Are you suggesting that state prosecutors should ignore the laws of the state whenever they want to? Or change the laws if the feel like it?
They have the power to do so.
However if you read through the whole article and the words of the prosecutor, you would realise that this was not a case whereby justice was sought on behalf of the 'victim'. The prosecutor admits that this case is wrong. But because of the way the system works, they are only interested in a guilty plea. So to attempt to right the wrong even they are not blind to, they offer a plea bargain and have the accused listed as a sex offender and a paodophile, meaning that he would no longer be able to live at home along with his little sister. The accused refused and who could blame him. When all the other charges were dismissed, this was the only thing they could get him on. So what do they do? Fail to inform the jury that the penalty is for 10 years because the prosecutor knew the jury would not have sent him to jail for it judging by their anger when they did realise he would get 10 years.
Now as to administering the law at whim. This case is a prime example of how this
has occured. Judicial blackmail is what it comes down to in the end.
And what was her crime? What would she be charged with?
False rape allegations would be one. Even her mother admits that the sex was consentual and she was the instigator.
Do you think he should have been charged with a felony and sent to jail for 10 years for this "crime"? As I said above, it should have been a misdemeanor charge at most because of the nature of the crime and the law in question. The State legislature saw fit to change the law so that oral sex was no longer a felony in such a case, but the law was not retroactive, therefore he is made to suffer. I believe from the article, the legislators and lawyers are working to have his case dismissed. The prosecutors have admitted they can make it all go away
if they so choose. And after having read through that whole article again, it is judicial blackmail. The words of Barker (the prosecutor) are abhorrent in their very arrogance:
"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."
I find this to be galling to be honest. I am guessing he missed the lecture on ethics.
If so, why even have written laws? Let's just let judges and prosecutors administer whatever they each think should be done?
This is what has happened already.
As the prosecutor admits, they have the power to set aside his sentence and give him a new one with a lesser charge. But they choose not to. Even though they admit he should not have 10 years, they choose not to set aside his sentence. And do you know why?
He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."
Hmmmm 'took their medicine'. That's what it comes down to. Wilson dared to attempt to go against the 'establishment' and he lost. Pride and arrogance is why they are refusing to set aside his sentence and give him a lesser charge.
Perhaps you should read the third sentence in the original post. That might give you a clue about what law was violated.
The age of consent is sixteen?
Maybe you should read the rest of the article:
"But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex."
So if there was no oral sex, he would not be in jail at all. The State changed the laws after this case because it has proven to be so stupid and so archaic but did not make it retroactive.
Again, I point out the prosecutor has the ability to drop his sentence and charge and sentence him with a much lesser charge, but they
choose not to.
Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?
Well not long after this case, a teacher was found guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse with her student. And she only got 90 days. So you tell me Baron.
In light of the evidence in this case, do you think Wilson's treatment was fair under the law or is this just a case of prosecutorial pride and arrogance, in light of the fact that the school teacher only received a 90 day sentence? Lets not forget these words from the prosecutor:
The others, he says, "took their medicine."
Do you think any prosecutor should use their position to blackmail others just to wrack up another guilty plea on their resume? Because in the end, this is what it all comes down to. This case would have to be one of the biggest examples of prosecutorial zealousness that I have ever come across.
