I came across this story today, an unbelievable miscarrage of justice. A seventeen year old boy got a blow job from a fifteen year old girl at a party. The age of consent is sixteen, but it doesn't apply if the people involved are within two years of each other. Unfortunately, this proviso doesn't apply to oral sex. If he'd had vaginal sex with her, he'd be cool. But since it was a blow job, he's currently in his second year of a ten year sentence.

Once, he was the homecoming king at Douglas County High. Now he's Georgia inmate No. 1187055, convicted of aggravated child molestation.

When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.

Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.

"It's disgusting," Cuban wrote to ESPN in an e-mail. "I can not see any way, shape or form that the interests of the state of Georgia are served by throwing away Genarlow's youth and opportunity to become a vibrant contributor to the state. All his situation does is reinforce some unfortunate stereotypes that the state is backward and misgoverned. No one with a conscience can look at this case and conclude that justice has been served." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson
Why the governor hasn't pardoned this guy, I can't understand.

That's horrible...I'd be mad...

It beats the sentence some men suffer, marriage.

Why the governor hasn't pardoned this guy, I can't understand.

Why the laws that were changed to include oral sex were not retroactive, I can't understand.

Why this case was even prosecuted, I cannot understand.

Why his appeal wasn't upheld, I cannot understand.

Even the girl's mother admits that her daughter instigated the acts.

As galling as this case is and what this poor boy has been put through, what I find most appalling is this from the prosecutor:

In Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes.

"I understand what he's saying," Barker says. "I think he's making a bad decision in the long run. Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two? Is it worth sitting in prison for eight more years, and you're still gonna be a sex offender when you get out?"

Barker is quick to point out that he offered Wilson a plea after he'd been found guilty -- the first time he has ever done that. Of course, the plea was the same five years he'd offered before the trial -- not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. None of the other defendants insisted on a jury trial. Wilson did. He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."
What arrogance!

Having worked as a prosecutor I found that offering such deals to be disgusting and only did so after being ordered to, and even then it wasn't without a fight. But this... I find myself speechless at how unfairly this case was tried.

This is the plea system at its worst. The one and only thing a prosecutor cares about is to get a guilty plea. Now this would be fine if all those accused were in fact guilty. But even in cases where prosecutors know for a fact that the accused is in fact innocent, they will still attempt to bully them into accepting a plea.

For Barker to say that Wilson should have just accepted the same plea, even after all other charges were dropped, is in my opinion, vile. To then say:

"Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two? Is it worth sitting in prison for eight more years, and you're still gonna be a sex offender when you get out?"

It is a shame that so many lawyers cannot understand any notion of principle and most importantly, of ethics, nowdays.

Only the prosecutors' opinion does, and according to at least one legal expert, prosecutorial ego is more of a factor in this case than race. The folks in Douglas County are playing god with Genarlow Wilson's life.

"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."

The position of Barker and the district attorney, McDade, who refused to comment, is that Wilson is guilty under the law and there is no room for mercy, though the facts seem to say they simply chose not to give it to Wilson. At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days.

That man should be fired!

This whole case is tantamount to blackmail and all to appease the prosecutors desire for another 'guilty' notch on his belt. Disgusting in my opinion.

well the conclusion is: don't deal with women

Why the laws that were changed to include oral sex were not retroactive, I can't understand.

Why this case was even prosecuted, I cannot understand.

Why his appeal wasn't upheld, I cannot understand.

Even the girl's mother admits that her daughter instigated the acts.

As galling as this case is and what this poor boy has been put through, what I find most appalling is this from the prosecutor:


What arrogance!

Having worked as a prosecutor I found that offering such deals to be disgusting and only did so after being ordered to, and even then it wasn't without a fight. But this... I find myself speechless at how unfairly this case was tried.

For Barker to say that Wilson should have just accepted the same plea, even after all other charges were dropped, is in my opinion, vile. To then say:

It is a shame that so many lawyers cannot understand any notion of principle and most importantly, of ethics, nowdays.


That man should be fired!

This whole case is tantamount to blackmail and all to appease the prosecutors desire for another 'guilty' notch on his belt. Disgusting in my opinion.
For once, Bells, we are in complete agreement. This is worse than the Duke lacross case.

yeah...with extreme feministic views of Bells...and her agreeing that the guy's 10 years was not judicially sound...WOW!

yeah...with extreme feministic views of Bells...and her agreeing that the guy's 10 years was not judicially sound...WOW!
Of course it is not judicially sound. I may be a bit of a feminist, but I also recognise a pile of manure in law when I see it. And this is a huge pile.

I wonder if the girl who first alleged rape was charged at all?

This case should never have been prosecuted. At worst, it should have been classified as a misdemeanor. To try it as a felony is a travesty. And to compound to the injustice, the law is changed but not made retroactive.

And then to have the prosecutor only concerned with a guilty plea, regardless of the circumstances of the case..:mad:.. makes my blood boil. There is no fairness in law and this is a prime example of how the truth no longer matters. What does matter in criminal prosecution is a guilty plea. Lose a case and you are seen as a bad prosecutor. I hope that this case continues to be closely followed by law schools around the US, to serve as a lesson of what good jurisprudence is not. The law should not be about getting a guilty verdict, while ignoring of the issues at hand in the case.

The arrogance of the prosecution in this case is beyond comprehension. It is cases like these that give prosecutors who do their jobs as it is intended, and not to fulfil their own egotistical pride, a bad name.

I saw this on 20/20 or some show recently.

I have to agree with everyone here: This is pretty ridiculous.

This case should never have been prosecuted. At worst, it should have been classified as a misdemeanor. To try it as a felony is a travesty.

Are you suggesting that state prosecutors should ignore the laws of the state whenever they want to? Or change the laws if the feel like it?

I wonder if the girl who first alleged rape was charged at all?

And what was her crime? What would she be charged with?

I think perhaps Dragon got it right .....it's just best that males don't interact with females at all, period, ever! Females are nothing but problems for males, in almost every endeavor of life in todays modern world.

Baron Max

Are you suggesting that state prosecutors should ignore the laws of the state whenever they want to? Or change the laws if the feel like it?

One should use judgement and discretion when administering the law. This prosecutor used neither. There was no crime here, except perhaps the false allegation of rape.

since both were underage the situation should have been regarded as "growing pains".
i agree that 10 years is waaaaaaaaay over the top.

since both were underage the situation should have been regarded as "growing pains".
i agree that 10 years is waaaaaaaaay over the top.
Any time at all is way over the top. Did you ever get a blowjob from a girl under eighteen while you were under eighteen? I did. Hell, I even did when I was over eighteen (my girlfriend at the time was sixteen or seventeen.)

Oh Fucking Christ that poor guy. I feel so sorry for him. Those bastards.

He shouldn't be punished at all, it was a consensual act.

Did you ever get a blowjob from a girl under eighteen while you were under eighteen?
no.
i lost my virginity on my 18th birthday . . . to a 16 year old.

One should use judgement and discretion when administering the law.

If so, why even have written laws? Let's just let judges and prosecutors administer whatever they each think should be done?

There was no crime here, except perhaps the false allegation of rape.

Perhaps you should read the third sentence in the original post. That might give you a clue about what law was violated.

Baron Max

Did you ever get a blowjob from a girl under eighteen while you were under eighteen? I did. Hell, I even did when I was over eighteen (my girlfriend at the time was sixteen or seventeen.)

So you admit to being a phedophile? How interesting! And so you feel qualified to make judgements about laws against phedophilia? Hmmm? Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?

Baron Max

The mind boggles at the injustices of the legal justice system. I think a top lawyer could and should appeal this sentence and probably win.

So you admit to being a phedophile? How interesting! And so you feel qualified to make judgements about laws against phedophilia? Hmmm? Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?

Baron Max

The kid was 17, she was 15, if he would've took it to the hole, it would've been legal. It's a fucking technicality, and it's bullshit.

So you admit to being a phedophile? How interesting! And so you feel qualified to make judgements about laws against phedophilia? Hmmm? Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?

Baron Max

You do realise that teenage females are, on average, 4 years more mature than males of the same age? Calling having consentual sex with a 16 - 17 year old girl when you're just 18, paedophilia, is a bit extreme in my opinion.

Meanwhile a British men found with child porn on his computer has been freed, ostensibly on the advice of the Home Secretary because of prison overcrowding. Another man has had his sentence for serious sex offences delayed for review, due to the same guidelines. The Home Secretary is denying culpability:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6301125.stm

It's a shitty old world, alright.

So you admit to being a phedophile? How interesting! And so you feel qualified to make judgements about laws against phedophilia? Hmmm? Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?

Baron Max
Max does have a point. 17 year olds are old enough to understand the law. Clearly it needs reform but those who break it as it stands must deal with any consequences.

Just another case to show how messed up the world can be. As has been said if they'd just had sex he would have got away with it, but a lesser act carries a harsher penalty. To then go ahead and change the law and refuse to make it retroactive is just ridiculous, what possible reason could they have???? A consensual act at that age really shouldn't be punished at all, there is so little common sense left in this world.

I think it's part of Georgia's anti-sodomoy laws.

In Virginia, it's a class 6 felony to give or recieve oral sex, from or to anyone.

Makes you wonder don't it, a few years ago a 17 year old boy around here raped and killed a girl who was 13 or 14, I'm not sure of the details but she was raped and I'm almost sure he strangled her. He got less then this guy, like 4-6 years served I think(I did not hear much of either case so I can not say to much). Its nice to see things with your own eyes, hear with your own ears, trustworthy I find them!

Are you suggesting that state prosecutors should ignore the laws of the state whenever they want to? Or change the laws if the feel like it?

They have the power to do so.

However if you read through the whole article and the words of the prosecutor, you would realise that this was not a case whereby justice was sought on behalf of the 'victim'. The prosecutor admits that this case is wrong. But because of the way the system works, they are only interested in a guilty plea. So to attempt to right the wrong even they are not blind to, they offer a plea bargain and have the accused listed as a sex offender and a paodophile, meaning that he would no longer be able to live at home along with his little sister. The accused refused and who could blame him. When all the other charges were dismissed, this was the only thing they could get him on. So what do they do? Fail to inform the jury that the penalty is for 10 years because the prosecutor knew the jury would not have sent him to jail for it judging by their anger when they did realise he would get 10 years.

Now as to administering the law at whim. This case is a prime example of how this has occured. Judicial blackmail is what it comes down to in the end.

And what was her crime? What would she be charged with?

False rape allegations would be one. Even her mother admits that the sex was consentual and she was the instigator.

Do you think he should have been charged with a felony and sent to jail for 10 years for this "crime"? As I said above, it should have been a misdemeanor charge at most because of the nature of the crime and the law in question. The State legislature saw fit to change the law so that oral sex was no longer a felony in such a case, but the law was not retroactive, therefore he is made to suffer. I believe from the article, the legislators and lawyers are working to have his case dismissed. The prosecutors have admitted they can make it all go away if they so choose. And after having read through that whole article again, it is judicial blackmail. The words of Barker (the prosecutor) are abhorrent in their very arrogance:


"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."

I find this to be galling to be honest. I am guessing he missed the lecture on ethics.

If so, why even have written laws? Let's just let judges and prosecutors administer whatever they each think should be done?
This is what has happened already.

As the prosecutor admits, they have the power to set aside his sentence and give him a new one with a lesser charge. But they choose not to. Even though they admit he should not have 10 years, they choose not to set aside his sentence. And do you know why?

He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."

Hmmmm 'took their medicine'. That's what it comes down to. Wilson dared to attempt to go against the 'establishment' and he lost. Pride and arrogance is why they are refusing to set aside his sentence and give him a lesser charge.

Perhaps you should read the third sentence in the original post. That might give you a clue about what law was violated.
The age of consent is sixteen?

Maybe you should read the rest of the article:

"But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex."

So if there was no oral sex, he would not be in jail at all. The State changed the laws after this case because it has proven to be so stupid and so archaic but did not make it retroactive.

Again, I point out the prosecutor has the ability to drop his sentence and charge and sentence him with a much lesser charge, but they choose not to.

Perhaps we should let all phedophiles write the laws about sex with minors? Hey, we could even have them lay out the punishments if there are any crimes at all? Hmmm?
Well not long after this case, a teacher was found guilty of engaging in sexual intercourse with her student. And she only got 90 days. So you tell me Baron.

In light of the evidence in this case, do you think Wilson's treatment was fair under the law or is this just a case of prosecutorial pride and arrogance, in light of the fact that the school teacher only received a 90 day sentence? Lets not forget these words from the prosecutor:

The others, he says, "took their medicine."

Do you think any prosecutor should use their position to blackmail others just to wrack up another guilty plea on their resume? Because in the end, this is what it all comes down to. This case would have to be one of the biggest examples of prosecutorial zealousness that I have ever come across.

Change the law when it needs to be changed.

well the conclusion is: don't deal with womenWell Said. The current witch hunt hysteria about 'child' molestation, etc has reached a frenzy. Local TV relies on entrapping men in stings so they can pump up ratings. Police using resources and manpower to get men to commit crimes through the Internet while murder, rape and other real crimes surge in many parts of the country.
Real predators should be locked up. Our police and media surfing for crime on demand for entertainment, election wins and ratings are just as sick.

I could easily break the legs of any person supporting this.

Well Said. The current witch hunt hysteria about 'child' molestation, etc has reached a frenzy. Local TV relies on entrapping men in stings so they can pump up ratings. Police using resources and manpower to get men to commit crimes through the Internet while murder, rape and other real crimes surge in many parts of the country.
Real predators should be locked up. Our police and media surfing for crime on demand for entertainment, election wins and ratings are just as sick.

I was being extremely sarcastic.

They have the power to do so.

I don't think they do, Bells, and you're gonna' have to do a lot of explaining to convince me that state prosecutors can ignore the laws of the state on a personal whim.

Do you think he should have been charged with a felony and sent to jail for 10 years for this "crime"?

He commited the crime according to the laws of the state. He was found guilty in a court of law by a jury. The sentence was handed down in accordance with the laws of the state. It don't make a bit of difference what I or anyone else thinks or feels about it.

As I said above, it should have been a misdemeanor charge at most because of the nature of the crime and the law in question.

Don't matter what you think, Bells, those were/are the laws of that state, and they should be followed or legally changed by the state. Your idea of what it should have been don't mean jack-shit.

But all-in-all, I don't understand your zeal in trying to get this phedophile off of his conviction and sentence? I mean, any other time you'd be screaming for his head! Yet, here you're arguing that phedophiles should be given special treatment. Why? Do you now love phedophiles?

Baron Max

I could easily break the legs of any person supporting this.

Huh? Supporting what?

And you need to know ....breaking a man's legs is a LOT harder than you might think. So if you plan on breaking anyone's legs, take a damned big club or baseball bat, and swing that thing REAL hard ...else you won't break his legs!

Baron Max

Baron Max...you're such a realist. Too much most of the time. I thik this thread is most about the injustice than trying to change the reality of what happened. If anyone actually cared, talking about it here wouldn't help anything.

I thought it was part of the social religious lie?

But all-in-all, I don't understand your zeal in trying to get this phedophile off of his conviction and sentence? I mean, any other time you'd be screaming for his head! Yet, here you're arguing that phedophiles should be given special treatment. Why? Do you now love phedophiles?
Baron Max
This kid is not a pedophile. He was a teenager himself at the time!

I don't think they do, Bells, and you're gonna' have to do a lot of explaining to convince me that state prosecutors can ignore the laws of the state on a personal whim.

Oh but in this instance they do and have admitted it themselves.

Read the article and see for yourself. The choice is theres and they choose not to. As far as they are concerned, they got a guilty verdict and that is all they wanted. They can dismiss his sentence and have him serve a much shorter sentence under a lesser charge, but they choose not to.

Prosecutors ignore the laws of the state every day when they decide whether charges should or should not be laid. In this case, when the rape charges could not stick, and they could not get him to plea bargain, they decided to charge him with the felony. They knew that if the jury knew the guilty verdict carried a 10 year term, that he would not have been found guilty of having oral sex. That's the thing. He was not guilty of having sex with her, those charges were dismissed and thrown out as she consented and was within 2 years of his age. Oral sex however appears to be illegal and classed as a felony. So when this poor kid refused to plea bargain, they went for the maximum. As the prosecutor said himself..

"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."

He refused to take their plea bargain so they will make him suffer. After all, the other boys "took their medicine" and got a much shorter sentence and charge. But he dared to try to take them on and lost. Judicial arrogance at its worst.

He commited the crime according to the laws of the state. He was found guilty in a court of law by a jury. The sentence was handed down in accordance with the laws of the state. It don't make a bit of difference what I or anyone else thinks or feels about it.

A law that has been changed since his case due to the ridiculous nature of it. However you are correct, he was found guilty under the laws of the State. However the jury was never made aware that a guilty plea would result in a 10 year sentence. When they found out, the prosecutor dismissed them with this:

The trial finished that afternoon, and the jury came back with "not guilty" on the rape but "guilty" on the aggravated child molestation.

He looked at the forewoman. She was crying, seeming to understand they'd just undone a promising future. Indeed, when the jurors found out there was a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, several were incensed. The prosecution told them to write a letter, then moved on to the next case.
Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson)


But I guess for the prosecution, if he had pled guilty and begged for mercy, he would be out of jail by now. However he did not wish to be branded a child molester. So the prosecutor thought he deserved to take "his medicine". I don't know why, but those words bug the hell out of me. They know and admit this case is unfair, but the fact that he refused to "take his medicine", he must now pay for it. They are almost flippant about it, which is even more disgusting.

You don't think it should matter what you think about it? Why not? The judicial system is there to serve and protect you. You should have a say in it through how you vote. The voices and the situation of this case were enough to make them change the laws, because they were so ridiculously archaic, but for some strange reason, they were not retroactive, but I think the legislature is attempting to find another legal solution because the prosecutors are being so stubborn about it. But then again, the prosecution is only interested in a guilty plea and justice does not come into it.

In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.

-------------------------------------------------

In Douglas County, according to law professors following the case, admitting sins and begging forgiveness -- not insisting on your innocence -- is the road to mercy. Williams is already out of jail, in part because McDade wrote a letter to the parole board, praising Williams for being the first to plead guilty and "take his medicine." As for Wilson, McDade called him a "martyr" in the media.


But all-in-all, I don't understand your zeal in trying to get this phedophile off of his conviction and sentence? I mean, any other time you'd be screaming for his head! Yet, here you're arguing that phedophiles should be given special treatment. Why? Do you now love phedophiles?
Is he a paedophile though? That's the thing, had he just had vaginal sex with her, he would not be classified as one. But he also had oral sex, which was a felony. The laws have since changed to address the ridiculous nature of this issue. But what of Wilson? Should he pay for laws that even the legislature admit (they did change it) were archaic?

It was consentual oral sex and had it been just vaginal sex, he would not be classified as a sex offender.

This kid was not and is not a paedophile. Even the law stated at the time that having sex with her would not make him a paedophile, it was just a misdemeanor. But oral sex, under Georgian law, was classified as a felony, so because of that distinction, he is a paedophile. That added with prosecutorial zealousness and pride have resulted in justice not being served at all.

In Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes.

One has to wonder who's vanity he means. His own or Wilson's. This case is about the prosecutor's ego and now the legislature is trying to work its way around it. Hopefully they do and this kid can get on with his life.

Huh? Supporting what?

And you need to know ....breaking a man's legs is a LOT harder than you might think. So if you plan on breaking anyone's legs, take a damned big club or baseball bat, and swing that thing REAL hard ...else you won't break his legs!

Baron Max

supporting the guys punishment

and does kicking in the knees count?

Bells:

Why the laws that were changed to include oral sex were not retroactive, I can't understand.

The problem here was definitely with the law. However, I'm not surprised it wasn't changed retrospectively. As a general principle of law, legislatures very rarely make laws that are retrospective, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. To do so because of one case would be virtually unheard of.

Why this case was even prosecuted, I cannot understand.

I agree.

Why his appeal wasn't upheld, I cannot understand.

What were the grounds of appeal? Was the appeal about the severity of the sentence, or the conviction itself?


Baron Max:

I don't think they do, Bells, and you're gonna' have to do a lot of explaining to convince me that state prosecutors can ignore the laws of the state on a personal whim.

Welcome to Criminal Justice 101.

Discretion is built into every level of the criminal justice system. For example,. did you know that police have discretion as to whether or not to hand out a speeding fine? You know what that means? It means that even though they caught you speeding they can choose to "ignore the laws of the state" (as you put it), and let you off with a warning.

Suppose you don't pay your speeding fine. Then, guess what? The DA can choose NOT to prosecute you. That's right. He can also "ignore the laws of the state"!

If you get to court for your unpaid speeding fine, the JUDGE can exercise his discretion and let you off. That's right - he can "ignore the laws of the state", too!

Does this shake your blind faith in the criminal justice system, now that you know, Baron Max? You know what? It strengths my faith in it.

In America, I am fairly certain that no law can legally be retroactive. Ex post facto and such prevents such things in regards to convictions.

In America, I am fairly certain that no law can legally be retroactive. Ex post facto and such prevents such things in regards to convictions.
You may be right, but the governor can always pardon the kid. You always here about these celebrities fighting to have some cop killer released, what about this kid?

You may be right, but the governor can always pardon the kid.

That kid...is a man.

Would you pardon an offender of law?

The problem here was definitely with the law. However, I'm not surprised it wasn't changed retrospectively. As a general principle of law, legislatures very rarely make laws that are retrospective, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. To do so because of one case would be virtually unheard of.

The law was changed after Wilson's case, due to the ridiculous nature of it. His case was the reason the law was changed. After all, if they are changing the law because injustice was served under it, you would think they would allow it so that Wilson, who was the main reason the law was changed, could at least benefit from it.

And laws have been altered because of one case. This is but one instance of it. And I would think this case is compelling enough to warrant a change.

What were the grounds of appeal? Was the appeal about the severity of the sentence, or the conviction itself?
From what I can see, the appeal was to have his sentence overturned.

That kid...is a man.
Would you pardon an offender of law?
He was a kid when he commited his "crime". And yes, I would pardon someone serving time who had commited no crime, or had commited a crime under a law judged so ridiculous it had since been repealed.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the population should be in jail were this "law" in effect throughout the nation. Anyone who had a girlfriend younger than he when he passed that majic threshold into the age of consent should be locked up!:rolleyes:

I'd be willing to bet that most of the population should be in jail were this "law" in effect throughout the nation. Anyone who had a girlfriend younger than he when he passed that majic threshold into the age of consent should be locked up!:rolleyes:

I havent had a girlfriend. never had been even kissed on a chick.
So its ok. lock them up.

I havent had a girlfriend. never had been even kissed on a chick.
So its ok. lock them up.
Dude, you're spending too much time on the internet. How old are you? Still in high school I presume? Ask some chicks out, take 'em to a movie, get busy, man. You're not getting any younger.

Dude, you're spending too much time on the internet. How old are you? Still in high school I presume? Ask some chicks out, take 'em to a movie, get busy, man. You're not getting any younger.

Im in university, 2nd year. 20 years old. "40 year old virgin" movie...is reality for me.

Im in university, 2nd year. 20 years old. "40 year old virgin" movie...is reality for me.
You've got twenty years to go. You're in college. Go to some parties. A lot of freshman girls are looking to get a little wild, to express their freedom from their parents. You can help them with that. Just use a condom, and stay away from 15 year olds in Georgia!

You've got twenty years to go. You're in college. Go to some parties. A lot of freshman girls are looking to get a little wild, to express their freedom from their parents. You can help them with that. Just use a condom, and stay away from 15 year olds in Georgia!

You dont understand I cannot do that, because my life believes are set on ethics and having premarital sex will ruin my soul and my strength to stay with the woman I choose to marry. I also dont drink and dont smoke because I want to live long...for a specific purpose...but anyways that is my system of ethics I follow. Because I have studied the relationships and the continuation of marriage...and have long concluded that premarital sex (with another woman...who is not a future wife) depletes chances of stable relationship.

In other words...I will take my time...for 5 years and more and see which women have strong will and determination to succeed in life...and I will try than. I will not touch a woman even if she opens to me, because I have not chosen her and she has not chosen me for love (which I define other than sex).

Discretion is built into every level of the criminal justice system. For example, did you know that police have discretion as to whether or not to hand out a speeding fine? You know what that means? It means that even though they caught you speeding they can choose to "ignore the laws of the state" (as you put it), and let you off with a warning.

Suppose you don't pay your speeding fine. Then, guess what? The DA can choose NOT to prosecute you. That's right. He can also "ignore the laws of the state"!

If you get to court for your unpaid speeding fine, the JUDGE can exercise his discretion and let you off. That's right - he can "ignore the laws of the state", too!

Does this shake your blind faith in the criminal justice system, now that you know, Baron Max? You know what? It strengths my faith in it.

So it strengthens your faith in the justice system? ...that individuals in law enforcement and the judicial system can arbitrarily apply the law to some people, yet let others off without any punishment? You applaud the UNEQUAL application of the law?

It must make you just happy as hell when some police officers give speeding tickets to blacks, yet let whites off without a ticket or even a warning! You're happy that cops can give speeding tickets to ugly people, yet let the pretty blonde woman off with just a wink and a smile? You see nothing wrong with that? And such actions by our justice system strengthens your faith in the system?? Hmm, are you sure about that, James?

Baron Max

This kid was not and is not a paedophile. Even the law stated at the time that having sex with her would not make him a paedophile, it was just a misdemeanor. But oral sex, under Georgian law, was classified as a felony, so because of that distinction, he is a paedophile.

Read the above statement carefully, Bells. You're making the claim that he is not a paedophile, yet by the very definition and the law, he IS a paedophile! And worse, your own subsequent statements contradicts your initial claim of innocence!

If it's the law, then it's the law! And if someone violates that law, and they're found guilty in court, then they're guilty! Just your seeming outrage changes nothing.

According to the law in Georgia, the boy was and is a paedophile!

Baron Max

I wonder what the minimum\maximum would be for rape or murder there.

The bigger issue is whether the law and the punishment are just.

We all agree that this is a grave injustice. Don't you?

I just don't think it's my place to say. I also don't think it's anyone else's place unless they happen to be residents of Georgia!

I think, perhaps, that there are much larger "injustices" in the world than this one little, dinky deal in Georgia. And I'm sure you'd agree. But should we invade and conquer and force them to conform to OUR ideals of "justice"?

When do we butt out and let other societies determine their own destinies? When do we decide that it ain't none of our business? Would we want others in the world to come here to the USA and tell us what to do and how to do it?

As a society we've determined (based on absurd religious ethics) that sex is a dirty secret and should be hidden at all costs and punishible by law.

And just who better to do that than that "society"? The residents of Georgia have made those laws and defined the punishments ....if they think they're unjust, then they should change them. Not you or me or anyone else.

Should we start arresting nine and seven year olds for diddling with each other?

That's up to the members of that society.

I'm curious, however, by your cute, little scenario. Let's eliminate your ages-thingie of "nine and seven year olds" and explore a little further. At what age should we tell our kids not to diddle each other? If it was your little girl, would you want someone diddling with her at, say, 12 or 13? What if she liked being diddled with? What if the man diddling her was, say, three years older then her? Five years older?

See? Society creates the laws and rules that they wish to be governed by. A society doesn't wander around the world seeking input on what they should do or not do! The residents of Georgia made that law for a reason ...if the law should no longer apply, then they should change it. But you and I should have no say in it.

Baron Max

Majorly fucked up.

But if that's the way the people of the society want it, then how can you call it "fucked up"? Shouldn't the members of a society make the laws and rules that they wish to follow? If not, who should decide for them?

Baron Max

If not, who should decide for them?

Baron Max

Someone who's not so fucked up.

Whereas an adult man or woman who has sex with a girl who is less than 18 years old is the most depraved, vile, perverted, almost alien, slime ball imaginable. You will find, in many cases, the penalties much harsher and longer lasting than for murder.



Frankly if it was my teenage daughter being diddled by a 40/50/60 year old, castration would be too good for him.

I see nothing morally objectionable about consensually engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman after puberty.

I see nothing morally objectionable about consensually engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman after puberty.
I love that old chestnut:

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

Why? Seriously. Why?

When its my daughter I make the rules.

When its my daughter I make the rules.
Do you have any children?

Of course! That's the whole freaking point! YOU make the rules. Not Big Brother.

Only if I disagree with Big Brother. In this particular case, I don't.

I love that old chestnut:

http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

They didn't take her anywhere when she was having periods at 3 years old?

Sam is sans children. While I have three daughters and three granddaughters ranging from 3 yrs to 30 yrs. Clearly those without kids have more valid points of view... :D

Which makes it even more weird that you should be lusting after teenagers. You have daughters and granddaughters to consider and the effects of your values on their personal sense of self esteem. I would not be comfortable with a father who lusted after my friends and I'm 37.

But if your 17 year old son gets head from a 15 year old consenting hottie, and goes to jail for 10 years...???

That would be unfortunate and I would fight for him. But it would not change the fact that it is necessary to protect young girls/boys from predators.

Sam, you don't think this case is one of those situations where you'd have to protect anyone from 'predators,' do you?

Which makes it even more weird that you should be lusting after teenagers. You have daughters and granddaughters to consider and the effects of your values on their personal sense of self esteem. I would not be comfortable with a father who lusted after my friends and I'm 37.
Men naturally lust after women of childbearing age. So don't worry, your friends will soon be too old for your father to lust over!:)

Sammy, you've missed most of the discussion I see. We're not talking about pedophillic predators here. This thread is about a normal 17 year old and a normal 15 year old and why we have such vile laws that criminalize normal sexual behavior.

This is where I came in:


Whereas an adult man or woman who has sex with a girl who is less than 18 years old is the most depraved, vile, perverted, almost alien, slime ball imaginable. You will find, in many cases, the penalties much harsher and longer lasting than for murder.

Men naturally lust after women of childbearing age. So don't worry, your friends will soon be too old for your father to lust over!:)

men lust after children and animals too, I put those lusting after too young women in the same category.

Ok... So you agree that an older man having sex with a, let's say 16 year old, is inherently a vile disgusting piece of human refuse and should be tortured publicly then dismembered and fed to diseased rats?

No that would not be good for the rats.

Too young being...?

I would say anyone under 18 is too young. Thats not including those who are drunk, in a coma or are mentally challenged, btw.

Ha! Funny.

I've said this before, but I fear for your future marriage if you were ever to find out the true nature of the beastly pervert you've married.

Fortunately, it has been my greatest luck to never have run into such weirdos.

You have strange ideas about the nature of men.

That would be unfortunate and I would fight for him. But it would not change the fact that it is necessary to protect young girls/boys from predators.
But if your 17 year old son gets head from a 15 year old consenting hottie, and goes to jail for 10 years...???
So Sam, you're saying this sentence was just? Are you a Baron on the same side here?

Poor sam.

I can see why these laws are necessary.:rolleyes:

You have strange ideas about the nature of men.
I think it's the other way around.

So Sam, you're saying this sentence was just? Are you a Baron on the same side here?

Is that supposed to scare me? :D

If the Baron thinks the same way, then I would say yes, I am.

Yep. Must keep us horrible males in check you know. Can't have us lusting after teenage girls who like to wear leather and have dogs lick their feet while riding a sybian...

Not when they are under 18 (etc), no.

I think it's the other way around.

Maybe its an American thing. Or a Saudi one. (<- the other weirdos)

Americans account for 25 percent of child sex tourists, according to reliable global estimates. The average victim is 14 years old, although some prostituted children are pre-adolescent.

Each to their own. Don't move to Iceland.

What's in Iceland?

Each to their own. Don't move to Iceland.

Not planning to, no.

Is that supposed to scare me? :D

If the Baron thinks the same way, then I would say yes, I am.
Well, most guys go out with girls younger than them. At some point the guy crosses the magic threshold of 18 and must be imprisoned for continuing to do what they've been doing all along? Is that your thinking? I'd be willing to bet that a majority of men would be in prison were your idea institued and enforced. I would be, for one. Oh, and that older girl I went out with when I was sixteen, her too.

This is fucked up. :(

well the conclusion is: don't deal with women

Have you tried men?

Age of consent in many parts of Iceland is 14.

Do they have any worthwhile universities there?

Well, most guys go out with girls younger than them. At some point the guy crosses the magic threshold of 18 and must be imprisoned for continuing to do what they've been doing all along? Is that your thinking? I'd be willing to bet that a majority of men would be in prison were your idea institued and enforced. I would be, for one. Oh, and that older girl I went out with when I was sixteen, her too.

I've discussed this before.

The age difference is also important.

A 16 year old dating a 17-20 year old is very different from one dating a 40 year old.

A 25 year old dating a 20-50 year old is also different from the above.

Its a question of emotional maturity as much as physical maturity.

I've discussed this before.

The age difference is also important.

A 16 year old dating a 17-20 year old is very different from one dating a 40 year old.

A 25 year old dating a 20-50 year old is also different from the above.

Its a question of emotional maturity as much as physical maturity.
OK, but you've indicated that you think it's OK to send a 17 year old to prison for ten years for getting a BJ from a 15 year old. How does that fit the above statement?

OK, but you've indicated that you think it's OK to send a 17 year old to prison for ten years for getting a BJ from a 15 year old. How does that fit the above statement?

Are 17 year old boys arrested on a regular basis for bjs from 15 year olds?

Anyway, its silly that in the US people still don't know what sex is.

You bet. The University of Iceland is well respected.

Is Icelandic hard to learn?

Are 17 year old boys arrested on a regular basis for bjs from 15 year olds?

Anyway, its silly that in the US people still don't know what sex is.

It's happened at least once.

Are 17 year old boys arrested on a regular basis for bjs from 15 year olds?

No they're not, but that is what this thread is about.

So it strengthens your faith in the justice system? ...that individuals in law enforcement and the judicial system can arbitrarily apply the law to some people, yet let others off without any punishment? You applaud the UNEQUAL application of the law?

Yes, of course I do.

It's virtually impossible to write a law that, if applied to the letter, will result in a just outcome in every case. That's why all good laws are drafted with enough lattitude to allow some flexibility in their application.

Incidentally, it is also why "three strikes" laws and mandatory sentencing laws which take away judicial discretion are invariably a bad idea.

It must make you just happy as hell when some police officers give speeding tickets to blacks, yet let whites off without a ticket or even a warning! You're happy that cops can give speeding tickets to ugly people, yet let the pretty blonde woman off with just a wink and a smile? You see nothing wrong with that? And such actions by our justice system strengthens your faith in the system??

We're talking about different things, obviously. You're asking whether I approve of corruption. The answer is: no, I don't.

Don't mix that up with the question of whether I approve of granting lawmakers and law enforcers discretion in their legal application of the law.

My understanding is that it's one of the most difficult (if not the most difficult) language to learn as a non-native adult.

You kiind of smashed my hopes right there.

I can see why these laws are necessary.:rolleyes:
That is the issue. This law is necessary but was warped in its original design. These laws are generally meant to apply to victims who are, well, victims, of sexual predators. However this case is a bit different.

Had they just had sex, he would have only been charged with a misdemeanor, due to the fact that there was only a two year gap between them. But the act of oral sex is apparently a felony regardless.

The girl in this case, or "the victim", instigated the act with not just Wilson, but the other boys who were there as well. She admits it, her mother also agrees that her daughter instigated the sexual acts with the accused and others there, so do the prosecutors, judge, jury. This is why the rape charge did not stick. However because they had oral sex, well that is apparently a bigger evil and so he was given 10 years. Even the jury, who found him guilty because he did have oral sex, find that 10 years ridiculous, hence why the prosecution never let on that finding him guilty of the felony would result in a 10 year jail sentence. So did the legislature, who quickly moved to change the laws so that oral sex was no longer a felony when one participant is under 16 and has a 3 year age gap or less with the other participant.

This case is about how stupid a law can get and about how zealous and egotistical some prosecutors are in trying cases. They have the ability to drop his sentence and charge him with a lesser sentence but refuse to, because he did not "take his medicine".

Wilson is not a sexual predator. He did not actively seek out his "victim" to prey on her. The article is quite clear on this. Even the prosecution agrees. The judge had no choice but to give him 10 years as that is the minimum sentence to this law, so in this instance, his hands were tied. Why the legislature did not make the new laws retroactive, one can't really say, but I guess if there are actual sexual predators in jail under the old system, the new retroactive laws might ensure their release. So now it seems that new laws are being looked at so that Wilson can be set free, because there was no justice at all in this case. Had the prosecutor done its job, then he would be out of jail by now and possibly going to college and making something of his life, without being branded a sexual predator. The fact that a school teacher who was found to have been having sex with one of her students, soon after Wilson was jailed, and only given 90 days, tells you that the law was not applied fairly to Wilson.

The part about the oral sex being a felony is really what is the problem here.

Why?

Because of this:

Had they just had sex, he would have only been charged with a misdemeanor, due to the fact that there was only a two year gap between them. But the act of oral sex is apparently a felony regardless.

Yes, but why is this a problem if "sex" under 18 makes one a two headed slime creature from Tau Ceti IV? Do you not consider oral sex, sex? And just as disgusting (if not more so) as (shhhh! - intercourse)?

If they want to consider any form of penetration as sex, thats fine, the least they can do is put them all at the same level legally.

Agreed. And what about hand jobs, foot jobs, cunnilingus, tit jobs, etc, that don't involve penetration???

Might be good idea to have sex education in school.:p

We have that here in the US of ABSURDITY. I've been through it. You know what it is? It's anatomy and how not to get diseases or pregnancies. Very sterile and all but useless. Nothing about how to stimulate your partner, or how to use foreplay to get each other going, or instruction on the various ways to masturbate, or... well, you get the idea.

Hmm you need an Indian (http://www.kamasutra-sex.org/) education.

Oh hell yeah! That'd work! All you'd need is a real-life version of the woman at the top of the page (oh my) and you'd have your first lesson on how to get a dozen highschool boys to ejaculate simultaneously! Cool!
Don't do that in Georgia, or that dozen highschool boys will end up in jail!

