Genarlow Wilson get 10 year for BJ

[cwes99_03]

Cedars, you have to admit that in most states and according to the federal government 18 is the legal age of adulthood. Thus minors having sex is rarely a crime.

However, that being said, ignorance is no excuse for the law. The law clearly states that you don't have to know it is illegal to be charged and found guilty. You only have to have committed the crime. The sentencing is left up to the jury to be lenient (merciful). They apparently didn't think any leniency was needed. Why? Don't know, perhaps you can find an interview with them in which they explained why.

[Cedars]

Cedars, you have to admit that in most states and according to the federal government 18 is the legal age of adulthood. Thus minors having sex is rarely a crime.

However, that being said, ignorance is no excuse for the law. The law clearly states that you don't have to know it is illegal to be charged and found guilty. You only have to have committed the crime. The sentencing is left up to the jury to be lenient (merciful). They apparently didn't think any leniency was needed. Why? Don't know, perhaps you can find an interview with them in which they explained why.

 

Adulthood and age of consent are two different things. I know of no law that makes an exception for minors being filmed in sex acts. While I could not find the Georgia laws on child porn online, the fed law makes no exception for minors filming minors and the fed law is 18. No one under 18 is to be filmed engaged in a sex act, and oral sex is specifically mentioned as one of the things considered a sex act. The fed law carries a mandatory 10 years. If I remember right, feds also have the ability to charge a minor as an adult, but I am not 100% sure of this.

 

Minors do face crimes in various states. Once upon a time, actions committed by minors, no matter how serious, were not released once they hit 18. Their record was clean so to speak. That was changed long ago in MN and while I dont know if this is true in Georgia, I do know that the state has the option of charging any minor as an adult for a large list of serious crimes, including sex acts with minors.

 

For this particular case, as I understand it, the jury only produces a guilty/not guilty and the judge has the responsiblity of handing out the sentence. For this case the mandatory sentence is 10 years.

 

The link I posted originally talks to 1 out of 12 jurors.

[cwes99_03]

the fed law makes no exception for minors filming minors and the fed law is 18. No one under 18 is to be filmed engaged in a sex act, and oral sex is specifically mentioned as one of the things considered a sex act. The fed law carries a mandatory 10 years. If I remember right, feds also have the ability to charge a minor as an adult, but I am not 100% sure of this.

 

But of course this case wasn't about whether or not he taped it (as has been discussed) but whether or not he did the act, and what the law says about oral sex between two consenting minors. The only difference here is that a 17 year old was not charged as a minor. Why? My guess is that the act of filming it moved the prosecutor to raise the charge, because filming the act is generally seen as a premeditated act carrying with it ideas of adult type thinking. IOW, it wasn't just a lustful act between two minors.

[InfiniteNow]

What is that makes a human fundamentally different when they turn 18, as opposed to, let's say, 17 years 364 days old? Is it really this absolute, or are some people more mentally mature than others (regardless of how many trips around the sun they've made)?

[Cedars]

But of course this case wasn't about whether or not he taped it (as has been discussed) but whether or not he did the act, and what the law says about oral sex between two consenting minors. The only difference here is that a 17 year old was not charged as a minor. Why? My guess is that the act of filming it moved the prosecutor to raise the charge, because filming the act is generally seen as a premeditated act carrying with it ideas of adult type thinking. IOW, it wasn't just a lustful act between two minors.

 

No this wasnt about the filming, I brought that up because I dont understand why more charges werent filed involving those aspects of the crimes committed that night, in that hotel.

 

As I understand it, all of the persons charged were 17, and they were or would have all been charged as adults but the rest of them took the plea deal offered.

 

And yes, I would have to agree that the prosecutor thought this was more than a lustful act between two minors. I think hes was correct in that assessment.

[Cedars]

What is that makes a human fundamentally different when they turn 18, as opposed to, let's say, 17 years 364 days old? Is it really this absolute, or are some people more mentally mature than others (regardless of how many trips around the sun they've made)?

 

Doesnt matter how mentally mature you are, its still 21 to get served in a bar (for example).

 

Doesnt matter how mentally mature you are, its still 18 to vote.

 

Doesnt matter how mentally mature you are, .08 is still legally drunk (in MN). I think we all know people who shouldnt drive with one drink in them because of how alcohol works in their bodies and I know people who can blow .15 and you wouldnt have a clue that they were impared.

 

Doesnt matter how well/not so well your liver works. :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

Cedars, you just made a case against charging the 17 year old.

