Outrageous Injustice

[gSteve]

i think this is disgusting

sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

[Tal]

It is disgusting...words can't begin to describe how disgusting in fact...

Combine...

- Lawyers just out to make money and prosecuting anybody and everybody on the fictitious crimes.

- Lawmakers and judges who live in their own fantasy world, where out-dated 'moral' concepts still exist.

- A sad and pathetic attitude towards sexuality that deems it something to be ashamed of, to try and control through the threat of punishment...something that must be limited by age, geography, and even the way it's carried out... (though I am glad they had sense to change the law)

- and a society, where challenging what constitutes a 'sexual offender' is generally taboo.

...and you're bound to end up with situations like this, and much worse. Even if they're rare, they're still unacceptable.

[theinfiniteabyss84]

... (though I am glad they had sense to change the law)

They changed it after the fact, it still doesn't help him, which really is so sad and disgusting.

There are real criminals that don't get that kind of punishment

~ia

[Bodhi]

I agree its a travesty of the legal system. I can't believe the prosecuter decided to prosecute him on the charge, knowing it had a 10 year minimum sentence. There is a thing called prosecuter discretion, they don't have to charge people with every law out there, especially absurd ones like this. I hope the legislature passes a new law that will be retroactive and frees him.

[skyhint]

"But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex."

In Singapore oral sex between anypeople is illegal. But prostitution is government regulated.

[Buzzz]

Something tells me that if he were white, no charges would have ever been filed. It is Georgia, after all.

[dog]

That is the dumbest, most one sided and biased story i've ever read.

Let's not condemn the law and and the entire justice system over one editorial article written by a holier-than-thou journalist.

Sounds to me like there's a hell of a lot more to this story than what we're reading here.

[phoenixferret]

dog said:

That is the dumbest, most one sided and biased story i've ever read.

Let's not condemn the law and and the entire justice system over one editorial article written by a holier-than-thou journalist.

Sounds to me like there's a hell of a lot more to this story than what we're reading here.

Pray tell what this "hell of a lot more" might be. I'm really curious. The supposed victim testified that she was the initiator and did not want the guy to go to jail, so, um, yeah. Did you even read the article?


Anyway, I thought this quote was particularly infuriating:

"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."

It's just so snide and.. horrible! It sounds like this prosecutor is just a grade A asshole on a power trip, and for whatever reason, the beaureaucracy is floundering helplessly before him. How does this Barker guy hold onto his job? His superiors must approve of his methods, or else he wouldn't *be* there, right? I don't know a lot about how any of that works. But... ICK.

[dog]

phoenixferret said:

dog said:

That is the dumbest, most one sided and biased story i've ever read.

Let's not condemn the law and and the entire justice system over one editorial article written by a holier-than-thou journalist.

Sounds to me like there's a hell of a lot more to this story than what we're reading here.

Pray tell what this "hell of a lot more" might be. I'm really curious. The supposed victim testified that she was the initiator and did not want the guy to go to jail, so, um, yeah. Did you even read the article?

Of course i read the article. That's why it annoyed me so much.

All i have to do is see where the article is coming from, and it tells me a lot. Besides, i wouldn't trust a sports writer to interpret legal situations. How many news stories have i seen on tv and in the newspaper where the journalists have gotten the facts so widely wrong that they've misconstrued the entire situation and the facts. And then law suits erupt over libel issues and the journalist or reported gets fired or sued. Happens all the time.

Don't rely on a single source to make up your mind about something. Read several sources, and then make a sound judgement. Get as much information as you can about a story.

[gSteve]

Something tells me that if he were white, no charges would have ever been filed. It is Georgia, after all.

I think this shows that
and the fact that a white female teacher from the same school got 90 days for sex with her student (which is far worse)

Sounds to me like there's a hell of a lot more to this story than what we're reading here.

I don't see what that is, the facts are he is in prison for 10 years for having consensual oral sex, she was the initiator and was only 2 years younger.

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/opinion/21thu4.html?ex=1324357200&en=51de6bd7030c60c0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=1

[phoenixferret]

dog said:

phoenixferret said:

Pray tell what this "hell of a lot more" might be. I'm really curious. The supposed victim testified that she was the initiator and did not want the guy to go to jail, so, um, yeah. Did you even read the article?

