Justice?

[MadsenOMC]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html

[Cyclonus]

Justice? Indeed. Ten years in the slammer is just too much to give to some teenage boy who was admittedly foolish enough to do these things on camera. The only difference between this guy and millions of teens around the world is that no one finds out what most of them are doing when their parents aren't around. I would be interested to hear what Wilson plans on doing once he's freed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case

[MadsenOMC]

It looks like the prosecutor is going to appeal the judge's ruling, unfortunately.

[Moviefan1234]

I don't agree with what this prosecutor is doing. The kid made a mistake when he was a minor, and the act itself was consenual. I think time served is enough, and hopefully he learned his lesson.

[outsyder]

I remember hearing about this story a while back. It's good to see that there is still a semblance of common sense within the justice system.

[MadsenOMC]

Does a white kid get the same sentence in the exact same situation?

[jeo4]

Apparently, an appeal was filed to block his release.

And for her part, fifteen is way too young to be giving a blowjob. If I were that girls dad, I'd whip her ass until it glows in the dark. Then again, if you're giving head at fifteen, I'd say there are other issues here where parents haven't paid attention.

And yeah, ten years is absolutely ridiculous for a juvenile offender.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Does a white kid get the same sentence in the exact same situation?

Gotta love Georgia, right?

[MadsenOMC]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by jeo4
And for her part, fifteen is way too young to be giving a blowjob.


I'd say it depends on the couple, but I'm not going to get into all of that unless you want to. I've had mixed experiences from girls when I was a teenager, but ultimately, I think it depends on the person and their intent.




These kinds of things are hard. Technically, he did break the law. However, it is up to a judge to... um... . judge. I think the guy should be let out --- He was 17, she was 15 - I don't see how this is child rape, molestation, or even how she was taken advantage of.

IMO, the prosecutors are taking more advantage of the girl than Wilson did. She's being put through the ringer, and I doubt she had all too much to complain about the actual act Wilson is charged of. I don't know all the details, but it sounds like it was all consensual.

[bigred760]

I don't understand why the prosecutor has such a hard-on (pun intended) for keeping this kid behind bars. The Georgia law that put the kid there has been changed, everybody and their dead grandmothers want the kid out of jail, and it seems that this guy only wants him to stay behind bars because the kid's getting more than he is. This guy needs to let . . . it . . . go.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Haha was I the only one disappointed that they didn't show a picture of the girl who did it?

[Jon Lyrik]

Did anyone see the judge involved? I saw him on ABC -- I expected to scream "nigger" and "fucking Jew" at any minute.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Haha was I the only one disappointed that they didn't show a picture of the girl who did it?

Am I the only one who keeps expecting her to be white?

(P.S. I don't follow the story that closely, so the evidence might be available, but I still don't know myself).

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MacReady
Am I the only one who keeps expecting her to be white?

(P.S. I don't follow the story that closely, so the evidence might be available, but I still don't know myself).

I have little doubt that she is white.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I have little doubt that she is white.

She isn't.
I think I remember seeing a blurred picture of her face in a photograph.

If I understand the situation correctly, and under the assumption that the prosecutor isn't blatantly racist, he is saying that the judge simply had no legal right to do what he did or at least in the manner in which he did it.
Blocking the judge's decision based on the defendant's race doesn't seem to be the best career move in a case this scrutinized. One of the easiest arguments to make is "Shit's racist" especially when looking at the surface of an issue.
Could the prosecutor be potentially throwing away his career, for the sake of keeping this black kid in prison? Possibly, but unlikely.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Could the prosecutor be potentially throwing away his career, for the sake of keeping this black kid in prison? Possibly, but unlikely.

I remember seeing one of the prosecutors calling the black kid a "rapist". He was later confronted outside and despite somebody trying to point that the boy commited no such act, the guy said that the defendant was still a rapist to him (or something to that effect; he didn't back down from his accusation).

So make of that what you will. I still think there's (at least) a bit of bias motivating this whole things.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by MacReady
I remember seeing one of the prosecutors calling the black kid a "rapist". He was later confronted outside and despite somebody trying to point that the boy commited no such act, the guy said that the defendant was still a rapist to him (or something to that effect; he didn't back down from his accusation).

So make of that what you will. I still think there's (at least) a bit of bias motivating this whole things.

Of course there is. And against the wrong teenager, I think.

Bubba: I think that age is somewhat subjective. However, like I said, she has more problems at home if her parent's let her get away with shit like this at fifteen. In Missouri, eighteen is the age of consent and that's the standard I go by. And even then I'm on the fence about this because in many cases, it happens to be high school kids fucking up their future by doing something irresponsible.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by jeo4
Of course there is. And against the wrong teenager, I think.

