They put a fucking 17 YEAR OLD in JAIL for this?!
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hence my last line.. Um read?
nonono, i wasnt talking to you, rkzenrage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
Too much work is my guess. It is much easier just to draw a line on hard issues then trying to work it out.
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".
Where did that come from? Did anyone suggest non-consentual was ok? :confused:
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:
No problem, I knew you had a good point, I was just wondering what triggered it. :thumbsup:
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.
The same crap happened to a kid here in Austin.
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/eticket/story?page=wilson
There is a petition if you feel like signing it
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.phpI 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:
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! :(
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.
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.
Girls might change their attitude...
I'll bet that waiting for that miraculous 360 in human nature is a good plan.
...society is also impacted by the result of your willingness to jump in the sack.
Is it? Society is impacted by lil ole me sucking someone off?
Damn, it's enough to make a girl feel subversive!
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.
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.
You're just tight bags for them to ejaculate in.
I don't think we've met have we? Thanks for the tight bit though.
And Jesus has nothing to do with it, swarthy little lying wanker that he was.
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 the effectiveness or compound the ineffectiveness?
Does it dilute ... or
concentrate.
Does it
reduce ... or compound?
What do you think? [/editor]
I'll bet that waiting for that miraculous 360 in human nature is a good plan.
Certainly a better one than waiting for a 180... :stickpoke
I'll bet that waiting for that miraculous 360 in human nature is a good plan.
Certainly a better one than waiting for a 180... :stickpoke
I was being literal, not sarcastic. Duh.
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.
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.
Everyone seems to be making references to a spirit of law, but for the life of me I can't see how that applies here. The age of consent agreed upon sets a boundery at which most people are old enough to make their own sexual desision, not everyone will fit this but there are personal exeptions to every law. The best solution would be to have every person individually evaluated, but that's impossible. The next best solution is to set a boundry applicable to the majority with minimal inconvinience to the minority.
Also, why is youth now considered an excuse for acting on ignorance and stupidity? You certainly don't have to be a legal expert to know that if you are over the age of majority then sex with ANYONE under it is strictly off limits, alcohol and drug intake to not change this. Am I really supposed to feel sympathetic for someone that stupid? Or someone that unwilling or unable to control themselves?
One of the original purposes of that law was to make a clear, nonemotional boundary for behavior. Parents involved in this sort of issue will of course be emotional, hence the law. We absolutely cannot start tweaking the law based on emotional impulses of particular moments. Emotion makes bad laws, lets keep to legality here, not hand wringing and weeping. Kid breaks the law, kid pays the penalty.
If ignorance of the law ever becomes a defence in any situation, we're all screwed.
One of the original purposes of that law was to make a clear, nonemotional boundary for behavior. Parents
Purpose of judges, juries and prosecutors is to also determine when the 'letter of the law' violates the 'purpose of the law'. You tell me. Clearly he committed a crime equivalent to first degree murder because some girl gave him a blow job. Clearly the law also intends a ten year sentence if she rubbed his balls even if he did not remove his pants. That is also what 9th Engineer claims.
Well we have justified a sentence of 1st degree murder because ‘purpose of laws’ is irrelevant. Using that reasoning, then those in possession of marijuana are also doing murder - because we cannot trust judges and juries to do anything but blindly enforce laws. This is how dictatorships get started. Clearly everyone is dumb and cannot be trusted; therefore we have laws?
Well if a girl has her shoes off and the car crosses a state line, then the males in that car must be arrested for rape. That also is the law - and must be blindly enforced. 9th Engineer tells us that those males must go to jail no matter what - because that is the law - no excuses.
If the letter of the law is in opposition to the spirit or purpose of the law, then the politicians/lawyers who drafted and signed it are in gross negligence. If we have a law that says that the crime of getting a bj from your underage girlfriend mandates jail time, then the kid gets slammed with jail time and those who disagree go and drag the lawyers away from their shrimp cocktails and tell them to do their job. I'm sick of half-assed laws that get thrown out there with the assumption that other people will change them on the fly according to some ethereal 'spirit' that the law was written in, but does not reflect. You say that the real purpose of the law is protect minors? Then go headhunting for the people who fucked up their job.
If the letter of the law violates the spirit of the law, then the solution is to change the law, not to break it and say "well we don't want to enforce that law anyway".