Of course i read the article. That's why it annoyed me so much.

All i have to do is see where the article is coming from, and it tells me a lot. Besides, i wouldn't trust a sports writer to interpret legal situations. How many news stories have i seen on tv and in the newspaper where the journalists have gotten the facts so widely wrong that they've misconstrued the entire situation and the facts. And then law suits erupt over libel issues and the journalist or reported gets fired or sued. Happens all the time.

Don't rely on a single source to make up your mind about something. Read several sources, and then make a sound judgement. Get as much information as you can about a story.

Hmm. So I guess you researched this particular case pretty thoroughly then, huh? What kind of fact contradictions did you find between sources? Who do you think should be suing for libel over this particular story? You know what, never mind--I wouldn't trust a Texan to interpret legal situations.

[skyhint]

I don't know, the girl was so drunk and stoned she didn't know what she was doing. It may seem obvious not to go into a hotel room with older guys and substunces if you don't want to have sex but she is young and naive, she'll do anything to be cool. He took advantage of that. Thats why we have laws against stat. rape.
I can see the other side of it. I don't necessarily agree with the conviction though.

[dog]

phoenixferret said:

dog said:

Of course i read the article. That's why it annoyed me so much.

All i have to do is see where the article is coming from, and it tells me a lot. Besides, i wouldn't trust a sports writer to interpret legal situations. How many news stories have i seen on tv and in the newspaper where the journalists have gotten the facts so widely wrong that they've misconstrued the entire situation and the facts. And then law suits erupt over libel issues and the journalist or reported gets fired or sued. Happens all the time.

Don't rely on a single source to make up your mind about something. Read several sources, and then make a sound judgement. Get as much information as you can about a story.

Hmm. So I guess you researched this particular case pretty thoroughly then, huh? What kind of fact contradictions did you find between sources? Who do you think should be suing for libel over this particular story? You know what, never mind--I wouldn't trust a Texan to interpret legal situations.

Trying to piss me off Ferret? Well, if so, it isn't working.

You just go right on ahead and ignore all those prelaw and poli sci courses i took, that's right. And all the legal cases i read in my graduate work.

I can tell you with confidence that in legalities there are no 100% innocent victims, particularly those involving criminal law. This guy had a form of sex with a minor, and regardless if the girl initiated the act or not, it's irrelevant to a judge. The law cannot simply be rewritten to one's liking, never mind your own personal feelings.

I did not reserach this particular story, and neither have you. All we have to go by is a an EDITORIAL STORY written in a JOURNALIST. They are not meant to be read as gospel, and the facts are likely very misconstrued, all are all editorials written. They are written to get peoples' blood boiling, nothing else. They are not court stenographs or recordings. If you want the real story, get your hands on those.

I must admit, i find this more amusing than anything else.

And you're right, after a fashion. A Texan cannot correctly interpret Georgia law. Nope. Neither can a Marylander in fact.

[Awake]

dog said:

The law cannot simply be rewritten to one's liking, never mind your own personal feelings.

Maybe not, but this really does seem like a prime case for jury nullification.

This may be of interest. Specifically:

The 15 year old girl, who has remained unnamed in the press as a 'victim of a sex offense', has repeatedly stated that the act of oral sex was consensual. The jury acquitted Wilson of the rape charge, but as the age of consent in Georgia is 16, they voted to convict him of aggravated child molestation for the oral sex incident, with the forewoman tearfully reading the verdict. Some jury members later complained they had not understood the verdict would result in a 10 year minimum sentence,[3] plus one year on probation.

Wilson received the 10-year sentence because of his refusal to enter into a proposed plea bargain. His decision, as well as his continued fight to overturn his conviction are based mostly on the fact that sex offenders in Georgia must register themselves and are subject to penalty laws for life.[3] As the law stands, Wilson could not even return to his own family after an early release, as he has an 8-year-old sister and would be forbidden contact.[5] The other young males involved (including one charged for the same oral sex acts as Wilson) accepted plea bargains with the possibility of parole; they are required to register as convicted sex offenders.[2] Wilson had been offered, and rejected, a plea bargain for a five year sentence with the possibility of parole before the trial. After the jury had returned the guilty verdict, the prosecutor offered the same 5-year plea bargain again, and Wilson refused again. Another young man involved in the case had accepted a similar 5-year plea bargain and was paroled after two years.