Bubba: I think that age is somewhat subjective. However, like I said, she has more problems at home if her parent's let her get away with shit like this at fifteen. In Missouri, eighteen is the age of consent and that's the standard I go by. And even then I'm on the fence about this because in many cases, it happens to be high school kids fucking up their future by doing something irresponsible.


Wait. I'm meaning.... I thought the boy involved was also underage? If that's the case, I'm saying that the lines are drawn by a 6 month old, because all I'm seeing is a scribbled mess. I can't advocate kids having sex, but to say it's an offense that warrants having 10 enriching years taken from someone's life, in return for an education provided by much harsher criminals - I can't go for that either.

[EVILxxx]

I believe 17 is the legal age in Mass, while 15 is underage in terms of sex. Technically what the kid did was illegal, but as we all know the criminal justice system isn't perfect and 10 years should be considered a violation to just sentencing.
Ignorance of the law has never been a means for defense, nor should it but I do think a change to the law is due.
I would really like to know the girl's view on this situation, as well as her parents.

[The Postmaster General]

That does make things tricky. 10 years is a bit nuts though. Maybe they can prorate his sentence.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I believe 17 is the legal age in Mass, while 15 is underage in terms of sex. Technically what the kid did was illegal, but as we all know the criminal justice system isn't perfect and 10 years should be considered a violation to just sentencing.
Ignorance of the law has never been a means for defense, nor should it but I do think a change to the law is due.
I would really like to know the girl's view on this situation, as well as her parents.


Apparently the girl said it was consentual. She said it was consentual before, during and after the fact. But of course, we all know in statutory rape, consent from the victim is not considered.

Her parents would most likely be the ones to cry foul.

[MadsenOMC]

The lawyer for the boy had a similar case a couple years ago. That time it was a 16 year-old white boy and a 14 year-old white girl. The boy was charged as a juvenile, got no jail time and didn't have to register as a sex offender. Also, the politician who wrote the bill that was used to charge this boy said it was never intended to be used for cases like this.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
The lawyer for the boy had a similar case a couple years ago. That time it was a 16 year-old white boy and a 14 year-old white girl. The boy was charged as a juvenile, got no jail time and didn't have to register as a sex offender. Also, the politician who wrote the bill that was used to charge this boy said it was never intended to be used for cases like this.

Well if the law is the same of that in Mass then he wouldn't be an adult, hence no statutory rape. The whole concept of statutory rape relies on an arbitrary figure anyway. Where does one draw the line to what is consensual?
When that line is eventually draw someone is going to cross it. Making 17 the legal age for sex I think is more about protecting 18 year olds and 19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds from legal recourse than it is about protecting 15 year olds from 17 year olds.

[MadsenOMC]

I doubt the law is the same. It varies from state to state. It is insane to assume that race was not a factor.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I doubt the law is the same. It varies from state to state. It is insane to assume that race was not a factor.

Is it? We are always quick as a society to jump to that conclusion. It would certainly explain a lot and it does remove that pesky task of investigating the matter, but more often than not it is a number of variables. Race could possibly be one of those variables, but I doubt it is the most prominent.

[The Postmaster General]

Could also be that the guy is trying to make a name for himself. Maybe running on a "tough on criminals"-type platform for an office bid.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Is it? We are always quick as a society to jump to that conclusion. It would certainly explain a lot and it does remove that pesky task of investigating the matter, but more often than not it is a number of variables. Race could possibly be one of those variables, but I doubt it is the most prominent.

Just as there are many that always insist race isn't a factor or that people are too quick to play the race card. I think it's pretty clear that race was a factor. I think someone is in denial if they think it wasn't.

[MadsenOMC]

From a NYTimes article about this:

"Under Georgia law, that offense qualified as aggravated child molestation, a felony charge largely intended for use against adult sexual predators, not teenagers like Mr. Wilson, who was 17 at the time of the incident. He had no prior criminal record and was an honors student and star athlete.

Critics pointed out that if Mr. Wilson had engaged in full sexual intercourse with the girl instead of oral sex, under Georgia law he could have been charged only with a misdemeanor, because of an exemption written into the molestation law specifically to cover contact between minors. But because that exemption did not mention oral sex, when Mr. Wilson was convicted, he received a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison without possibility of parole."

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
From a NYTimes article about this:

"Under Georgia law, that offense qualified as aggravated child molestation, a felony charge largely intended for use against adult sexual predators, not teenagers like Mr. Wilson, who was 17 at the time of the incident. He had no prior criminal record and was an honors student and star athlete.

