Post by: Paddy on October 26, 2007, 02:28:59 PM
Young man in consensual sex case leaves prison
Ga. court ordered Wilson released, ruled 10-year sentence was cruel
MSNBC video
Genarlow Wilson: 'It feels great'
Oct. 26: Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with another teenager, holds a news conference after he was freed by the Georgia Supreme Court.
FORSYTH, Ga. - A young man who had been imprisoned for having consensual oral sex with another teenager was released from prison Friday after Georgia's Supreme Court intervened in the case.
The court ruled 4-3 that Genarlow Wilsons 10-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson served more than two years of the sentence.
Wilson's case led to widespread protests of heavy-handed justice. His supporters said race was one reason he received such a severe sentence, noting that he and the girl both black were only two years apart.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
"I'm happy to see that we've got justice now," Wilson said after being released from the Al Burruss Correctional Training Center in Forsyth, Ga. "I'm ready to piece back my life."
Wilson's supporters were jubilant.
"I never gave up hope in our judicial system, and I never gave up hope in all the prayers people sent out for us," said his mother, Juannessa Bennett.
Wilson said he was surprised to hear Friday morning on the radio that he would be freed. "It just felt unreal until I signed the paper," he said.
Wilson offered a word of caution to young people. A few minutes of fun can be a lifetime, he said. Theres not going to be anymore parties for me for a while.
Details of case
Wilson, now 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation following a 2003 New Years Eve party at a Douglas County hotel room where he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was 17 at the time.
Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party.
The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower courts ruling which said that the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively.
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law represent a seismic shift in the legislatures view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants.
Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and that Wilsons crime did not rise to the level of adults who prey on children.
Supporters: 'A long time coming'
State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he accepts Fridays ruling.
Baker said he hopes the ruling will put an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case.
Wilsons supporters were jubilant.
Its been a long time coming, said U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat. Each day that this young man spent in prison was a day too long.
Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who is visiting Georgia this week, called for an end to mandatory minimum prison sentences.
State lawmakers announced they had raised $4,000 toward a scholarship fund for Wilson, and Jackson promised another $5,000 from the Rainbow/PUSH organization.
Grave miscarriage of justice
The state Supreme Court had turned down Wilsons appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the states appeal of a Monroe County judges decision to reduce Wilsons sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a grave miscarriage of justice.
Dissenting justices wrote that the state Legislature expressly stated that the 2006 change in the law was not intended to affect any crime prior to that date.
They said Wilsons sentence could not be cruel and unusual because the state Legislature decided that Wilson could not benefit from subsequent laws reducing the severity of the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.
They called the decision an unprecedented disregard for the General Assemblys constitutional authority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21488038/
Post by: Boomhauer on October 26, 2007, 04:16:46 PM
This case has been hashed over on this forum already...
Quote
It's the 21st century. I can't believe Georgia is still this backward. A teenager gets 10 years in prison for hanky panky with a teenage girl 2 years younger than him? WTF is wrong with these people? Damn good thing she was black too, otherwise the state of GA probably would have lynched him. What a bunch of slopeheaded, slackjawed mouthbreathers must inhabit that hellhole.
And you also need to leave Georgians alone. I know a whole lot of good people from that state. They are most certainly not backward hicks. Of course, because they (and I) live in the South, we must automatically live in trailers and wave Confederate flags and hate blacks...
It ain't so.
Post by: Scout26 on October 26, 2007, 04:20:26 PM
Ooops, Wrong Georgia.....(j/k)
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 26, 2007, 06:16:09 PM
Post by: vaskidmark on October 26, 2007, 07:40:09 PM
It's the 21st century. I can't believe Georgia is still this backward.
And California is the bastion of advanced thinking with these laws on the books?
http://www.idiotlaws.com/dumb_laws/california/
Seriously, the GA legislature had its collective head up its fundament when it passed the zero-tolerance statute trying to control teenage sex. And the intermediate appellate courts had their hands tied because the GA legislature was wise enough to state that when they changed the law because it was a bad law, that the change could not be applied retroactivly.
It took the "ignorant" GA Supreme Court to see that the law was bad - so bad as to be unconstitutionally bad.