In part because of the publicity surrounding this case, the law under which Wilson was convicted was changed after his conviction; the act would now be treated as a misdemeanor with a maximal sentence of one year in prison, and no sex offender registration. This change however was not made retroactive.

--snip--

The governor does not have pardon power in Georgia, but the prosecutor has the power to set aside the verdict. The prosecutor Eddie Barker, apparently waiting for an admission of guilt, has said "the one person who can change things at this point is Genarlow. The ball's in his court."

The fact that the law has since been changed is an obvious admission that the law he was convicted under was anachronistic (ooh yeah baby, i've waited ages to use that word ;D ).

However, having said all that, this isn't a clear cut case, these laws exist for a reason. Consent is not the only factor, mental maturity plays a significant part too. What if she was just as willing, but was only 14? 13? 10? 8?

In all honesty though, I very much doubt hell spend 10 years in prison, so you can all chillax =)

[phoenixferret]

dog said:

phoenixferret said:

Hmm. So I guess you researched this particular case pretty thoroughly then, huh? What kind of fact contradictions did you find between sources? Who do you think should be suing for libel over this particular story? You know what, never mind--I wouldn't trust a Texan to interpret legal situations.

Trying to piss me off Ferret? Well, if so, it isn't working.

No Russ--believe me, I've long been aware that you are impervious to most things.

You just go right on ahead and ignore all those prelaw and poli sci courses i took, that's right. And all the legal cases i read in my graduate work.

All the education in the world can't make up for a deficiency of common sense.

I can tell you with confidence that in legalities there are no 100% innocent victims, particularly those involving criminal law. This guy had a form of sex with a minor, and regardless if the girl initiated the act or not, it's irrelevant to a judge. The law cannot simply be rewritten to one's liking, never mind your own personal feelings.

What?? Victims aren't always lily-white with innocence?? Please. That's perfectly obvious. No one, the article least of all, made any claim to the contrary.

Then you believe that once a law is a law, that's it. It should never be altered, replaced, or second-guessed? Whatever floats your boat. May you never hold political office.

Did you miss the part that talked about how the law was, in fact, rewritten--BECAUSE of this particular case? lol. Laws can be rewritten "to one's liking" when the writing of a law results in a miscarriage of justice or whenever else the governing body sees fit to change it. In this case the rewrite didn't apply retroactively, which is part of the injustice. No one has said that the problem is that the law was misread--they're saying it was an unfair law. And the law-makers agreed with them. Yet despite these changes--this acknowledgement of the ridiculousness of the pretext under which the guy is serving prison time--he is still locked up. That doesn't strike you as wrong on some level? What about the fact that if the sex act had been intercourse instead of oral, the guy would have got off much, much easier(forgive the pun)? That doesn't trigger your instinct for reform or at least discussion..?

This is all not to mention that the prosecutors acknowledged that it is well within the scope of their power to alter the sentence. They choose not to.

I did not reserach this particular story, and neither have you. All we have to go by is a an EDITORIAL STORY written in a JOURNALIST. They are not meant to be read as gospel, and the facts are likely very misconstrued, all are all editorials written. They are written to get peoples' blood boiling, nothing else. They are not court stenographs or recordings. If you want the real story, get your hands on those.

If you're going to say that an article is the "dumbest, most one-sided, and biased story [you] have ever read ," (emphasis added) you'd better have a goddamn good reason. It's one thing to question the accuracy or bias of an article, which is a totally respectable and intelligent thing to do. It is an ENTIRELY different thing blast off about how "dumb" something is without any justification other than your own determination that all journalists, particularly those who work for sports magazines, are automatic write-offs, so to speak.

I must admit, i find this more amusing than anything else.

Unsurprising.

And you're right, after a fashion. A Texan cannot correctly interpret Georgia law. Nope. Neither can a Marylander in fact.

Please describe what you feel has been wrongly interpreted by the writer of the posted article. If you have nothing better to say than to criticize the writer for his profession and lack of Russ-approved credentials, then perhaps you will agree that your objection to the article itself is based on nothing more than superficial personal biases.

I'm not saying this article is gospel truth. What I am saying is that your evaluation of its validity is held up by nothing more than hot air.