If the letter of the law is in opposition to the spirit or purpose of the law, then the politicians/lawyers who drafted and signed it are in gross negligence.
That assumes extenuating circumstances do not and never exist. To not be grossly negligent, the future must be completely predictable. Clearly, 9th, your assumption is rather naive.
No wonder we don't require people with extensive experience as judges. Since every extenuating circumstance is predictable, then we can replace judges with law clerks. We can fire all those Supreme Court justices in Federal and all States. Wow. Look at how much money can be saved.
Clearly our ancestors were stupid. They did not understand all laws are complete - need no interpretation for extenuating circumstances and other variations. Clearly we have Congressmen so well endowed with brain power as to have thought all this out well in advance. And since people are so smart, then scientists need not do any experiments – they also have made all necessary predictions in advance. Well now we need not risk mankind in risky trips to the unknown - all is predicatable. We even know when the elevator will fail. Clearly we know when the murder will strike. I did not realize we have people so smart.
Meanwhile we don't have a law that specifically defines a blow job as sex. That was someone's interpretation. Law does not list every action that is sex. Clearly grabbing his balls also constitutes sex. I wonder why Congress forgot to make that clear? After all, Congress can predict all possible circumstances. Or were they (as usual) grossly negligent?
Unfortuantly we are in a legislative backlash against judges doing just that - revewing the evidence and circumstances as a whole and passing judgement. Thats why they are called judges. "Too little time for 'horrible crimes'" and thus manditory sentencing laws. We allow lawyers too much freedom in obtaining the conviction or aquittal and no freedom to the judge to do their job. We also as a society put too much emphasis on the confrontational aspect - win the case - of the legal system and to little on discovering the truth.
Did you ever study law 9th?
Oh yeah, and have you ever broken the law? Even just a tiny bit that didn't harm anyone, but it was definitely against the law?
btw, how old are you?
You missed my point Ali, I'm saying that if one judge in county A can impose a completely different type of punishment then a judge in county B, then our legal system fails to administer fair punishment. This particular case still boils down to people trying to make individual exceptions from the law. If the people down there decided that his crime warrants 10 years of jail time then that's what they did, doesn't matter if you agree with them. We live in a democracy for the most part, you think I don't have my own frustrations about stupid laws that must be enforced because our citizens are too stupid to act on their own? I have plenty, but I have to bend to the will of the majority, just as this young man will.
What point am I missing? I asked you a couple of questions. I notice you didn't answer any of them...
Correct, I ignored all your questions because none of them have any bearing on the conversation. My age has nothing to do with it, and I've stated that I am a college student many times in the past. Unless you are going to come forward and say you have a legal degree yourself then your first question is irrelevant. And as for your second question, I don't evaluate whether I'm going to obey a law based on whether or not I feel my actions hurt anyone. This is an issue of legality, not the semantics of whether you think people should be held accountable for laws you don't agree with.
They all have bearing on the conversation, but that's ok. Feel free to ignore them and display your ignorance a little more.
Your age leads to your experience. Your knowledge of law leads to how the law is interpreted, which tw has tried to explain to you. Whether you agree with it or not, laws do have different interpretations, and that is where the 'spirit' of each individual law becomes applicable. Mentioned in another thread is a situation where a prisoner used anti discrimination laws in order to be served halal food. In this case, the spirit of the law was not designed to be abused in this manner, although the letter of the law was followed in order for this criminal to achieve a favourable outcome.
So you see, it works both ways. Sometimes criminals benefit from using the letter of the law when in fact, the spirit of the law was ignored. Alternatively, people who are charged under the letter of the law would have been better served had the spirit of the law been taken into consideration.
As to you declining to answer whether you have ever committed any minor crimes. Perhaps underage drinking? Well, that only points to the hypocrisy of your argument if you're arguing in favour of the letter of the law.
They did realize they fucked up when they wrote the law and went back and changed it. But that change doesn't apply to him because he got a blow job before they admitted their mistake. :rolleyes:
What is sick is that people's lives are a game to these vermin.
A judge can rule against... that is what they are for, period.
What is sick is that people's lives are a game to these vermin.
A judge can rule against... that is what they are for, period.
As I understand it, this was a jury trial. A jury can disregard a law if they feel the law does not apply. Another classic example of why one must not just know - must also know why. Apparently even the jury forewoman even thought their verdict was wrong. Then why did she blindly vote to enforce an inappropriate law? Well many juries are told they cannot do what is their responsibility.
