Teenagers jailed for having sex.

[dukeuch]

Has it really come to this? Is this what parents want to happen to their randy teenagers?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html?cnn=yes

[fent]

surprise surprise...the thread's misleading from the very beginning. the seventeen year old (likely considered an adult) had sexual contact with a 15 year old...what do you expect to happen to him?

[Ibleedburgundy]

I wonder if they would have convicted my white 17 year old GF when I was 15. hmmmmmm probably not.

[RedskinsDave]

I wonder if they would have convicted my white 17 year old GF when I was 15. hmmmmmm probably not.

In what state is desperation a crime? (the set up was there)

[CNYSkinFan]

still...10 years for a BJ? Reading the article it seemed that he would have gotten off lighter if it was full on sex.

I would bash on GA but they did apass a law retro-actively to limit this kind of thing. However this is where mandatory sentencing goes awry. The judge could have used discretion ion this case but it seems sentenced him to what the statute called for (I think, i don't know the law in GA).

This is the kind of crime where Judges used to be able to use discretion and order community service and probation. The problem is some judges used that on *ACTUAL* rape cases (not ones where a victim is described as a victim because of a matter of months). I know when I was in HS Alot of Seniors dated sophmores (I didn't...but then again I did not date alot period). All of them would probably have fallen under this statute.

If it was not consentual then I would be the first one to say throw the book at the kid. 10 years is not just a little rough...it is way over the line.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

still...10 years for a BJ? Reading the article it seemed that he would have gotten off lighter if it was full on sex.

I would bash on GA but they did apass a law retro-actively to limit this kind of thing. However this is where mandatory sentencing goes awry. The judge could have used discretion ion this case but it seems sentenced him to what the statute called for (I think, i don't know the law in GA).

This is the kind of crime where Judges used to be able to use discretion and order community service and probation. The problem is some judges used that on *ACTUAL* rape cases (not ones where a victim is described as a victim because of a matter of months). I know when I was in HS Alot of Seniors dated sophmores (I didn't...but then again I did not date alot period). All of them would probably have fallen under this statute.

If it was not consentual then I would be the first one to say throw the book at the kid. 10 years is not just a little rough...it is way over the line.
Honestly, even 1 day in prison for a consentual BJ is way over the line.

[shally]

Honestly, even 1 day in prison for a consentual BJ is way over the line.

castration, nothing less... make an object lesson and then there will be no more teenage sex....

[Keino]

surprise surprise...the thread's misleading from the very beginning. the seventeen year old (likely considered an adult) had sexual contact with a 15 year old...what do you expect to happen to him?

Nothing. He's not legally an adult and Boys/Men dating a person 2 years their younger is not out of the ordinary at all.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Nothing. He's not legally an adult and Boys/Men dating a person 2 years their younger is not out of the ordinary at all.
Exactly. I really do not see what crime he committed.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

castration, nothing less... make an object lesson and then there will be no more teenage sex....
:lol1:

[Keino]

Exactly. I really do not see what crime he committed.
He commited the crime of being an African American Man.....

[SpicyMcHaggis]

He commited the crime of being an African American Man.....
Yeah..really a horrible crime....:rolleyes:
But "seriously", what was the reason that he got 10 years of jail? Is sex (any kind of sex) between two consenting under-18 YOs illegal? If so, that is news to me, and it is simply idiotic.

[CNYSkinFan]

castration, nothing less... make an object lesson and then there will be no more teenage sex....
That or impeachment

[Spence]

That's insane. I mean, that prison sentence is preposterous. Ridiculous. A complete miscarriage of justice.

[Keino]

Yeah..really a horrible crime....:rolleyes:
But "seriously", what was the reason that he got 10 years of jail? Is sex (any kind of sex) between two consenting under-18 YOs illegal? If so, that is news to me, and it is simply idiotic.