 

In regards to the issue here, there are two different aspects for determining a need for an age defined limitation and a mentality defined limitation.

 

In regards to the drinking and voting/smoking/dieing for your country age limitations, it is simple the easiest way to deal with the issues. If for every case of a 15-17 year old you had to determine if they were mentally/physically able to carry the responsibilities they wanted then you'd have a super long line and process and each individual would have to be evalutated on their merrit. This is not done because of the time and monetary constraint that would be placed on the enforcers.

However, when it comes to a contract with a minor or any legal case involving a minor, the courts are expected to go to whatever lengths necessary to ensure justice. Thus the court is expected to do the mental/psychiatric evaluation of a person, not just assume one based on age. Thus iNow's questions.

 

What is that makes a human fundamentally different when they turn 18, as opposed to, let's say, 17 years 364 days old? Is it really this absolute, or are some people more mentally mature than others (regardless of how many trips around the sun they've made)?

The answer to the first is nothing. That is why the court has the flexibility to determine whether or not the minor should be tried as an adult, or whether or not a person deemed mentally unstable should be tried at all for a crime. However, some limitations must be placed on the court (checks and balances) and one of those limitations is mandatory sentencing.

If you try a person for a particular crime as an adult, you have already made the determination that you will abide by the laws of mandatory sentencing prescribed by the legislature and upheld by the higher courts.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The jury filed into the back room where they had deliberated for about five hours earlier that day. It was not until then, says Manigault, that attorney Michael Mann told them that their verdict meant a mandatory 10-year sentence for Genarlow. The room exploded. “People were screaming, crying, beating against the walls,” she recalls. “I just went limp. They had to help me to a chair.”

 

Manigault says she feels that prosecutors gave the jury instructions that left them no choice but to convict Genarlow on the aggravated child molestation charge. She says that she and her fellow jurors believed that their verdict had to be unanimous. She says that other options—such as a hung jury—were not thoroughly explained to them.

 

This is the crime in this case. The fact that the prosecutors took advantage of legal technicalities to sucker the jurors into doing what they wanted.

 

Would the jurors have voted to convict if they had heard what the consequence were? If they were informed that you can in fact vote someone innocent if you think the law is insanely stupid? It doesn't seem like it from that article. But know there is nothing they can do - because the "lawyers" took advantage of their ignorance of an enormously complex system.

 

It's "technical honesty" - the same kind Bill Clinton practiced when it depended on what the definition of "is" was. I see no distinction between this and just an outright bald-faced lie.

 

A lie with half a truth is the most damned of lies.

 

:D

 

TFS

[Cedars]

This is the crime in this case. The fact that the prosecutors took advantage of legal technicalities to sucker the jurors into doing what they wanted.

 

Would the jurors have voted to convict if they had heard what the consequence were? If they were informed that you can in fact vote someone innocent if you think the law is insanely stupid? It doesn't seem like it from that article. But know there is nothing they can do - because the "lawyers" took advantage of their ignorance of an enormously complex system.

 

It's "technical honesty" - the same kind Bill Clinton practiced when it depended on what the definition of "is" was. I see no distinction between this and just an outright bald-faced lie.

 

A lie with half a truth is the most damned of lies.

 

:D

 

TFS

 

 

hmmm... your gonna blame the prosecution because one juror claims its the prosecutors fault that they didnt understand the basics of what a jury can/cannot do. I am pretty sure its not the prosectors obligation to alert the jury the potential sentence. Blaming others for your own ignorance of the law is a typical, but not a valid arguement (as far as this jurors claim).

 

Besides, its the judge who gives the real instructions to the jury. And if you google Jury Nullification you will see that is has been determined by SCotUS, that it is fine to have a judge instruct a jury that they must come to a unanimous decision.

 

If the defense didnt raise the issue of the mandatory sentence, it must be something that is against the rules of trial in Georgia. Or maybe the defense did tell the jury just this fact. That we dont know from the article.

 

One thing that seems glaring from this jurors statements is, it was by no means unanimous that the jury thought this guy was innocent.

[Cedars]

Cedars, you just made a case against charging the 17 year old.

 

 

I am not sure how I did this. Could you explain futher so I can clarify my point.

[TheFaithfulStone]

hmmm... your gonna blame the prosecution because one juror claims its the prosecutors fault that they didnt understand the basics of what a jury can/cannot do.

 

Will I blame the expert on the incredibly complex subject because they neglected to tell the whole truth to a bunch of non-experts in order to take advantage of their ignorance? Absolutely.

