Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleMustReign wrote: You mean to tell me that you have NEVER broken the law? Any law? You never roll through a stop sign, speed a little on the freeway, or spit your gum out on the side walk or in the grass?

Lighten up. There will be many opinions on a subject like this one. Your's is fine, so is Swaps.

Jim pretty much summed it up saying:

I can't blame the jury. They had to consider the facts of the case and the law as it's written. If the facts support a "guilty" verdict under the letter of the law, they really have no choice but to deliver that verdict.

I have to ask, are you a parent? Five daughters here (adults now) and this story of under age drinking, etc. was a worry for us. As parents you do your best to guide the kids and hope it sinks in.

Swaps question on parenting is valid, but the reality is kids can stray on the best parents too. I assume that is why there are laws like this one on the books, at some point someone wanted to try to protect the children.

I assume that is why there are laws like this one on the books, at some point someone wanted to try to protect the children.

He could have had intercourse with her, and it was a misdemeanor. He got a BJ and it's a felony.

Way to protect the children.

Demi wrote: He could have had intercourse with her, and it was a misdemeanor. He got a BJ and it's a felony.

Way to protect the children.

I didn't write the law, but you might not be thinking from above the belt.

Swaps wrote:But you know what?

I NEVER drank before I was 21.
I Never SMOKED a cigarette
I Never had SEX with a 15 year old while I was in high school.

Dang, Bro. Pretty boring wasn't it?

Swaps wrote:
And about the parenting.
no, i'm not a parent.

But you know what?

I NEVER drank before I was 21.
I Never SMOKED a cigarette
I Never had SEX with a 15 year old while I was in high school.

Why? Because of the morals, rules, and expectations instilled in me by my PARENTS.

OK, my friend. Here's a little lesson.

I have two daughters. I've raised them both the same way, more or less. But they're SO different in terms of personalities, rebelliousness, etc.

Nurture is important, but so is nature. PLEASE don't think that just because you have the goody, goody gene (like one of my daughters), that it reflects primarily on your parents. It reflects primarily on you. Most of us parents teach our kids morality, but lots of kids need to find their own paths ... and for many of us parents, it can be very trying some times.

The human brain is a very complex thing. We're all wired in very, very different ways. That means we need to tolerate some less than stellar behavior according to your standards or mine. Murder? No. Rape? No. Theft? No. But consensual sex between kids of similar ages? Not a good thing, but nothing worth condemning kids for either.

To say that the prosecutor here is only doing his job is ignorant. Prosecutors have limited time and limited resources so they should only choose the worst crimes with the highest probability of punishment and protection of society. Think about it this way:Instead of sending a teenager to prison for a decade for a common and consensual sex act another teenager the prosecutor could have went after a rapist or a sexual harrasser or a child pornographer or any number of violent and disturbed people.
The prosecutor also has plenty of leeway to ask for sentencing, too. To ask for the maximum penalty in this case is an abortion, a complete mockery of justice.

Hunter Morrow wrote:The prosecutor also has plenty of leeway to ask for sentencing, too. To ask for the maximum penalty in this case is an abortion, a complete mockery of justice.

From the article:

Indeed, when the jurors found out there was a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, several were incensed.

It looks like he asked for the minimum sentence allowed by the law.

Jim

It looks like the prosecutor was on a power trip, and denied Genarlow justice. From the selfsame article
"Williams is already out of jail, in part because McDade wrote a letter to the parole board, praising Williams for being the first to plead guilty and "take his medicine." As for Wilson, McDade called him a "martyr" in the media."
And it was more than just stubborness that led to Wilson being unwilling to take the plea. Would you like to be branded a sex offender for the rest of your life and unable to be with your younger brothers or sisters for years?
And, here is another thing for the article...
"While Bernstein works on every possible legal solution, the Douglas County District Attorney's Office has the power to get Wilson out of prison. If the prosecution wanted, this could all end tomorrow."
So why don't they? They admit that it is wrong and unjust but they won't cave. They don't want to be embarrassed or shamed. A man is sitting in prison for a decade because the prosecutor doesn't have the nuts to say 3 words: "I was wrong".

I wasn't attempting to defend the prosecution's current stance. I was just pointing out that they asked for the mandatory minimum penalty, not the maximum, as you suggested.


Jim

Kansas Viking wrote: Dang, Bro. Pretty boring wasn't it?

No doubt, I was pretty much a "goodie goodie" in HS, but not to that extent. I drank a few times- but never got hammered until my 21st birthday. I haven't done illegal drugs nor had sex with a minor, but even I had some illegal fun- though minor.

As a Libertarian I don't believe that victimless crimes should be crimes (or at least should be very minor ones) but thats a political discussion that doesn't belong here. I'm not saying sex with a minor is victimless- but this law is totally backward.

IF IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, THEN DONT DO IT.

You would be AMAZED at the laws on the books.

It is likely that married people break one every time they are intimate.

A kiss on a date under the age of 18 is technically sexual assault in Minnesota.

Minniman wrote:A kiss on a date under the age of 18 is technically sexual assault in Minnesota.

IMO, consent is a big issue here; if both people are in agreement, there shouldn't be a problem. HOWEVER, it's not that simple. Age/maturity and other variables (alcohol, drugs) factor in to decision-making and an age limit needs to be in the law. Where should the cut-off be? 18? 3 years apart? No choice but to leave that up the guys in office.

ls1ta wrote: IMO, consent is a big issue here; if both people are in agreement, there shouldn't be a problem. HOWEVER, it's not that simple. Age/maturity and other variables (alcohol, drugs) factor in to decision-making and an age limit needs to be in the law. Where should the cut-off be? 18? 3 years apart? No choice but to leave that up the guys in office.

IMO the basic law and idea of the law are good. I totally disagree with oral sex being so much more of a penalty than vaginal- oral should probably be half the crime at the most.

OMG, I can not believe they took that guys life away from him like that. That is horrible. I cant believe that they wont even give him a chance for parole. I cant believe that a judge would sentence such a good student athlete with no prior record to ten years in jail for fooling around with a girl in his highschool who wanted to do it. This is a bad story. I feel the worst for this kids family who cant see him any more. Then I feel bad for the kid who had his life taken away. Last of all this makes me angry at our criminal justice system that they would show such a lack of discretion.

ls1ta wrote:Where should the cut-off be? 18? 3 years apart? No choice but to leave that up the guys in office.

One of the parts that bother me the most is how they were both under 18. They are, by all rights, kids. He didn't murder someone, he didn't rob a bank at gunpoint, he only did what 99.99% of boys would do in that situation. For him to be in prison when some convicted sex offenders are walking free is insane. Its just wrong.