The Stanford rape case rocked the public’s confidence in the fairness of the courts, ignited activist groups, and divided the legal and academic communities across the country. Irate California legislators passed a bill to establish a minimum sentence of three years for the sexual assault of an unconscious person, and ordered an audit of the state judicial oversight agency−the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).
Despite public outrage at the lenient sentence issued by Judge Aaron Persky, he did not resign and the CJP decided not to discipline him after publishing an explanatory statement that was heavily criticized for containing numerous factual errors. A recall election appears imminent and both sides will spend enormous amounts of time and money on their campaigns. [Full Article Requires Subscription]
Viewpoint: How Persky Case Shows the Need for More Data on Judicial Decision-Making (PDF)