tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post116656346409014044..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Where Race Comes InDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-76354140662273239192011-04-15T09:11:10.107-07:002011-04-15T09:11:10.107-07:00I like to read post like this beacause has useful ...I like to read post like this beacause has useful information, i would like to read more information about this topic ´cause i am really interested.Inversiones en orohttp://www.inversioneslatinoamericanas.com/aprender-a-invertir-en-oro/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1168495146094205602007-01-10T21:59:00.000-08:002007-01-10T21:59:00.000-08:00"Also, child molestation is by definition not one ..."Also, child molestation is by definition not one where a victim can decline to prosecute: a person who is under the age of consent cannot consent, and therefore, the state must make a determination about what is in his/her best interest."<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, the "victim" can consent; as a matter of law she cannot legally consent. The only victim is Genarlow and he is a victim of the prosecutor's racism and the legislature's poor judgement in crafting the law. To say two children, approximately equal in age, having consentual sex should be a crime is just stupid (note: the poster above was wrong when he said that the victim was drunk - it was the other victim whose complaint was tossed out of court who was drunk). Yes, we don't want children having sex with each other - because it harms them - to make it illegal just harms them further.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad I live in Canada; virtually all of our truly violent criminals stay in jail for less time than Genarlow and our country is safer (seems counter-intuitive but minimum sentences for non-violent offences lead to more violence by sending non-violent people into the violent environment of jail).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166740016751350362006-12-21T14:26:00.000-08:002006-12-21T14:26:00.000-08:00David Schraub,You're ignoring that there's a reaso...David Schraub,<BR/><BR/>You're ignoring that there's a reason we have mandatory arrest and prosecution crimes -- because these tend to be ones where the victim will back out otherwise. If the norm in a community becomes that someone whose victim doesn't press charges won't be prosecuted, that only increases the pressure on the victim not to be the girl who screws up this guy's life. Mandatory arrests and prosecutions have a host of problems, and they may be paternalistic and disempowering of victims, but they exist for a reason. I agree about pure drug crimes (i.e. offenses that don't involve any other crime like robbery or assault), but I'm *very* leery of saying that the state should be any more careful of prosecuting minority men for their crimes against women in their community than they are of prosecuting white men for crimes against white women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166573745291918512006-12-19T16:15:00.000-08:002006-12-19T16:15:00.000-08:00I agree that the D.A. should not have filed charge...I agree that the D.A. should not have filed charges. I made that point in the first Volokh thread on the subject. But that has nothing to do with whether his actions were motivated by race. I see absolutely no evidence that they were. None of the examples you cite are on point at all.PatHMVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15542719040606654134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166568885101644352006-12-19T14:54:00.000-08:002006-12-19T14:54:00.000-08:00On the issue of "who wanted prosecution," I think ...On the issue of "who wanted prosecution," I think I've found the source of confusion. There are two women who are "victims", in this case. "Michelle" was the one that they had intercourse with--but under the relevant statute they were charged under that's only a misdeamanor--it's not what got them 10 years. Since there hasn't been much reporting on that aspect of the case, I venture no opinion to it.<BR/><BR/>The 10 year sentence was on the sodomy charge--the victim there, "Tracy," did not want them to be charged.<BR/><BR/>As to the role of the DA, the DA knows that certain crimes carry certain punishment, and he can indict or drop charges accordingly. Knowing that charging Mr. Wilson with this particular crime would carry a 10-year mandatory minimum, the DA should not have charged him with that crime. With the rates of teen oral sex going on in this country compared to the amount of times it is actually prosecuted (almost never, I'd say), any prosecution is going to be capricious virtually on face.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166567512741294342006-12-19T14:31:00.000-08:002006-12-19T14:31:00.000-08:00Also, sentencing is done by judges, not DAs. If th...Also, sentencing is done by judges, not DAs. If the judge wants to give someone a light sentence, there's little the DA can do to stop them. In the Wilson case, there was a mandatory sentence based on the crime charged. To establish racial bias, you'd have to show that the prosecutor had other cases involving identical conduct but with white defendants, where the DA chose not to file charges under the specific "oral sex with a minor" law.<BR/><BR/>One of your examples deals with fondling. If that's all that happened, then the DA could not have charged the harsh mandatory minimum statute. It's not an instance of the DA failing to take a tough stance on the crime. The other case you cite as an example didn't even have sex occur. There's no way that crime is going to be punished as severely as a crime which actually did occur. And again, under the facts of that case, there was no way for the DA to charge the person with breaking the law which carries the mandatory minimum sentence used in the Wilson case.<BR/><BR/>You've shown no evidence at all of any actions under the control of the District Attorney which would support your charge that he had a racial motivation in this case.PatHMVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15542719040606654134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166567079360899912006-12-19T14:24:00.000-08:002006-12-19T14:24:00.000-08:00David, the flaw in your argument here is that the ...David, the flaw in your argument here is that the 17 year old black woman DID want Wilson and the other boys prosecuted. The allegation she made was that she was raped, that the boys got her drunk and took advantage of her when she was too intoxicated to consent. NOT a "victimless" crime.<BR/><BR/>As I've said elsewhere in the Volokh threads, I disagree with the prosecutor's handling of this case, but I do not see evidence of racial animus. For this to be racial, you'd have to assert that, faced with a white defendant and a white 17 year old claiming rape, and a clear technical violation of the law with the 15 year old on tape, the prosecutor would not have behaved as he did. I've seen plenty of white prosecutors prosecute white young men for having sex with underage white girls.PatHMVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15542719040606654134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166566848193832102006-12-19T14:20:00.000-08:002006-12-19T14:20:00.000-08:00Well, someone under the age of consent can't conse...Well, someone under the age of consent can't consent, but they still can request that the case not be tried. Which the prosecutor can listen or not listen to--in this case, though, it seems that the "victim's" request that the case not be tried is one that should have been honored and makes it difficult for him to claim the mantle of a defender of the victim.<BR/><BR/>As to the summary judgment issue, I think that is exactly what happened: whatever the women said he did, did not rise to the level of legally punishable sexual harassment. That doesn't mean it wasn't crass, crude, or otherwise something we'd label him "bad person" for. There is a significant amount of space between what might popularly be considered to be sexually harassing, and what meets the legal bar. My guess is whatever he did was not pervasive enough to have created a "hostile work environment."David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1166566482509359492006-12-19T14:14:00.000-08:002006-12-19T14:14:00.000-08:00IANAL, but summary judgement is generally issued w...IANAL, but summary judgement <A HREF="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s102.htm" REL="nofollow">is generally issued when there is no disagreement about facts, and those facts clearly require a decision toward one party.</A><BR/><BR/>An example would be if I said "I like the colour of your shirt" to a female coworker, and she described that behavior as sexual harassment. It does not meet the legal definition, and therefore summary judgement would be issued.<BR/><BR/>Also, child molestation is by definition not one where a victim can decline to prosecute: a person who is under the age of consent <I>cannot consent</I>, and therefore, the state must make a determination about what is in his/her best interest.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not the outcome is <I>just</I> is another matter, and I don't know the facts of the case to evaluate that. I do know that race should never be an issue in determining whether a crime was committed.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491386537225283381noreply@blogger.com