Post: #51

The misjudging judge, who was not even elected, is a tyrant, and a shit piece.

But no one has brought up this piece of shit DA or ADA who actually decided to press on and charge this young man. This is a teamwork of turds, not just one black robbed coward.

Post: #52

(06-01-2015 03:03 PM)Jukes Wrote:  Two months ago I was walking by Rutgers University and see a tall brown skin girl. Made a joke about her walking and it went well from there. She metitioned she have a kid, so I automatically thought she was 18 or 19. As we are talking, I started getting a little suspicious. She was too bubbly. I am so used to having to diffuse a girl funky attitude before they start flirting and this seem too good. So I ask how old she was and she reply back " I'm 14. "

Quoting this since it seem revelant. Be careful guys. There was a true life episode about this and regardless of what the girl say, judges like him will treat this as personal and nothing more. Hopefully, this 19 year old come out of this situation in his favor.

Post: #53

This judge is an asshole, people between 14 and 19 shouldn't be convicted to such harsh sentences if they consent to sex. If she was 12 than we're talking abuse but a lying 14 year old knows what she's doing. I think a flat age of consent at 16 is fair and for teenagers should be modified enough to make it so they don't receive harsh sentences, like it is in many countries outside of the US.

I'm sure a 19 year old girl, sleeping with a 14 year old boy wouldn't receive such a nasty sentence.

Post: #54

If they were in a house of glass, I would roll boulders into those houses. But I'll crash through my glass walls first, spiting my illogical face!

Post: #55

I never understood the AoC laws in the states...each state has laws with different ages...
So theoretically you could be a 19yr old guy banging a16yr old girl in one state and have it be perfectly legal and then in the adjacent state the 19yr old guy would go to jail for 10yrs and be labelled a sex offender...

In Canada it's kinda simple but it applies across every part of Canada.
If they're 16 or older fuck as much as you want.
If they're under 16, 14yrs is the AoC but only within 5 years. (a 14yr old can fuck a 19yr old without any issues)
If they are 12 or 13 they can have sex but no one older than 13.
Younger than 12 makes them too young to consent.
So in this case the 19yr old guy hooking up with the 14yr old girl would be perfectly legal. If she was 13 the guy would go to jail.

Post: #56

Let me play devils advocate for a minute.

First and foremost, we need to realize that Age of Consent laws are not about equality or helping boys or men. They are simply about protecting women, specifically a woman's dignity and marriageability (which is somewhat laughable considering it was first wave feminists, and tradcons, who pushed for it), or girls at all costs.

So. Let's just go with that. Let's assume that AoC laws do nothing more than protect women and girls. So what, OK?

So, we have two basic options.

NOTE: Women/Girls are hypergamous by nature. This is even more apparent at the younger stages. Across all culture and ethnicities women prefer older men, by at least two or three years, and one of the major signals of hypergamy has always been height.

Show me a society where women preferred shorter men. It doesn't exist. The same is true of age, by and large (yes, outliers exist...so what).

So, here are the two options. Which one protects and helps women/girls the most.

Option 1. To keep it simply and within many AoC regulations in the states we will say the following: Girl is 16. She has sex with boy who is 16.

Girl gets pregnant. She decides to keep the child. Now what situation is she in? She is a mother, probably single but let's assume they defy the odds and get married and stick together to raise the child. So, we have a 16 year old father.

What options does he have employment wise? I don't know what it is like where you guys live but where I live there are all sorts of regulations on the number of hours that an under 18-year-old can work. A 16 year old father can't work even part time legally.

He doesn't have a college degree or even a High School degree. If he has a car, his parents are more than likely paying the loan and insurance. He can't afford a child and he sure as shit can't afford child support. If he has a job, it is probably paying minimum wage and he is probably chasing buggies around the parking lot at the local grocery store. If she has a job, it is probably working 10 hours a week running the cash register at the local grocery store. I used to work in a grocery store. I have seen this happen more times than I can count.

