So there have been a number of thoughtful, well-reasoned articles arguing that however misguided Judge Persky’s sentencing of Brock Turner, recalling a sitting judge based on a single case sets a terrible precedent. I’m not sure I agree, but I can appreciate the argument.

And then there’s this hot, steaming pile of garbage:

in which one Nicholas Wooldridge, “prominent criminal defense attorney,” uses the guise of objecting to judicial recall to pontificate that, among other things:

  • “Rape has lost all meaning” if we use the word to describe dragging an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and forcibly jamming fingers into her vagina
  • Victim statements should not be allowed in court because they are too emotional (apparently the emotion in statements in support of the defendant doesn’t count)
  • The real problem with Turner’s sentence is that it was far too harsh
  • Giving affluent white people much lighter sentences than everyone else is totally appropriate because affluent white people have so much more to lose
  • Turner’s victim gets to live a normal life, while poor Turner’s whole life is ruined just because he chose to rape someone — how is THAT fair?

Advertisement

An excerpt:

The victim may eventually heal. She will get to work. She can live wherever she wants without restrictions. She will be able to move wherever she wants without restriction. She will be able to get an education. The victim can eventually have kids. The victim can and will do anything she wants the rest of her life without interference of the criminal justice system. Of course, the victim may also never heal, but she will have that chance.

On the other hand, Brock cannot. His sentence is lifelong. He will not be able to do any of those things. Ever. His punishment will not end when he is released from his six-month jail sentence. Viewed from this angle, Brock has suffered a “severe impact,” arguably even a disproportionate impact, and any more would have simply been greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of punishment.

Advertisement

And yes, that IS the charming Mr. Wooldridge suggesting that it’s unfair that a convicted rapist face consequences from the criminal justice system for raping someone when his victim isn’t facing consequences for being raped. Also, apparently, convicted sex offenders are not allowed to have children or get an education. Someone should probably inform Owen Labrie, Ma’lik Richmond and Corey Batey.

Someone who I profoundly hope was a troll once suggested on Jezebel that it was unfair for the punishment for rape to last longer than the rape itself — e.g., Turner’s “20 minutes of action” should not result in a prison sentence longer than 20 minutes, because why should the poor rapist have to suffer more than the victim did? After reading this article, I suspect Nicholas Wooldridge would agree.