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

[Ibby]

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/ind...well_id=2&weak

ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a teen who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old.
In a ruling released Friday, the court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyers for Genarlow Wilson, who was 17 when he and the 15-year-old engaged in consensual oral sex. He was sentenced for aggravated child molestation.
Wilson’s case was one of two cases that were cited earlier this year when lawmakers passed a law that otherwise strengthened penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy.
Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that in easing the penalties for teens, ‘‘the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.’’
Hunstein added she was ‘‘very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior,’’ but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.

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.

[Sundae]

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.

[wolf]

but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy.

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

[Sundae]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[Aliantha]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

Mandatory sentences for marijuana are especially important to protect us from ourselves.

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.

Screw the kid with years of prison time.

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

[richlevy]

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.

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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.

[Ibby]

Uh, sarcasm?

Hence my last line.. Um read?