Now they are burning Junot Diaz at the stake.

Punishing a judge for following the law is not closing a loophole.

If these feminist nutcases succeed in bullying judges into disregarding the law when they pass sentences, the appeals courts will simply overturn the unjust sentences.

I would guess that in most cases the appeals courts will overturn such unjust sentences long before someone serves too much time, but it'll be pretty funny if California taxpayers end up paying compensation to actual rapists because they served a longer sentence than their crime deserved.

Brock Turner IS an actual rapist.

"The maximum sentence in Mr. Turner’s case was 14 years, and Judge Persky had sentenced him to six months. Mr. Turner served only three months before being released in September 2016. (He also received three years of probation and was required to register as a sex offender, and Stanford forced him to withdraw and barred him from campus.)"

Yes. And had he served a longer sentence than his crime deserved, California taxpayers would be paying him enough money to comfortably retire at a young age.

The Brock Turner case is completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Brock Turner was convicted of committing rape; a serious crime. I mostly agree with Neptune on this case.

Oralloy, imagine that this happened to you... that you woke up with semen on your clothes and realized that someone had been inside of you. I imagine your response would have something to do with guns... but that is not the point. The point is that if someone penetrated you while you were sleeping, you would likely feel angry, hurt.... and you would want justice. Then imagine how you would feel if the guy who raped you was given a light sentence because the judge thought he had opportunity.

Judicial Independence is an interesting issue... when judges make a decision that outrages the public, should they be shielded. This is a difficult question, on either side bad things are likely to happen. As far as the punishment that this criminal should have been given, I agree with Neptune.

But this has nothing to do with Junot Diaz, a man who has never been convicted and is being accused of things that are likely not even crimes.

Both are related to out-of-control feminists imposing unjust results on a situation.

Do you think the judge should have ignored the law when passing sentence, and should have been forced out of office for deciding to follow the law?

If I didn't like it, my problem would be with the law that the judge followed, not with the judge for following the law.

How about when the judge is following the law and the public is outraged because they wanted the judge to ignore the law?

So you don't think our legal system should be lenient towards first-time offenders?

That's certainly a valid point of view I guess. But I'd think it would be a lot fairer to try to change the law rather than to punish judges for following the law.

If we did crack down harder on first-time offenders, minority communities would probably be hit the hardest.

But it does have to do with out of control feminists perpetrating injustices.