Sam -

I'm a bit confused. Are you or are you not in favor of sentencing a 17 year old boy to a 10 year sentence for receiving oral sex from a girl who 1) consented 2) is within two years of his age 3) consent laws do not apply with such age proximity?

I think she said no, she does support the court's decision.

Are you or are you not in favor of sentencing a 17 year old boy to a 10 year sentence for receiving oral sex from a girl who 1) consented 2) is within two years of his age 3) consent laws do not apply with such age proximity?

After reading that, I got to thinking ...which is unusual for me! :D

But ...what if we changed some of those conditions a bit? At what point would it suddenly change from good ol' fashion oral sex into horrible, terrible peadophilia? What's the magic numbers or conditions where it suddenly changes from innocent, consenting oral sex to the horrors of society?

A. A 17 year old boy, a consenting 14 year old girl?

B. An 18 year old boy, a consenting 15 year old girl?

C. A 22 year old boy, a consenting 16 year old girl?

D. A 40 year old boy, a consenting 17 year old girl?

Just curious. And you can change the numbers to suit your ideas.

Baron Max

Max amazingly does have a point, which is probably just subjective to each of us. At what age does someone become too young or old? Girls mature at different ages, as is evident by the different ages of consent in different countries. I think anyone under 14 is really too young to be sexually active, both physically and mentally. After that it becomes dependant on the person, a lot of people I knew at ages 14-16 started dating guys at least 7 years older because it was 'cool'.
However Max, why is this relevant? He was within 2 years of her age and I think not backdating the law shows how backwards some places are, it would only have released people in the same situation as him!
Still think the whole system of justice in most parts of the world is disgraceful and wrong though because it's inconsistent.

Still think the whole system of justice in most parts of the world is disgraceful and wrong though because it's inconsistent.

The world is made up of many different types of people with many varying beliefs and opinions - mostly completely inconsistent. So why do you think the system of justice should be consistent throughout the world?

I mean, seriously, if the people of Georgia want to enact a law, why should that same law have to hold for all the people/socieities in the world? Or even, for that matter, for all the states in the USA? Shouldn't Georgians have the right to enact their own laws (as long as it's in keeping with federal guidelines, etc)?

But what strikes me as odd, strange, is how, in this thread, there's a distinct group of people who somehow feel that from one age, or even the difference between ages, one group is perfectly innocent, yet ...just a year difference, they're all ready to throw the guy in jail?! I mean ...how and when does it change from innocent sex to peadophilia; from something good to something horrid and appaulling?

Baron Max

The world is made up of many different types of people with many varying beliefs and opinions - mostly completely inconsistent. So why do you think the system of justice should be consistent throughout the world?


That wasn't what I said. I said the systems are inconsistent with themselves, and should be consistent. It's already been mentioned a teacher who had sex with a student only got 90 days. Now who was far more in the wrong(even by law)?
Now that we're on the subject though should peadophilia itself have the same definition worldwide? If having sex with a 17 year old is peadophilia in same places but isn't in others then what someone may or may not be, can depend entirely on where in the world they visit.

this is not right...if anyone wants to have sex...its their decision not governments!

this is not right...if anyone wants to have sex...its their decision not governments!

So if an old peadophile can talk a little 8-year old girl into playing a fun little "game" with him, and the little girl happily agrees, and they have sex, then you think it should be okay? ...that the cops/authorities shouldn't have anything to say about it?

Somehow I just doubt that you'd agree with that ....and yet that's essentially what you proposed/suggested.

Baron Max

So if an old peadophile can talk a little 8-year old girl into playing a fun little "game" with him, and the little girl happily agrees, and they have sex, then you think it should be okay? ...that the cops/authorities shouldn't have anything to say about it?

Somehow I just doubt that you'd agree with that ....and yet that's essentially what you proposed/suggested.

Baron Max

obviously that is wrong.
I am just saying that sex between 14 years old and 13 year old is not wrong if they are mature enough to contemplate it.

.... I said the systems are inconsistent with themselves, and should be consistent. It's already been mentioned a teacher who had sex with a student only got 90 days. Now who was far more in the wrong(even by law)?

So are you saying that "extenuating circumstances" shouldn't be permitted in a court of law? That all cases of, say, murder, if convicted, then regardless of the circumstances, they should all serve exactly the same sentence?

I think that could be pretty harsh on some murders, yet unduly lenient on others. I.e., all murders are not the same! Thus all sentences shouldn't be the same.

Baron Max

Superluminal:

If you need a highschool teacher how to bed a woman, you are a failure as a man.

So are you saying that "extenuating circumstances" shouldn't be permitted in a court of law? That all cases of, say, murder, if convicted, then regardless of the circumstances, they should all serve exactly the same sentence?

I think that could be pretty harsh on some murders, yet unduly lenient on others. I.e., all murders are not the same! Thus all sentences shouldn't be the same.

Baron Max

Why should a sentence be so grossly different? There a different types of murder as in pre-meditated or spontaneous, but why shouldn't all pre-meditated murder have the same(or at least very similar) sentence? Does it make a difference if they were chopped up into little pieces or just slashed once? How much of a difference? Either way this is off topic.
Extenuating circumstances is entirely different, that doesn't apply in these cases, a teacher having sex with a student alone is taking advantage of their position, presuming the student is also below the age of consent, although the teacher is older than this kid, then it's by far a greater example of peadophilia, yet only 90 days as punishment? Compared to 10 years? Do you seriously believe there are any extenuating circumstances that warrant such a difference? If anything the punishments should be the other way round, and without knowing the full details that's possibly harsh on the teacher but at least more just.