According to the article, non-reproductive sex (BJ/Greek Style) with a minor in Georgia is considered "aggravated child molestation". The Law in America accross the board says that minors lack the ablity to give consent.

Of course the proescutor could've seen this for what it is, and chosen not to procede, but I think he took advantage of an opportunity to put a black man behind bars and ruin his life.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

According to the article, non-reproductive sex (BJ/Greek Style) with a minor in Georgia is considered "aggravated child molestation". The Law in America accross the board says that minors lack the ablity to give consent.

Of course the proescutor could've seen this for what it is, and chosen not to procede, but I think he took advantage of an opportunity to put a black man behind bars and ruin his life.
Unbelievable. And I think you are 100% right.

[RedskinsDave]

He commited the crime of being an African American Man.....

In that case, he got off light!!!

[shally]

my wife knew a teacher who had the extreme misfortune of having a relationship with a girl that began about 1 month before her 18th birthday.
he did jail time. he was also white..
it comes down to selective prosecution

[SpicyMcHaggis]

my wife knew a teacher who had the extreme misfortune of having a relationship with a girl that began about 1 month before her 18th birthday.
he did jail time. he was also white..
it comes down to selective prosecution
But was the teacher over 18 when it happened?

[RedskinsDave]

According to the article, non-reproductive sex (BJ/Greek Style) with a minor in Georgia is considered "aggravated child molestation". The Law in America accross the board says that minors lack the ablity to give consent.

Of course the proescutor could've seen this for what it is, and chosen not to procede, but I think he took advantage of an opportunity to put a black man behind bars and ruin his life.

That's exactly who I have an issue with. One, who brought it to the court's attention in the first place? Two, why procede with it at all?

[shally]

But was the teacher over 18 when it happened?

late 20's i believe

[SpicyMcHaggis]

late 20's i believe
Then it's different..

[fent]

Nothing. He's not legally an adult and Boys/Men dating a person 2 years their younger is not out of the ordinary at all.

actually sean, each state determines on a state by state basis at what age a person is no longer a minor in cases of a sexual nature. Georgia is 16, so for the purposes of this case, the boy is an adult. Had he lived a little further south in Florida where the age of consent is 18, he'd have been considered a minor for this case.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

That's exactly who I have an issue with. One, who brought it to the court's attention in the first place? Two, why procede with it at all?
Exactly. This guy is doing 10 years for a ridiculous "crime" that hurt absolutely nobody.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

actually sean, each state determines on a state by state basis at what age a person is no longer a minor in cases of a sexual nature. Georgia is 16, so for the purposes of this case, the boy is an adult. Had he lived a little further south in Florida where the age of consent is 18, he'd have been considered a minor for this case.
What is the age limit in Georgia under which it is illegal to have sex? 14?

[fent]

What is the age limit in Georgia under which it is illegal to have sex? 14?

Georgia is 16...so a 17 year old having sexual contact with a 15 year old obviously bridges that gap.

here's a breakdown of each state.

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

[fent]

and just for the record, i think the punishment is definitely over the line, but you can't go nuts about this and act like nothing happened when there are CLEAR violations of the age of consent laws.

[Keino]

actually sean, each state determines on a state by state basis at what age a person is no longer a minor in cases of a sexual nature. Georgia is 16, so for the purposes of this case, the boy is an adult. Had he lived a little further south in Florida where the age of consent is 18, he'd have been considered a minor for this case.


So you think that this is a legitimate example of the law and its application? Thats what this boils down to ultimately, for me anyways. The spirit of the Law is to protect children from Predators. Im on board with that. A teenage kid getting head from a girl 2 years his younger simply doesn't meet that threshold unless he put a gun or knife to her head.

[Keino]

and just for the record, i think the punishment is definitely over the line, but you can't go nuts about this and act like nothing happened when there are CLEAR violations of the age of consent laws.

Im not sure it's nuts at all. Nothing happenned in reality, and if this is how age and consent laws get applied they need to be changed.

