If this has been posted before, as it probably has, then ignore me because I'm idiot.

Otherwise

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

Quote :

" 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. "

In summary: A 17 year old kid who has no prior history of anything is getting a 10 year sentence with no parole for having oral sex with a girl two years his junior.

Wow.

12/19/2006 12:57:35 AM

It's totally fucked up and should never have happened. This is the goddamned police state run amok.

12/19/2006 1:10:43 AM

Yep, Democracy sucks sometimes, but how else can we assign penalties and punishments to deviants?

12/19/2006 1:16:03 AM

By doing it reasonably? Tell me you didn't fuck around with a 15 year old when you were 17. Are you a faggot, son?

12/19/2006 1:17:27 AM

Yes, the DA could have dropped this or gone for a lighter charge.

This was completely retarded and now effectively ended this young man's life.

12/19/2006 1:18:53 AM

^^^ Uh. . .common sense?

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ^]

12/19/2006 1:19:08 AM

I say we bring LoneSnark up on charges of being a faggot and thus not a true Republican (read: American).

12/19/2006 1:20:15 AM

Are you against young love, Snark? Surely, such actions are not "deviant," as you described.

12/19/2006 1:33:40 AM

Lots of uptight people are against the shit they were unable to do in highschool.

12/19/2006 1:34:43 AM

Well, lucky for me, the legislature (otherwise called the democratic process) has yet to catch me in one of its snares.

I hope no one misunderstands, I agree this is a tragedy. But it is a tragedy endemic to the form of the system. So, write a letter to your representatives and wait around for the next "minimum sentence" outrage.

Back in the day we gave judges great leeway in sentencing, just for such occasions. But some, fearing judicial activism, chose to tie their hands.

BTW: I did not say this individual was a deviant, I merely asked "how else can we assign penalties and punishments to deviants?" Implying if not through the democratic process, then how?

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/19/2006 1:36:01 AM

^ Ha!



Call the cops!

12/19/2006 1:36:14 AM

LOCK THAT LITTLE FUCKER UP

RUIN HIS LIFE

12/19/2006 1:36:54 AM

This is unbelievable. High school kids across the country are doing this every week. I dated a 15 year old when I was 17 (I think a few actually), might have gotten head from one of em, can't remember that far back.

12/19/2006 2:01:55 AM

I don't know which way LoneSnark goes, but sodomy is oral AND anal sex--no matter who's doing whom. They'll lock you up just as fast for homosexual sex, Snark. Do you want that?

12/19/2006 2:11:24 AM

My bet is that while the government probably would've been willing to drop this case, the girl's parents made a big fuss about it, forcing the prosecutor to pursue it.

12/19/2006 2:12:30 AM

^^ could you re-phrase your question? Are you asking if I want to be locked up or if I want homosexual sex (insert traditional prison joke here).

I think "mandatory minimums" are wrong, and that is what went wrong here.

12/19/2006 2:26:57 AM

Quote :

"My bet is that while the government probably would've been willing to drop this case, the girl's parents made a big fuss about it, forcing the prosecutor to pursue it."

My bet is that the parents walked in on them and flipped out on the guy. Instead of telling him to gtfo they called the cops and started some shit. That is why the kid is fucked now.

That is also why you lock the goddamn door.

12/19/2006 2:32:08 AM

^^ Ha! Good comeback. But I already know you want homosexual sex.

In any event, the actions of the two teenagers are not "deviant," as you put it. In fact, I submit that heterosexual sex between young people--oral or otherwise--is the norm.

And, Snark, no charts please.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 2:35 AM. Reason : ^^]

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 2:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/19/2006 2:34:40 AM

PS: "Goergia"

12/19/2006 3:02:22 AM

I really have to repeat myself again...
"
BTW: I did not say this individual was a deviant, I merely asked "how else can we assign penalties and punishments to deviants?" Implying if not through the democratic process, then how?"

'Deviants' is used here to describe all form of criminals, sexual or otherwise as deemed by the process.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 3:09 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/19/2006 3:09:04 AM

^ So, what you're saying is that you want homosexual sex to be safe, legal, and readily available to you, right?

12/19/2006 3:43:55 AM

This isn't a tragedy insofaras the judge made the right decision: the law is the law. If the legislature writes dumb laws, it should have to look stupid when they're enforced.

But -- the courts aren't the place to handle this mess. The governor has the authority to pardon this young man and therefore he should do so. Cases like this are why governors have the power to pardon.

12/19/2006 4:10:50 AM

I believe this case is being taken to the highest level. He'll get out. There's no way it would be allowed to stand.

12/19/2006 7:00:39 AM

Wow guys, get off Loneshark's nuts for the love of crackers.

This is a failure of the Justice System, no doubt, and it highlights the problem with minimum sentence laws. Here's a problem though, when you're drawing the age lines for consensual sex, you're going to come to some point where 1 day makes the difference between statutory rape and consensual sex. That's the nature of drawing a line. Now, this is not the place to have drawn I line, IMO, but they have to draw it somewhere (unless you believe 3 year olds ought to be able to consent to sex).

