1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

10 Years for a BJ

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Boom_70, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Probably a good argument against mandatory minimums.

    What happened to judges deciding punishment?
  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Every case should be decided on an individual basis... This is like the guy who was a lookout for a pot deal at some concert who is now spending life in prison... They had an article about it awhile ago in Rolling Stone...

    Bottomline, it was a consentual BJ, how does something like this even get prosecuted?
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Instead of traveling all over the world Bill Clinton should step in here and try to save this kid.
  4. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    That's a good point, Mizzou.

    You really have to fault the prosecutor here.
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't think the jury is at fault here... It takes some racist asshole prosecutor for this case to even get that far...
  6. leo1

    leo1 Active Member

    did you guys misread the article or just choose to ignore the crucial facts? the legislature changed the law so this kind of sex is OK but they did not make the law retroactive apparently because the state constitution bans retroactive laws.

    judges can only do what the law tells them to do.

    prosecutors, otoh, do have discretion, but since he's already in prison there is no role for the prosecutor in this any longer other than offering the plea deal.
  7. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    The prosecutor could have declined to file charges in the first place, given that it was consensual sex between two HS kids.
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    15 is below the age of consent . . . so "consensual sex" cannot even be an issue for discussion.

    Seems to me he was practically bound by law to file charges, although I don't know how much latitude he had in how attractive he could have made the plea deal. The deal he offered was not at all generous.
  9. pallister

    pallister Guest

    Seems like an obvious travesty of justice, but at least this thread allowed mizzougrad to remind me that everyone from the South is racist.

    Thanks, mizzougrad!
  10. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Both incidents happened in Georgia for what it's worth. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
  11. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Zeke, the way the law was written at the time of Wilson's trial, 15 was below the age of the consent. Hence, not consensual.

    This is not the same case that was detailed on RealSports. That was the Dixon case. There's no mention of the Wilson case on the show's website. And if it were a black athlete Gumbel perceived as being treated unfairly, it certainly would be on there.
  12. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Yes, the kid's serving a bullshit sentence because this happened in the South. ::)

    It appears to me that the kid got a raw deal because of a chain of crazy circumstances. There was the charge from the older girl that she was gang raped. And apparently, there was video evidence to prove this. I'd like to see a few more details about the case, but it looks as if all of the guys from that hotel room were charged with raping this girl and the trial centered on that. It doesn't sound like going after this guy for oral sex with an underage girl was the main focus of the case, which is probably why the jury didn't know the penalties for finding him guilty of it. One part of the story said the video proved to the jury that he didn't rape the older girl, so I assume that was the big charge against him at trial.

    I'd like to know whether or not all of the guys from the party were tried individually or as a group. If it was as a group, I think that explains a lot here.

    Of course, we could just say that everybody in the South is racist and be done with it. But then, that would be using the same bigotry that we're railing against, wouldn't it?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page