Will he finish High School? Well, growing up in the south I knew a number of guys like this and they were usually a year or two older than the baby momma and they dropped out and got legal work with a lot of work under the table. Usually through construction.

Another thing. Often, especially if the father is under the AoC it will be the parents getting charged child support until the boy is 18 (where I am that is the AoC) and even if that doesn't happen it basically happens by default because a CS award against a 16b or 17 year old boy is going to be paid by the parents anyways.

On the other hand, we have dozens upon dozens of programs that exist to do nothing but support teen moms with finishing High School and going to college. Us Taxpayers spend huge amounts of money to help these sluts and their bastards while we give nothing but disdain and words like "deadbeat" towards the teen fathers.

So.

Option 2:

We have the 16 year old girl who, to borrow from feminist words, is not only sexually active but has agency and is sexually empowered. She chooses her sexuality and has control over it. She DECIDES to have sex with a man. This man is 25 (or 35 or...getting into the "creepy old man category"...maybe even 45...'Gasp"..."Faint"...bring me the smelling salts).

She exercises her autonomy and agency by CHOOSING to have sex with an older man. They get pregnant....errr...SHE gets pregnant.

She DECIDES, unilaterally and without her parents authority...especially not her patriarchal fathers authority....to keep the child.

She gives birth to the child. She and the father decide to stick together and they get married and raise the child together...or maybe they don't and she simply seeks child support....

He is 25. He might have retired from military service. Or maybe he has graduated with a bachelors. Maybe he is seeking a masters. Or maybe he was 16 once, like the former guy, and was chasing buggies around the parking lot at the local grocery store and has since moved on to being the store manager. Maybe he quit that job and got an apprentice ship as an electrician. Or certified in some field at the local community college.

Or maybe he is just a worthless creep who sells weed and preys on High School girls.

Either way. We have to ask ourselves the following: In which situation is the GIRL and her CHILD better off? Option 1 or option 2? In which situation does the tax payer have less of a burden?

The fact is that 16, or 14 or even 12, year old girls are gonna want to fuck and when the inevitable happens what is the best situation they can be in? I don't think any of us can look at a 16 year old boy, or 19 for that matter, and see him as a better "Protector and provider" figure than a man who is older. This gap is only going to grow due to the extended adolescence that us Gen Y'ers are going through.

Just me playing devils advocate and my hellish .02$

Post: #57

(06-20-2015 02:11 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Quote:You mean 'unilaterally'. Yes, my position is right by default, because it is the existing thesis.

Everything I read of yours comes out in a Sheldon Cooper voice in my head.

Being mocked for demanding intellectual rigor is fine by me. If Aristotle was alive today he'd get zero internet cred unless he started posting "OP is a phaggot" and thug life vids. I don't want likes I want to be right.

Post: #58

(06-23-2015 03:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 02:11 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Quote:You mean 'unilaterally'. Yes, my position is right by default, because it is the existing thesis.

Everything I read of yours comes out in a Sheldon Cooper voice in my head.

Being mocked for demanding intellectual rigor is fine by me. If Aristotle was alive today he'd get zero internet cred unless he started posting "OP is a phaggot" and thug life vids. I don't want likes I want to be right.

I shut you down hard on pg. 2, you've still yet to respond to it. You're not like Aristotle at all because you aren't committed to the truth.

Post: #59

(06-23-2015 03:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 02:11 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Quote:You mean 'unilaterally'. Yes, my position is right by default, because it is the existing thesis.

Everything I read of yours comes out in a Sheldon Cooper voice in my head.

Being mocked for demanding intellectual rigor is fine by me. If Aristotle was alive today he'd get zero internet cred unless he started posting "OP is a phaggot" and thug life vids. I don't want likes I want to be right.

Anyone who claims to be 100% right on a topic tend to be very wrong. You think your opinion is cold, hard undeniable fact or something similar?