So, without dwelling on this case any longer, I want to ask: Where do you draw the line? Do you make the sentence vary with the difference in ages? Should a 17 year old banging a 14 year old get less time than a 25 year old in the 14 year old?

12/19/2006 7:35:59 AM

Quote :

"Should a 17 year old banging a 14 year old get less time than a 25 year old in the 14 year old?"

Durr.

I think minimum sentences need to be thrown away and things looked at situationally. When you stick 18 yr olds in the same schools with 14 yr olds, then of course they are going to get together. Seniors dudes that continue to strike out with the jr and sr girls eventually look towards dating the young ones. Hell, I dated a freshman that had years of maturity on a sr chick I dated.

If this is deemed such a horrible problem, then don't put 17-18 yr olds with 14-15 yr olds.

12/19/2006 7:47:40 AM

Quote :

"Texas 4-Year-Old Suspended After Hugging Aide (AP) WACO, Texas School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman. A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's parents said that the boy was involved in ``inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment'' after he hugged the woman and he ``rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female employee'' on Nov. 10. DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his son doesn't understand why he was punished. ``When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald. La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented them from commenting. After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the district said the offense had been changed to ``inappropriate physical contact'' and removed references of sexual contact or sexual harassment from the boy's file. Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a discipline referral. The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30 miles around Waco."

http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_345231425.html

12/19/2006 7:59:34 AM

Quote :

"When you stick 18 yr olds in the same schools with 14 yr olds, then of course they are going to get together. "

I don't disagree with you in your sentiment, but seriously, what kind of argument is this? They don't need to show self-restraint and follow the law? By this same token, the 40 year old teachers should have problems not banging the students too.

12/19/2006 8:17:09 AM

I wonder if the boy in that situation was black, and the 15 year old girl white. Don't the parents have to press the charges for something like that? I mean I doubt that the police busted in on them during the act. If the parents turned him in for that and let the sentencing take place, then they must have had some real dislike for the kid.

12/19/2006 8:46:40 AM

Quote :

"I don't disagree with you in your sentiment, but seriously, what kind of argument is this? They don't need to show self-restraint and follow the law? By this same token, the 40 year old teachers should have problems not banging the students too."

Ok, 17 yr olds and 14 yr olds, a minor and a minor. No, I don't expect a bunch of hormone fueled kids to show restraint, especially when a massive majority of them never consider the laws. You think 17 and 18 yr olds are self aware? No one told them they couldn't date freshman. All they know is they are there and they like them.

It isn't like there is a "high school test" (like a drivers test) that they had to pass to be there, one where they learned that if they fuck a 14 yr old they get jail time. How are they supposed to know if they don't already know and are never told?

It's guys like you that try and black and white everything with no grey area that gets kids like this fucked up.

Like I said, I may very well have engaged in these exact same activities, and I doubt it crossed my mind one time that it could be illegal.

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 9:03 AM. Reason : a]

12/19/2006 9:02:20 AM

Well, at least this way the parents won't have to worry about enforcing the "I never want you to see that boy again" punishment.

12/19/2006 9:03:18 AM

Quote :

"It's guys like you that try and black and white everything with no grey area that gets kids like this fucked up."

I'm not trying to black and white anything here. The whole fucking area is gray, that's my point. The problem is: How do we go about allowing for the gray area using laws that require black and white.

For instance, in your "a minor and a minor" scenario, the guy could be 17 and 364 days and another guy who was 1 day older than him could be thrown in the slammer for hammering the same girl. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to come up with a way to fix. Don't bring that shit like I'm supporting this decision, I'm trying to find a way to fix it. Instead, you just want to be irate and bitch about it. It's a great idea, but it isn't going to fix a god damn thing.

12/19/2006 9:29:06 AM

I think anybody exercising a bit of common sense would have gotten this case right.

12/19/2006 9:47:28 AM

Not to poke fun, but bgmims effectively just asked us all "How do you legislate morality?"

Good luck with that one, people.

Hazarding a response is dangerous, but I'll try. I'd say a roving consenting age is best.

Clearly, no 13 year old strikes us as ready for sex. But if he or she is loose enough and lucky enough to be alone for enough time with a significant other aged 13 or 14, you've got to figure that sex will end up happening eventually. Why ruin a kid's life over it?

The rules change when a significant other gets to be 16 or 17. In other words, the formula is a two year difference in ages down to the age of 13.

12/19/2006 9:49:18 AM

McD, what is there to get right? I mean, did he commit the crime he was accused of? Yes. Was there any leeway in sentencing available? No.

Its the law that is at fault, not the common sense of the judge. It absolutely sucks, but there really isn't anything the judge can do here.

^So under your 2 year difference, this kid got what he deserved?

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/19/2006 9:50:21 AM

I think it boils down to Age of Consent and how to protect children from real predators. The law needs to be written in such a way that everything is approached on a case by case basis and judgment handed out accordingly. If people get off on light sentences for terrible crimes, then thats on the head of the Judge/prosecutor. However, no court should be forced by the law to arbitrarily hand down a sentence, such as in this case, which drastically exceeds the crime committed.

