Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 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 It is an outdated law, and it was struck down later due to this case.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? Again, nowhwere did I say this was just. It's stupid, is what it is. The law is outdated and antiquated. But at the time of the offense, it was the law. And I don't see the DA's actions as racist because he's doing exactly what any other DA would do, just like that DA in Durham has donw with the lacrosse players. DAs ALWAYS stick by their prosecutions, because they're elected officials. If they were to come out and say "MY BAD...I SCREWED THE POOCH ON THIS ONE", they'd be chucked. I can't believe this is so hard for some of you to understand. GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT AT ALL LEVELS. In no way, shape or form do I believe the sentence fits the crime in this case. I think the law was wrong, and was rightly fixed. But at the same time, I am not willing to cut the kid total slack and say he's blameless. It's obvious to me he had no moral compass whatsoever, and even less common sense. I'm sure that'll have me labelled a racist, because we ALL know you can't criticize a black person in this country. Oh, and BTW...how many of you were screaming about the railroading of those Duke lacrosse players? You know what that makes the lot of you? HYPOCRITES. Perhaps if you took the time to actually READ my opinions on this matter instead of jumping on the "racism" bandwagon, you'd learn a thing or two. I hate government for this very reason. It can't be trusted to do what's right....ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Again, nowhwere did I say this was just. It's stupid, is what it is. The law is outdated and antiquated. But at the time of the offense, it was the law.... In no way, shape or form do I believe the sentence fits the crime in this case. I think the law was wrong, and was rightly fixed. But at the same time, I am not willing to cut the kid total slack and say he's blameless. It's obvious to me he had no moral compass whatsoever, and even less common sense. You don't get thrown in jail for 10 years for being a 17-year-old who needs to learn some common sense, or for making the mistake of having consensual sex. Sorry. A probationary sentence would have sent the message to this kid. It's clear. If this were your kid you'd think this was the worst thing to ever happen and that kids make mistakes. That is hypocrisy. This law was not rightly fixed because the injustice was not fixed. I'm sure that'll have me labelled a racist, because we ALL know you can't criticize a black person in this country. Oh, and BTW...how many of you were screaming about the railroading of those Duke lacrosse players? They were exonerated in court. And I'm pretty sure they had comparatively GREAT moral compasses. They just had the good sense to hire a stripper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 And I don't see the DA's actions as racist because he's doing exactly what any other DA would do, just like that DA in Durham has donw with the lacrosse players. DAs ALWAYS stick by their prosecutions, because they're elected officials. If they were to come out and say "MY BAD...I SCREWED THE POOCH ON THIS ONE", they'd be chucked. I can't believe this is so hard for some of you to understand. That's totally incorrect. You don't know what you are talking about on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 That's totally incorrect. You don't know what you are talking about on this one. Right. I'd like to see some hard statistics of the number of convictions overturned BY A PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE without any outside prompting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Right. I'd like to see some hard statistics of the number of convictions overturned BY A PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE without any outside prompting. Back up-they had prosecutorial discretion. This shouldn't have even went down this road and, in the case of most prosecutors, it wouldn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 27, 2007 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 i agree w/ you tater. This poor guy is gunna rot in jail because of an egomaniacal DA that won't let him out... I am willing to bet the DA is not gunna get reelected. Seriously, the kid should be sitting in jail for something that is now legal. Basically, this is similiar to Carter because they both have been wronged by the justice system in a racially charged way. I just hope wilson can make something of his life after all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Did the kid break the law? Yes or No Ignorance is no excuse. Oh, so all kids in high school getting oral sex from 15 year olds (whose idea it was) should be in jail for ten years and labeled sex offenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Joe they offered him five years not two, and it's still five. The two comes from the time the other kid got out early. There is no guarantee he would be out in two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 If Bill Clinton was there the kid would have been pardoned & Clinton would have brought him in for a chat to compare experiences. Since Bush rose to power demonizing the immorality of Clinton's actions, a pardon would never go over with his base. I have to disagree- there is a very big difference (and I'm not saying impeaching Clinton was a wise move), but the kid was 17 years old, and this wasn't somebody who was his intern. He's served his time, let him out, put him on probation, whatever......shouldnt ruin the kid's life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Oh, so all kids in high school getting oral sex from 15 year olds (whose idea it was) should be in jail for ten years and labeled sex offenders? damn under those laws, how many of us would been guilty around that age? hell when i was 16 i was banging a 14 year old, i guess that would have put me in jail down there too I agree w/ ya Kelly this is horrible that some kid gets labeled as an S.O. and has his life ruined like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 damn under those laws, how many of us would been guilty around that age? hell when i was 16 i was banging a 14 year old, i guess that would have put me in jail down there too I agree w/ ya Kelly this is horrible that some kid gets labeled as an S.O. and has his life ruined like this Actually I think the point folks are making is that unless you were a black kid you likely would not have been put in jail. While this may be the same as the Duke case in that in both cases the "boys" involved were pubescent idiots, the case actually is different in that the result seems to be that in the Duke case the outcome will likely be no jail time beyond any they served for being in a situation that led to the accusation. In this case the jail time he is sentenced to is outrageous. In both cases did the prosecutors treat the accused outrageously for their behavior? Yep. Do I feel sorry for the kid who got 10 years? Yep big time. Do I feel sorry for the Duke players? No not really. I'm happy they will not serve time for a rape they did not commit, but in their case getting raked over the coals and even losing their ride to college does not seem to be too outrageous for their stupid behavior even if you want to classify it as boys being boys. One good effect of this is that boys will think twice now about entertaining themselves with strippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Did the kid break the law? Yes or