 

I am not sure how I did this. Could you explain futher so I can clarify my point.

 

Doesnt matter how mentally mature you are, its still 18 to vote

 

So, you're not an adult unless you need to be tried as one? Doesn't matter how mentally mature you are, until you're 18, you're subject to juvenile justice.

 

Let us do some analogies.

 

Let us imagine that I wish to delete your hard drive. You have a desire to delete a file and want my help. But you don't know where the file is. I tell you "Go to the root directory and type rm -Rf * - that'll delete your file."

 

Now, this is technically true. That command will delete a file you do not know the location of. It will also delete every other file on the hard drive. Who has committed the wrong here? It is your ignorance of a complex subject (the Unix command line) that resulted in you wiping your hard drive. But it is MY intentional withholding of information which resulted in you wiping your hard drive.

 

Have I "lied" to you? That would be hard to prove. But I've certainly used my knowledge and your (likely) ignorance in order to provide an advantage to myself.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

Will I blame the expert on the incredibly complex subject because they neglected to tell the whole truth to a bunch of non-experts in order to take advantage of their ignorance? Absolutely.

 

 

Its the JUDGE who instructs the JURY. The blame in this article, by ONE juror is misplaced. Let me guess, you didnt bother to google Jury Nullification.

 

 

So, you're not an adult unless you need to be tried as one? Doesn't matter how mentally mature you are, until you're 18, you're subject to juvenile justice.

 

As I understand it, this is brought before a judge to see whether the crime has enough merit so its not just done hap-hazardly by an over zealous prosector. More than one person decides such matters. I am comfortable with that.

 

 

 

Let us do some analogies.

 

 

Have I "lied" to you? That would be hard to prove. But I've certainly used my knowledge and your (likely) ignorance in order to provide an advantage to myself.

 

TFS

 

You didnt lie to me. There is nothing to prove. And if I am ignorant of the resulting damage that would be caused that is my own responsiblity.

 

Every one of those jurors received notification that they were eligible for jury duty. If they didnt wonder "hey maybe I should look up some info" thats most certainly not the prosecutions fault.

[TheBigDog]

What is that makes a human fundamentally different when they turn 18, as opposed to, let's say, 17 years 364 days old? Is it really this absolute, or are some people more mentally mature than others (regardless of how many trips around the sun they've made)?

 

The difference is simple. At 18 you cannot be charged as a minor anymore. That is the milestone of presumed maturity. Prior to that how you are charged for your offense is evaluated on a per case basis. At 18 the evaluations stop. What these kids did was assume that they would not be charged as adults because they were minors. That was just one of their mistakes.

 

This was not Romeo and Juliette. This was a girl too young to concent to sexual activity, drunk off her ***, and being passed from guy to guy on video tape. The only thing the boys have in their defence is that they didn't violently force themselves on her. But that does not discount the nature of what happened.

 

She could not legally concent. Sometimes you have to say no.

 

Is ten years the proper punishment? That is another matter. Guilt is not in question.

 

Bill

[infamous]

I am not in favor of a juidiciary system where no reason is used during sentencing.

Truly, and neither am I. I only hope and pray that this individual does'nt spend this time incarcerated only to return to society ten times the criminal they were when they went in. Unfortunately, that will likely be the result of this unreasonable ?????JUSTICE?????......Infy

[TheBigDog]

All of this traces back to Megan's Law. Megan Konka was a child in Manalapan, NJ who was raped and killed by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street. Nobody in the neighborhood knew the man's history, and as a result they didn't take precautions in trusting him with children.

 

After Megan's death there was a public outcry. Why could a sexual predator of children, previously convicted, be living in anonymity? So NJ became the first state to pass a "Megan's Law" to force registration of sex offenders. In 1996 a federal law was passed that required all states to create their own version of Megan's Law, and gave a framework for sharing data and cooperating with registration between States. This on the surface is not a bad idea. The registration of cronically dangerous people who cannot legally be separated from society makes sense for a society to take proper measures to protect itself from those predators.

 

But like so much legislation, it became a pissing contest. In this case a pissing contest of "who can be hardest on sex offenders". A contest that no politician can lose and still hold office. And as a result we have a generation of "zero tolerance" sex laws that have not had time for the pendulum to swing back toward sanity again.