[fent]

So you think that this is a legitimate example of the law and its application? Thats what this boils down to ultimately, for me anyways. The spirit of the Law is to protect children from Predators. Im on board with that. A teenage kid getting head from a girl 2 years his younger simply doesn't meet that threshold unless he put a gun or knife to her head.

check the post right above yours to see the answer. i think it's over the line...but when it comes to an adult having sex with a minor, Georgia has chosen to draw the line where it is and not give any leeway. other states have included "proximity" rules if you will saying that if you're within so many years of age (2 years is pretty common) you're okay. all i'm saying is that with the law as it is, to go around acting like this is some major travesty is pretty shaky. what we don't know about the case is why it was tried...maybe the girls parents pressed charges (which is their right since she's a minor)...maybe it was an out of control DA, but this isn't Duke we're talking, so i don't see someone trying to make a name for himself on some random kid.

[fent]

Im not sure it's nuts at all. Nothing happenned in reality, and if this is how age and consent laws get applied they need to be changed.

nuts was the word chosen strictly because of the original poster.

[Keino]

10 year behind bars, Who knows what is happenning to him there since he is convicted as a sexual predator and his life is essentially ruined. All for a blow-job that this girl wllingly gave. Sorry, I don't care what the law says, I cannot buy that the parents were within their rights to press charges if thats what happenned or that the DA was prosecuting within the context of the spirit of the law.

[fent]

10 year behind bars, Who knows what is happenning to him there since he is convicted as a sexual predator and his life is essentially ruined. All for a blow-job that this girl wllingly gave. Sorry, I don't care what the law says, I cannot buy that the parents were within their rights to press charges if thats what happenned or that the DA was prosecuting within the context of the spirit of the law.

this is where the root of the issue is between the different sides. one side thinks that someone should be able to say "well i really didn't mean to hurt anyone so the law should let me go" whereas the other says "regardless of what you think should happen, this is what the law is and always has been". 10 years? little much, but the kid had sexual contact with a minor...that's not an issue that ANYONE wants to toe the line on.

as for the parental rights, it doesn't matter what you "buy" ...that's the law. if something happened to your underage daughter and she didn't want to press charges, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be...and that's where you as a father have the right and the responsibility to make a decision for her. whether you agree or disagree with her parents' decision (if that's the case) it's their right to make that decision.

[fent]

dave also just brought up a good point in a private conversation that the kid recorded it...so now he's not only had sexual contact with an underage girl, he's also created, and in possession of, child porn. i'm sorry...i really don't feel sorry for this kid getting busted.

[shally]

Im not sure it's nuts at all. Nothing happenned in reality, and if this is how age and consent laws get applied they need to be changed.

i would not feel it was okay if a 16 year old convinced my 14 year old daughter to have any kind of sex..

2 years is a big deal in maturity in the early teen years

[shally]

dave also just brought up a good point in a private conversation that the kid recorded it...so now he's not only had sexual contact with an underage girl, he's also in possession of child porn. i'm sorry...i really don't feel sorry for this kid.

that is a MAJOR difference.. once it is recorded, it is around the world as far as i am concerned..

[RedskinsDave]

This is just another reason why mandatory sentences are a mess. You can thank the judges who thought it was okay to let repeated drug offenders off light. That's where some of the blame lies.

[fent]

This is just another reason why mandatory sentences are a mess. You can thank the judges who thought it was okay to let repeated drug offenders off light. That's where some of the blame lies.

i agree with the mandatory sentences part...this case didn't require 10 years. it definitely merits punishment, but 10 years is nuts.

[Axegrinder]

Nice....thrown in jail for having sex.Guess where the next sexual experience happens?I don't think this is the type of punishment that they're allocating.

[Ibleedburgundy]

dave also just brought up a good point in a private conversation that the kid recorded it...so now he's not only had sexual contact with an underage girl, he's also created, and in possession of, child porn. i'm sorry...i really don't feel sorry for this kid getting busted.

