Dennis Wiley - When Judges Get Petty And Cruel

Hello ATS!!!

It's been a few weeks, I've been enjoying my quasi vacation in NYC and I'm currently gearing up to start shooting season three of NLBS. Yay!

However, today while cruising the news headlines, I stumbled upon this BS.

How a dating app hookup landed a teen on the sex offender registry

The girl told Zach she was 17, but she lied. She was only 14, and by having sex with her, Zach was committing a crime. He was arrested and convicted.

He was given a 90-day jail sentence, five years probation and placed on both Indiana and Michigan's sex offender registry for the next 25 years.

The mother of the 14 year old girl didn't want to file charges nor did the young girl. In fact, the young girl wanted to be the one who was charged. The Judge, felt differently.

"That seems to be part of our culture now," he said, according to a transcript. "Meet, have sex, hook up, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever,"

Resulting in 25 years on the sex offender list. This 19 year old has to leave his parents house because his 15 year old brother lives in the household. He can't go to parks or public spaces where there are children for the next 25 years...

An article written at Reason.com titled The Cruel, Petty Sentencing Practices of Judge Dennis Wiley tracks Dennis Wiley's track record. Here's some of the highlights.

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 “# this #” 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.

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.

What do you think of this Judges sentencing practices?

Tough.

2nd.

Btw...

"The girl told Zach she was 17"...

What's the legal age, even if she was truthful???
Yeah I thought so.

Edit: That shut me up.


Still...

Tough!!!

a reply to: theNLBS

Well if the young girl admitted to lying, and 17 was a proper age of consent for the state... I don't see why the young man should be punished as severely as he was. Sex offender?! That is something that he will feel the repercussions of for the rest of his life, even though it only lasts 25 years. He can't hang out at the parks with his friends... He can't take his future children to the parks to enjoy their childhood with them... I'm actually sick. There are so many who DESERVE to be on that list, that aren't.


EDIT: A google search reveals that the age of consent in both Indiana and Michigan is 16 as long as the person over 18 is not in a position of authority over the younger party.


-Alee

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
16 yrs of age in Indiana and Michigan

They need to reform the laws on sentencing, both in state and federal.

Instead of having sentencing guidelines saying "X months to X years", it should be "X amount of time" for whatever change a person is found guilty of.

This way, no judge can decided to be hard on someone, as the law states, if guilty, they must serve "X" amount of time. If they judge bypasses that, it's very easy to show, and the judge should be removed from the bench immediately for it.

There's a flip side though: it would keep a judge from going easy on someone (IE first time offender, young offender, etc).

In the case of the boy and girl: Both should have been charged. She lied, he didn't confirm her age. Both were in the wrong in my opinion. Was the judge too harsh on the boy? Considering he has no priors and no history, yes. He made a mistake and bought into the lie the girl told. Should he pay for that for the rest of his life (because with this sentence he will)? No. Not in his case. The judge treated him just like any pedo or sexual predator. That needs to be proved before handing down something like that.

a reply to: DEANORULES24

Yeah I just saw Alee's edit.

Serves me right, Google is one button away.

a reply to: theNLBS

I don't think the Judge is crazily out of order in the first two cited cases. The guy, in terms of the law, clearly broke the law. If his excuse is applied to other criminal acts then everybody would use it as an excuse. The solution is that if your are going to sleep with border age partners check their ID. It is a bit of a passion killer I know, but is it not a way to be better sure rather than end up like this guy?

The second example, well would you go into a court room with that attitude, knowing that the Judge holds sway over literal judgement on your conduct? I would not go cussing anywhere near the court room to be honest. The wisest behaviour when you are before the Judge is manners and politeness. It may not help a great deal, but it will NEVER hinder.

The third example is possibly a more technical issue. Are there any further details? Did the Court of Appeal overturn the Judge's sentencing or period of imprisonment handed out to the offender or did they just conclude that he had been austere? It does not sound like he abused his position by fabricating anything, just his austerity.

OK, you have three examples. From your post we can determine three cases of possible harshness in at least five years of service. The Judge must have sat through many many cases even in that five year period. It is not really a staggering abuse of power is it when you can only come up with three examples that do not actually represent abuse of position in any way.

a reply to: theNLBS

That is beyond messed up. One lie and the guy's life is basically ruined. True, he fell for it but what was he supposed to do, demand to see her ID? I really think the judge screwed the pooch on this one.

There are sex offender maps. What ends up happening is due to the amount of space needed away from school is that there become pockets where there are a whole lot of sex offenders.

Being on this list chenges this boys life in many ways.

Its interesting that the judge cites the "inappropriateness" of sexual openness in his decision. Is it then his legal opinion that lies have no bearing on any sexual matter because one has a legal obligation to develop a level of relationship that precludes lies before copulating?

If this were an appropriate ruling it would have some shocking implications that go beyond the unsympathetic subject of age of consent. Would it not follow that one has no recourse if you purposefully infect them with an STD, because you had a legal obligation not to have sex with someone who could conceivably get away with lying to you?

Is there no chance to appeal the decision? That's the first thing I would be looking into.