I'm sorry the kid had to spend 2 years waiting for relief. Maybe he will sue the state and get some cash so he will feel better.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: Bogie on October 26, 2007, 08:21:09 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 03:14:46 PM
District Attorney David McDade (who prosecuted this case) is sure not black, either.
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 03:17:36 PM
Thats the night that they hung an innocent man
Dont trust your soul to no back woods southern lawyer
Cause the judge in the towns got bloodstains on his hands
The Georgia patrol was making their rounds
So he fired a shot just to flag em down
And a big bellied sheriff grabbed his gun and said
Whyd you do it?
The judge said guilty in a make believe trial
Slapped the sheriff on the back with a smile and said
Suppers waiting at home and I got to get to it
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2007, 03:31:25 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 04:02:23 PM
I'm glad there is still some redress available for parents who don't want their daughters defiled by brats like Wilson (of any race). Even so, ten years is pretty steep for something like that.
The girl defiled herself, hoss.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2007, 04:45:42 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 05:07:34 PM
And your point is?
No harm, no foul. And damn sure not worth imprisoning a 17 year old.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2007, 06:12:38 PM
So your point is that you think it was consensual. Well, if it's my fifteen-year-old, it ain't consensual. Because I did not consent.
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 06:23:41 PM
No harm?
So your point is that you think it was consensual. Well, if it's my fifteen-year-old, it ain't consensual. Because I did not consent.
So your point is that you think it was consensual. Well, if it's my fifteen-year-old, it ain't consensual. Because I did not consent.
Then why was your fifteen-year-old there in the first place? And why didn't you prepare her for this inevitability? And why does it make a difference whether she has the penis of a white or a black in her mouth?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2007, 06:57:58 PM
It is truly entertaining to watch your knee-jerking. Here I made a point of disregarding the racial component, but you still bring this racial angle into my comments. So charming.
Quote
Then why was your fifteen-year-old there in the first place? And why didn't you prepare her for this inevitability?
Guess what? If I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in the front seat, you still do not get to take it for a drive without my permission.
Yeah, my fifteen-year-old shouldn't be in places where she might be involved in oral sex. I might well be a bad parent, in that case. But regardless, at that age, the girl belongs to her mother and I. No one gets to use her for sex, regardless what she says, or how bad our parenting may be, unless she has our permission. If they do, there should be legal recourse if we so desire. Think of it like a trespassing law.
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 07:10:05 PM
Quote
It is truly entertaining to watch your knee-jerking. Here I made a point of disregarding the racial component, but you still bring this racial angle into my comments. So charming.
It was about race from the git go. If the girl would've had a white boys penis in her mouth it wouldn't have made any difference. The girl had a 'nigra's' penis in her mouth and her daddy was connected. He was embarrassed. And what's more, she probably did it to embarrass daddy, because she's got no respect for him in the first place.
Quote
But regardless, at that age, the girl belongs to her mother and I. No one gets to use her for sex, regardless what she says, or how bad our parenting may be, unless she has our permission. If they do, there should be legal recourse if we so desire. Think of it like a trespassing law.
Your children are not your property, fistful. Their lives are their own.
Post by: Balog on October 27, 2007, 07:56:55 PM
Post by: oldcop1971 on October 27, 2007, 08:31:31 PM
Society has to establish law. This law is designed to protect underage children from predaors. At some point, an arbitrary cut-off point has to be set. You may argue that 17/15 is so close that it should not be a felony. How about 15/13, or 15/11?
Whatever state you are living in, has, i'm sure, statuatory rape laws. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby to have them repealed.
Dont go playing the race card or the hill-billy card or whatever other lame name calling card you have in your hand. Address the facts, don't stoop to sling slurs.
oc71
Post by: Stand_watie on October 27, 2007, 08:32:48 PM
I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to besmirch every living soul in Georgia. There are no doubt a lot of good people there. The judicial system, however, seems as backwards as it gets. Wikepedia says the 15 yo girl was white. Apparently, she was caught fellating Wilson. That, I think must have been the reason to haul out this antiquated law and imprison the lad for 10 years. Maybe the DA's office is still racist (hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible). Or maybe the girls father was influential and politically connected. Either way, this is an egregious miscarriage of so-called 'justice'.