 

Take Colorado. They have one of the most in-tolerant set of laws on the books. ANY offense of a sexual nature requires registration as a sex offender. No quesitons. So, what is a sex crime? Well, rape is a sex crime. And molestation. How about a flasher? Some dirty old man who flashes little kids in the park, sex offender? How about indecent exposure? Yes, sex offender. So streaking at a high school football game has you register for 10 years. Skinny dipping in a public place has you registering for 10 years. Mooning out a car window has you registering for 10 years. You are a minor when you commit the offence? Register for 10 years.

 

Why do you think Kobe Bryant went to court and risked being found guilty by a jury? Because any plea to any lesser offence would by law have required 10 years, 20 years or a lifetime of sex offender registration. The laws of Colorado do not allow for any exceptions. His only option was to fight it in court and risk the possibility of Prison.

 

Genarlow Wilson was in the same situation. He would not take a plea deal that included registraition as a sex offender. The only way he could avoid registration as a sex offender was to either have the charges dropped, or to be found innocent by a jury. So he took his chances with the jury, and he lost. His friends are all registered sex offenders living in their homes, and he is he is a registered sex offender living in prison.

 

It is arguable that his sentence should not be greater than theirs were, as his offense was the same. But he reached for the brass ring of aquittal, and he missed. He knew the risk and the consequence if he failed, and now that is his reality. Unfair? Perhaps. So what? That is life.

 

Now, we can take this into account and evaluate our laws, and improve them so that similar situations may not happen again. But as is always the case, it is one man's misfortune that drives public opinion to change. If that be a 17 year old track star playing the roll of boxcar number five, or an innocent 7 year old girl minding her own business. We just need to be mindful of how far we carry the correction of the process.

 

And one last note. The legal system is not broken because this happened. It shows that the legal system is alive and well as we recognize the needs for changes, and act upon them. It is not meant to be static and it is not expected to be perfect; it is meant to be dynamic, and capable of adopting to changes is public sentiment.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I appreciate your values, Bill. It's a different world today than it was for any of us in our youth. Today, a girl still considers herself a virgin if she's only had anal and/or oral sex. I'd say she was plenty old to consent if she was drinking of her own volition as well.

 

This video orgy thing is just another example of the extreme pressure youths feel and the need for them to vent in the most attention grabbing way possible in this incredibly scary and complex world.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Its the JUDGE who instructs the JURY. The blame in this article, by ONE juror is misplaced. Let me guess, you didnt bother to google Jury Nullification.

 

Fine. The JUDGE is to blame then. Point being the jury was not adequately informed of their options or the consequences of their verdict.

 

I didn't google Jury Nullification but I did look up the relevant case law.

 

Sparf vs US is the one that holds that Juries need not be informed. And in U.S. v. Krzyske, a conviction was upheld even though the judge outright lied about the possibility, informing the jury that there was "no such thing as a valid nullification." (A clever lie, since it is an opinion disguised as the truth in all but the most careful parsings.)

 

Furthermore, I have it on good authority that any juror who displays a knowledge of jury nullification is immediately dismissed during selection. This is one of the open secrets of the legal profession.

 

Perhaps I misspoke earlier when I characterized this as "a crime." It isn't a crime - in fact it's perfectly legal. But it's also a perfectly awful way to behave. But it certainly is a "crime" against decency. The selective withholding of truth is a lie on the witness stand, and it ought to be a lie here.

 

As I understand it, this is brought before a judge to see whether the crime has enough merit so its not just done hap-hazardly by an over zealous prosector. More than one person decides such matters. I am comfortable with that.

 

But there's a double standard for being tried as an adult, where the situation is weighed and decided upon, and voting, where there is a clear delineation about which no debate is possible. I hope you see the disconnect here.

 

You didnt lie to me. There is nothing to prove. And if I am ignorant of the resulting damage that would be caused that is my own responsiblity.

 

 

Every one of those jurors received notification that they were eligible for jury duty. If they didnt wonder "hey maybe I should look up some info" thats most certainly not the prosecutions fault.

 

Applying this logic to any other situation reveals it's absurdity. If you were to buy a car, and you hear a thumping sound from the left front wheel, are you expected to self-diagnose the problem before you take into a mechanic? If the mechanic tells you it's the CV joint, but it's really just a loose brake pad, are you expected to take apart the mechanical parts to verify this for yourself? Trust no one? Caveat emptor? How would you feel if your doctor told you needed a blood transfusion to get rid of the flu?

 

This is just another example of the powerful preying on the weak. It's disingenuous at best, and just blatantly dishonest at worst. I sincerely hope you don't consider this kind of behavior ethical.

 

TFS