Talk:Aaron Persky

(Untitled)

Thank you for making this page. The judge who has nearly 500,000 signatures on an online petition site asking for his removal is big time notable. Trilliant (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

most judges at this level should probably have articles, esp. in highly populated areas. but i get what you are saying.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:8D7D:A13:BAA7:8A25 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT

I know this seems like big news right now, but I think in time it will be clear that he is notable for one event only and should not have his own Wikipedia page. Fnordware (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think your BLP1E argument fails to recognize the criticism this judge faced in another rape case - in this case the alleged gang rape perpetrated by another group of collegiate athletes. No pattern here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply - Assuming that this page can not be kept, it should be redirected to Brock Turner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply - I cannot find any criticism of the judge in 2011. He's now being criticized by the 2007 plaintiff's lawyer for admitting allegedly prejudicial evidence against her client. Hardly unique to this judge or that case.Kgr123 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so technically he has another notable event, but just barely. He was not even mentioned in the 2007 De Anza rape investigation Wikipedia article until the recent controversy. I still think his page should re-direct to Brock Turner with a mention of the 2007 case in that article, which it already has. Fnordware (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a judge at a state level - according to WP:POLITICIAN, that in itself means Persky is likely to be notable. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Grateful this page exists

I would like to thank all the editors who worked on this page. Whether Judge Persky should remain on the bench is an issue of great import, especially to lawyers, and I am glad we can go somewhere and look at the entirety of his career to put his recent ruling in context.Amyzex (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

*Alleged gang rape by De Anza College athletes*

Is the phrase "Alleged gang rape by De Anza College athletes" the right one given that the defendents were exonerated not in criminal court but in civil court? That no criminal charges were ever filed and under the more liberal standard of by a "preponderance of the evidence" the defendants were still exonerated, does the phrase really fit? If not, what would? When someone is found not guilty they are exonerated, it is not still an allegation. Just saying. --68.118.202.199 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that even if someone if found innocent, it is still alleged. In theory the accuser still is alleging there was a gang rape. Even if the accuser later admits they were lying, the gang rape was still alleged at some point. There is WP:ALLEGED, but no indication of what should happen after the trial. Maybe start a discussion on the WP:ALLEGED talk page? Fnordware (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. WP:ALLEGED actually notes it's appropriate for undetermined legal proceedings. The civil case was resolved. Alleged is only appropriate before the allegation is resolved, by definition. If not, then we'd say that person A is an alleged murderer, even if they were convicted of a murder. We'd also say person A is an alleged murder, even if they were not convicted of murder. There's no question the article shouldn't be using 'alleged' after the allegation was resolved. The article is just demonstrating a clear bias, using legal terms, which unfortunately happens frequently on wiki. Maxxx12345 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If it were referring to the defendants, labeling them that way would probably be inappropriate, but the section is referring to the case, in which an alleged crime occurred and the case was to determine the outcome. Charges are allegations, no matter whether they stick or not. Thats's what the case was about. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course "alleged" is appropriate. The athletes were found not liable in civil court, so that's how the civil case was "resolved". The DA decided not to file criminal charges, citing insufficient evidence, a decision that was affirmed by the state attorney general. So there was no criminal conviction and no civil liability. The allegations remain just allegations - never proven but still part of the historical record. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not a valid position. Alleged doesn't go from being an allegation in a civil or criminal proceeding, then become a term for the historical record because the allegation was dismissed. That's obviously inconsistent. There's no such concept as a "just allegation" either. The allegation in the civil trial was dismissed, as the ruling favoured the defendants. The allegations in the criminal matter were dismissed for lack of evidence. This is just clear weasel wording on your part. The same standard applies to any wiki entry. There aren't, or at least shouldn't be, exemptions on this article and especially not based on a possible ideological stance. This is an issue that's been resolved numerous times regarding other articles. Maxxx12345 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