Judges have limited powers to overturn a jury verdict. Therefore ‘vermin’ was the jury that failed to do their job.
A jury can disregard a law if they feel the law does not apply.
How many people do you think actually know this? Juries are given instructions and are told by the judge that they HAVE TO follow those instructions. Only the rebels and very confident would even dream of ignoring the judge's instructions. Most average people will keep their heads down and do what they are told.
The jury did not pass the sentence.
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.
Well, if anyone would know it would be O'Reilly, the
king of falafel.
Noone disagrees that teenagers do stupid things. I think serving a sentence normally reserved for actual forcible rape for a 2 year difference in ages is ridiculous.
Just an update on what my wonderful state is doing to control sex offenders. They're
forcing them to live under bridges.
The Julia Tuttle Causeway, which links Miami to Miami Beach, offers no running water, no electricity and little protection from nasty weather. It's not an ideal solution, Department of Corrections Officials told CNN, but at least the state knows where the sex offenders are.
Don't ever,
ever get caught urinating in public, here.
We house them on
McNeil Island.
Washington state took over the penitentiary from the federal government in 1981. It is now called McNeil Island Corrections Center. According to the state, it is the only facility in the U.S. to have been a territorial, federal, and state prison, and is the only prison left in North America that is only accessible by boat or air. It is presently the site of the state's primary Special Commitment Center, where sexually violent predators are committed for treatment after completing their standard prison sentences.
--snip--There is no commerce or stores on the island and access to the island is strictly controlled by the Department of Corrections making it the most exclusive island in the entire Puget Sound.
Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami's least welcome residents.
Do these rules only apply to pedophiles or is that just a coincidence?
Do these rules only apply to pedophiles or is that just a coincidence?
Only to "sex offenders" (child molesters, people that expose themselves in public, etc). Most cities here have a limit on how close convicted offenders can live within places where children congregate (includes schools, school bus stops, playgrounds, churches, day care centers, city/county parks, etc) Tampa, like Miami, is working to push the minimum distance to a level that effectively closes off the entire city so that convicts have no place to live. Now it appears even the state is attempting to pass a law that will push the accused to very remote areas or simply force them to go on the run.
Same here. They make the minimum radius of the no-go zone so large and apply to so many locations, that the circles all overlap, and the baddies are pushed out by sheer force of legislation.
No fan of sexual predators am I, but, I find this part very unsettling:
It is presently the site of the state's primary Special Commitment Center, where sexually violent predators are committed for treatment after completing their standard prison sentences.
I don't fully understand the "committed after completion of the sentence" part. Your thoughts?
I don't fully understand the "committed after completion of the sentence" part. Your thoughts?
I don't get it, either. Once you serve out your sentence, you're done. If the commitment to an institution is part of the sentence, fine. I would rather see treatment and rehabilitation than what most cities and states do with sex offenders, which is to essentially stitch a red letter 'A' to their clothing and ostracize them from society in the hopes that the problem remedies itself. Someone convicted of murdering a child that has served their time doesn't receive as many restrictions as this once they've returned to the world.
Now it appears even the state is attempting to pass a law that will push the accused to very remote areas or simply force them to go on the run.
Soon to come: roving packs of itinerant pedophiles.
Soon to come: roving packs of itinerant pedophiles.
Soon to follow: roving packs of paedophile hunters.
Soon to follow: roving packs of paedophile hunters.
I was thinking this, so I'll note it: the people living under that bridge are in for it now that it is public that they live there. Good as dead.
*nods* yep. Just what any civilised society needs, rampant vigilantism.
While we're all just thinking out loud here...
This is an example of the difference between lib/con/red/blue/right/left etc that generates much confusion, headlines and friction.
*Mandatory* sentences, maybe mandatory life sentences would eliminate this problem altogether. You did the crime, game over. Maybe even capital punishment. Even shorter anguish. It masks the problem with a superficial simplicity. "Problem solved".
But then what of the other thread floating around out there, what about the 17 year old in jail for this?!?! thread? Should the subject of that thread be "simplified" permanently with a life sentence or a death sentence? If not, where do you draw the line? Under what circumstances are you willing to consider other factors?