Critics pointed out that if Mr. Wilson had engaged in full sexual intercourse with the girl instead of oral sex, under Georgia law he could have been charged only with a misdemeanor, because of an exemption written into the molestation law specifically to cover contact between minors. But because that exemption did not mention oral sex, when Mr. Wilson was convicted, he received a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison without possibility of parole."

That sounds like a stupid law that allowed for a prosecutorial loophole and the problems of mandatory minimum sentencing more than racism to me.

I think a bigger factor than race here, especially since all of the participants were black, is that the act was videotaped. Imagine you're a juror and you have to watch an evidence tape in which three adult or nearly adult males get drunk with a 15-year-old girl in a motel then take turns receiving oral sex from her and then having rough sex on the floor with her. That would have to look pretty bad and seem like the guys were at the least taking advantage of her. 10 years would still be asinine, but I can understand why a jury might think Wilson had committed a crime or was a bad guy, especially if they were unaware of his personal story. I'm curious to know if he had a competent defense attorney.

What makes you so sure racism played a part in this?

[MadsenOMC]

Because when a white teenager did the same thing, he was charged as a juvenile, got no jail time and doesn't have to register as a sex offender. Plus it's Georgia. This was a good kid with no record and he got 10 years in prison. That's why I think racism had something to do with it and I find it repellant and moronic that some people still insist that racism had nothing to do with it.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Because when a white teenager did the same thing, he was charged as a juvenile, got no jail time and doesn't have to register as a sex offender. Plus it's Georgia. This was a good kid with no record and he got 10 years in prison. That's why I think racism had something to do with it and I find it repellant and moronic that some people still insist that racism had nothing to do with it.

I didn't say it wasn't. I was just entertaining the possibility that it wasn't.
Forgive me for being analytical.

[The Postmaster General]

The thing is, people go, "Oh, Georgia. The South. Racism."

The fact of the matter is that there are more blacks in Georgia than whites. In Forsyth, in particular, it's like a 52-to-40 % ratio black-to-white. That doesn't mean it's devoid of racism, but it's hard to argue when the dominant wage earners in an area, not to mention most prominent politicians, are of the race that is allegedly being victimized by racism.

As for racism, forget red states and blue states, bible belt states, secular states -- It's the white states that I peer a watchful eye on. I've never seen racism like I've seen in places with 98% white. Oh, there are states where everyone is nice, liberal, and very well educated --- which is all the more reason that they keep their racists polite and PC. :eek:

[MadsenOMC]

There are definitely different types of racism Bubba. Subtle and overt kinds. However, just because there are more blacks than whites in Georgia hardly proves that racism was not a factor in this particular case.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
There are definitely different types of racism Bubba. Subtle and overt kinds. However, just because there are more blacks than whites in Georgia hardly proves that racism was not a factor in this particular case.



Oh, I agree. It just seemed important to validate that most people in Georgia are more-than-likely cool with blacks.

As for this prosecutor, I don't know what his hard-on is. For all I know, it could be just that. He has a hard-on and is pissed about these kids who are getting some - sort of like some of the more militant born-again virgins who are really just looking for a righteous reason to be mean and judgmental against others. That's a form of prejudice as well. On the other hand, he could be trying to make a name for himself. But you are right, for all I know, his license plate reads "KLL-BLKY", he has a gold tooth that was taken from the ashes at Auschwitz, and he lures lesbians via selling Indigo Girl tickets on ebay only to kill them, grind them up and feed them to his carnivorous plants.

It doesn't matter too much for him though. No matter what the score is, everyone seems to think he's an ass.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
As for this prosecutor, I don't know what his hard-on is. For all I know, it could be just that. He has a hard-on and is pissed about these kids who are getting some - sort of like some of the more militant born-again virgins who are really just looking for a righteous reason to be mean and judgmental against others. That's a form of prejudice as well. On the other hand, he could be trying to make a name for himself. But you are right, for all I know, his license plate reads "KLL-BLKY", he has a gold tooth that was taken from the ashes at Auschwitz, and he lures lesbians via selling Indigo Girl tickets on ebay only to kill them, grind them up and feed them to his carnivorous plants.

That's what I've been saying; this guy has something stuck up his ass and it's talking to him saying to keep this kid in jail. I live in Georgia, I work for a television network that's covering the story, and nobody can seem to figure this guy out, or his reason. He came up with a lame excuse saying that if this kid is released, something like 300 (could've been 1300, don't remember the exact number) would have to be let go for the same reason. That turned out to be crap; only two or three cases came close to being similar to this kid's and those were actual rapes, not statutory.

He's got a hard-on alright, but only he and God know what's causing his excitement.

[The Postmaster General]

He's gone mad with power.