Genarlow Wilson get 10 year for BJ

[blue69]

Cedar,

 

Not sure what is makes you hostile towards any sexually based charges against men.

 

The jury "Did" watch the tape. They did determine that the sexual activities were consensual. That is why they did not convict on any rape charges. Whether you find what any boy or girl did was morally objectionable is irrelevant. Consensual sex isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

 

The point is that during the short time this law was in affect many young men (under 18) were breaking the law. Only a select few were actually prosecuted. The law has since been changed. The same as previous GA laws that outlawed having numerous other consenual sexual activities even between a married man and his wife. The law was stupid and shouldn't have been applied here.

 

Again Genralow was not convicted of any other charge.

 

As to the Child Pornography. Technically Genralow was a minor who performed in the video himself. Unless he was the one recording the events he couldn't be charged. He would have been a "victim" of that as well. That is why they didn't pursue that specific charge.

 

The jury did convict the child molestation because it was a matter of fact in how the law was explained to them. They were given no other details.

 

This wasn't a case of an adult abusing a child. This is one legal minor with another legal minor.

 

With regards to jury nullifications:

See one of the problems I have here is that the only the select portion of the judicial system is educated with how it works. Law Enforcement is allowed to charge or not charge a defendant. Prosecutors are allowed to pursue or not pursue. Judges are allowed to allow or disallow. Jurors are left in the dark. They do not know or not informed of their true value in the system.

 

Jury Nullifications are a part of the process the same way that Plea Bargains are allowed by prosecutors (a whole different debate could get launched on that one). It is a tool that is necessary for checks and balances. That is why those jurist should be educated on how they are allowed to work within the current system. They provide a necessary balance with overzealous prosecutors and judges.

 

More of my 2 cents.

[HydrogenBond]

I am not too familar with the case. But from my experience, those who participate in any illegal activity often have a better sense of perspective than those who judge these things via the shadows of repression and ignorance.

 

For example, the witches of Salem probably saw their witch actions as sort of a hobby and past time in their isolated worlds. While the puritains let their imaginations run wild because of all their inner demons due to religious repressions. They projetced and reacted to the inner demons like it was reality. They then tried to exorcise their demons with a scapegoat becoming a demon in the process.

 

Such laws tells us something about the psyche of the lawmakers. The kids are experimenting with sexuality and having fun. While many of the adults are appeasing repressed shadows from their own pasts, using these scapegoats to exorcise their demons. It is just another witchhunt with repressed evil on the side of law.

[TheFaithfulStone]

For example, the witches of Salem probably saw their witch actions as sort of a hobby and past time in their isolated worlds.

 

:doh:

 

You know the definition of "witch-hunt" right?

 

TFS

[Cedars]

Not sure what is makes you hostile towards any sexually based charges against men.

This case involved charges against men. You assume my position has something to do with gender. The girls involved in this case did not have sex with anyone 15 or younger.

 

The jury "Did" watch the tape. They did determine that the sexual activities were consensual. That is why they did not convict on any rape charges. Whether you find what any boy or girl did was morally objectionable is irrelevant. Consensual sex isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

I am under the impression the rape wasnt filmed. No where in the article did I read the person who was raped claimed consentual anything. Nor was the rape victim filmed passing out freebie bj's.

 

The point is that during the short time this law was in affect many young men (under 18) were breaking the law. Only a select few were actually prosecuted.

Not everyone performing illegal acts (no matter what the crime) gives the prosecution video of the event. And what do you think when you see these people who videoed themselves committing a crime? That they did it to themselves? That they deserve everything they get? What do you think 12 people serving on a jury are gonna think? Understand this point about this particular case. The film added to, and was overwhelming evidence, leaving the jury with no choice but to convict. There was no reasonable doubt when instructed to apply the law based on the evidence.

 

 

As to the Child Pornography. Technically Genralow was a minor who performed in the video himself. Unless he was the one recording the events he couldn't be charged. He would have been a "victim" of that as well. That is why they didn't pursue that specific charge.

Wilson was charged as an adult. This changes everything when dealing with child porn.

From Wiki: "For example, in the U.S., child porn includes anyone under 18; however, many states have an age of consent lower than 18. For some states the age of consent depends on the age gap between partners as well as the age of the young partner. Therefore, it may be legal to have sex with someone under 18 but not to take pictures of that person in sexual situations. The young person is not even allowed to make such a picture of themselves for personal use. [5] One main reason for this disparity is that child pornography is primarily addressed under federal law, while in almost all cases age of sexual consent is solely a state issue."

 

Federal law does not make an exception for someone under 18. Direction is a part of production. Direction is vague enough to allow for Wilson to be charged with a crime. All he has to do for 'direction' is say "baby, turn your head this way".

 

 

US CODE: Title 18,2256. Definitions for chapter

 

 

And personally, I dont want to see an exception in the law for producers/directors/organizations/etc. who are under 18 when committing this crime. I fully support the position of the US that anyone under 18 should not be filmed/photographed giving blowjobs, having sex, etc.

 

The jury did convict the child molestation because it was a matter of fact in how the law was explained to them. They were given no other details.

 

This wasn't a case of an adult abusing a child. This is one legal minor with another legal minor.

 

The jury did not convict an innocent of a crime. Genarlow Wilson committed the crime he was convicted of. There is no doubt about it. Just because your a minor does not give you a free ride to go and commit crimes. The Georgia Supreme Court (with only one dissenting member) ruled to uphold his conviction. There is no legal reason to over-rule what happened in the court that day.

 

When thinking about this case, and the jury, and the judges/prosecutors/etc. They are people who most likely have sisters, or children, or grandchildren, who, when in deliberation, are not going to ignore their own position on the actions they have just reviewed and if the law allows them to convict for a crime, most are not going to loose any sleep when putting a complete stranger behind bars.

 

Such is the composition of a 'Jury of your Peers'.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Just because your a minor does not give you a free ride to go and commit crimes.

 

Your position on this is entirely inconsistent. There is no leeway for "mental maturity" on the age of consent in this case. But there is leeway to charge a minor as an adult?

 

15 year old girl - Minor - no room for debate.

17 year old boy - Minor - room for debate.

 

Every single one of your responses to every single issue has been to say "The law says this! The law says this!"

 

Fine, but should it?

 

TFS

[blue69]

Cedar,

 

A 17 year old girl was the one who called her parents about being "possibly" raped. They called the police. Genralow was charged with raping the 17 year old girl and the child molestation was charged for the oral sex he received by the 15 year old. Both were taped. The jury saw the tape that involved both. They determined there was no rape.

 

I will agree with you about the federal juristiction about the pornography and it's definition. Those are good points.

 

My point is that although technically a law was broken the DA shouldn't have used the Child Molestation charge as a way to force a plea bargain. The DA threatened them with that charge in order to secure a conviction. They knew any rape case was very iffy. They chose to try and apply pressure based on the less applicable charge of child molestation. I don't feel the DA made a very moral choice in pursuing the charge. If they believed the girl was raped that should have been the focus. When they lost that they used the Child Molestation charge as their backup. To me that is/was wrong.

 

You are a bit inconsistent with calling someone a minor one minute and then calling them men. If they are under age 18 they are minors. Why charge them as men? What would the penalty of a child molestation charge have been for someone charged as a minor? If Genralow was charged as a dumb teenager (minor) would he be serving 10 years?

 

Good discussion though. Thanks. :eek:

[blue69]

Cedar,

 

Sorry... one more thing. Did you read why the justices upheld the conviction? They are a screwy bunch in what they stated. If it was so clear why couldn't they get a majority on that one? I aim at the moral character of those in power.

[TheBigDog]

I aim at the moral character of those in power.

Who exactly are you aiming at, and what are you aiming? I would like to explore the avenue of that thought.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

TARGET = those who wish to make their values absolute, applicable to everyone who may feel otherwise.

[TheBigDog]

TARGET = those who wish to make their values absolute, applicable to everyone who may feel otherwise.

In other words, supporters of law and order.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

In other words, supporters of law and order.

Very funny. I should like to believe you know that's not the intent of my words. :)

[TheBigDog]

Very funny. I should like to believe you know that's not the intent of my words. :)

I understand you, and you are being notably ambiguous. I would challenge you to aim your words a bit more precisely at the target. :)

 

Values vary from culture to culture, and region to region. And they change over time. But in a given place, at a given time, values are held to be absolute. That is the foundation of society.

 

Laws represent the common values of a society. Enforcement of laws is never entirely fair, or evenly distributed. And as a result of that there are always reactionary forces at work trying to improve the process. And that is where the discussion happens.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

Your position on this is entirely inconsistent. There is no leeway for "mental maturity" on the age of consent in this case. But there is leeway to charge a minor as an adult?

