They put a fucking 17 YEAR OLD in JAIL for this?!
 

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/ind...well_id=2&weak
Oh. My. Fucking. God.

I'm the same age as the chick, and I'm more than capable of deciding who I do and don't go down on. Two fucking years older. TEN FUCKING YEARS. The kid was a FUCKING MINOR, and he got TEN FUCKING YEARS cause his girlfriend was TWO years younger than him. TWO. Thats 730 days.

I have lost all fucking faith in the entire southern half of the fucking country. Good fucking going, Georgia.

Fuck, man. I mean really. God-FUCKING-dammit, this is fucking stupid.

And just for good measure... FUCK.

I wonder if the jury took anything else into consideration. After all they are entitled to return a verdict of not guilty if they believe the law is unjust (and the guilty verdict in this case carried a mandatory sentence).

They were at a party where there was drinking, smoking weed, people videotaping eachother having sex and at which Wilson was accused of raping a 17 year old too drunk to give consent (he was acquitted - I'm not saying he deserves the sentence for this).

Now although I didn't attend any parties like that at 15, I did at 17 (except the taping bit) but perhaps the jury had different ideas as to what constituted a safe environment and whether social coercion took place. The 15 year old gave head to a number of guys that night.

So, if he'd anally raped her, he'd get a lesser sentence?

If he got her pregnant it would have been a misdemeanor too. He'd just have paid income support for the rest of his life.

Penalties for acts like this have to be objective.

If the 17 year old was sexually immature for his age and the 15 year old was sexually mature for her age, there is absolutely nothing wrong.

If the 17 year old was sexually mature and the 15 year old was sexually immature and the 17 year old took advantage of this fact, I could see punishment, but not ten years.

Good idea, anyone under 21 that sullies themselves and others with any of those horrendous sins, should be locked up for at least ten years for doing the work of the devil. Tsk tsk on the naughty heathens. :corn:

That's unbelievably harsh.

I have always been in favour of regulating teenage sex more fairly. A lot of countries have an age limit, but treat 'offenders' according to age gap; so if a 17 year old and a 15 year old get together, it is not treated as seriously as if a 21 year old and a 15 year old got together.

Poor lad.

It seems very harsh to me too.

I was on a jury once and it was a rape trial. Both were consenting adults but the chick with the charges couldn't remember anything. Literally all her answers to the prosecuter and the defandants qc were, 'I can't remember'. She definitely had a roo or two loose in the top paddock, but there was no evidence to suggest she'd been raped at all.

The defence came down to whether the defendants should have been responsible for knowing if the girl was capable of knowing what she was doing or not.

It's always hard to really understand these types of things unless you've got all the evidence first.

I was the chairperson in our jury, so responsible for leading discussion etc. As most of you know, I've a personal issue with rape, so it was a tough case for me, but the evidence didn't suggest rape, and so the alleged offenders were found not guilty.

Sometimes it's easy to sit back and say, 'that's not fair', but sometimes, you don't get the full story.

Ignorant and crazy.

Not true. You have seen it here - the so many who say laws must be enforced no matter what. Screw it when the law does not conform to its purpose. We must still prosecute them. Judges have no right to determine when laws are justified. Mandatory sentences for marijuana are especially important to protect us from ourselves. Screw the kid with years of prison time. He deserves it - according to the law. He broke the law. That is the righteous American way as soon as we kill off all those liberal judges.

Why not?

Do you have no symapthy for someone who just made a simple mistake? Ten years for getting a damn blowjob. What is the point of that long of sentence? He already learned his lesson and all this is doing is making him hate the state even more and going to RUIN HIS LIFE! This type of sentence isn't going to prevent anyone else from doing the same thing so it is extremely unnessesary.

If someone is going to ruin their life from marijuana they are most likely going to ruin their lives in other ways too. Most people can use marijuana without screwing themselves over, it is only the few that give in to it.

Tell that to his parents. You don't have any kids do you?

Well, in the Marcus Dixon case, he was 18 and the girl was 15. He was convicted under the same law which was reversed by the Georgia Supreme Court.

Marcus had a few advantages in that he was an honor student, promising athlete, and that there were racial overtones.

Unfortunately, the legislature did not grandfather the changes to the law. The real injustice was that Dixon was 18 and his conviction was reversed and Wilson was 17 and his was not. Also, while the court ruled that the changed law did not apply to Wilson, they overlooked the fact that Dixon was also charged under the original law and they reversed his case.

IMO, this deserves a review by the Supreme Court under the Equal Protection Clause. Every rape case has different circumstances, but the State of Georgia should be forced to defend the different handling of these two cases.

Wrong... that is a judges job, to interpret the law, their raison d'etre. It is how the law gets changed. They can also mitigate sentencing, they do it all the time.
Funny, TW.