By "just allegations" I meant "only allegations". I really don't understand what you are suggesting should be done with this section title. Do you want it changed to something else? If so what? --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry about that then. The title should certainly be changed. It was a civil tort case, not a rape case. As with the inclusion of 'alleged' both of those inclusions shouldn't be because they're factually incorrect. There are no allegations, they've been dismissed, and the case wasn't a rape case, it was a civil tort. Rape is a criminal code violation, and a criminal case. Seems that people want to call the civil case a rape case because there was no rape case. If you look at other articles in wiki regarding civil cases, the name of the case is what's usually used in the section header. That's what should be used here also. If editors don't wish to use the dry sounding case name, then it should be described as what it actually is, not something it isn't. The De Anza Civil Case, for example. To include either 'alleged' or 'rape case' in the title is just factually incorrect. That's not a matter of debate, or shouldn't be anyway. Maxxx12345 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about the case is called 2007 De Anza rape investigation. It has been known by that name for nine years; that suggests a longstanding consensus. There is no question that this was an allegation of gang rape. Eight people were originally named as defendants; six either settled (for several hundred thousand dollars) or had the charges against them dismissed. Two remained and were the defendants in the civil case, a tort for damages allegedly sustained during the alleged rape. There is really no way to pretend this wasn't a case about an alleged gang rape - even though the two remaining defendants were ultimately found not liable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the article about the rape investigation is called the rape investigation. And? That doesn't mean the civil tort case is a rape case.  ??? I'm not discussing the title of another article, discussing a criminal investigation. I'm discussing a civil case, which is NOT an allegation of a rape. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. I'm not pretending anything. You're obviously trying to call a civil tort case something it is not. As noted, this is well settled on wiki, and you can see from other entries involving civil cases. It's not pretending to say a civil doesn't determine a rape, that's a straight forward fact. You might want to actually research the issue here on wiki because in all due respect, you seem to be confused regarding what a civil case is. The two defendants weren't found not liable for committing a rape. Civil cases don't determine criminal code violations. What you're claiming is analogous to stating criminal cases determine compensatory damages. They don't, that's factually incorrect. A tort case isn't a rape case. A rape case isn't a tort case. That's not anyone pretending, that's just a fact. For example, someone acquitted of murder is sued in civil court. The civil case is not a murder case, there was no murder, they were acquitted. That example help any? Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please try not to be patronizing. If the plaintiff in this case wasn't suing for damages incurred in the course of a rape, what WAS she suing for damages for? Assault? Sexual harassment? Not saying "please"? The testimony in the civil case was virtually identical to what would have been testified in a rape case (for example, the defendants claiming that sex was consensual). I hear what you are saying. The O.J. Simpson civil suit was for "wrongful death", not "murder"; is there a similar phrase for "unwanted sexual contact" that we could use here? --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Not saying "please"?" And you call me patronizing? The O.J. civil suit was for wrongful death, and not murder as you note, so it can't be titled a murder case in wikipedia. The De Anza civil suit was for emotional distress. I'm not being patronizing by noting the inconsistency in the article. I'm sorry, but that was really quite fippant of you. Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

...And getting back to the main point here (we seem to have wandered far afield): Although criminal charges were not filed, they were investigated. There were allegations of gang rape. The fact that the D.A. determined there was insufficient evidence to file criminal charges, doesn't mean that the allegations were never made. "Alleged gang rape" is exactly the description of this historical incident. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That point has already been addressed. Wikipedia has a section noting your incorrect use of 'alleged' it's for unresolved legal accusations. Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. since we edit according to what Reliable Sources say, please look at how the Reliable Sources in this article describe the civil trial. Headline: "De Anza trial begins with question: Was woman gang-raped or a seductress?" Description in the article: "alleged assault at a San Jose house party". [1] Headline: "No defendants found liable in De Anza rape trial, no damages awarded". [2] Headline: "Woman with similar claim could impact civil trial over alleged De Anza gang rape". Description in the article: "the upcoming civil trial over those explosive allegations". [3] Bottom line, this section is titled exactly in accord with what is in all the reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The title of news sources is irrelevant. This too is addressed by wikipedia. Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Article seems biased

