Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm not saying the kid didn't get a hummer. I assume white high school kids still get hummers as well...and in some cases they get them from sophomores. Juries are malleable. Been a cop and lawyer long enough to know that. Kind of like Sol Wachler's statement that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case he did commit the crime...no question. But he committed a "crime" no prosecutor in Georgia has ever brought against a white kid. I'm sure they do. Most don't get caught on tape, however. >_> Could be that THAT had more to do with this case than anything else? NAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 But I think the main problem here is just incompetent government, from the lawmakers to the attorney to the judge and even to the jury. If it was THAT obvious that this wasn't a big deal, then they jury should have acquitted him. They didn't. Holy crap, did you even read the article? The jury did not know this crime was a felony. They did exactly as they were supposed to do, convict him guilty of receiving oral sex from a class mate. When they found out it was a mandatory 10 year sentence, the Foreman actually shrieked out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Holy crap, did you even read the article? The jury did not know this crime was a felony. They did exactly as they were supposed to do, convict him guilty of receiving oral sex from a class mate. When they found out it was a mandatory 10 year sentence, the Foreman actually shrieked out loud. They didn't know? Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? It's their BUSINESS to know. I'm sorry, officer, I didn't KNOW I wasn't supposed to be smoking that hash... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 They didn't know? Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? It's their BUSINESS to know.I'm sorry, officer, I didn't KNOW I wasn't supposed to be smoking that hash... Information regarding sentencing and punishment is withheld from the jury as to prevent that information from influencing the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm sure they do. Most don't get caught on tape, however. >_> Could be that THAT had more to do with this case than anything else? NAH. Why the F is he taping his hummers...for an academic kid, he failed a basic rule of life...leave no evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Information regarding sentencing and punishment is withheld from the jury as to prevent that information from influencing the jury. A-ha! So if the DA had told the jury, he would have BROKEN THE LAW. So wtf was the DA supposed to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 A-ha! So if the DA had told the jury, he would have BROKEN THE LAW. So wtf was the DA supposed to do? What?!?!?!? Where did I say he was supposed to tell the jury? The jury did their job. The DA should never have brought the case to trial in the first place, or at the very least, dropped the sentence after the law was changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 They didn't know? Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? It's their BUSINESS to know.I'm sorry, officer, I didn't KNOW I wasn't supposed to be smoking that hash... The jury is never informed as to what the sentence is - they are "fact finders." That is what they did here and applied those to the law as instructed by the judge. The law is fricking terrible and this story is a tragedy. Also, I read in a post above regarding whether this was consentual. As I understand the law consent is irrelevant, which adds to the injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The jury is never informed as to what the sentence is - they are "fact finders." That is what they did here and applied those to the law as instructed by the judge. The law is fricking terrible and this story is a tragedy. Also, I read in a post above regarding whether this was consentual. As I understand the law consent is irrelevant, which adds to the injustice. The judgement in cases like these is that no 15 year old can be informed enough to make decisions on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggins Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The judgement in cases like these is that no 15 year old can be informed enough to make decisions on their own. But a 17 year old who is still a minor can, and should get 10 years for it? Fact is, if this kid is white he would've been out a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The DA, like a police officer, has a lot of discretion on whether to prosecute...even if it appears the crime has been committed. Ever hear the "Why didn't you stop the car in front of me..he was speeding too" argument? Prosecutorial discretion especially in a case like this would have been appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 But a 17 year old who is still a minor can, and should get 10 years for it? Fact is, if this kid is white he would've been out a long time ago. You think. You don't know...you think. And I never said he should get 10 for it. That's what the law says, so it's what he got. If you'd actually READ my posts above, you'd have known that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The DA, like a police officer, has a lot of discretion on whether to prosecute...even if it appears the crime has been committed. Ever hear the "Why didn't you stop the car in front of me..he was speeding too" argument? Prosecutorial discretion especially in a case like this would have been appropriate. But because he's a black kid, he gets sent to prison? Sorry, that's just too lazy and convenient an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 Keep telling yourself that. The kid was on tape. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was not taking the plea. Was the jury all white? I don't think so. Prosecutors don't hand down convictions. JURIES do. You'd think a lawyer would understand that little nugget about the law. Wilson refused to admit to being a child molester. If he pled to or was convicted of any charge that put him on the sex offender registry, he couldn't live at home with his younger sister. He wouldn't accept that, so he waited for his trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Wilson refused to admit to being a child molester. If he pled to or was convicted of any charge that put him on the sex offender registry, he couldn't live at home with his younger sister. He wouldn't accept that, so he waited for his trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Wilson refused to admit to being a child molester. If he pled to or was convicted of any charge that put him on the sex offender registry, he couldn't live at home with his younger sister. He wouldn't accept that, so he waited for his trial. How noble. What do you think is going to happen when he's released? You think he's going to be taken off the offenders' list? I doubt it. He had the choice of taking the plea and two years and being registered as an offender or being convicted, doing TEN YEARS and being registered as an offender. Which is the better choice if he's so bloody concerned about his sister? Look...is the kid blameless in this situation? That's what I'm getting from your OPINION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 How noble. What do you think is going to happen when he's released? You think he's going to be taken off the offenders' list? I doubt it. He had the choice of taking the plea and two years and being registered as an offender or being convicted, doing TEN YEARS and being registered as an offender. Which is the better choice if he's so bloody concerned about his sister? Look...is the kid blameless in this situation? That's what I'm getting from your OPINION. His sister will be too old to ban him from living with her, that's what will happen if he's released after serving 10 years. With all this publicity, he'll be out shortly & the sex offender status will be stricken-only a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Long Beach Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 JSP, I can't understand why you feel this is just. Nor can I understand how you fail to see how the DA's actions are racist. Yes, under the absolute, most strict interpretation of the law, the DA "Followed the Law." Yep, it is a stupid law. It is an outdated law, and it was struck down later due to this case. However, the DA has ENORMOUS latitude on what gets prosecuted and to how far. The DA's decision alone chose to charge this lad with a sex-crime Felony rather than the misdemeanors that he was guilty of (and deserved to be punished for). None of those misdemeaners would likely have resulted in ANY jail time. Instead, the DA offered him TWO years in jail and being labeled for the rest of his life as a Sex crime offender, or go to trial. He was guilty of the misdemeanors. He's caught on tape with them, and admitted them. They are not felonies he shouldn't have been forced to accept being a felon. But the DA insisted he "Take his medicine". WTF? He insisted on branding him as a felon. Did you read his words? Did you read what the DA said? How do you not see the racism here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 How noble. What do you think is going to happen when he's released? You think he's going to be taken off the offenders' list? I doubt it. He had the choice of taking the plea and two years and being registered as an offender or being convicted, doing TEN YEARS and being registered as an offender. Which is the better choice if he's so bloody concerned about his sister? Look...is the kid blameless in this situation? That's what I'm getting from your OPINION. That's not what I take from the stated opinion of his post or the thread. I think there is a awful tendency in our society (fed by the newsmedia like CNN and Fox) seeming to be more interested in providing "news" as a vehicle for selling commercials than in providing a more accurate description of controversial stories which are actually debatable because there in fact are reasonable contradictory opinions about them. This case seems to me to be an example that since one size does not fit all in terms of the same treatment being given to everyone regardless of income, race, gender, etc. that you end up with foolish decisions being made as folks try to stuff every single case into one supposedly fair set of rules. The founding fathers (and mothers behind the scenes if one reads up on the relationship between John and Abigail Adams) were smart enough to see this and built a Constitution and system which allowed for checks and balances and made sure the rights of the individual were given a fighting chance against the views and interests of the state or the majority. This whole case seems to be one where clearly the boy (and though clearly and legally beyond the age of consent he was a boy in behavior) committed an illegal act under the clear letter of the law and was stupid enough to be on videotape doing it. His reasons for rolling the dice with a jury neither justify his actions nor the assinine results which serve few folks and little of society's interests of him going to the slammer for 10 years. Because the result of his going away for ten years does not serve the interests of reasonable punishment for the crime (most folks think 10 years was excessive for the "crime"), it does not serve the interests of stopping him from doing it again (he likely will make sure his BJs are from adults in the future), seems quite unlikely to deter other irrational folks from acting irrationally, and clearly is a bad deal for all in terms of an egalitarian view since his prison bed should go to someone commiting what folks are sure is a real violent crime against another and the taxpayer paid cost is excessive, etc. the episode is simply sad, stupid and difficult to justify unless one ignores reality and attempts to argue one size does fit all. Thus appears to me to be a case where the DA did not use his prosecutorial discretion and not attempt to make this case when he lost the rape part of the case. It also is a case where the judges use of their powers of equity in cases over the years pissed off enough folks to allow for legislative passage of a ham-handed answer to this question which removed reasonable discretion by all judges. IMHO for shame on this adult-boy for his videotaped act, but an even larger for shame on the DA for not exercising his prosecutorial discretion and playing a role in this verdict which serves no interests, and to the legislature for going too far in denying the judiciary the ability to not do stupid things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 JSP..you are hopeless..where you get your thinking and logic from is beyond me....on another note this reminds me of Ruben Carter AKA Hurricane Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts