Update on Genarlow Wilson

[JollyRoger]

No, but they are supposed to prosecute every case they can win. And he won this one.

Wrong. Prosecutorial discretion includes sometimes backing away from a case or a charge that you could win on but that would reach an unjust result if you did. This is a classic case of where some prosecutorial discretion would have come in handy. Ten years for a voluntary act between someone within twoo years of your age is just insane as is getting hit with a lifetime sex offender label for. Fathers should teach their daughter to not be tramps rather than expecting prosecutors to punish their male peers for giving into consensual temptation.

 

[Masquerouge]

Errr. How do you know the jury was a bunch of lemmings? They saw more evidence than you have to go on; perhaps they thought that the kid guilty of the law as it was currently written? Ever consider that? Your premise here is logically false as there is no evidence to suggest this at all.



And the jury didnt do this, so apprently they didnt think the prosection unjust nor stupid.

Mmmh I think that you're wrong here.

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=93385

Among those who hope Wilson is released is Marie Manigault, the forewoman of the jury that put him in jail. She said that after jurors learned that Wilson would face a mandatory 10-year sentence, there was "mayhem in the jury room."
"We were in tears. There was screaming. People were knocking their heads against the wall," she said.

http://www.answers.com/topic/genarlow-wilson

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.

So it seems the jury was not exactly aware of what was going on, and what would be the consequences of its actions.

 

[MobBoss]

Wrong. Prosecutorial discretion includes sometimes backing away from a case or a charge that you could win on but that would reach an unjust result if you did. This is a classic case of where some prosecutorial discretion would have come in handy. Ten years for a voluntary act between someone within twoo years of your age is just insane as is getting hit with a lifetime sex offender label for. Fathers should teach their daughter to not be tramps rather than expecting prosecutors to punish their male peers for giving into consensual temptation.

Jolly, it was the way the law was at the time of the case. Under that law, the result was not unjust. It didnt become perceived as unjust until the state enacted a new law in regards to the crime.

 

[Mark1031]

No, but they are supposed to prosecute every case they can win. And he won this one.

This is a pathetic and unjust standard if it is true.

Errr. How do you know the jury was a bunch of lemmings? They saw more evidence than you have to go on; perhaps they thought that the kid guilty of the law as it was currently written? Ever consider that? Your premise here is logically false as there is no evidence to suggest this at all.

And the jury didnt do this, so apprently they didnt think the prosection unjust nor stupid.

Because I've seen how jury selection works. And I know how prosecutors work and how judges give instructions. The jurors are selected to be compliant and no judge will ever tell them that they don't have to follow the law, in fact he will tell them the opposite. So good people who respect authority will administer a severely unjust verdict because they are told to.

 

[Trajan12]

They should make a law that states all people have to take cyanide, that would rid us of the entire population of people who give away their common sense and bow to the law as their god. If there's one thing history has shown us is that the law is not always right, and it takes clear thinking people to decide when the law is and isn't just. we have no shortage of these good people but we also have too many who just can't admit something isn't right and give up.

 

[Mark1031]

They should make a law that states all people have to take cyanide, that would rid us of the entire population of people who give away their common sense and bow to the law as their god. If there's one thing history has shown us is that the law is not always right, and it takes clear thinking people to decide when the law is and isn't just. we have no shortage of these good people but we also have too many who just can't admit something isn't right and give up.

Yes and the legal system specifically selects the cyanide takers to be on juries. Anecdote: I was only up for jury duty once. The prosecutor was asking all sorts of questions about whether you would follow the judges instructions. Sure I would. Then she started proposing stupid scenarios like would you consider the theft of 1$ equivalent to $1,000,000 if the judge told you the same law applied. What if the person said they just found the $1 but the judge told you the law still said this was illegal, would you follow his instructions. It was a room full of 90 people and I finally couldn’t take it any more so I raised my hand and said there are some cases where I would follow my conscience instead of the law. I made it into the jury box and was immediately excused by the prosecutor.

The moral of the story: You cannot be on a jury if you have a conscience and apparently 99% of people don’t.

 

[Mark1031]

But my opinion is influenced in that I am a dad of three daughters.

Well we have 1 thing in common

And if my daughter was giving a 17 yr old a BJ when she was 15.... well I wouldn't really want to know about it, she is old enough to have a private sex life.

 

[MobBoss]

This is a pathetic and unjust standard if it is true.

It is a pathetic and unjust standard for prosecutors to try and win cases under the law?

The jurors are selected to be compliant and no judge will ever tell them that they don't have to follow the law, in fact he will tell them the opposite.

Chosen to be compliant? Thats just ridiculous and absurd. And yes, a judge should inform his jurors that they should indeed follow the law.

So good people who respect authority will administer a severely unjust verdict because they are told to.

Please, this is just beyond the pale. To allege that our entire judicial system works like this is just silly. Jurors are not 'fixed' prior to hearing the evidence at hand to render their verdict.

Well we have 1 thing in common

And if my daughter was giving a 17 yr old a BJ when she was 15.... well I wouldn't really want to know about it, she is old enough to have a private sex life.

You think your daughter, at 15 years of age, is old enough to have a private sex life?

Oh. My. Gosh. I am just speechless at that. Just speechless.

 

[warpus]

Under the law of Georgia at the time? Yes. Under my rules? Yes. But my opinion is influenced in that I am a dad of three daughters.

Using the word 'rape' to describe what happened in this case is just.. immoral.. I can't think of a better word to describe what you're doing.

Do you know what real rape is? It's a brutal act often accompanied by violence. It is the usage of one person as a sexual object against their will.

You are doing disservice to all the women who have ever been raped by calling this 'rape'. This was 2 kids having fun. This was not rape.

Sure, if I had 3 daughters I would not want them to go around giving head either.. but I would not call it rape, unless it was done against their will. I would be dishonouring all of the women (and men!) who ever got raped.

It's like calling slapping somebody on the back murder. This isn't rape. Find a new word for it. Rape is something else.

 

[Mark1031]

You think your daughter, at 15 years of age, is old enough to have a private sex life?

Oh. My. Gosh. I am just speechless at that. Just speechless.

Well I wouldn't want it to be public. I had a sex life at 16 and much eariler if you count...you know. With puberty comes a sex drive, at some time after that comes sex. It is simple biology and has been the way of the world for time immorial. I don't see what the big deal is. I do want to know who she is dating, where she is, who will be there, when she is going to be home etc. and more importantly whether she is happy, depressed, worried, getting along with her peers, reaching her goals etc. Contrary to some peoples beliefs BJs are not the most important things in the world. And my oldest just turned 12 so my views may change later.

 

[JollyRoger]

Jolly, it was the way the law was at the time of the case. Under that law, the result was not unjust. It didnt become perceived as unjust until the state enacted a new law in regards to the crime.

The new law was put in place because it was perceived as unjust at the moment the sentence was made public. That's why a new law was put in place - because of the perception on injustice.

And I was talking about prosecutorial discretion which is the discretion not to push it to the limits in cases where another result would be the more just result. Again, 10 years or even being branded a sexual predator for life is overly harsh for consensual behavior with someone within two years of your age and most reasonable prosecutors (even in such conservative strongholds as Collin County, Texas) curt a reasonable deal in these circumstances. It's just common sense. Any competent prophet could have seen the outcry coming from the prosecutor's actions.

 

[shortguy]

And the jury didnt do this, so apprently they didnt think the prosection unjust nor stupid.

Or maybe the jury simply thought that their hands were tied. Legal professionals tend to take a dim view of jury nullification, so juries often are led to believe that they have no choice but to find in accordance with the letter of the law.

 

[-0blivion-]

It is a pathetic and unjust standard for prosecutors to try and win cases under the law?

There is a difference between Just and Lawful.

 

[JollyRoger]

It is a pathetic and unjust standard for prosecutors to try and win cases under the law?

In certain cirumstances, yes. You can usually tell the pathetic and unjust point has been reached when the legislature passes a law to block what some fool prosecutor just did.

 

[emzie]

And to think, he might have had to go to Brown. Lucky him this all happened!

 

[MobBoss]

Using the word 'rape' to describe what happened in this case is just.. immoral.. I can't think of a better word to describe what you're doing.

Minors cannot consent. Not to sex, nor in a contractual sense. If a minor has sex by default it is not consensual. In my day it was called 'statutory rape'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape It is still rape, but of a lesser degree.

Do you know what real rape is? It's a brutal act often accompanied by violence. It is the usage of one person as a sexual object against their will.

I know all about this thanks.

You are doing disservice to all the women who have ever been raped by calling this 'rape'. This was 2 kids having fun. This was not rape.

Disservice? Hell no. And it was still rape; albeit not rape in the first degree.

Sure, if I had 3 daughters I would not want them to go around giving head either.. but I would not call it rape, unless it was done against their will. I would be dishonouring all of the women (and men!) who ever got raped.

Sorry, but that just does not make sense what-so-ever. There are varying levels of rape, just like there are varying levels of most crime.

It's like calling slapping somebody on the back murder.

No, its like the difference in murder. You have first degree murder, second degree murder, and then even manslaughter. Understand?

This isn't rape. Find a new word for it. Rape is something else.

The correct definition for it is statutory rape.

Any competent prophet could have seen the outcry coming from the prosecutor's actions.

Hey, I fully agree that 10 years is an unjust sentence. But you have to wonder if they legislation was specifically done in light of this case being seen as unjust why didnt they include relief for cases prior to the current laws enactment? Was the state congress just incompetent in that regard?

In certain cirumstances, yes. You can usually tell the pathetic and unjust point has been reached when the legislature passes a law to block what some fool prosecutor just did.

Again, if this were precisely the case, then why didnt they include a grandfather clause that would have let the kid (and possibly others in his circumstance) out of jail as soon as the law was signed into being?

 

[JollyRoger]

Hey, I fully agree that 10 years is an unjust sentence. But you have to wonder if they legislation was specifically done in light of this case being seen as unjust why didnt they include relief for cases prior to the current laws enactment? Was the state congress just incompetent in that regard?

It's Georgia, so probably so. When a stupid law like this gets put on the books, it is hard to get it modified just for the heck of it because your opponent in the next election will accuse you of being soft on crime and child predators.

Again, if this were precisely the case, then why didnt they include a grandfather clause that would have let the kid (and possibly others in his circumstance) out of jail as soon as the law was signed into being?

Grandfathering is tricky because you really do not know how far your grandfathering will reach or be interpreted by the courts and while getting the guy out, you may let other less desirable cases out. You just let he judicial and prison system take care of it. The Governor could also come in and pardon, so grandfathering is not the only alternative, just the easiest one to turn out in an unexpectedly bad result.

 

[Gibsie]

Common sense prevails:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6743303.stm

Although the prosecuor will fight to see that he remains in jail.

 

[Stile]

It's Georgia, so probably so. When a stupid law like this gets put on the books, it is hard to get it modified just for the heck of it because your opponent in the next election will accuse you of being soft on crime and child predators.

Ha, ha. Good one. Georgia = incompetant. Other state legislators must spend a more reasonable amount of time making sure that drugged out men can videotape 15 year olds in sex acts without running afoul of the law.

I think 10 years is too long, and I don't think he should have to register, but the news media has gone out of their way to mold public opinion in this case. I defy anyone to find a news article covering this case where the word 'consensual' doesn't appear in the opening paragraph. The whole point of the case is that she is too young to give consent. What they mean is that she wasn't physically forced. Great... social pressure and drugs were enough.

 

[VX250]

He deserves to rot in jail.