No one person on this thread can be 100% right period just like any time in any form of debate. There is no particular "right" or "wrong" answer such is the nature of opinionated debates, but you destroyed your own credibility by saying your viewpoint must be 100% correct.

It's the very same reason this forum hates SJWs so much is that they are unable to change or even respond to new information while being unable to actually address an argument. Your "argument" right here is a perfectly good example.

Argue for your opinions on age of consent sure go ahead, but to spew toxic bilge and liken yourself to a philosopher is the epitome of stupidity.

Oh and one last thing. Studies and charts without a logical argument to back them is like putting pearls on swine. Your definition of "academic rigor" seems to be lacking.

Your argument can summed up as follows: "Here's a chart without age of consent labelled and this will somehow magically prove my point. Also because of it being the 'current thesis' I don't have to respond to my detractors."

Post: #60

^ I 'want to be right' means the same as 'I am right'? You substitute your own meaning so you can rage against your own concoction, not against what I have said.
Bear with me Samseau, I saw but didn't have time.

Post: #61

(06-23-2015 03:21 AM)Troll King Wrote:  Let me play devils advocate for a minute.

First and foremost, we need to realize that Age of Consent laws are not about equality or helping boys or men. They are simply about protecting women, specifically a woman's dignity and marriageability (which is somewhat laughable considering it was first wave feminists, and tradcons, who pushed for it), or girls at all costs.

Maybe the education system and parents should just educate kids about sex and protection? I know the UK has a high rate of teen mothers and other countries don't have it. Teen moms are not very common in Germany.
So either some people give a shit about it or they just don't know that cum inside a girl can lead to consequences.

You can buy condoms in every supermarket in Germany and we had sexual education back in school. Never hear of one single case of a teen mother.

Post: #62

(06-23-2015 05:38 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ I 'want to be right' means the same as 'I am right'? You substitute your own meaning so you can rage against your own concoction, not against what I have said.
Bear with me Samseau, I saw but didn't have time.

It might as well be. Anyone claiming the moral high ground by saying that they "want to be correct" versus "this is why I'm right" is assuming that their views are fact. From what you posted before in this thread and what's above that's what it's sounding like.

Post: #63

(06-23-2015 03:37 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I shut you down hard on pg. 2, you've still yet to respond to it.

OK so let's get this straight, you posted an annotated map which shows that: the entirety of Asia & Oceania, with the exception of China & Burma, has an age of consent above 14; most of Africa has an age of consent above 14; about half of Europe has an age of consent above 14; and all of North America has an age of consent above 14; and you then claim:

"Actually your research disproves your "thesis" because in virtually every country except America this boy would haven't gotten any punishment, except maybe a slap on the wrist."

Disappointed by this "shut down hard". Actually you've helped confirm my point (since I forgot to annotate my map), most of the world says: "we should have an age of consent".

No one has answered the question: why is the word "teen" legally special? It just means "13 to 19 inclusive". Would the punishment have been OK if the man was 20? If so, by what moral reasoning?

The reason I'm trying to provoke this debate is:
1. As the map shows, there is no consistency, and thus no clear moral code, by which consent laws are being laid out internationally. They are basically random over a large age range.
2. Few are bothering to consider why these laws were written, which should be part of any debate on "should we have them".
3. No one is submitting a better system, just complaining that this particular guy "shouldn't" have been punished, as though "shouldn't" (their conscience) is what we should substitute for laws and judges.

If a 14yo can consent, she can consent. This means to anyone, on any terms, for anything, because the law is saying "she has the capacity for full agency". If she can consent for the reason of lust, she can too consent for the reason of money. Preventing this is precisely the origin of the first statutory age of consent laws in the late 1800s.

Instead, we restrict the consent capacity of children because they are under the a mixed guardianship of their family (by their genetic interest in their healthy early development) and the community (as per 'child abuse' laws for delinquent parents). Since trying to somehow 'measure' their level of mental development, physical maturity, and ability to take responsibility for themselves is impractical, the law draws an unambiguous line.

