This is really ignorant

[Manedwolf]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

whats the etiquette in a situation like this? who gets the lil angel first?  the father of the semiconcious girl he was videoed with? or the other girl that the jury originally convicted him of. i would be amused should they retry him and he get a stiffer sentence. not up on the law there but that has happened in va.  quite a laugh to see the look on the guys face when it does

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[De Selby]

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?

[Strings]

cassandrasdaddy, you seem seriously hung up on the "semi-conscious girl" here. I have to admit to finding it odd, that the jury didn't convict him on having his way with her (on video, no less!), yet did hit hinm for the oral...

 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?"...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

shoot shovel and shut up
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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i also find it concerning how easily some of you slide right by the video of this angel and the semi concious girl. that was part of what the jury saw in the trial and one reason prosecutors like clumping charges together

[Paddy]

cassandrasdaddy, you're confusing two different events.  The 'semi conscious' girl you keep referring to was 17.  According to GA law, 16 is the age of consent. He was acquitted of the rape charge.  This from Wikipedia:

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.

[BrokenPaw]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'm not confusing anything i regard them as part and parcel of one act. the girl was clearly too out to consent  age be damned.  but hey maybe its different in california. this lil angel is headed for bars or a box. and he's not outa the woods yet on these charges

[Paddy]

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?

[Len Budney]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Firethorn]

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.