District Attorney David McDade (who prosecuted this case) is sure not black, either.
District Attorney David McDade (who prosecuted this case) is sure not black, either.
Wiki says the fifteen year old girl was black. {deleted because it was unneccessarily inflamitory}
"Wilson v. State was a Georgia court case brought about to appeal the aggravated child molestation conviction of Genarlow Wilson.
Wilson had been convicted of aggravated child molestation because, at the age of seventeen, he had engaged in oral sex with a consenting fifteen-year-old at a New Year's Eve party. Wilson was African American as was the fifteen-year-old as[/u] reported by Georgia news outlets, The Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press[1][2][3][4] although ABC News reported that she was white.[5]"
Post by: Stand_watie on October 27, 2007, 08:38:52 PM
Would it be ok for him to have sex with your eight year old daughter?
Society has to establish law. This law is designed to protect underage children from predaors. At some point, an arbitrary cut-off point has to be set. You may argue that 17/15 is so close that it should not be a felony. How about 15/13, or 15/11?
Whatever state you are living in, has, i'm sure, statuatory rape laws. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby to have them repealed.
Dont go playing the race card or the hill-billy card or whatever other lame name calling card you have in your hand. Address the facts, don't stoop to sling slurs.
oc71
Society has to establish law. This law is designed to protect underage children from predaors. At some point, an arbitrary cut-off point has to be set. You may argue that 17/15 is so close that it should not be a felony. How about 15/13, or 15/11?
Whatever state you are living in, has, i'm sure, statuatory rape laws. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby to have them repealed.
Dont go playing the race card or the hill-billy card or whatever other lame name calling card you have in your hand. Address the facts, don't stoop to sling slurs.
oc71
That was very nicely said oldcop. I'm not sure of the law in Texas. Michigan has a "four year" rule. An underage girl having sex with a boy or man less than four years older than her produces a lesser criminal act than a boy or man more than four years older than her.
Post by: Balog on October 27, 2007, 08:52:22 PM
It's a horrible tragedy that a 10 year old would have sex, but if the other person involved is 12 do you really want to send the 12 yo to jail?
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 09:12:35 PM
Would it be ok for him to have sex with your eight year old daughter?
Society has to establish law. This law is designed to protect underage children from predaors. At some point, an arbitrary cut-off point has to be set. You may argue that 17/15 is so close that it should not be a felony. How about 15/13, or 15/11?
Whatever state you are living in, has, i'm sure, statuatory rape laws. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby to have them repealed.
Dont go playing the race card or the hill-billy card or whatever other lame name calling card you have in your hand. Address the facts, don't stoop to sling slurs.
oc71
Society has to establish law. This law is designed to protect underage children from predaors. At some point, an arbitrary cut-off point has to be set. You may argue that 17/15 is so close that it should not be a felony. How about 15/13, or 15/11?
Whatever state you are living in, has, i'm sure, statuatory rape laws. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby to have them repealed.
Dont go playing the race card or the hill-billy card or whatever other lame name calling card you have in your hand. Address the facts, don't stoop to sling slurs.
oc71
First, I'm not the one playing the 'race card'. That was played by the Douglas County, GA District Attorney when he prosecuted this case in the first place. Why did he do that? Clearly, it was because a 15 year old white girl was fellating a 17 year old black boy. Those, apparently, are the facts.
You know what? It doesn't matter whether the girl was white, black , pink or purple. 10 years in
prison for a 17 year old boy because his penis was in a girl's mouth says that judicial system is insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral.
Prove me wrong, since I've got the Georgia Supreme Court on my side.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 27, 2007, 09:20:01 PM
...First, I'm not the one playing the 'race card'. That was played by the Douglas County, GA District Attorney when he prosecuted this case in the first place. Why did he do that? Clearly, it was because a 15 year old white girl was fellating a 17 year old black boy. Those, apparently, are the facts.
You know what? It doesn't matter whether the girl was white, black , pink or purple. 10 years in
prison for a 17 year old boy because his penis was in a girl's mouth says that judicial system is insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral.
Prove me wrong, since I've got the Georgia Supreme Court on my side.