The wikipedia article seems biased in favor of Judge Persky. Almost all of its sources and direct quotations come from people supporting him. Why are there no sections detailing the logic behind the recall effort? The Stanford Law Professor helping lead the effort is discredited by being mentioned as a "family friend of the victim." This professor is also a respected attorney, and she and many other people in the legal field have noted the strong precedent Judge Persky's sentence sets for other cases of sexual assault on college campuses. There's a lot missing from this article, which only tells one side of a multi-faceted story, as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.249.22.63 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have specific, sourced wording that you think should be added, propose it here and we can discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The De Anza section is highly problematic. It'a seems to be implying that somehow the judge erred in including the demonstrative evidence, the photographs. Not only is there no question that the photos should have been admitted, it's legally required as part of discovery. This isn't controversial in any way. This is takes place in basically every single civil case where there's interaction between plaintiff and defendant after the tort. This is extremely important, for example, it's the most prominent way insurance fraud is battled. The fact that this tort involved a rape, and not a car accident, is entirely irrelevant. It literally has no bearing on the discovery rules of evidence. If this was an article discussing a tort over a car accident (for whatever reason that would be on wiki) the section would never be written in such a manner. This section certainly needs to be rewritten if it's going to be included. Maxxx12345 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Discovery only requires the photos to be shared with the defense. It does NOT require that they be shown to the jury. That's a judgment call: the defense tries to introduce them; the prosecution objects, saying they would be prejudicial (or whatever their objection would be); and the judge either grants the objection and keeps the photos out, or overrules it and allows them in. This was in fact a judgment call by Persky, for which some people afterward criticized him. That criticism, justified or not, received a lot of coverage, and thus the case is properly included here per WP:WEIGHT. It's one of the two cases that made the judge notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know where you got the impression that the photos showed interaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The sources say the photos showed the girl a year later "at a party wearing revealing clothing;" the plaintiff's attorney argued they were irrelevant. Including them thus was criticized as possibly a form of "blame the victim". --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ack, my apologies. Clearly my memory was off when I thought the pictures displayed the behaviour in the presence of one of the defendants. My mistake, sorry about the rusty memory. Obviously if the pictures involved the plaintiff in the presence of the defendant, the demonstrative evidence couldn't have been excluded (you really need to brush up on civil procedure code in California). Sorry about the confusion. Maxxx12345 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible Pro-Persky Vandalism

I made neutral edits. moving the recall to a new section and adding both sides of the story for the recall petition. Bbb23 deleted it without any thought and without seeking consensus on talk. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia either to defend or to attack Judge Persky. The changes I made are neutral and tell both sides of the story. They are all from reliable, third party sources. I added more reputable sources from reliable newspapers, deleting some blogs and other opinion pieces that lack a neutral point of view. This is all in accordance with WP. 41.45.199.229 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know that I'm an unthinking vandal. All these years and I thought I was doing so much better. Some of the changes you made were fine, but others were not. The overall thrust of what you did was to add material unfavorable to Persky and remove material favorable to him. You're saying your edits are neutral doesn't make them so. I'm not going to edit-war over it, so for the moment your problematic edits will remain. BTW, I don't need consensus to revert your edits. You, once challenged, need consensus to re-add them. See WP:BRD and generally WP:BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of things, not sure if they are the same things you are talking about. I deleted a paragraph listing "supporters" of the recall campaign, because the information (from the recall campaign itself) misrepresented the position of many people who had expressed outrage or concern over the sentence, listing them as if they had endorsed recall when in fact they had not. I also deleted a sentence about 10 jurors refusing to serve under Persky, because the information was already in the article in another section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What you did helped, but the IP also removed "favorable" material, e.g., "Cevallos stated that judges are supposed to enjoy a modicum of independence from public pressure, and "there are no apparent grounds for impeachment or allegations of judicial misconduct, based on this sentence alone". Cevallos said that the recall movement "raises the question: is removing judges good for the spirit of the judiciary system, especially when the judge's sole transgression is a legal sentence?" That material had two citations - just not including them here. There may have been other things removed, but I would have to spend much more time comparing to be sure. Besides, I was getting close to edit-warring, and unless there are egregious BLP violations, I withdraw. In my view, the article should be semi-protected again, but I'm in no position to do that. You protected it for two weeks back in June, but I'm not sure you would be comfortable doing it again. Besides, maybe I'm overreacting, although there is that other IP (not the same person apparently).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Persky's committee

Please add:

Persky has formed a committee to fight the recall effort, called "Retain Judge Persky -- No Recall".

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Under the "Recall campaign" section. Regards— MeowMoon (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Follows probation department

Please add this to the section on Persky's judicial career:

The Associated Press analyzed 20 cases where Persky had passed sentence since January 2015, and found that Persky had followed the sentencing recommendation of the probation department every time that a guilty verdict was recorded.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Information on petitions

Please add the following to the recall campaign section:

As of June 10, 2016, over 1 million people had signed a change.org petition to remove Persky from the bench. Other petitions related to the case at moveon.org and We the People gained over 100,000 signatures each.

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

References