[BostonCard]

I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think the accusation that the judge can't be fair because he was a former Stanford athlete, also contrasts interestingly with Trumps idiotic claims about the judge in the Trump University case.

I think this piece from a Public Defender (and Stanford Law grad) addresses the issue of fairness.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11889472/sta...ock-turner

When the judge who sentenced Turner looked at him, he saw a person with whom he has a lot in common: white, attending Stanford (where the judge in this case graduated from — and where I also attended), a top-ranked swimmer, wearing a suit, and with similarly successful family and friends rallying to support him.

To the judge, Turner doesn't "look" like he belongs in the system at all. Thus, it was easy for him to have compassion for Turner.

By contrast, when police, prosecutors, and judges see my clients — always poor and frequently people of color — it's easy for them to think, consciously or not, that that person deserves to be locked up because he or she seems to have a lot in common with others who have been locked up.

The vast majority of my clients grew up without any semblance of privilege. Many are from poor neighborhoods that didn't connect them with the same opportunities — educational, professional, extracurricular — that Turner takes for granted.

While related to Trump's allegations about Curiel, I think this is a bit more subtle.  Nobody is suggesting deliberate bias here, but rather that the judge could identify with the defendant and thus is more likely to be swayed by his arguments.  I think it was much easier for the judge to believe that this was a good kid who did a bad deed rather than a fundamentally bad kid.

BC