Uh, sarcasm?

Hence my last line.. Um read?

nonono, i wasnt talking to you, rkzenrage.

Sorry... misunderstood.

Another night the lights went out in Georgia.

Freaking insane.

If you're talking to me I have seen a lot of people that are more extreme than that and were serious. Sorry if I missed it but sometimes its tough since sarcasm usually includes a tone of voice or expressions that are missing in forums.

Wow. De ja vu.

I was 17 my girlfriend was 16 and the cops busted us for sex in the public beach parking lot at 11 PM. They asked her mom if she wanted to press charges, thankfully, my life has not been shaken because her mom did not. Consensual sex laws are always going to be subject of debate. I'm surprised that the 15 year old girl didn't try to help him out declaring that it was consensual. I know I owe my girlfriend everything for her verbal support of our situation.

I am utterly outraged - That is absolutely amazing to me. Each situation like this has to be looked at individually. I admit, I don't know all the facts, but it seems to me this kids who got a BJ from his girlfriend is being treated the same as someone who grabs a girl off the streets and rapes her? Consent has to be looked at as a major component when determining punishment, if any. It seems like this is a great example of a law designed to protect our children that is harming them instead.

The law has to draw a line which determines at what age someone is capable of consent. That's where the notion of statutory rape comes from. If the only element is consent, without regard to competency, then all sex with children is legal, even if the 'consent' provided is the result of grooming or coercion on the part of the pedophile.

That's a well-greased slipperly slope you're riding.

Drawing a line seems to me to be exactly why the age is set at 18. The gov can't assess the "competency" or intellectual reasoning ability of every teenager who has sexual relations. If one of the participants is over 18 and the other isn't: statutory rape. If they're both teenagers, no rape at all. Drawing a line may not always work the way it should, but the line shouldn't be bent around at every mad parent's whim.

The age of consent is not 18 in every state, in some it is as low as 14.

And a teenager CAN certainly rape a teenager. Assuming consent is worse than assuming lack thereof.

Sorry wolf, I NEVER meant to say that age was an invalid part of the equation, I just thought that consent should also be involved. I like the way Shawnee put it best.

You can't put a certain age for legal sex because girls mature at different ages. If a girl is fully matured at 14 why can't she have a responsible mature relationship with an 18 year old? But then there is another 14 year old that will be taken advantage of because of her immaturity mentally to be able to handle a relationship.

OK, I just looked up Georgia and the age of consent IS 16. So, I stick by my analysis but my assumption that neither of them were older that the age of consent was wrong.

And, just for the record, I wasn't talking about rape. Rape and teenagers having sex are two different things. Statutory rape is not the same thing as a teenager forcing another to have sex. I wasn't assuming consent myself, I was assuming the article projected it was consensual, otherwise there would be no question that the guy should be punished.

But what defines 'fully matured'? I know people who are in their 30's and 40's who wouldn't fit a definition of 'fully matured' when compared to some people younger than them.

Both mentally and physcially mature. They usually go hand in hand but not always.

Mental maturity is completely subjective and immeasurable. No way to deal with that, hence the problem.

Yes, but you can get a rough idea and base the punishment off that. I know that won't be accepted very well and will be corrupted but it is better than putting a 17 year old in for 10 years for getting a blow job from someone two years younger than him.

I agree...the punishment is ridiculous.

I'm just playing devil's advocate when I say that it would be impossible to ascertain "maturity" for each and every time someone violates this law. Who decides? Psychiatrists? Who pays for that for every case like this that comes along?

The law as it pertains to the federal regulations I have to abide by in my job allow little room for subjectivism; everyone is treated as everyone else. That way, we cannot be accused of liking someone, or not liking someone, and basing decisions on our personal feelings.

I read that the law in Ohio says the age of consent is 16 as well. I lost "it" at 17 1/2 years old. My boyfriend was almost 16. Can you imagine (or, can I imagine) that I could have spent 10 years for falling into the love of youth and acting on it?

Scary stuff!

My girlfriend turns 16 today.

Well too fuckin' bad!

And how old are you Ibram?

You are restricted under the laws of the jurisdiction you're in, Ibram. Age of consent in China is probably 25. Remember that kid in Singapore that got caned for grafitti?

Well she's not in Taiwan, and it's sixteen in Maryland, where she is.

I'll be old enough in a couple months, though...

Why is it always the case that the issues where it so easy to draw a physical line between "good' and "bad" are those where they grey areas are most needed, and those where a clear definition is needed are those where the dividing line is a grey smudge at best? It's so easy to say "the sex you had was wrong because s/he was only 15", and yet so hard to rule that "the sex you had was wrong because you didn't realize she really meant it when she said no because last time she din't report it".

