by jake_twothousandfive » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:49 am
Here is a story I found very interesting and very sad at the same time. It illustrates some of the problems with our justice system today and the effects it had on a talented young football player whos life was derailed by the interpretation of law.
I disagree with the idea that this guy did nothing wrong.
In essense, the party he held got a girl drunk and high. Then he took advantage.
Sexual acts with someone who does not have the ability to give consent, whether because of youth, intoxication, or otherwise, is automatic rape under the law. Even if the intoxication of the victim is self inflicted.
And it doesn't matter who initiated the sexual contact under the law either.
Just my perspective I guess, and I'm normally a softy for cases that pop up like this (dang liberal bias).
The Balanced Man wrote:I disagree with the idea that this guy did nothing wrong.
In essense, the party he held got a girl drunk and high. Then he took advantage.
Sexual acts with someone who does not have the ability to give consent, whether because of youth, intoxication, or otherwise, is automatic rape under the law. Even if the intoxication of the victim is self inflicted.
And it doesn't matter who initiated the sexual contact under the law either.
Just my perspective I guess, and I'm normally a softy for cases that pop up like this (dang liberal bias).
I read the whole story and it's obvious that ESPN was biased towards this cause. However, if the facts stated in that article are correct then there is no way he should spend 10 freakin years in prison for having a drunk girl, whom was only 2 years younger, and was willing to do stuff with him at that time. That is not child molestation, IMO. Was it illegal? Yes. 10 years worth illlegal? Hell no!
Last edited by J2thez929 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Balanced Man wrote:I disagree with the idea that this guy did nothing wrong.
In essense, the party he held got a girl drunk and high. Then he took advantage.
Sexual acts with someone who does not have the ability to give consent, whether because of youth, intoxication, or otherwise, is automatic rape under the law. Even if the intoxication of the victim is self inflicted.
And it doesn't matter who initiated the sexual contact under the law either.
Just my perspective I guess, and I'm normally a softy for cases that pop up like this (dang liberal bias).
Also while you're generally correct, if I read the story correct the girl on the stand stated that she consented to the act and there was no indication that her ability to consent was impared.
Further, the entire sentencing revolves around the fact that the statute was outdated. The statute had a so called "romeo and juliet" provision for age gap when the individual is under the age of consent for vaginal sex but not oral sex. The statute was amended after the case was handed down but it can't be applied retroactively.
The DA can suspend his sentence, reduce it, or dismiss it entirely at any time but he has refused to do so.
When i was taken criminology classes at UF we had a the head of the Sexual Criminal division come in and talk. He told us s atory about a kid who was 18 and his g/f was 16 and he lived with the g/f and the mom.One day mom gets mad and files statutory rape charges against the guy. He is convicted and goes to jail for 5 years. gets out and marries thiis girl and they have a kid, but he can't pick her up from school now b/c he is a sexual offender and not allowed near schools, parks etc.
While I'll agree that Wilson isn't blameless in the matter 10 years (with no possibility of parole) for "Aggravated Child Molestation" is so far beyond overkill that it's staggering. Plus he gets to wear that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.
If that DA gave a d**n about justice as opposed to politics he'd make this right.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Kilroy1872 wrote:While I'll agree that Wilson isn't blameless in the matter 10 years (with no possibility of parole) for "Aggravated Child Molestation" is so far beyond overkill that it's staggering. Plus he gets to wear that "sex offender" label for the rest of his life.
If that DA gave a d**n about justice as opposed to politics he'd make this right.
Sounds similar to a situation at our school recently as well, (Both Juniors) The boy had previously had a sex offender record within school, because he pushed another kids hand into a teachers... butt, and then he got some girl S**t faced before a basketball game, and put something in her drink, then, did some things with her, then at the game (both watching) she stumbles to the bathroom, and slips up before she gets there and face plants it in the hallway, she goes to the hospital, she claims she didn't concent, they check her out, find some...man juice...he gets 5 years in Juvie/Jail (Juvie till he's 18 then Jail).
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jake_twothousandfive » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:49 am 