No Ignorance is no excuse. So if there was a law in the books that was passed in 1912 for South Carolina that stated it was illegal to flush your toilet 5 times, punishable by flogging, then you would be okay with being arrested for that and given the full penalty because some DA wants to see you 'take your medicine'? Tell me in a post every law that's been passed in your state and I won't call you ignorant. Give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 One of the more interesting things about the law was that if the kids had intercourse, the penalty was much less severe. So, the reason he's been sentenced so long is because they did an act that the original law was put in place in order to punish homosexual acts more harshly. That's the only reason that anti-sodomy laws, which include oral sex, are on the books with harsher penalties than the same two people having intercourse. There are plenty of places that still have laws where a husband & wife could be arrested for the same activity that this kid is in jail for-but imagine if a prosecuter wanted some couple to "take their medicine" and plead out an oral sex arrest. It still is the DA's job to prosecute cases fairly & not press every case that some obscure law can be used if you wish to raise your conviction win %. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I don't know all that much about law, but is a Presidential pardon in the realm of possibility? Maybe if Hillary wins in 2008. She "pardoned" Slick Willy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Did the kid break the law? Yes or No Ignorance is no excuse. Better be careful, detox! In (some areas of) South Carolina: It is illegal to give or receive oral sex. It is perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife. But only if its on the courthouse steps on Sunday. It is illegal to communicate with a woman using obscene messages. If a man promises to marry an unmarried woman, the marriage must take place. Gotta love NY! Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I don't buy that it's racist. Is it incompetent government? Yes. Racist government, I don't think so. The kid was stupid for doing something like that. Yeah, it's great getting a hummer. But not when the hummer is going to cost you jail time. 15 gets ya 10, apparently. Perhaps if he'd thought before he acted, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see race in this either, just very poor application of a badly written law. Hopefully a good attorney reads this and gets involved (without fees) to resolve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Did the kid break the law? Yes or No Ignorance is no excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/...1022/cover.html The link above is to PBS TV show which appears here in Buffalo on Sunday morning called Religion and Ethics Weekly. This weeks show featured a piece on our friends in GA having passed a law to punish child sex offenders which requires those convicted of these crimes to register and bans them from living within a 1000 yards of any school, bustop and several points where kids are around. Everyone agrees with the idea of offering maximum protection to kids and on punishing sex offenders, but the piece describes opposition to the law from many religious groups, a police chief who was interviewed and the usual suspects because of what they see as the inability of those enforcing the law to show any discretion in its application. Opponents argue that with this lack of discretion and focus on simply making it impossible for a sex offender to live and work in GA, the law in fact makes it more dangerous for kids as it makes it in any sex offenders interests to go out of sight to avoid the law. Even worse and appropos to this story of one minor getting hauled off to court for having oral sex with another minor more than 2 years younger than him is that some fairly stupid (and really insane) things seem to be happening due to this law. For example: They interviewed one woman who is a definite convicted sex offender as she as an adult got drunk and drugged up at a party and had sex with a minor. Though she clearly violated the law and got punished in a way she )and I suspect most think she deserved) she used her jail time to get a college degree and beat drink and drugs. However, upon getting out she registered as a sex offender (though she shows no signs of being a predator) and went to work for a ministry, She had to move however an give up her job because it was in a church and she lived near a bustop (as most Georgians do apparently). In another case a woman was convicted of a sex offense where she was the older of two parties involved in oral sex, she also has cleaned up her life since 10 tears ago and they showed her going to do her final registation only to find that the law had been retroactively extended so she would be on the list for life and she also needed to move in 5 weeks or else. In yet another case they interviewed a woman whom they defined as a contact sex offender because an older boy had gotten her 15 year old pregnant and when she allowed him to move into their place when his parents tossed him out she ended up being guilty of facilitating a sex crime. The fact that the two kids did actually get married and seem to be raising their young kid made no difference and she too has to move. Upon seeing this, it is amazing how politicians are using sex offender laws to show how tough they are and how folks who range from reformed to even innocent (the non-contact sex offender case shown was rediculous in so many ways) get caught up as collateral damage in the name of protecting kids. The author of he law in fact acknowledges that 90% of the folks covered under the law are not dangerous to kids. Yet, it seems because our society is neither willing to pay the cost of sorting the dangerous from the non-dangerous and we are unwilling to give judges any authority to avoid travesties, we are moving forward anyway. Erring on the side of unfair treatment in the name of protecting kids is understandable, but the legal approaches taken on this case in GA and the one involving this thread seem so stupid and really allowing no discretion for moral action that the whole thing is idiocy that likely will result in more kids being abused ends up being ignored in many cases because it is so unfair in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 One of the more interesting things about the law was that if the kids had intercourse, the penalty was much less severe. So, the reason he's been sentenced so long is because they did an act that the original law was put in place in order to punish homosexual acts more harshly. That's the only reason that anti-sodomy laws, which include oral sex, are on the books with harsher penalties than the same two people having intercourse. There are plenty of places that still have laws where a husband & wife could be arrested for the same activity that this kid is in jail for-but imagine if a prosecuter wanted some couple to "take their medicine" and plead out an oral sex arrest. It still is the DA's job to prosecute cases fairly & not press every case that some obscure law can be used if you wish to raise your conviction win %. Actually, I think they arrested the wrong people. If the 15 year old girl did this willingly, then she should be arrested. The boys are the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Actually, I think they arrested the wrong people. If the 15 year old girl did this willingly, then she should be arrested. The boys are the victims. Amen to that!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts