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.
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.