Genarlow Wilson -- Georgia is insane

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
then dont read them, IDGAF what you do. Its easier to follow than layers of quotes, dont like it, your loss.


[/ QUOTE ]

your <font color="red"> the only one </font> who thinks this LEARN TO POST OR STFU !!

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 17-year old was not seen on tape consenting, and prosecutors stuck by the rape charge in that case on the basis of their allegation that she was too intoxicated to consent, ie, unable to consent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I agree it wasn't "correct"....but that's what the prosecution did. They went forward with the rape charge on the basis that the victim was in an altered state and couldn't consent.

And the jury didn't agree and found him not guilty.

[Thug Bubbles]

I was just saying that the 17 year old WAS seen on tape consenting.

"Jurors voted to acquit Wilson of raping the 17-year-old."

"We immediately saw the tape for what it was."

The reason he was sent to prison was for oral sex with the 15 year old, which is an age that Georgia has decided is not able to legally consent, even though the act was consensual.

It's a minor point, but that is essentially the reason for my first post, I'm just trying to clarify. The 17 year old consented, was shown to consent in the video tape. Wilson was acquitted of raping her due to the video. The 15 year old consented to oral sex, but due to her age (Age of consent in Georgia is 16), Wilson (age 17) was sent to jail.

[ALawPoker]

Yes, this sounds accurate. This is all I assumed you were arguing the entire time. (But then other people put words in both of our mouths in an odd attempt to be right about a disagreement that didn't exist.)

So now we can get back to the first page, before a bunch of needless name calling, detours, and ranting, where RedBean seems <u>perfectly OK</u> with the idea that because maybe the judge thought Wilson should have been convicted of forced rape (despite the fact that the jury easily found him innocent of this) that he decided to give the max sentence on the 17-on-15 statch instead.

Like I said, this isn't the NBA. No makeup calls. The jury is there for a reason. I don't get how ANYONE defends what happened here. It seems pretty clearly outrageous to me.

Since in that post you admittedly were just talking based on what was on the top of your head, RedBean, do you stand by your implication that it was OK for the judge to give this sentence based on what the video showed? Or do you agree with the rest of us that it's outrageous?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


So now we can get back to the first page, before a bunch of needless name calling, detours, and ranting, where RedBean seems <u>perfectly OK</u> with the idea that because maybe the judge thought Wilson should have been convicted of forced rape (despite the fact that the jury easily found him innocent of this) that he decided to give the max sentence on the 17-on-15 statch instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umpteenth time.
The judge gave him the minimum sentence allowed.
He could not give him probation.
He could not give him 1 year.
He had to give him at least 10 years under the law.
Don't blame the judge.
Blame "mandatory minimum sentences" which everybody pushed to take discretion away from "soft judges".

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Like I said, this isn't the NBA. No makeup calls. The jury is there for a reason. I don't get how ANYONE defends what happened here. It seems pretty clearly outrageous to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ.

Dude, for about the 400th time, I wasn't defending it....I was completely and obviously speculating on the possible reasons that the judge and DA acted in the manner in which they did.

[ QUOTE ]

RedBean, do you stand by your implication that it was OK for the judge to give this sentence based on what the video showed? Or do you agree with the rest of us that it's outrageous?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, now for the 401st time, I've never said it was OK what the judge or DA did in this case. I've said quite a few times the sentence was outrageous....I was merely speculating on possible reasons why they acted the way they did.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Umpteenth time.
The judge gave him the minimum sentence allowed.
He could not give him probation.
He could not give him 1 year.
He had to give him at least 10 years under the law.
Don't blame the judge.
Blame "mandatory minimum sentences" which everybody pushed to take discretion away from "soft judges".

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it also mandatory that the jury not be made aware of the sentencing guidelines, or was that up to the judge?

From teh literature I read, it sounded as if the DA and judge went out of their way to prevent the jury from knowing that the "lesser" charge carried a 10 year min.

[Thug Bubbles]

Boy I LOVE mandatory minimums. I'm curious about the logic behind mandatory minimums beyond 'Tough on Crime' image pimping.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Boy I LOVE mandatory minimums. I'm curious about the logic behind mandatory minimums beyond 'Tough on Crime' image pimping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically its to put a wedge in the revolving door that runs in the prison systems today, to at least leave them in for a while. While it was sad in this instance, if we're forced to rely on the government for justice, mandatory minimums are not that bad of an idea.

I'll give you a perfect example, not too long ago, an officer here in GA was shot to death during a traffic stop by a punk who had 43.. I said FOURTY THREE different criminal charges in a ten year span, mostly misdemeanors, some felonies, and we as a society need to ask ourselves "Why was he not serving a life sentence for one of the 43 crimes he'd already been charged with?"

I see it far too often. Alot of judges are so misguided they believe they're in the rehabilitation business, rather than the criminal justice business.

[Thug Bubbles]

Isn't that a problem inherent in systematic punishment? Mandatory minimums remove discretion from individual cases and paint them all with the same brush. It seem that both have their faults, but one is far worse than the other.