You know what? It doesn't matter whether the girl was white, black , pink or purple. 10 years in
prison for a 17 year old boy because his penis was in a girl's mouth says that judicial system is insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral.
Prove me wrong, since I've got the Georgia Supreme Court on my side.
No, those apparently are, are not the facts. It was a black girl fellating a black boy.
No, you do not have the Georgia supreme court on your side. You have the Georgia Supreme court saying that the punishment was "cruel and unusual", which I happen to agree with. You do not have the Georgia Supreme court saying that the judicial system was "insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral."
Post by: Paddy on October 27, 2007, 09:39:42 PM
...First, I'm not the one playing the 'race card'. That was played by the Douglas County, GA District Attorney when he prosecuted this case in the first place. Why did he do that? Clearly, it was because a 15 year old white girl was fellating a 17 year old black boy. Those, apparently, are the facts.
You know what? It doesn't matter whether the girl was white, black , pink or purple. 10 years in
prison for a 17 year old boy because his penis was in a girl's mouth says that judicial system is insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral.
Prove me wrong, since I've got the Georgia Supreme Court on my side.
You know what? It doesn't matter whether the girl was white, black , pink or purple. 10 years in
prison for a 17 year old boy because his penis was in a girl's mouth says that judicial system is insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral.
Prove me wrong, since I've got the Georgia Supreme Court on my side.
No, those apparently are, are not the facts. It was a black girl fellating a black boy.
No, you do not have the Georgia supreme court on your side. You have the Georgia Supreme court saying that the punishment was "cruel and unusual", which I happen to agree with. You do not have the Georgia Supreme court saying that the judicial system was "insane, bigoted. corrupt and immoral."
So, ten (10), yes that's ten years in prison, is an appropriate punishment for a 17 year old boy who had his penis in a 15 year old girls mouth?
I'm sorry Honest Abe held the Union together. I don't want you for my countryman.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2007, 05:29:50 AM
Quote
It is truly entertaining to watch your knee-jerking. Here I made a point of disregarding the racial component, but you still bring this racial angle into my comments. So charming.
It was about race from the git go.
You can't tell the difference between my comments about a hypothetical situation (where I said race didn't matter) and this case in Georgia. I'm not surprised.
never mind
Post by: Stand_watie on October 28, 2007, 09:37:50 AM
So, ten (10), yes that's ten years in prison, is an appropriate punishment for a 17 year old boy who had his penis in a 15 year old girls mouth?
I'm sorry Honest Abe held the Union together. I don't want you for my countryman.
No.
And I was born a yankee, so I'd still be your countryman if the south had successfully seceded.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2007, 11:45:29 AM
And Missouri was a slave state that remained with the Union.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on October 28, 2007, 01:59:26 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 28, 2007, 02:26:55 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 28, 2007, 03:46:33 PM
I sympathize with what fistful is saying here-it's tough to be a parent when the law won't support you in enforcing rules for the benefit of the child.
But when the activity is something widely practiced at that age, and when no acceptable punishments are likely to deter the activity, then the crime ends up mostly ignored by law enforcement, who realize they'd have to jail most of every high school in America if they were to apply the law in every known case. Except when the unpopular and unlucky do it-then they get nailed with these mandatory minimum regimes that were designed to punish a different sort of crime.
Laws that punish something that most of us do practically beg for selective, unfair, and disproportionately harsh punishment. And this case is a textbook example.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 28, 2007, 03:47:48 PM
Prime example of why we need to institute public caning. Keep the brats in line and if Mommy or Daddy can't stand the thought of their little angle getting their backside tanned a little then they can step up and take the licks for them.
That's a funny typo in context of the race of the young man under discussion.
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2007, 04:44:50 PM
it's absurd on its face to prosecute an activity that something like 80 percent of the population engages in, and which they are obviously biologically developed to engage in. People are almost uniformly sexually mature by 16-they have these desires and they act on them (wrongly, in my opinion, for the most part.)
Laws that punish something that most of us do practically beg for selective, unfair, and disproportionately harsh punishment. And this case is a textbook example.
Laws that punish something that most of us do practically beg for selective, unfair, and disproportionately harsh punishment. And this case is a textbook example.