Again though, was the intent of the child porn laws to keep kids from taking pics of each other or to keep adult predators from doing so? The guy was a legal minor and in the porn so this is certainly not the type of case they had in mind for the laws you are referring to.

[fent]

Again though, was the intent of the child porn laws to keep kids from taking pics of each other or to keep adult predators from doing so? The guy was a legal minor and in the porn so this is certainly not the type of case they had in mind for the laws you are referring to.

that reasoning would require someone to determine what the kids intent was with those pictures. regardless of the intent, though...the kid broke AT LEAST TWO sexual predator laws and people are seriously arguing that he shouldn't be charged with ANYTHING??

[fent]

Nice....thrown in jail for having sex.Guess where the next sexual experience happens?I don't think this is the type of punishment that they're allocating.

no axe...thrown in jail for having sex with a minor and recording it...let's not leave those last 6 words out of this.

regardless of your thoughts on the severity of the punishment, you cannot in any way deny that the kid broke two laws aimed at sexual predators.

[Ibleedburgundy]

no axe...thrown in jail for having sex with a minor and recording it...let's not leave those last 6 words out of this.

regardless of your thoughts on the severity of the punishment, you cannot in any way deny that the kid broke two laws aimed at sexual predators.

But he is not a sexual predator, and this case is clearly not within the intent of the law. He's a kid doing perfectly normal kid stuff. And the only reason he is in so much trouble is because the legislature didn't forsee this particular circumstance, therefor the case should have been thrown out.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Fent, I see your point. If you blindly follow the law, then he "deserves" to be punished. But if you use even the slightest bit of common sense, then you see that he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If the law says that in those cricumstances, he deserves 10 years of punishment for having consentual oral sex with a girl, then the law is wrong and should be changed.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

But he is not a sexual predator, and this case is clearly not within the intent of the law. He's a kid doing perfectly normal kid stuff. And the only reason he is in so much trouble is because the legislature didn't forsee this particular circumstance, therefor the case should have been thrown out.
Exactly.

[fent]

But he is not a sexual predator, and this case is clearly not within the intent of the law. He's a kid doing perfectly normal kid stuff. And the only reason he is in so much trouble is because the legislature didn't forsee this particular circumstance, therefor the case should have been thrown out.

so now a case should be thrown out because the legislature didn't forsee a specific issue in a specific case? like i said, there are many other states out there with an age range that sexual contact is legal even if one person is a minor and the other is not. bearing that in mind, it is much more likely that the state legislature recognizes that these things happens and doesn't see the need to change the law. until they change the law, if the girl or her guardian brings these charges, the DA and judge have no choice bearing in mind the evidence...the evidence that the accused created himself.

furthermore, "But he is not a sexual predator" is a pretty bold statement given that we know nothing of the background of this particular incident. Marcus Vick is being charged under the same type of laws and I don't see anyone jumping in saying that he shouldn't be charged because he's "not a sexual predator."

like i've said the whole time, the mandatory sentencing portion of this case is what's wrong...not the fact that the kid was tried and convicted of a crime.

[fent]

Fent, I see your point. If you blindly follow the law, then he "deserves" to be punished. But if you use even the slightest bit of common sense, then you see that he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If the law says that in those cricumstances, he deserves 10 years of punishment for having consentual oral sex with a girl, then the law is wrong and should be changed.

i have no argument against the mandatory sentencing. that's a point of this that i agree with you and IBB on...however, i do take issue with the idea that "common sense" should override in a case involving sex with a minor. like i said, the legislature has seen many examples of alternatives to a hard-line cutoff and has not seen fit to adjust their law. also, people here are asserting that this kid isn't a predator without seeing a shred of the evidence or knowing his personal history. if this same kid has a history of taping blow jobs from underage girls, does that change the story? if this girl is his long time girlfriend does that also change the story? yes to both. what we're working on is the knowledge that a kid broke the law and thus deserves some sort of punishment. lack of intent to break the law does not in anyway temper the fact that he broke the law.