Age of consent laws are right by default and we should have them. This 19yo guy violated them. Therefore he should be punished.

The questions are:
- What should the age of consent be and why?
- What should the defences be (mistake of fact etc)?
- What should be the factors in deciding punishment?

Post: #64

I'm solidly on Kinjutsu's side here. You literally have the exact same act varying between perfectly legal and years in prison + decades of sex offender status (ie ruined life), based on 10 miles geographically, or a few days specific age difference.

Phoenix, I see you point, but why then does the US especially enjoy treating kids as adults for many crimes? Why can an 18 yo be deemed an adult for terms of killing in the military, but not for drinking? Why can you drive at 16 but not bang till 18 in some states? It seems they want their cake and to eat it to. Treating them as kids or adults depending on when it's convenient.

The issue is, how do you defend against this? Asking ID? That's akin to signing a sex contract. What if it's fake? Because then it's still on you! Nearly every other crime requires "the guilty mind", this guy did not intend to do anything wrong and took what most people would consider reasonable steps to avoid breaking the law. Would your position change if she was 17 and 11.5 months? (in an 18 yo AoC place) which would effectively remove the argument of a 14 yo being obvious. Why does the victim or her family have no say in how they proceed?

You seem to be looking at this in a very black and white way "He violated the law and should be punished". I just have a hard time reconciling the fact that you make zero allowances for the facts that he was lied to, acted in good faith, and that the victim/her family didn't think he should be punished. Factors which weigh heavily in basically every other legal issue. Why is AoC special in that regard?

Post: #65

That's more like it.

If someone is capable of consent, they should have full freedom of action. That includes driving, drinking, working, whatever. This should also factor into the calculation of the age. At what point do we say an individual becomes fully responsible for themselves?

Before someone is capable of consent, that consent is mostly reserved by their guardian (parents etc). The state also reserves residual power over consent in cases where the guardian is considered to be delinquent or malicious.

For this reason, some countries factor in the wishes of the parent. For instance in Thailand, they make the age of consent 18, but legally allow sex at 15 with the permission of their parents. Some countries also have Antragsdelikt offenses, or "crimes prosecutable only with consent of the victim", which effectively means "after the fact confirmation you didn't permit" from their guardian. And in other countries, they have "marriage with permission of parents" at below age of consent ages. I think these measures might be a good idea, but with limits.

I think strict liability, with it's due diligence defence, is fine. What that should entail is up to more legally versed people. In this case, I think both the perpetrator and the law were at fault. He didn't ask; it's possible she accidentally put in the wrong year into the app, or she signed up a while ago and forgot etc. However Michigan law also doesn't consider it a full defence even if he confirmed her ID but it turned out to be fake. In that case it would have been an "absolute liability imprisonable offence" and immoral.

For close ages you can get the anomaly where "today neither of us can consent, tomorrow I can't consent, and the day after that we can both consent". Clearly this sudden step change is harsh, and for this reason some states have "close age defences". In this case, at a 5 year age gap, this isn't in that ball park. "Close age defences" are normally up to 2 years.

We have crimes like this, because whilst this end of it's enforcement may feel harsh, the other end probably doesn't feel harsh enough. As I originally said, the 'registry for 25 years' is excessive, but the jail not as much so. It was probably the lowest the judge was willing to go, and he most likely slaps more grievous cases with heavier jail times. Either way, we'll see what happens if there's an appeal.

Post: #66

(06-24-2015 08:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I think strict liability, with it's due diligence defence, is fine. What that should entail is up to more legally versed people.

By definition, strict liability crimes can't have a due diligence defense. What you're proposing is a standard of criminal negligence for failing to adequately check the age of the minor.

Post: #67

(06-24-2015 08:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  That's more like it.

If someone is capable of consent, they should have full freedom of action. That includes driving, drinking, working, whatever. This should also factor into the calculation of the age. At what point do we say an individual becomes fully responsible for themselves?