Quote
biologically developed to engage in
...biologically developed...
sigh.
By that logic, tall five year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, 10 year olds should be allowed to work 12 hour shifts and/or be registered for the draft.
Soakers
Post by: De Selby on October 28, 2007, 05:28:30 PM
I was happy to sit this one out until...
...biologically developed...
sigh.
By that logic, tall five year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, 10 year olds should be allowed to work 12 hour shifts and/or be registered for the draft.
Soakers
it's absurd on its face to prosecute an activity that something like 80 percent of the population engages in, and which they are obviously biologically developed to engage in. People are almost uniformly sexually mature by 16-they have these desires and they act on them (wrongly, in my opinion, for the most part.)
Laws that punish something that most of us do practically beg for selective, unfair, and disproportionately harsh punishment. And this case is a textbook example.
Laws that punish something that most of us do practically beg for selective, unfair, and disproportionately harsh punishment. And this case is a textbook example.
Quote
biologically developed to engage in
...biologically developed...
sigh.
By that logic, tall five year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, 10 year olds should be allowed to work 12 hour shifts and/or be registered for the draft.
Soakers
No, that wouldn't be the same logic. By "biologically developed", I meant-sexually mature, such that they begin to seek out opportunities to mate like all other mammals.
Imagine if you changed your analogies to say: "By that logic, tall 16 year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, and 17 year olds should be allowed to join the marines with parental consent."
When you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly that a 17 year old gets jailed for ten years for having oral sex, doesn't it?
Post by: roo_ster on October 28, 2007, 06:04:22 PM
In the specific case, cassandrasdaddy wrote what I think is likeliest.
Tossing out race bombs in this case is a triumph of ignorance of the facts of the case.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2007, 08:14:52 PM
What am I missing?
Post by: oldcop1971 on October 28, 2007, 08:18:15 PM
We could point to CA law as being unconstitutional and/or ignorant in certain areas (gun laws, microstamping, etc) But, we do not slam you as a "fruit or nut" from CA. We try to have a debate, or discussion. However, when faced with facts, you seem more inclined to insult and belittle. While I have spent 35 years defending your right to free speech, I do not find any kinship with you and your prejudice for those of us from the "heart of Dixie"
oc71
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 29, 2007, 04:44:52 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 29, 2007, 06:48:27 AM
Should there have been consequences for both of them? Absolutely, but this doesn't rise to the level of a crime requiring imprisonment.
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2007, 06:52:40 AM
No crime was committed by these children.
Evidently, there was. No, I cannot quote the section and paragraph of Georgia state law, but there was evidently a law on the books that was broken, allowing the prosecution.
Should there have been consequences for both of them? Absolutely, but this doesn't rise to the level of a crime requiring imprisonment.
THAT, I can agree on.
However, shootinstudent's idea that a 17 year old should be allowed to penetrate any moist hole he pleases because he is able to join the marine corps with parental consent still flies in the face of logic.
Quote
When you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly that a 17 year old gets jailed for ten years for having oral sex, doesn't it?
This 17 year old has been shown to have a history of sexual misdeeds. i.e. semi conscious video. I haven't followed that link and am taking that evidence by (type) word of (screen) mouth.
Yes, he should be prosecuted for engaging in oral sex with one who is (by the definition of the law) A MINOR AND UNABLE TO CONSENT. Ten years? I guess that's where the judges judgement comes into play. And the Georgian societal norms are not the same as Kaliforina's.
Example... You can't come to this county and buy a beer on Sunday. The grocery stores have acetate curtains they pull over the liquor and wine. HOWEVER, you can go into a restaurant and order a Jack and Coke, or a shot of Jagermeister, or a glass of Redeye, leave the bottle. Makes no sense to me, and I think it's stupid, but if someone from New York comes here and starts telling us what to do because of what he thinks is right and proper, he will be met with resistance.
Wish I could type fast enough to keep up with this thread....
Soakers.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 07:00:13 AM
17-year-old kid had sex with a 15-year-old girl.
What happened was the girl's father went and kicked the #$%! out of the 17-year-old.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 29, 2007, 07:02:18 AM
Quote
What happened was the girl's father went and kicked the #$%! out of the 17-year-old
That is what the proper response is...