I am disgusted by this injustice committed by Judge Wiley. I (for once) actually have a day free from obligations, but I became so pissed-off at what I read here that I felt compelled to write something just to take off some steam and elaborate just exactly why I am so pissed off, and highlight the moral and ethical considerations that came to mind when thinking it all over. (and I wanted to find out where you've been, Joe – where is NLBS?).

Wiley is unfit for the position he holds. He is a petty, angry, and sadistic little man. Judge Wiley's track-record alone serves to demonstrate his tendency to indulge in sadism, cruelty, severity and injustice. Regarding the concept of Judicial power, a Judge holds a considerable measure of power over the fate of an individual found guilty of transgressing some (dare I say 'imaginary') boundaries of Law (which are erected to uphold standards of justice, order, decency, etc). When coupled with the really, really harsh sentencing issued by Wiley, the article given in the OP so sickeningly demonstrates that Judge Wiley's intent was entirely antithetical to his role within the legal system to serve as a conduit and instrument of Justice and Mercy. In reality, it is very easy to see this sentencing was an unfair, and intentionally destructive maneuver of injustice built by his corrupt and sadistic mind - the aim thereof to permanently disfigure, deform and even destroy this young man's life and future.

I remember back in the 90's there was a serious outrage with regard to the fate of a young gay couple - if I recall correctly, the love-birds were ages about 17 and 18 - yet the age of consent in the State was strictly 18. The angry parents of the younger man were pissed because their son had come out as not only gay, but also had a boyfriend with whom he was sexually involved. So the hate-filled parents of the young man pressed charges of statutory-rape against their son's older boyfriend, leading to the same injustice concluding in the story you posted, Joe.

Right off the bat, Here are a few reasons why I think this is an injustice:

W. Both were teenagers - we all know that teenagers are going to get it on, irrespective of the best and worst efforts at intervention from the prude authority.

X. Although one party was a 'legal' adult, and the other, a minor, the age-difference between the two parties alone cannot serve as a measure of the ethical, or moral quality of the affair.

Y. The affair was consensual (maybe I'm different, but yep . . . I knew fully well what (or who) I was doing at that age . . . I'm probably more or less right on target when guessing that as a teenager, Judge Wiley never managed to get out and chase some tail because he couldn't decide if he should ask his parents permission to go to the Friday Night roller-skating social on account of not being able to decide for himself if he possessed the liberty to even consider making the decision to decide to ask his parents' permission).

Z. 19 year old Homeboy had no forethought that his actions may be illegal, given that he believed, due to being falsely informed, that the booty was legal; thus there was no premeditation to act with 'criminal' intent. This is significant because the degree of severity in sentencing is that the Judge deems appropriate largely (like, 'very, very much') dependent upon the premeditation to commit an action that one fully knows is criminal.

No doubt, the severity of Judge Wiley's sentencing in this case was due, for the most part, to his own private sexual frustration and his seriously out-dated & unsound moral and ethical beliefs about sexual behavior. His sadistic and unwholesome character is obviously reflective of some nasty skeletons in the closet, coupled with inability to even get, much less maintain an erection, (oh yeah, and the fact that he is a cold, heartless bastard that has no soul).

I'm sure the very thoughts evoked by the nature of this case probably sent this old bastard into a sexually-charged and neurotic fury; the severity of his sentencing certainly reflect a deep, inner rage composed of a perverse and evil amalgamation of the arousal that he privately entertained while pondering the intimate and sensual details that would characterize this teenage affair - and then mixed with the nasty and jealous anger which surfaced thereafter by his knowing (and knowing very well) that he has never once enjoyed - nor will ever - enjoy and relish in those simple and innocent, instinctual and sensual delights which color, characterize, and even steer the course of the formative years of a human being. In other words, not having gone to the Prom because he couldn't get a date is just the tip of Wiley's evil-iceberg.

With sole concern toward the case addressed in the OP, it appears very clear to me that the extreme and severe nature of the punishment issued to the young man concerned is so heavily disproportionate to the nature of the 'offense' - with consideration to the fact that the young man was misled to believe his partner in the consensual sexual affair was 17 when she was actually 14 (and does it really surprise anyone that teenagers of different age-groups are getting down, just as they always have, regardless of whatever prude authority dictates?) - that even a quick and cursory examination of the facts of this case serves to illustrate that Judge Wiley has obviously has never considered the philosophical concept of 'Justice,' yet is paid by the State to work as a representative of this ideal. This guy needs a different day job . . . I'm thinking a job in the laundry department alongside the Queens at Shawshank.

a reply to: theNLBS

You know, when we are looking at kids, and let's face it, these were both kids, the sex offender registry should be a more clear cut circumstance. Honestly, this is ridiculous. If he was 25 or older I could see the issue here, because then he would have had the judgment to check her I.D. This ruling seems more like the judge is making an example with this man because he disagrees with promiscuity in general, which is wrong. Rulings should not be agendatized because a judge's personal opinion of social morality disagrees with the current social status quo. Adolescents often have sex and adolescents have poor judgment. Ruining one kids life over a trifling mistake is not going to change that.

The kid was wrong. He made a mistake, but a sex offender...? C'mon now.

its a shame his parents aren't wealthy. if so, he could have been accused of manslaughter and still be set free.

What is it