 

15 year old girl - Minor - no room for debate.

17 year old boy - Minor - room for debate.

 

The leeway exists for a minor to be charged as an adult based on the type of crime committed. That has nothing to with the intangable "mental maturity". I do not believe I have been inconsistent. You may not like my responses, but its not because I am inconsistant. And in a previous post (#39) I already said it was clear to me there is no issue of mental maturity as a defense for this case.

 

"Authorities believed the 17-year-old alleged rape victim and said she was too intoxicated to consent to any sexual acts, which is what Georgia law requires, otherwise these acts can be considered rape."

 

"In a portion of a tape obtained by "Primetime," Wilson, then 17 and an honor student and star athlete who was homecoming king, is seen having intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, who was seen earlier on the bathroom floor. During the sex act, she appears to be sleepy or intoxicated but never asks Wilson to stop. Later on in the tape, she is seen being pulled off the bed."

 

"Wilson maintained his innocence. "I know that it was consensual," he told "Primetime." "I wouldn't went on with the acts if it wasn't consensual. I'm not that kind of person. No means no."

 

Where does he say she said yes? He doesnt. Because he never asked for her consent. He just hopped on a nearly passed out drunk. That'll teach her.... Ick....

 

ABC News: Outrage After Teen Gets 10 Years for Oral Sex With Girl

 

I believe Minnesota has a similar law. A person laying on a bathroom floor is too drunk to consent to sex with one, let alone several persons. Ya know, the same physical/mental effects that allow drunks to drive on the wrong side of the freeway/road and have no clue. Happy Frickin New Years! Ick.

 

I wonder if you could have believed someone was too drunk to give consent if the victim here had been a 17 year old man in the film rather than a woman.

 

Every single one of your responses to every single issue has been to say "The law says this! The law says this!"

 

Your not seriously complaining because my references for this thread are the laws are you? You closet anarchist you

 

 

I have already stated I do not know what my response as a jurist would have been in this case. I didnt see the film, I didnt hear the evidence. I also know why jurists are not told the penalty for a conviction (as cwes explained very well in his last post in this thread) and I agree with the reasoning behind that also. I agree with minors being charged as adults as an option for the justice system.

 

17 year olds scream about how they want to be treated like adults (just ask any parent this). They got rights! Well with rights come responsiblities and within those responsiblities the laws come into play.

 

Sex is power. I dont know if your familiar with the incidents of pictures posted on MySpace.com resulting in persons not getting jobs. Legal pictures, posted by the parties themselves found via a simple google search. Warnings were issued to the general public about potential blowback for college students, just having a good time with life, paying a huge price later for these acts of youth.

 

The girl who reported the rape did everyone in that party a favor. I tend to wonder if she even remembered (or was aware of) the tape being made of her in that position. If she didnt remember the tape being made... wow.. To drunk to consent? The tape is in police custody and cannot be used later in life against these people to ruin their lives, blackmail them or a host of other things which can cause the spiraling out of control of a once seemingly good/normal life.

[Cedars]

 

My point is that although technically a law was broken the DA shouldn't have used the Child Molestation charge as a way to force a plea bargain. The DA threatened them with that charge in order to secure a conviction. They knew any rape case was very iffy. They chose to try and apply pressure based on the less applicable charge of child molestation. I don't feel the DA made a very moral choice in pursuing the charge. If they believed the girl was raped that should have been the focus. When they lost that they used the Child Molestation charge as their backup. To me that is/was wrong.

 

Good discussion though. Thanks.

 

I think I covered part of your post in the response to TFS so I will skip that part here.

 

The method used by the prosecutor, is used in many cases and every state in the union, and is an important tool that mostly results in less serious convictions for those charged with crimes.

 

Example: Drugs. An Intent to Distribute charge is often reduced under plea bargins to a possession charge and/or may include a drop from a felony to a misdemenor after 5 years of no additional infractions.

 

Murder is another example where DAs will offer the lesser charge of 2nd or even 3rd degree.

 

The defendent has the option of going to court to fight the charges. It is not mandatory for someone to take a bargain and it greatly reduces court time/cost/incarceration costs etc in the criminal justice system.

 

As far as the DA being moral or not, it depends on your (or anyones) application of the subjective term 'moral'. If your going to try to apply 'moral' here, I would challenge you to first justify morally, the actions of the people in that hotel.

[InfiniteNow]

Okay... you want me to shoot with a laser instead of a cannon... I'll see what I can do. ;)

 

Post my face, wanted dead or alive... :singer:

 

Values vary from culture to culture, and region to region. And they change over time. But in a given place, at a given time, values are held to be absolute. That is the foundation of society.

 

Values vary, also, from person to person, and even within a single individual those values are not absolute, but context dependent. To claim that in a given area ANYTHING is absolute is faulty. Change the judge, change one person on that jury, get a different attorney... The outcome also changes. Not much absolute there.

 

This wasn't about values, it was about winning. The kid wouldn't have faced such a sentence if he had a better lawyer. Prosecutors make their names on cases like this, and making their name makes them money. Ask any attorney, you go in to win. That's what lawyers train to do...

 

I won't get into the foundation of society thing here, because even the concept of what constitutes a society changes and varies from person to person, regardless of how many dictionaries you choose to consult. We will all have overlap in our ideas of the key tenets of society, what makes it's foundation, but there would be enormous variability in all of our interpretations of those foundations and tenets.

 

 

Laws represent the common values of a society.

No they don't. They represent a set of standards which have been imposed by those in power as an attempt to minimize behavior deemed inappropriate by the majority in power.

 

Enforcement of laws is never entirely fair, or evenly distributed.

Very true.

 

And as a result of that there are always reactionary forces at work trying to improve the process. And that is where the discussion happens.

Okay, you're right that improving the process as we learn is a good thing. We need to also be proactive though. 10 years in prison and this kid is going to come out having a lot more dangerous skills and habits than he had when he went in. If he was in a crime nursery school when he committed this act, he's going to come out of prison with a doctorate in "new problem for society" complete with a prison community skill set.

 

He's 17. 10 years represents more than half of the entire life he's lived thus far.

 

 

I can't drive... 55! :phones:

[CraigD]

I aim at the moral character of those in power.

Who exactly are you aiming at, and what are you aiming? I would like to explore the avenue of that thought.

TARGET = those who wish to make their values absolute, applicable to everyone who may feel otherwise.

In other words, supporters of law and order.

Good dialog.

 

I think InfiniteNow missed the mark. Here’s my shot at it:

 

TARGET: Those who wish to impose their moral principles on others, even when those values exceed the law, by exploiting technical shortcomings of the law.

 

I strongly suspect that Wilson’s case is an example of this. Although I don’t know any of the court officials involved either personally or publicly, I think the major moral principles are these:

1. Unmarried people should not have sex
   
2. People should not have oral sex
   
3. Less powerful people should submit to the will of more powerful people
   

Although only the first 2nd of these principles are codified in Georgia law (the first as a misdemeanor), Wilson violated both them all, the first two by having oral sex with a female to whom he was not married, the last by refusing to cooperate with prosecutors in accepting the offered plea bargain. I suspect that the prosecutors and possible the judge used their legal expertise and power to punish him for violating these principles, consciously selecting and “handling” the jury to return a conviction that, absent unusual actions on their part, would not have been returned.

 

In researching applicable laws, I was surprised to find the following at Georgia General Assembly - Unannotated Georgia Code

(bolding mine):

16-6-4.

…

(2) A person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation when:

(A) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age;

(:singer: The person convicted of aggravated child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim; and

© The basis of the charge of aggravated child molestation involves an act of sodomy

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.1.

To a non-expert, this statute appears to be explicitly intended to reduce the punishment for the act Wilson committed. Although my legal research skills are inadequate to the question, the 10 year mandatory minimum sentence he received seems inconsistent with the term “misdemeanor”, nor can I find any mention of whether his conviction was of a felony or a misdemeanor.

 

Can anyone relieve my confusion about Georgia legal code?

[Cedars]

 

In researching applicable laws, I was surprised to find the following at Georgia General Assembly - Unannotated Georgia Code

(bolding mine):To a non-expert, this statute appears to be explicitly intended to reduce the punishment for the act Wilson committed. Although my legal research skills are inadequate to the question, the 10 year mandatory minimum sentence he received seems inconsistent with the term “misdemeanor”, nor can I find any mention of whether his conviction was of a felony or a misdemeanor.

 

Can anyone relieve my confusion about Georgia legal code?

 

I think this is the change in the law that went into effect in 2006. I think the crime occured Dec02/Jan03 or Dec03/Jan04. (new years eve party)