.. Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 I don't agree with Sharpton playing the race card... Normally, I'd agree with you. But this case is 100% racial. It is in the deep South, the girl is white, the boy is black. The boy, with a sparkling record, is being treated unfairly. Sharpton calling it for what it is may shame the idiots into doing the right thing. Nothing else (i.e., playing by the rules) has worked for the family. Sad part is is that the boy's once promising life is already ruined and nobody can fix that. Seriously, do you *really* think they'd give a shit if the girl were black or the boy were white? Racism *is* alive and well in America. Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjon045 Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 The boy, with a sparkling record, is being treated unfairly. Sparkling record? He was accused of rape by another girl. I haven't seen his criminal history so I don't know if there are any other charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 The part of me that looks for good want to say its not a racial matter. I may be naive. Part of me thought so immediately being a black male and having faced it (racism) but I would need further evidence of it to say it is for certain. Its too easy (and unfair) to say its racism just because a white girl and black boy is involved. There is obviously more to this story that the article doesn't say and what is NOT told will tell us if it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Sparkling record? He was accused of rape by another girl. I haven't seen his criminal history so I don't know if there are any other charges. So, which part of the criminal justice system do you not understand? The article said: "Wilson was also charged in 2003 with raping a 17-year-old girl at the party, but a jury acquitted him of the charges." That means that he was tried and found not guilty. Given that, plus his academic record (honors student), employment (library aide) and an athlete, I'd tend to believe the kid. He's obviously not your low-life ghetto gangster is he? It sounds like that even was at the same party, which was just full of sex, as some high school and college parties are (or at least were in my day, I'm sure it's the same now). Read about him: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=Wilson http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207995.htm http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html Regards, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjon045 Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 So, which part of the criminal justice system do you not understand? The article said: "Wilson was also charged in 2003 with raping a 17-year-old girl at the party, but a jury acquitted him of the charges." That means that he was tried and found not guilty. I understand it well enough that is why I said "accused" not guilty - Just like OJ Simpson :evil: I can't see how you can have a accurate opinion (although of course you are entitled to one) when you have just read what is in the media. I would think you would actually have to know the kid in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 He could have been convicted for 10 rapes once the sex was consenual it shouldn't be party to a verdict. I'd like to ask anyone if they'd convict him if he had been guilty of a prior rape or sex crime, if the sex in the case was as it was, consenual. Most judges are given lattitude in sentencing. Surely he saw it wasn't a punishment fitting a crime...if there ever was a crime? I'd like to find out what the prosecutor was thinking as well. He has a choice of whether to prosecute. It appears that the others took a plea bargain and perhaps the prosecutor was angry that this guy didn't as well. In any event the governor should pardon him and expunge the conviction. Its the right thing to do. Especially given that the state has changed the law, implying it was unjust in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YimSiam Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 So, if the girl was your 11 year old daughter, and there were no race issues involved, and she wanted to prove she was down at the big party after two wine coolers and therefore 'consented' to give a blowjob to the Homecoming King at the big party of the year, everything would be cool? Two points: 1. The issue in statutory sex crimes is that it is NOT legally possible for the sex to be consensual, so stop talking consensual. A child CANNOT give consent - not matter if he or she says 'I give fully informed consent'. They can't. Only adults can give consent: if you are under eighteen, you are unable to give consent to the acts that constitute rape (which might be, generally, allowing someone to fuck your mouth, pussy, or ass), to trade all of your daddy Bill Gates' stock options for a new Pretty Ponies doll, or, in many cases, to get married. So, anyone who fucks your ass or takes your daddy's stocks is going to face a shitstorm if you're under 18. 2. The Georgia law in question - which undoubtedly has racist over/undertones in both letter and practice, as most probably does most 'justice' in the south, if not the US - gave a higher penalty for oral rape than for vaginal rape, felony v. misdemeanour. That's the real issue in this case. If the kid had raped the victim vaginally (even if she had been lying on her 15 year old back begging for it, to be gruesomely clear), it would have been rape but he would have received a much lower penalty, under GA law at the time he did the act. He didn't rape her vaginally; he engaged in what amounted to statutory rape of the oral variety, which the law at the time deemed worse, and he received a more severe penalty. Law doesn't let you decide what is the just approach, and it doesn't let ignorance of the law get you off - you're expected to know what is and what isn't allowed. If you don't like the laws that state that those under eighteen can't engage in sexual acts with consent, try to get them changed. Meanwhile, keep your dicks out of 15 year old throats, no matter how drunk, horny, or grown-up you think the girl is. And yes, Georgia is fucking racist, and always will be. But proving that isn't going to get anybody anywhere - we've all known that for a long time. Cross your fingers and let Scooter find out what a month of jail time is like in the United States he and his boys think they ruleâ?¦ YimSiam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Thanks YimSiam, but why make it 11? The girl is 15. If she were 11, I'm 100% the posts on here would have been hang the SOB if he were 17 when it happened. Are you making no distinction between someone 11 and someone 15 who is in high school? No one would want their 15 y.o. daughter engaging in consenual act, some wouldn't want their legal age daughter to as well. A lot of states have a 2 year difference in age rule. So that two kids playing doctor won't go to jail. He was 17 at the time, also legally not an adult, so why not try the girl as well? If it was a 17 y.o. girl and a 15 y.o. boy would the same apply? The southern states do have some remnants of racism still there and they are also very conservative as well so the woman gets the benefit as well. There are 'bad' laws in every state and every country. The punishment was over the top, even if it was part of the law. Prosecutors elect not to prosecute all kinds of things that they legally can because the law is 'bad'. Cops don't write every traffic ticket they legally can, prosecutors don't prosecute every case they legally can and judges reduce sentences on cases they legally can add time to every day in every court. The fact is the parties in the judicial system CHOSE to. I understand what you're saying. You're absolutely right that the judicial system was within their right and even duty (to some) to prosecute the case. I just don't think they should have. And there is precedence in other similar matters to suggest that they didn't have to. The law being changed being my main argument that they acted too aggressively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 "...1. The issue in statutory sex crimes is that it is NOT legally possible for the sex to be consensual, so stop talking consensual. A child CANNOT give consent - not matter if he or she says 'I give fully informed consent'. They can't. Only adults can give consent: if you are under eighteen, you are unable to give consent to the acts that constitute rape (which might be, generally, allowing someone to fuck your mouth, pussy, or ass), to trade all of your daddy Bill Gates' stock options for a new Pretty Ponies doll, or, in many cases, to get married. So, anyone who fucks your ass or takes your daddy's stocks is going to face a shitstorm if you're under 18..." Isn't this still the issue? the guy was under 18 as well...Additionally, the age of consent in some states is under 18...or at least it was...some states marriage is allowed at what 13? The bottom line here is this kid is being railroaded by a puritanical law, that in theory no longer exists, it has been changed since his conviction... It is paramount to a guy getting busted for smoking weed, then sent to jail for 10 years...next week marjuana is legalized, but he still has to do his time, just plain stupid...if this girl was black, or he was whiter, there would be no issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 In england its 16, states vary at the age of consent. So in theory if its 18 in Alabama and 16 in Idaho, then a 16 year olds in Idaho have more maturity than 17 year olds in Alabama. These ages are based a lot on how conservative a state is. The drinking age in the south was 19 for a long time, even 18 in states like Lousiana. You can die for your country and shoot the enemy at 18 but not mature enough to drink until 3 years later???? The age of consent is probably 16 in that state, making the 17 y.o. of sound mind but not the 15 y.o. Since different states have different ages of consent it may be a little disengenuous to say the 15 y.o. wasn't mentally able to know what she was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.