IANAL. I do have a family full of them. I do not ask them about this case. They are far too busy for me to call and "chat" about a case they are not involved in. I did have the opportunity to ask one of them what they thought, they were obviously aware of the case, and they felt strongly that LE had the right folks. That's the gist of our conversation. However, I have seen this in action, more than once. Also, this is an interesting read, if anyone has the time, and is bored enough.
This is not for nor against the W4.
Just how things work. Remember, all charges were identical, except for JW's, and they tossed in the statutory rape charge.
JW and HMR had been together, slept together under both parents' roofs, and had a child together, yet there had been zero reporting from any mandatory reporter, that we are aware of, and
if this is the case, I find it abhorrent. The relationship was not hidden. I have felt all along that the school, physicians, and parents of both (for knowledge, and permission), should have been held accountable, and maybe these deaths wouldn't have occurred. Even after the fact, I feel those in mandatory reporting positions, should be held, in part, responsible, that the affair was going on, and he'd impregnated an underage girl. After the fact armchair quarterbacking today.
Who here would allow their 13-year-old to sleep with a 17-year-old, under their roof, knowingly, and be okay with it? Personally, I would not.
No judgement though, if you do. I know folks who have done so, and was overjoyed with the resulting grandbaby. I live in this region. We usually leave each family to run their own home. If someone calls CPS on another person, it's usually considered vindictive, unless it is a mandatory reporter, or discovered during an arrest.
Delete if found offensive.
Edit: Look now at AW's charges. How they've changed. She was originally charged with the exact same charges.
(Forgot part of the point)
THE HIDDEN LAW OF PLEA BARGAINING
The ability to control a defendant’s sentencing exposure by manipulating the charges against him—that is to say, the ability to charge bargain—is widely recognized by scholars as “the core of prosecutorial power in the United States.” 22 . Charge bargaining is not, however, the only mechanism of prosecutorial power, nor the only mechanism structured by subconstitutional procedural law. Prosecutors, for example, can also exercise leverage in plea negotiations by offering to recommend specific sentences in exchange for pleas of guilt, a process known as sentence bargaining. Sentence bargaining is generally seen as less problematic than charge bargaining insofar as it retains a meaningful role for judges. See, e.g., Bibas, Outside the Shadow, supra note 17, at 2534 The practice itself is simple enough to describe: A criminal defendant’s sentencing exposure is a function of his likelihood of conviction and his likely sentence if convicted. Those two factors, in turn, are heavily influenced by the charges he faces, which define the possible grounds for conviction, the maximum potential sentence, and frequently the minimum sentence as well. 23 . Because this Article takes charge bargaining and the attendant manipulation of trial penalties as its point of departure, it focuses on cases in which large sentencing differentials are at issue—namely, felony cases. In some instances, misdemeanor prosecutions raise similar dynamics, particularly when serious collateral consequences such as deportation, loss of government housing, or sex offender registration are at stake. See generally Paul T. Crane, Charging on the Margin, 57 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 775 (2016) . A charge bargain is thus simply an agreement to replace a higher charge with a lower one in exchange for the defendant’s promise to plead guilty, which guarantees the prosecutor a conviction without the expense of trial.