I can't really fault the prosecutor or the Judge in this case either. I just feel badly for all involved.

12/19/2006 10:08:24 AM

^You're exactly right. This is an area where minimum sentencing shouldn't come in to play. If they HAVE to have minimum sentencing in there, they could set the age difference at like 7 years and then have minimum sentencing above that difference.

12/19/2006 10:15:07 AM

This kid didn't get what he deserved at all. This should've been a misdemeanor at worst.

12/19/2006 11:11:29 AM

Quote :

"Ok, 17 yr olds and 14 yr olds, a minor and a minor. No, I don't expect a bunch of hormone fueled kids to show restraint, especially when a massive majority of them never consider the laws. You think 17 and 18 yr olds are self aware? No one told them they couldn't date freshman. All they know is they are there and they like them. It isn't like there is a "high school test" (like a drivers test) that they had to pass to be there, one where they learned that if they fuck a 14 yr old they get jail time. How are they supposed to know if they don't already know and are never told?"

This whole post, frankly, is stupid.

Puberty does not give you carte blanc to do what you will. Society does expect these people to show at least some modicum of restraint. Surely if they were fucking in the halls you would not try to use this argument.

The absolutely worst part is when you say, "especially when a massive majority of them never consider the laws," as though if I start not paying attention to the laws I get the right to break them. Honestly, what the fuck does their consideration for it matter? They might not be fully developed adults, but they're not toddlers or goldfish, either.

And I presume that since you think 18 year olds are not self-aware, you would agree that they are not adequately prepared for voting, smoking, etc.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. You make people take a driving test because their not knowing the rules will almost certainly lead to massive damage to property and person, not because otherwise it would somehow be wrong to punish them for breaking those rules.

12/19/2006 11:24:17 AM

Now look, that kid did not have sexual relations with that girl.

12/19/2006 11:33:38 AM

this has to be a joke. I know the judicial system doesn't make alot of sense but this is just retarded

12/19/2006 11:33:40 AM

Neil Boortz was just talking about this while I was driving to lunch. I still think the kid deserves to be out of jail (he has served 2 years for this BTW) but there was a bit more to the story. It happened at a party where they were drinking and using drugs. Second, it was caught on video, which is definitely illegal since they were both under 18 (someone needs to get ticketed over that). I don't know who taped it, it might have been them, but that was just stupid.

The other crazy thing is that if he had sex with her, it would have been a misdemeanor, but oral was a felony. They changed the law so that it would also be a misdemeanor specifically for this case, but they couldn't make retroactive laws, and the court had to apply the old law.

12/19/2006 12:07:51 PM

If I were this kid and it were the parents of the girl that really saw to the charges being pressed, there'd be a murder case on hand when I got out.

12/19/2006 12:09:09 PM

They could make the law something like until you're 21, you can't bang someone younger than 85% of your age?

And have no mandatory minimum for the law.

That would prevent bgimm's teachers from wanting to do the kids, while letting the kids do what they're going to do anyway. And remove the hard line between the 17 and 18 year olds.

And, IIRC, NC's age of consent laws DO cross over the 18 yo barrier (like 16 years +3 years, or something like that).

[Edited on December 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2006 12:10:32 PM

Well mandatory minimums are pretty much the dumbest things in the legal system, narrowly beating out maximum sentences.

12/19/2006 12:34:00 PM

These arbitrary age of consent laws are ridiculous. I seriously wonder if lawmakers sit around thinking "If the Earth has not circumnavigated the Sun sixteen times since a girl's birth, she's not smart enough to agree to suck a dick!" It's like we have laws based on goddamn astrology.

12/19/2006 3:01:52 PM

I understand your frustration with choosing an arbitrary number, but surely you understand the need to come up with one. I mean, you can't simply say "mature kids can have sex, we should look at it on a case by case basis" because then we would be looking at millions of cases to decide if they are mature enough to consent to sex. And by that token, there are 30 year olds that aren't, lol.

12/19/2006 3:06:54 PM

to be fair, every girl that i know who fucked at 15 has been a slut ever since

i don't have any problem with 15 and 17. they're both minors.

if it were 15 and 19 i would be more concerned

12/19/2006 3:14:49 PM

I'm kind of confused. Why isn't the girl in prison? Is it because he is above 16 or what?

12/19/2006 3:17:16 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: They might not be fully developed adults, but they're not toddlers or goldfish, either."

Gold.

---

Quote :

"McDanger: If I were this kid and it were the parents of the girl that really saw to the charges being pressed, there'd be a murder case on hand when I got out."

No shit. How much pride do two fucking parents have in their daughter's *ahem* ability when they think adequate price to pay society for getting head from her is 10 years? Trust me, by this time the dude's shaking his own head saying "the bitch wasn't worth it..." repetitively.

12/19/2006 3:18:36 PM

why is it different state by state?

in nc its 4 year gap all the way down to 12 and 16+ fair game. in some states its 14. some states its 17.

what if the girl is 16 from a 17 state and and goes to a 16 state?

also 35 and 18 is ok but 17 and 15 is rape.

12/19/2006 3:25:10 PM