[fent]

i have to leave work in 10 minutes and won't be on at all tonight, so if you want this to continue tonight, you better get your butt in gear IBB ;)

[Ibleedburgundy]

so now a case should be thrown out because the legislature didn't forsee a specific issue in a specific case? like i said, there are many other states out there with an age range that sexual contact is legal even if one person is a minor and the other is not. bearing that in mind, it is much more likely that the state legislature recognizes that these things happens and doesn't see the need to change the law. until they change the law, if the girl or her guardian brings these charges, the DA and judge have no choice bearing in mind the evidence...the evidence that the accused created himself.

furthermore, "But he is not a sexual predator" is a pretty bold statement given that we know nothing of the background of this particular incident. Marcus Vick is being charged under the same type of laws and I don't see anyone jumping in saying that he shouldn't be charged because he's "not a sexual predator."

like i've said the whole time, the mandatory sentencing portion of this case is what's wrong...not the fact that the kid was tried and convicted of a crime.

Here is where your argument becomes dubious:

Readers may recall the case of Marcus Dixon, an 18-year-old African-American man who was originally sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for aggravated child molestation in connection with having intercourse (which the jury did not conclude was rape) with a 15-year-old girl. In Dixon's case, the conviction and sentence were overturned on appeal, because the Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the intent of Georgia law was to classify conduct such as Dixon's as misdemeanor statutory rape, for which the maximum sentence is one year. In the case of oral sex, however, there was arguably no room for this construction of Georgia law, so Wilson was unable to benefit from the Dixon precedent.



So basically if he had had intercourse with her and not oral sex, he would be in for one year tops, even if he was 18 and not 17. This shows the intent of the law, differentiating between rape and statutory rape-something that would change his punishment by 1000%, being utterly ignored by their supreme court, all because the legislators did not put the word "BJ" in there. Clearly an unintentional ommission on their part, and even the article says it is arguable. Should be thrown out or at the very least, apply the statutory law. So I guess I don't totally disagree with you that he broke a law, but I think they convicted him under the wrong one. And even if he did break the law it was a dumb law and they acknowledged that by changing it.

Also, I'm not sure the Marcus Vick comparison is accurate because he was a 19 year old college guy and she was barely 15. Like Shally said, that's a world of difference at that age.

[fent]

Here is where your argument crumbles to pieces:



So basically if he had had intercourse with her and not oral sex, he would be in for one year tops, even if he was 18 and not 17. This shows the intent of the law, differentiating between rape and statutory rape-something that would change his punishment by 1000%, being utterly ignored by their supreme court, all because the legislators did not put the word "BJ" in there. Clearly an unintentional ommission on their part, and even the article says it is arguable. Should be thrown out or at the very least, apply the statutory law.

actually it doesn't...this has to do with the mandatory sentencing aspect (which we've established i agree with you on) NOT the central fact that this kid committed crimes. if there was not still a concensus that these are criminal acts, the legislature/courts would have addressed the actual offense, not the punishment of that offense.

the legislature actually confirms my argument in that they have now adjusted the law to address the mandatory sentencing aspect (did not make it retroactive to address this specific case) however, they did not in any way address the actual crime itself.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

i have no argument against the mandatory sentencing. that's a point of this that i agree with you and IBB on...however, i do take issue with the idea that "common sense" should override in a case involving sex with a minor. like i said, the legislature has seen many examples of alternatives to a hard-line cutoff and has not seen fit to adjust their law. also, people here are asserting that this kid isn't a predator without seeing a shred of the evidence or knowing his personal history. if this same kid has a history of taping blow jobs from underage girls, does that change the story? if this girl is his long time girlfriend does that also change the story? yes to both. what we're working on is the knowledge that a kid broke the law and thus deserves some sort of punishment. lack of intent to break the law does not in anyway temper the fact that he broke the law.
I can agree that he broke the law. Actually, since that is the law, he DID break it. But given the circumstances that we are aware of, which is that he got a BJ from a consenting girl, the most he should have gotten for it was to be grounded for the weekend. At some point somebody should have done something..ANYTHING..to avoid that this young man's life be ruined for something that maybe half of all teenage kids do. There is simpy no excuse for this kind of decision.