Post by: De Selby on October 29, 2007, 12:47:24 PM
Quote
However, shootinstudent's idea that a 17 year old should be allowed to penetrate any moist hole he pleases because he is able to join the marine corps with parental consent still flies in the face of logic.
Strangely, reading my posts I see no such claim.
What I do see is pointing out that laws which severely penalize common behavior end up being applied sporadically and usually with manifest unfairness. I don't see how that amounts to saying "all sex between 17 year olds and anyone else is okay."
You tried to compare this sex act between two teenagers to sex between a teen and an 8 year old; My response was to note that a more appropriate comparison was drawing lines that allow 16 year olds to drive a car and 17 year olds to join the marines. Somehow they're mature enough to do that, but if someone one year younger performs oral sex, that's a crime that in your opinion could justify imposing a 10 year criminal penalty on the 17 year old recipient?
fistful,
Quote
Most of us engage in oral sex in high school? Do most of us also shoplift while young? How about drinking under-age and a number of other things? Most of us drive at illegal speeds and occasionally roll through stop signs. And don't forget how often people change lanes without signaling.
This is a very good comparison. Can you imagine what traffic court would be like if you could get 10 years in prison and have to register in a database of the most vile offenders in your state? Realizing that everyone speeds, you simply would not see the penalty handed down except in odd and extreme cases.
Or how about if underage drinking were labelled a felony in every case, and came with a possible ten year sentence? The enforcement would look just like it does now for underage sex-the conduct would go on, and rarely would anyone be charged with a serious crime as a result. When it happened, there would be national outcry over some kid getting 10 years in prison for doing the same thing that half of his classmates were doing anyway.
Everyone doing something isn't a reason to legalize it, but it is a good reason not to have extreme penalties, especially when it's a practice (sex between people who are sexually mature, but under 18) that most of the human race has been engaging in and approving of for as long as we know.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 29, 2007, 12:57:43 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 29, 2007, 01:00:35 PM
you guys really wanna defend this guy? you see his interviews? you wanna defend a guy who videos himself with a semiconcious underage girl? funny that.why?
Maybe for the same reason the Georgia Supreme Court decided that he shouldn't be in jail? Because the facts don't actually support the case for treating what happened as so serious a crime?
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2007, 01:09:19 PM
Quote from: shootinstudent
Two Cold Soakers,
You tried to compare this sex act between two teenagers to sex between a teen and an 8 year old
You tried to compare this sex act between two teenagers to sex between a teen and an 8 year old
Nope, never did it. You obviously have mistaken me for someone else.
But if you want to keep it up, you are the only one so far to advocate that getting head from a fifteen year old is common behavior.
This isn't about oral sex. It's about oral sex with fifteen year old girls.
I'm trying to understand you, ss. Are you advocating a sliding scale, based on the age of the recipient?
Or are you insinuating something else here?
edit, grammer, etc...
Post by: De Selby on October 29, 2007, 01:20:13 PM
I was referring to this piece of your post to me:
Quote
...biologically developed...
sigh.
By that logic, tall five year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, 10 year olds should be allowed to work 12 hour shifts and/or be registered for the draft.
sigh.
By that logic, tall five year olds shouldn't be stopped from driving cars, 10 year olds should be allowed to work 12 hour shifts and/or be registered for the draft.
I took that to mean that you were comparing sex between two post-pubescent people to letting a five year old drive a car, or a 10 year old be victimized into harsh working conditions or impressed into service. You gave examples of victimizing children; sex between two teenagers is not an instance of children being victimized. I offered the examples of teenagers being given the responsibility to drive and the responsibility to defend their countries to highlight the case-teenagers aren't children in the same sense as a five year old, not even close. And sexual relations between them aren't victimization in the same way that forcing a 10 year old to serve in the army would be.
As for this:
Quote
By the way, you are the only one so far to advocate the getting a little face from a fifteen year old is common behavior.
Recognizing the fact of teenage sexuality does not advocate it-there are plenty of statistics available that demonstrate the fact that it is happening.
Quote
I'm trying to understand you, ss. Are you advocating a sliding scale, based on the age of the recipient?
