Different Sentences for the Same Offenses? Addressing Injustice in the Justice System
While there may be certain guidelines to follow in the court process of sentencing, the outcome of that sentencing is largely dependent on whoever is overseeing that case, and when placed under scrutiny, it’s clear there is racial and class bias in the sentencing decisions. Judge Aaron Persky’s poor discernment when determining the sentencing for Brock Turner vs Raul Ramirez is substantial evidence of the prevalent racial bias in the court system.
An article from the guardian by David Palumbo-Liu called “Stanford sexual assault case revealed racial bias. We must recall the judge”, addresses this blatant bias, stating, “One can expect further outcry now that Persky’s lenient sentence in one case involving an elite white athlete from Stanford — only six months in a county jail for three felony counts of sexual assault on an unconscious woman — can be contrasted with the relatively harsh sentence he imposed on a person of color: three years in state prison”. It’s good to look for more context before immediately shouting “racism!”, but the fact that Raul is serving an 84% longer sentence for the same crime while Brock Turner gets what is essentially a slap on the wrist compared to what Raul got is pretty evident of some implicit bias in Judge Persky’s sentencing decision. Furthermore, it is stated by Alexander Cross that “What’s happened with Mr. Ramirez is standard. The anomaly is the Stanford case”, so what could have made Persky deviate so much from the standard sentencing (Palumbo-Liu)? My guess is that his social status as a Stanford student as well as being a white male made Persky irrationally lenient in this case.
Some critics of the claim that Judge Persky is racially biased, like public defender Sajid Khan, states that “Mass incarceration is largely a result of judges who have either not utilized discretion in sentencing or who have been deprived by state legislatures of discretion. This lack of discretion has manifested in draconian sentences and overfilled prisons. Rather than using robotic, one-size-fits-all punishment schemes, we want judges, like Judge Persky, to engage in thoughtful, case by case, individualized determinations of the appropriate sentence for a particular crime and particular offender”, and while he has a point about emphasizing the importance of the judges exercising discretion, it should be an obligation to exercise that level of discretion in the least biased way as possible and in this situation, he Judge Persky obviously didn’t.
The absurd excuses Judge Persky made in favor of Brock Turner is also enough to confirm any suspicion of bias. An article by Sam Levin titled “Stanford trial judge overseeing much harsher sentence for similar assault case” states that the reason for Persky giving Turner such a shorter sentence than the law’s prescribed minimum of two years is that “his case was ‘unusual’ and that prison would have a ‘severe impact’ on him. He did acknowledge that prison could have an impact on anyone, but his excuse for sparing Turner was that “it’s probably more true with a youthful offender sentenced to state prison at a — at a young age”. That may be the case, but I have reason to believe it has more to do with the fact that he was young and more to do with the fact that was a white male in an ivy league school, so the judge thought it would be worth more effort to negotiate a shorter sentence. Raul Ramirez, was said to be “very poor”, and that “society is not exactly suffering a loss. At least, that’s not how it’s looked upon”, according to Alexander Cross (Sam Levin). It was even said that Judge Persky was not as active in Raul Ramirez’s case, and that he played a “passive role” in his plea negotiations, according to Gary Goodman (Sam Levin).
There is some heavy cognitive dissonance in Judge Persky’s defense in his decision. In an by Sam Levin article containing the text of Judge Persky’s decision called “Stanford sexual assault: read the full text of the judge’s controversial decision”, Persky stated that one of the factors influencing the decision of his sentencing was “whether the defendant is remorseful”, but Brock Turner didn’t seem to take any accountability for his actions. In an article by Sam Levin and Julia Carrie Wong titled “Brock Turner’s statement blames sexual assault on Stanford ‘party culture’ ”, it’s stated that Brock has “refused to even acknowledge that he assaulted the woman, despite the guilty verdicts, and has instead continued to place blame on a ‘party culture’ of ‘drinking’ ”. According to Judge Persky, that should have been something to take account for in the sentencing decision of Brock Turner, but he instead turned around and said “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events,” and that he’s “not convinced that his(Turner’s) lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him.” If that’s not evidence of being biased I don’t know what is.
It will definitely bring peace of mind to people knowing that Persky was recalled and fired, but he should never be allowed to be in a position of that much power again.