Before someone is capable of consent, that consent is mostly reserved by their guardian (parents etc). The state also reserves residual power over consent in cases where the guardian is considered to be delinquent or malicious.

For this reason, some countries factor in the wishes of the parent. For instance in Thailand, they make the age of consent 18, but legally allow sex at 15 with the permission of their parents. Some countries also have Antragsdelikt offenses, or "crimes prosecutable only with consent of the victim", which effectively means "after the fact confirmation you didn't permit" from their guardian. And in other countries, they have "marriage with permission of parents" at below age of consent ages. I think these measures might be a good idea, but with limits.

I think strict liability, with it's due diligence defence, is fine. What that should entail is up to more legally versed people. In this case, I think both the perpetrator and the law were at fault. He didn't ask; it's possible she accidentally put in the wrong year into the app, or she signed up a while ago and forgot etc. However Michigan law also doesn't consider it a full defence even if he confirmed her ID but it turned out to be fake. In that case it would have been an "absolute liability imprisonable offence" and immoral.

For close ages you can get the anomaly where "today neither of us can consent, tomorrow I can't consent, and the day after that we can both consent". Clearly this sudden step change is harsh, and for this reason some states have "close age defences". In this case, at a 5 year age gap, this isn't in that ball park. "Close age defences" are normally up to 2 years.

We have crimes like this, because whilst this end of it's enforcement may feel harsh, the other end probably doesn't feel harsh enough. As I originally said, the 'registry for 25 years' is excessive, but the jail not as much so. It was probably the lowest the judge was willing to go, and he most likely slaps more grievous cases with heavier jail times. Either way, we'll see what happens if there's an appeal.

Much better and I'll post a response as soon as I can.

Post: #68

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, in the US at least, we will often say that a teen who is under the age of consent is psychologically mature enough to be treated as an adult in legal proceedings. It doesn't happen that often but there are plenty of cases of kids being tried as an adult in criminal proceedings. So, that provides another twist to these laws.

You can be 14 and tried as an adult in a murder case because you are seen as mentally mature and having agency but you can't choose who you can consent to have sex with?

Post: #69

Age of consent laws are one of the most inconsistent and non-universal legislations ever billed.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

tl;dr

Stephen Robertson, "Age of Consent Laws," in Children and Youth in History, Item #230, http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230 (accessed June 24, 2015). Wrote:More than 800 years after the first recorded age of consent laws, the one constant is the lack of consistency. Laws around the world define the socially appropriate age of consent anywhere from 13 to 18. Some differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual acts while others do not. Some apply to young men as well as young women and others remained focused on the lives and actions of girls. And beyond the legislation lies the world of practice, an even more complex story.

The origin of Age of Consent was to protect young girls being taken advantage of by devious older men. The late 19th/early 20th century is where we saw a drastic change in laws to legal agency being granted several years after sexual maturity. Again, this sort of thing was based around protecting women from being exploited by older men specifically - though with the rise of progressive political ideals and feminism the wording of the law has been broadened to be more gender neutral.

If the main debate is about at what specific age should a person be held legally accountable for their sexual activity - I'm not so sure that can be handled as black and white as is asked. Mexico's Age of Consent laws a more gray and rightly so - it should be a case-by-case basis.

What it really comes down to is this: is it wrong for a sexually mature girl or boy to engage in sexual activity? If so, what is the reasoning? There are a lot of ethical factors at play here that will influence one's answer, and these are also heavily culturally influenced as well.

I know in the Western world for the most part, the image people get of statutory rape is some seedy middle-age man preying on young innocent children and conning them into sexual acts using trickery or coercion for his own sick degenerate pleasure without regard for their well being or developmental stability. There is a perception of innocence we ascribe to non-adults where they can do-no-wrong until a specific mandated age - girls or boys who are 11 12 13 should not be having sex even though they menstruate, get erections, and can become sexually aroused. Any person legally deemed an adult engaging in sex with people below a specific age is automatically taking advantage of their adolescent naivety. Is this the right way to look at it?

Post: #70

(06-24-2015 02:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Age of consent laws are right by default and we should have them. This 19yo guy violated them. Therefore he should be punished.

You aren't following me.

You originally said:

Quote:As far as age of consent goes, that's a joke too.", "he'll just have to wait until his legal BS ends", "imposing an arbitrary age at which on midnight of their birthday they are magically deemed capable of giving informed consent". If the sentiment of this thread isn't clearly anti age of consent, then hell, the sentiment of this forum isn't anti-feminism either. People aren't just saying "the punishment is too harsh", they're attacking the age of consent system that it came from.

So you're not against an age of consent (which necessitates it being enforced), but a 19yo old getting in trouble for banging a 14yo is 'ridiculous' and it shouldn't have happened... You can't have it both ways.

And I'm saying: YES YOU CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. And the proof is that in plenty of the world's countries a 19-year old would suffer zero to limited punishment for having sex with a 14-year old.

So no, the 19-year old was not rightfully punished and, although I'm not going to do the work and figure out the legal code in each of these countries, I sincerely doubt he would have suffered any punishment. This is why I said in virtually any country he would have gotten a slap on the wrist. I doubt most countries have statutory rape laws. I believe most countries age of consent is a criminal offense not a statutory offense, which means courts need to prove an intent to commit a crime unlike statutory crimes.

Post: #71

^^^Phoenix

I think you may be missing the point that there are not one, but two issues here:

1) Was the 19 year old guilty in terms of the law?
2) What is an appropriate punishment if the answer to (1) is yes?

The answer to (1) is yes, but.....

the point I think many of us are making in this thread is that the consequences he suffered are excessive (British understatement...).

As I said somewhere above a sane judge in this sort of case would enter a guilty verdict but be sure that there was no effective punishment. And yes, no effective punishment would be appropriate because the 14 year old girl pretended to be older, acted older and so on. Whatever her age she had/has sexual self-determination.

People are always complaining about "activist" judges and so on, but being a judge really is much more difficult than it seems (Have family member who is a judge). People who think like the proverbial "Aspie's" would make absolutely terrible judges. Because being a judge requires the application of ...judgement, not just a completely blind adherence to the law. Not so much in determining guilt/innocence, but definitely when considering punishment. Politicians will always try to to pass laws to bind the hands of judges, but this has very bad results. You can't just have a sort of digital system, where you almost fill out a questionnaire and a computer spits out a innocent/guilty verdict and sentence. There would be no actual justice in such a system.

Post: #72

You guys have missed an important aspect - neither the girl nor her parents wanted the boy convicted. The judge unilaterally wanted to make a statement against the "Hook-Up Culture", as he was likely a bitter Blue Pill Beta White Knight for whom all women are angels. The boy may be tall and good-looking or God forbid - a "douchebag".

It is a sentence of dogma. While the US had puritan laws in the past I can tell you how it would have gone down in the 1930s:

Father brings out the shotgun, couple marries and lives happily until death or WWII will part them. Obviously the parents did not think badly of the boy.

As others have pointed out he would have gotten a slap on the wrist in most countries and even in old time US.



But it's different now and you can join the 1984 Anti Sex League now. Oh - keep in mind that the laws only want to punish men and leave women mostly in peace.

Post: #73

This is the jealous, sex starved, beta faggot judge Dennis Wiley:



A google search reveals this as the top hit under his name. It seems he has a history of stuff like this.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/24/the-cr...actices-of

The cruel petty sentencing practices of Judge Dennis Wiley.

The Anderson case was not Wiley’s first foray into scolding online daters. Wiley recently put another Indiana 19-year-old, Darian Yoder, on the sex offender registry for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old who also claimed to be of age. They met via the same “Hot or Not” app that Anderson used.

Yes, these teenagers went online to meet women. People do that in 2015. Wiley chose to make an example out of Anderson and Yoder because of his own moral qualms with modernity

I would support SJW style doxxing tactics against this person. Fuck him.