Which brings me to the base conflict: Simple answers that are easy to apply but fit most situations poorly, or better more appropriate solutions that require more effort/cost to develop? Simplicity versus Nuance?
Which is probably a good indicator of why I'm a Liberal--I am willing to spend the extra effort to find a better answer and I consider those who prejudge a situation and apply an answer without much thought lazy. It's very frustrating.
I don't have the answer to McNeil Island or that freeway enclave. But I do know that it's messed up and that a better answer can be found. But only be talking and working together, and just turning your back on the situation and calling it good since you can't see it anymore.
Only to "sex offenders" (child molesters, people that expose themselves in public, etc). Most cities here have a limit on how close convicted offenders can live within places where children congregate (includes schools, school bus stops, playgrounds, churches, day care centers, city/county parks, etc) Tampa, like Miami, is working to push the minimum distance to a level that effectively closes off the entire city so that convicts have no place to live. Now it appears even the state is attempting to pass a law that will push the accused to very remote areas or simply force them to go on the run.
Wait a minute, back up. The star of this thread, the 17 year old that got a blow job, is a sex offender. Does this Miami law apply to him as well as pedophiles?
Wait a minute, back up. The star of this thread, the 17 year old that got a blow job, is a sex offender. Does this Miami law apply to him as well as pedophiles?
In Florida, there is no difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. Any "sex offense", from urinating in public to molesting a toddler, gets you listed in the state's database (your name, address, etc, but
not the specific offense you committed) and forces you to abide by the same restrictions and lack of rights after your sentence is served.
While trying to find some info on the Florida Law I found this:
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/search/label/FloridaWe house them on McNeil Island.
I think it is a great idea. We need more islands like this.
In Florida, there is no difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. Any "sex offense", from urinating in public to molesting a toddler, gets you listed in the state's database (your name, address, etc, but not the specific offense you committed) and forces you to abide by the same restrictions and lack of rights after your sentence is served.
It's the same in most states. So basically anyone who's a registered sex offender, regardless of the reason, is prohibited from living a normal, productive life...... for the fucking children.
for the fucking children.
And in some instances... :evil2:
And in some instances... :evil2:
For evil? Don't be silly, rkz says it doesn't exist.
I was too circumspect. I was making a joke.
And in some instances...
for fucking the children.
On the non-joke side, I agree 100% with your point.
I apologize, I didn't get it.
Judge says let him go. Invalidated the previous conviction, convicted him under the new law, sentenced him to the maximum 12 months, gave him credit for the two years served. Bub bye.
Judge says let him go. Invalidated the previous conviction, convicted him under the new law, sentenced him to the maximum 12 months, gave him credit for the two years served. Bub bye.
The bad news is that the credit is only valid at the prison shop.
Good that he's out, but that's still two years too much, in my opinion.
According to CNN,
The state is likely to appeal the ruling... He could remain behind bars while the appeal proceeds.
They also indicate that at the time, the jury protested the crime and sentence--basically it looks like all they were asked was, "Did this boy receive a blowjob from this girl?" and there was
video evidence from the party. They did not want to convict him of the crime or give him the (mandatory) sentence.
And if they would have had intercourse it would have been a lower charge with less jail time.
Stop! The GA attorney General has appealed the Judges decision.
Stop! The GA attorney General has appealed the Judges decision.
What idiots. Thank God most of the judges get smarter on the appeals, except for the left coast circuit.
Well, according to the comments by the legislature as they passed the new law, it wasn't supposed to be applied retroactively. This guy still may be screwed.
From the first post: "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.’’"
The bad news is that the credit is only valid at the prison shop.
LOL!
I wonder what crime he'll spend that extra 12 mos. on?
And if they would have had intercourse it would have been a lower charge with less jail time.
Actually, he
did have intercourse with a different girl, and he
was charged with rape, but there was not video of it so the jury declined to convict him.
Stop! The GA attorney General has appealed the Judges decision.
I noticed that but I think (and hope) that the appeal is more procedural than a revelation of an actual objection by the DA's office. From what I read when the case first came out, no one wanted to see the kid do time.
I could be wrong though. I'll see if I can find notes from the DA's press conference to clarify.
I heard the DA was pissed because the kid wouldn't accept the plea bargain the others took, so he pushed for the max.
Has no one down there ever heard of
Jury Nullification?
Nobody who isn't screened out by the prosecuter during jury selection.:headshake
He's been freed on
appeal!
