her views.

Anonymous said...

11:28 -

You demonstrate within the text of your question you misunderstand the functions of the branches of government. So here's some actual civics-lesson gold: Congress, as the legislative branch, writes the laws. The President, through the powers given to the executive branch, enforces the laws. Now, you can disagree with the way POTUS/executive does that, but it doesn't mean that when POTUS/executive does something, that you can blame Congress for it.

Come back tomorrow, and we'll discuss the Supremacy Clause.

DLW said...

That is VINTAGE Ted Poe shameless pandering and he has been doing it at least since his time as a District Judge in Houston.

Anonymous said...

Remember folks, the issue Barry is raising is not the sentence, etc. Just the mindless statements made by an irrelevant (to the judicial process) Congressman.

Anonymous said...

And @2:14, he only seems to care when a Repub blurs the lines. Obama has been doing it for years. Hillary is still doing it. Skippy is the ultimate hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

So does Uncle Joe's letter count as pandering?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36494646

Anonymous said...

12:52, Here is your next lesson. If the president is assigned to enforce the law, why does he get to make the law by executive order or only enforce the laws that he likes? See ya tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with the retarded politician and little to do (directly) with the sociopathic swimmer/rapists sentence: his life went from bright and full of promise to ruined in a moment. His life is over and done. He will be lucky to find a landscaping crew which will give him a job- for the rest of his life.
What more do we want?

Anonymous said...

I suspect the victim is feeling guilty because even though she was passed out drunk, she remembers leading him into the sex act...just so happens she fell asleep. They are both foolish children who drank too much that night. Should have never been reported as a rape, but when cops are called the prosecutors get involved. I think the prosecutor wanted to tangle with this judge.

Anonymous said...

6:03 -

Because the Constitution grants executive power. This has been interpreted to mean that POTUS has the power to issue orders that assist the executive-branch officers and departments with carrying out their duties and operations. Every POTUS except Washington has issued something akin to what we now identify as "executive orders."

If an executive order doesn't have some grounding in either a Constitutionally granted power or some power granted POTUS by Congress, it can be challenged and overturned by the courts. (It always goes back to that darn separation-of-powers concept, doesn't it??)

I guess since we dealt with this concept today, we'll wait until Monday for the Supremacy Clause.