Or are you insinuating something else here?
Or are you insinuating something else here?
I'm advocating not throwing 17 year olds in prison for engaging in a sexual practice that fully half of their peers engage in, and which is not by any sane definition of the phrase "aggravated child molestation." Throwing someone in prison for a decade and forcing him to register as a sex offender is an appropriate punishment for a sexual predator who victimizes children; a high school football player who has sex with a classmate at a party isn't the same sort of deviant, not even in the same ballpark, is what I am saying.
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2007, 01:22:01 PM
Peace, Soakers
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 29, 2007, 01:24:22 PM
Post by: De Selby on October 29, 2007, 01:25:03 PM
Thanks, ss, for the clarification.
Peace, Soakers
Peace, Soakers
Np-and I see where you're coming from about not imposing moral standards from without. I don't think it's wrong to discourage what this 17 year old did, even with criminal penalties-but to me the level of punishment and condemnation should be more like what's used on minors who drink, and less like what's used to punish adults who victimize children.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 29, 2007, 03:20:37 PM
Quote
you guys really wanna defend this guy? you see his interviews? you wanna defend a guy who videos himself with a semiconcious underage girl? funny that.why?
I don't. Far as I am concerned, this Wilson is a piece of worthless trash. And there are a lot more leaches of all races like him out there.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 29, 2007, 03:38:27 PM
Quote
What happened was the girl's father went and kicked the #$%! out of the 17-year-old
That is what the proper response is...
People wrote into the paper cheering the father on for doing it, too, with several saying that in times past, he would have gone after the kid with a shotgun instead.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 29, 2007, 04:23:25 PM
Quote
What happened was the girl's father went and kicked the #$%! out of the 17-year-old
That is what the proper response is...
People wrote into the paper cheering the father on for doing it, too, with several saying that in times past, he would have gone after the kid with a shotgun instead.
For some reason, this just warms my heart...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 29, 2007, 04:37:19 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 29, 2007, 08:34:58 PM
Quote
Most of us engage in oral sex in high school? Do most of us also shoplift while young? How about drinking under-age and a number of other things? Most of us drive at illegal speeds and occasionally roll through stop signs. And don't forget how often people change lanes without signaling.
This is a very good comparison. Can you imagine what traffic court would be like if you could get 10 years in prison and have to register in a database of the most vile offenders in your state? Realizing that everyone speeds, you simply would not see the penalty handed down except in odd and extreme cases.
Or how about if underage drinking were labelled a felony in every case, and came with a possible ten year sentence? The enforcement would look just like it does now for underage sex-the conduct would go on, and rarely would anyone be charged with a serious crime as a result. When it happened, there would be national outcry over some kid getting 10 years in prison for doing the same thing that half of his classmates were doing anyway.
Everyone doing something isn't a reason to legalize it, but it is a good reason not to have extreme penalties, especially when it's a practice (sex between people who are sexually mature, but under 18) that most of the human race has been engaging in and approving of for as long as we know.
That really doesn't answer my question. I've made clear that I don't favor ten year sentences, either. Nor would I favor putting such people's names on a sex offender list.
Post by: De Selby on October 29, 2007, 08:55:24 PM
That really doesn't answer my question. I've made clear that I don't favor ten year sentences, either. Nor would I favor putting such people's names on a sex offender list.
What was your question exactly? I think we agreed but didn't know it?
Post by: Strings on October 29, 2007, 09:55:17 PM
And yes... I had sex with my then-fifteen year old girlfriend when I was eighteen. Funny thing: it was at her instigation (I can be fairly oblivious when it comes to "signals", just ask Spoon). And, had her father found out and "come after me", HE would've been the one in trouble (how do y'all address THAT lil' problem?"...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 30, 2007, 01:19:00 AM
but seriously i as the father of 2 girls am very aware that wife one asnd i were having sex when she was 14 and this was 70's/ and she was a "nice girl" both of us with strict parents etc. i was 15. and it had consequences that we were clueless about
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 30, 2007, 03:19:40 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 08:02:33 AM
A jury acquitted Wilson of raping the older girl, but convicted him of aggravated child molestation against the 15-year-old. The "aggravated" nature of the charge refers to fellatio (oral sex) rather than a mere "immoral or indecent act." Had the two teenagers had intercourse without oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, instead of the mandatory 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him.[6]
Can somebody explain to me how/why intercourse between the two is a misdemeanor, yet oral sex becomes a mandatory 10-year minimum prison term, with permanent 'sex offender' status? That makes no sense.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 30, 2007, 09:22:18 AM
Can somebody explain to me how/why intercourse between the two is a misdemeanor, yet oral sex becomes a mandatory 10-year minimum prison term, with permanent 'sex offender' status? That makes no sense.