Originally on the appeal, the jugde did not let him out because it would have created a legal loop hole for hundreds if not thousands of other sex offenders.
Originally on the appeal, the jugde did not let him out because it would have created a legal loop hole for hundreds if not thousands of other sex offenders.
There have been times in the past when courts (and this includes the Supreme Court) have made rulings that were 'one off'.
A prime recent example of this is Bush v. Gore. The legal justification behind it was so tortuously constructed and broad that the majority opinion included a clause that had the opinion only apply to that case.
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
In other words, it's possible to rule on a single case and not establish a precedent.
Still, the original sentence was a stupid application of the law which, if applied equally across the country, would have sent tens of thousands to jail. IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, the Wilson case, like Bush v Gore, was an equal protection case. Whether due to race or allegations of 'date rape', which were never proved, Wilson was singled out for this additional charge.
As for a loop hole for other sex offenders, the only ones it would affect are those convicted solely under this law. The legislature should have made the change to the law retroactive. Pussies.
I think they should fix the law but not at any expense of creating a loop hole for others to get out on technical grounds, no way.
I think they should fix the law but not at any expense of creating a loop hole for others to get out on technical grounds, no way.
The 'loophole' would have consisted of saying that people who were already imprisoned under the old law have as much a right to freedom as the people who would have been convicted if the law hadn't changed.
That's not a loophole, that's 'equal justice under law'.
Further, the legislators did make the law retroactive in an attempt to free the young man. The higher court is the ones who screwed up, so again it is the Judges who are the pussies.
"Legislators last year voted to close that loophole. But the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson, now 21. "
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070611/georgia_teen_070611?s_name=&no_ads=The 'loophole' would have consisted of saying that people who were already imprisoned under the old law have as much a right to freedom as the people who would have been convicted if the law hadn't changed.
That's not a loophole, that's 'equal justice under law'.
And that is the problem. People who were rightly convicted under the old law were put there for good reason. This kid should never have gone to jail. But the 50 year old man who has sex with your 12 year old daughter more likely should have been there and has no right to release.
This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."
This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."
Well they had to come up with something to get it into the court.
This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."
Which was the only excuse left. However, IMO the 'equal protection' argument had as much plausibility.
I can't believe they couldn't apply the age provision retroactively. In the Skakel murder trial in Connecticut, they ended up trying a 40+ year old man in Juvenile Court.
Notice how biased the laws are? He was also under age. How much time did she get? The man is always punished more than the woman under American law. The woman always has an advantage. In child custody battles, rape cases, and even murder.
Notice how biased the laws are? He was also under age. How much time did she get? The man is always punished more than the woman under American law. The woman always has an advantage. In child custody battles, rape cases, and even murder.
He was not under age. There is this little thing called "Age of Consent", each state is different. Sexual orientation is not a factor, meaning it is not different for males and females. 17 yrs is an age of consent, 15 yrs is not. Like it or not, it is the law.
In Florida, there is no difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. Any "sex offense", from urinating in public to molesting a toddler, gets you listed in the state's database (your name, address, etc, but not the specific offense you committed) and forces you to abide by the same restrictions and lack of rights after your sentence is served.
It's the same in California. Your bladder can be ready to explode, but if you safely pull off the side of the highway and take a pee in the bushes, you're labeled a "sex offender" for life.
I personally believe kids under the age of 18 can't grasp all of the ramifications of having sex and therefore can't be trusted to make reasonable and rational decisions regarding it. They have no consent to offer because all consent belongs to their parents. I'd keep laws against having sex with those under 18, but allow the judges to have discretion to make the punishment fit the crime.
For instance, making both of them work at an STD clinic, abortion clinic, orphanage, etc. but not being called "sex offenders"
He was no under age. There is this little thing called "Age of Consent", each state is different. Sexual orientation is not a factor, meaning it is not different for males and females. 17 yrs is an age of consent, 15 yrs is not. Like it or not, it is the law.
The age of consent is the age at which you can buy a beer. It's the age at which you are responsible enough to make ALL decisions for yourself and have the ability to support yourself. All states should be forced to allow alcohol and gun sales to those who are the same age as their consensual sex age. I think we'd see those ages rise a bit if we did.
