At what point do we consider the impact that this internet based outrage will have on judicial independence in the future? While I personally disagree with the sentencing, I don't feel the judge could have realistically done much more with what they were given. No matter what the armchair warriors of the internet seem to think, and as horrible as it is, rape is a very tough crime to convict for when circumstances are as they were in this case. Did drinking a lot equal her giving consent? No. Did his drinking a lot absolve him of all guilt? No. But the alcohol and the previous interactions between the two very clearly played a role in the events of that night and if you disagree, I'm sorry but you need to take a step back and try to be objective rather than lead with your feelings. There is a reason why drunk drivers who kill others aren't charged with first degree murder, there is a reason why drunken bar fights are not charged the same as unprovoked assault and battery: alcohol has a very pronounced effect on the mind and mental processes. What happened to this woman was life shattering and horrible, what Brock Turner did was criminal and horrible, but the reality is that unless there was a clear and identifiable time wherein she rejected his advances, it's too hard to prove he would have committed the crime without alcohol blinding his choices. Judges can't rule based on emotion, or at least they're not supposed to. If this recall campaign succeeds though, do you expect the next judge to act objectively? Where is the justice if you jump from one emotional compass to another, grounded purely in feelings and sentiment rather than objectivity and reason?