Oral sex cannot, as a general rule, lead to pregnancy, and is therefore a waste of potential future Georgia taxpayers, and so the crime is aggravated by the amortized cost of the (now prevented) children's future contributions to the politicians' pork accounts? Not to mention the sheer number of potential welfare-state statistics that were ruthlessly squandered by these unthinking youths. Taking all of this into account, a mandatory 10-year sentence seems awfully light.Sex leads to people who can pay taxes or, alternatively, to welfare recipients who can be used as a justification to make people pay taxes.
Oral sex, by itself, really only leads to dancing, and that always gets the Baptists all knotted up.
Come on, Riley, do I have to explain everything to you?
-BP
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 30, 2007, 09:57:24 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 30, 2007, 10:16:05 AM
Quote
Sex leads to people who can pay taxes or, alternatively, to welfare recipients who can be used as a justification to make people pay taxes.
Although that explanation is as good as any, I doubt that's the rationale of the GA legislators. I'm still trying to figure out what the that would be. Maybe a southerner can explain it.
Clinton received oral sex in the Oval Office. Then he said he didn't have sex with 'that woman-Ms Lewinsky' So apparently oral sex is not sex, according to Clinton. And if he' been in GA, would he have done 10 years?
Post by: Len Budney on October 30, 2007, 10:52:14 AM
Although that explanation is as good as any, I doubt that's the rationale of the GA legislators. I'm still trying to figure out what the that would be. Maybe a southerner can explain it.
It's an anachronism. The law was passed in a bygone era when folks were prudes. Back then, sticking your body parts into some father's daughter was considered improper, unless you first secured the father's permission, and publicly announced your intentions at some sort of ceremony. Back in those quaint times, using a father's daughter's mouth as a receptacle for one's bodily fluids was considered particularly disgusting.
Times have changed, but the law hasn't kept up. Nowadays, defiling fathers' daughters is a spectator sport to be filmed on one's cellphone. And as you point out, it's even an accepted pastime for the occupant of the Oval Office.
Ironically, the libertarian in me agrees with you: prison terms for consensual acts is unjust. Then again, I'm not libertarian enough to punish the father for dealing privately with the offender. If the boy survives the father's wrath, I'd just chalk it up to life experience.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 30, 2007, 02:03:14 PM
Quote
Back then, sticking your body parts into some father's daughter was considered improper, unless you first secured the father's permission,
As you pointed out there, Len, it wasn't necessarily consensual.
Post by: Firethorn on October 31, 2007, 06:40:45 AM
However, shootinstudent's idea that a 17 year old should be allowed to penetrate any moist hole he pleases because he is able to join the marine corps with parental consent still flies in the face of logic.
Shootinstudent didn't say that though. He said that most teenagers are sexually mature by 16. That means that many 15 year olds are sexually mature. They do have sex. Some delay, many don't. The smart ones at least use protection(BJ would be interesting form of it).
The idea is that a 17 and a 15 yr old 'getting it on' shouldn't actually that big of a deal - heck, that used to be more or less traditional marriage ages. It's different if you're talking about a 19 yr old and a 15 year old, much more so for a 21 yr old and a 15 yr old. If the kid's 13? That's true pedophile area.
He was aquited of the rape charge, so I don't like the idea of saying that that's the reason to give him ten years. If he commited rape - convict him of that! Don't go trying to enhance other crimes because 'he did it, but we can't convict him of it'.
It's also pretty crazy that if he'd had straight sex with her it would have been a midemeanor - yet a BJ is a 10 yr felony. There's a reason most states have a flex area where it's either 'OK' or at least a minor offense if they're close in age.