The age of consent is the age at which you can buy a beer. It's the age at which you are responsible enough to make ALL decisions for yourself and have the ability to support yourself. All states should be forced to allow alcohol and gun sales to those who are the same age as their consensual sex age. I think we'd see those ages rise a bit if we did.
Wrong. That is not how the law is written and that is not the way society views it.
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htmWrong. That is not how the law is written and that is not the way society views it.
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm
I don't argue about how the law is written, but it is how society and the law
SHOULD view it because it makes sense. You are old enough to make your own decisions (including military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc) or you aren't.
I don't argue about how the law is written, but it is how society and the law SHOULD view it because it makes sense. You are old enough to make your own decisions (including military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc) or you aren't.
I would say that the fact remains that most teens have sex. Given that, I would say that it does not mean they also have the capacity to make good decisions because they can and do have sex. Laws need to be in place to protect young people from exploitation by older people. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Because you are 15 does not mean you are capable of making adult decisions about military, marriage, alcohol, sex, gambling, drugs, contracts, guns, etc . Hell even some 18 olds are not mature enough to make good decisions. The law and society has drawn the lines. Live with it or go somewhere that it makes no difference.
Another hit from the SD random thread picker led me to this thread. Did a little looking and found a lot of
updates.
gotta do the search yourself though
12/23/2007 12:01:00 AM
Two more young men freed in case that changed sex laws
ATLANTA - Two more young men have been freed after serving time in jail for a case involving a 17-year-old who had consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.
Ryan D. Barnwell and Cortez Robinson, both 22, were released from prison Friday morning after spending 31⁄2 years behind bars. The two pleaded guilty to child molestation after attending a 2003 New Year's Eve party with Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having oral sex with the girl.
Wilson, now 21, was freed Oct. 26, 2007 after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that that his sentence was 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Georgia law at the time of his trial required a minimum of a decade in prison.
The case prompted lawmakers to change state law to make such cases a misdemeanor when they involve teenagers close in age.
Good.
It looks like it was a small local newspaper that broke this story initially. I wonder what will happen when most of the local newspapers die in the next few years? The internet is great for some news sources, but will anyone be covering local news like this anymore? The story was initially a small one. "Georgia Supreme court refuses to hear appeal." That happens all the time. But this time a small paper picked up on it. These kids are free now and the law was changed because of newspapers.
Who will track this stuff in the future? Maybe some Georgia state law school student journal, but I doubt such a journal would have the circulation and influence that newspapers have enjoyed.
Call me a luddite, but I'm sorry to see newspapers dieing. Even my print edition of the Washington Post has become very skinny. It's maybe 60% of its former content.
I think there will be a slew of startup papers, really local, probably free, local ads, wanted/for sale ads, and a smattering of local news. Hopefully some journalistic talent will follow, but they won't want to insult advertisers.:(
I think there will be a slew of startup papers, really local, probably free, local ads, wanted/for sale ads, and a smattering of local news. Hopefully some journalistic talent will follow, but they won't want to insult advertisers.:(
This is the problem. With craigslist, there is no reason to pay for a wanted/for sale ad. It's the biggest single reason local papers are struggling.
Yeah, Austin's free alternative newspaper is still going strong. But a large portion of their pages are ad content, humor, (left-wing) op/ed, and weekly live music listings. They still would have been all over exposing a story like this though.
They still would have been all over exposing a story
like this though.
I'm sure they would have loved to expose this story, but do they have reporters actively monitoring all the cases going on in the state? That's how you find a story like this. It doesn't just land in your lap unless someone gives it to you.
There are always ways a story like this could come to light without traditional local papers, but I'm just sad to see that one source declining. It makes it less likely that a small local story like this sees the light of day.
I'm sure they would have loved to expose this story, but do they have reporters actively monitoring all the cases going on in the state? That's how you find a story like this. It doesn't just land in your lap unless someone gives it to you.
There are always ways a story like this could come to light without traditional local papers, but I'm just sad to see that one source declining. It makes it less likely that a small local story like this sees the light of day.
Yep. The folding of newspapers around the country marks a very sad day for investigative journalism. Young, green reporters don't have the contacts to get the real dirt on some things. With the demise of newspapers looming over us, so goes the demise of democracy.
And, I actually like to read a newspaper. I read a lot less online, because I like the feel of a book or newspaper in my hands, the turning of the page, etc.. I find that when I read online, my attention span is much worse, and I have a harder time concetrating.