Post: #74

----------------------------------------

Post: #75

Opinion dismiss. This judge is crooked. Anderson won't be the first or the last to be convicted severely.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/24/the-cr...actices-of

Judge Dennis Wiley is a district judge in Berrien County, Michigan. As you may have seen here, here, and even here, Wiley recently sentenced 19-year-old Zach Anderson to 90 days in jail and 25 years on the Sex Offender Registry. Anderson, a computer science student, was also banned from internet and smartphone. Wiley imposed this punishment even after Anderson’s victim—a 14-year-old who claimed to be 17 during a sexual encounter—and her mother asked the prosecutor’s office to drop the charges entirely.

During Anderson’s sentencing hearing, Wiley told him: “You went online…trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this, whatsoever.”

The Anderson case was not Wiley’s first foray into scolding online daters. Wiley recently put another Indiana 19-year-old, Darian Yoder, on the sex offender registry for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old who also claimed to be of age. They met via the same “Hot or Not” app that Anderson used.

Yes, these teenagers went online to meet women. People do that in 2015. Wiley chose to make an example out of Anderson and Yoder because of his own moral qualms with modernity.

Unfortunately, these are just the most recent examples in a long line of cases where Wiley exercised his discretion in a manner that was especially harsh toward low-level offenders.

In April 2014, Wiley was censured for misconduct after he had LaRue Ford charged with contempt. Ford spent 10 nights in jail—including Christmas—after not paying $5,000 in bond. Her crime? Muttering “fuck this shit” while in the courthouse dealing with a traffic ticket. The courthouse staff that overheard Ford mentioned it to Wiley, who then took matters into his own hands.


Curtis Pedzinski, a 21-year-old native of St. Joseph, Michiga, was sentenced by Wiley to between 14 months and 2 years in prison for “unlawful use of a motor vehicle,” or joyriding. Years earlier, Pedzinski had been convicted of breaking and entering. Wiley’s sentence was significantly more severe than what state guidelines called; Wiley justified it by claiming that proper weight had not been given to Pedzinski’s past.

There was also the case of Reverend Edward Pinkney, a high-profile black leader from Benton Harbor. Benton Harbor, along with St. Joseph, are Berrien County's twin cities. Benton Harbor is about 90 percent black, while St. Joseph, the county seat, is about 85 percent white. The area has experienced a lot of racial tension over a long period of time, and Pinkney has been deeply involved for years, rubbing a lot of powerful people the wrong way. Alfred Butzbaugh, a Berrien County judge who had presided over an election fraud case involving Pinkney was the target of Pinkney’s fondness for bombastic language in an article written for a Chicago paper. In addition to calling Butzbaugh “corrupt,” “dumb,” and a racist, Pinkney wrote:

“Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass…..that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall come upon you and your family and overtake thee…..The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning. They the demons shall Pursue thee until thou persist.”

This threat, according to Wiley, was a violation of Pinkney’s probation, saying that Pinkney’s title of Reverend gave him a “direct line to the Lord” and that a reasonable person would find this to be a serious threat. Wiley sentenced him to 3-10 years in prison because of the threat’s supposed severity. Pinkney went to prison in June 2008 and remained there until his sentence was thrown out on appeal.

Another defendant, Arthur Grice, was also a victim of Wiley’s overboard sentencing practices. In 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the sentencing guideline variables were wrongly scored by Wiley in Grice’s trial for resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals found that every variable in the case against Grice was scored significantly higher than it should have been, leading to a more harsh sentence of between 46 months and 15 years in prison.

While sentencing guidelines aren’t set in stone, Michigan law says that departures are allowed “if the court has a substantial and compelling reason for that departure and states on the record the reasons for departure.” Judges can’t go outside the guidelines based on race, gender, nationality, appearance, etc.

But it seems like Wiley thinks he knows better than the sentencing guidelines—which he believes are almost always too lenient, no matter the severity of the crime.