Too much work is my guess. It is much easier just to draw a line on hard issues then trying to work it out.

Where did that come from? Did anyone suggest non-consentual was ok? :confused:

No, sorry if I implied that -which I probably did- I was trying to allude the the (adult) cases where alleged rapists are found not guilty because at one point in the past, she said no but didn't cry rape afterwards...... There was a spate of such cases reported a year or so back along the lines of "she set a precedent for no not meaning no", so these cases were hard to convict, whereas in underage consensual sex, it's easy to convict even if no-one cries rape, simply because a minimum age is so easy to define and enforce.

That's probably not any clearer. perhaps I should look into a career in politics?

Much clearer, thanks. I went back and read the entire thread trying to find a reference. :lol:

sorry :redface:

No problem, I knew you had a good point, I was just wondering what triggered it. :thumbsup:

alcohol, most likely ;)

I agree that if the kids in question are members of the same peer group, there should be different considerations. Kids are rash, impulsive, and not at all scholars of the law. If someone had wanted to push it, I was 15, nearly 16, at my first sexual encounter, and my boyfriend was 17. I'd hate to see him pay for the rest of his life for being a horny teenager having consensual sex.

The same crap happened to a kid here in Austin. He was 17, she was 15, and they attended the same high school. 15 y.o.'s mom was a judge, so when she got knocked up, Mom went through the roof and threw the book at the 17 y.o. As a result, the 17 y.o. will have the stigma of being a "sex offender" for the rest of his life, complete with his neighborhood being papered with postcards informing neighbors of the "sex offender" in their 'hood every time he moves... for the rest of his life. No explanation is contained on this card; it's up to the recipient go to look at the website to see what he was convicted of, and you can be sure that the average suburban mom won't do that: she will just freak out and organize the other moms to picket the poor kid's house (this happened).

I wish people would really think about these things before passing judgment. Another friend went through a messy divorce in which his ex accused him of fondling their boys. That was 20 years ago and the boys, now adults, are active in their dad's life, over at the house all the time and will tell you that their dad never did anything wrong to them (but that their mom is nasty and spiteful), but he also gets the postcards and picketing if he moves. Nice, eh?

What ever happened to paying your debt to society? Justice is blind, sometimes more often than we think.

When was this?? I'm assuming you know the kid...

This thread has been dead for a while but I found an article about this guy which goes into a lot more detail and brings up a fact that this may be a race issues as well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...ry?page=wilson

There is a petition if you feel like signing it

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

I wonder how the chick feels other than not believing he should be jailed?

I also wonder what % of the sex offenders list is people like this? That ruins their lives for no reason and dilutes the effectiveness of having a list.:(

Does it dilute the effectiveness or compound the ineffectiveness?

Good point. I think the idea is sound for the never to be rehabbed perverts, but implementation is problematic. :smack:

Too young a pair
 

Of course, the idea behind this law, which everyone seems more than willing to ignore, is that if the bitch births a bastard, the stud can't pay for maintenance at his age.
You forget that society is also impacted by the result of your willingness to jump in the sack. Girls might change their attitude if they realised that their main attraction is that the guy gets to come without the effort of jacking off. You're just tight bags for them to ejaculate in.
And Jesus has nothing to do with it, swarthy little lying wanker that he was.

Uh, were talking about a blow job here. Screwing her would have gotten him a year or two, this got him 10! :(

That isn't even close to the idea behind the law. He was charged with aggravated child molestation, not being a deadbeat dad. The idea behind the law is that she was too young to consent, which should be somewhat mitigated by the fact that he wasn't much older.

I'll bet that waiting for that miraculous 360 in human nature is a good plan.

Is it? Society is impacted by lil ole me sucking someone off?
Damn, it's enough to make a girl feel subversive!

Nope. If I fancy someone enough to give head they're welcome to enjoy it. Anyway, they're already put enough effort in if they've got me on my knees, mouth open.
I don't think we've met have we? Thanks for the tight bit though.
Ah but at least he could be bothered to wank, eh? Didn't just lie back waiting for a tight bag to happen along....

Hmmmm, I seem to be feeling a bit NSFW tonight.

Does it dilute ... or concentrate.

Does it reduce ... or compound?

What do you think? [/editor]

Certainly a better one than waiting for a 180... :stickpoke

I was being literal, not sarcastic. Duh.

Wow.

Uh, Flint, I don't think literality was what you wanted.

This case showed up on O'Reilly tonight. Three-way jabberfest between two female guests of varied professional credentials and O'Reilly -- beyond that I can't say it left much of an impression. O'Reilly as usual took the position that it's better to keep it zipped; he doesn't reckon volunteering for trouble by sailing in phallus first is ever a good thing, whether actual trouble ensues or no. In this case, it ensued.