"He probably should've gotten more" is a bit of an understatement. Leniency towards rapists on the basis of their imagined potential and the culture of tolerance towards athletes over everyone and everything they leave in their wake like so much human confetti seems like a worthy battle to me. This man will likely be out in three months for raping an unconscious person behind a dumpster. Come on.

the father

though not an excuse at least he was drunk when he did what he did. his father made the comments while sober

What's ironic is that he has probably been damaged a lot more by this being such a story. I remember when this story broke about the initial crime, but it wasn't a huge deal in the media then. His lenient sentence and the shitbag response from his father have led to the whole thing going viral in an enormous way.

He hasn't been damaged at all. Most of the fallout (swimming for olympics) would have happened regardless of media exposure. He is still going through fucking puberty and nobody will recognize him in 5-10 years. This is this months social media outrage and he will be forgotten. He will be out of county jail (protective) within a couple months and thats it. HIs family and friends will still support him, he'll find his safe bubble to live in for the next few years and he will be just fine.

"He probably should've gotten more" is a bit of an understatement. Leniency towards rapists on the basis of their imagined potential and the culture of tolerance towards athletes over everyone and everything they leave in their wake like so much human confetti seems like a worthy battle to me. This man will likely be out in three months for raping an unconscious person behind a dumpster. Come on.

Please tell me this was sarcasm, Strat.

"He probably should've gotten more" is a bit of an understatement. Leniency towards rapists on the basis of their imagined potential and the culture of tolerance towards athletes over everyone and everything they leave in their wake like so much human confetti seems like a worthy battle to me. This man will likely be out in three months for raping an unconscious person behind a dumpster. Come on.

You're right, I qualified that too much. I just think the vitriol against the judge is over the top, and more energy could go to addressing rape and binging on campuses.

This. At it's core, this type of harassment and intimidation is nothing more than lynch mob mentality retribution (or maybe it's modern name: social justice), putting him up on the hook to teach the others they had better stay in line. What's sad is the hashtag activists will be bored with this in a month, leaving this judge and his family's life a smoldering ruin behind them, and the sentence of the actual perpetrator of the crime unchanged. And you are totally right. If a tenth of the energy spent on attacking the judge was spent on rewarding those who stopped and detained the rapist for the police, we could see positive change. But that doesn't create a situation of future obedience, so on with the recall.

The six-month jail sentence of Brock Turner, a former Stanford University swimmer convicted of sexual assault last week, has sparked an outcry.

Vice President Joe Biden released a letter of support for the victim. California Attorney General Kamala Harris condemned the light sentence.

Now, an effort to recall Judge Aaron Persky, who handed down that sentence, has begun.

NPR's Scott Simon spoke with Michele Dauber, the Stanford law professor who's leading that effort, about why she thinks Judge Persky's sentence is unacceptable, and why he deserves a recall.

Interview Highlights

On what it was like being in the courtroom when Turner was sentenced

Well, it was very emotional, because the survivor had read her incredible statement and the whole room was in tears. And then he imposed such a light and lenient sentence. People felt really confused and betrayed. All of her high school and college friends that had come were sobbing and they were asking me, "What does this mean, can we appeal, you know, why did he get away with it?" It was really shocking.

On why she believes this sentence is something she can't abide

It is not within sentencing guidelines, it is very, very lenient. One of the crimes for which he was convicted — assault, intent to commit rape – has a minimum guideline sentence of two years with a sort of expected sentence being four years for that crime. And it is also not eligible presumptively for probation. So in order to grant probation in that case the judge had to find on the record that this was an "unusual case" and that the interest of justice really required or would be best served by probation. And he did that by finding that he was intoxicated, and that he was, prior to committing these crimes, a very successful young man who had a great academic record and a lot of athletic accomplishment.

And the reason I say this case is dangerous and it makes women less safe at Stanford and other colleges, is that that description fits essentially every campus rape at Stanford certainly and many schools across the country. So it means that he has essentially taken campus rape out of the category of things you can go to prison for, and awarded it a lighter sentence.

On intoxication and academic success being grounds for a lenient sentence

Nobody gets into Stanford who isn't promising and doesn't have a great record, they all have spectacular records. And we know from research, even here at Stanford, but also nationally, that virtually all campus sexual assaults involve alcohol. So if you say being intoxicated as he was and being promising as he was, is sufficient to get you probation, then you are saying that every campus sexual assault ... would be entitled to probation. It says, you'll never go to prison essentially, if you commit these crimes. So it's really an outrage.

On the argument that Mr. Turner's public image is still damaged for the rest of his life, despite a shorter sentence

Whatever social ostracization that Mr. Turner may experience as a result of the publicity around his crime is quite apart from the law of the state of California, which is extremely clear and that's what I'm concerned with. The state of California doesn't say two years unless the person has been severely shamed on the internet, and then, three months and probation. It says presumptively no probation, unless these certain, very specific criteria are met. And they were not met here, and that's why this judge should not be on the bench.

On how the recall process would work

There's a signature gathering effort that will begin. Those signatures have to be certified and then they are presented. Then they will open the recall campaign. At that point it will go on the ballot. If he is defeated in the recall then another candidate will be selected to take his place.

On whether it makes sense to recall a judge over a single decision, as unpopular as the public may find the decision

It is my belief that sometimes one case can be so bad that it does require strong action and strong repudiation. Judge Persky is a criminal judge, one of the very few criminal judges, who has jurisdiction over Stanford. So that means that we would be waiting six more years in order to remove him according to the regular election process, and any sexual assaults that happen on Stanford campus during that time would be highly unlikely to receive a prison sentence based on this precedent. So we think this is dangerous, we can't really let it go on for another six years. We need justice for women now.