[fent]

Also, I'm not sure the Marcus Vick comparison is accurate because he was a 19 year old college guy and she was a 15 year old. Like Shally said, that's a world of difference at that age.

my interpretation is that shally's point centered on the age of the victim (the girl), not the age difference between the participants. in both cases, (marcus and this guy) the girl was at the same age, so arguably roughly the same emotional maturity. in Shally's argument it doesn't matter if the kid is 17, 19 or 30...if you're above the age of sexual consent and the girl is not, you're at fault.

shally, please correct me if i'm wrong.

[fent]

I can agree that he broke the law. Actually, since that is the law, he DID break it. But given the circumstances that we are aware of, which is that he got a BJ from a consenting girl, the most he should have gotten for it was to be grounded for the weekend. At some point somebody should have done something..ANYTHING..to avoid that this young man's life be ruined for something that maybe half of all teenage kids do. There is simpy no excuse for this kind of decision.

sounds like we come from the same perspective. i don't necessarily agree that the kid should just be grounded for a week, but we both acknowledge that he broke the law and that the mandatory sentencing is a bad idea.

[akhhorus]

No Constitutional right to have sex under the age of 18. Georgia's had this law against oral sex forever and everyone knows it down there. 10 years is harsh, but the law is the law. If he was 18, he could fight it on consensual grounds.

[Ibleedburgundy]

my interpretation is that shally's point centered on the age of the victim (the girl), not the age difference between the participants. in both cases, (marcus and this guy) the girl was at the same age, so arguably roughly the same emotional maturity. in Shally's argument it doesn't matter if the kid is 17, 19 or 30...if you're above the age of sexual consent and the girl is not, you're at fault.

shally, please correct me if i'm wrong.

If they are within 2 years of age of each other is a significant factor, or at least it should be.

[fent]

No Constitutional right to have sex under the age of 18. Georgia's had this law against oral sex forever and everyone knows it down there. 10 years is harsh, but the law is the law. If he was 18, he could fight it on consensual grounds.

so the Georgia law actually allows for lesser charges (or none at all) if this kid was a couple months older?

[fent]

If they are within 2 years of age of each other is a significant factor, or at least it should be.

why? the point shally was making was that young girls can easily be pressured into decisions they wouldn't otherwise make. the difference between the offending male being 17 or 19 doesn't affect her propensity to be swayed more easily.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

so the Georgia law actually allows for lesser charges (or none at all) if this kid was a couple months older?
That would make no sense whatsoever.

[fent]

That would make no sense whatsoever.

no...which makes me think that arturo will be back with a clarification pretty soon.

[HAWGZHEAD]

10 year behind bars, Who knows what is happenning to him there since he is convicted as a sexual predator and his life is essentially ruined. All for a blow-job that this girl wllingly gave. Sorry, I don't care what the law says, I cannot buy that the parents were within their rights to press charges if thats what happenned or that the DA was prosecuting within the context of the spirit of the law.Yeah that is the kicker right there. If this happens to you or you are falsely accused of rape, you may as well hang it up. You are labled by most in society a rapist or predator no matter the outcome in court. Half the time that is all you hear about it. "so and so is being brought up on rape charges", 6 months later in fine print under the obituaries you read not guilty.

[Ibleedburgundy]

why? the point shally was making was that young girls can easily be pressured into decisions they wouldn't otherwise make. the difference between the offending male being 17 or 19 doesn't affect her propensity to be swayed more easily.

But it reflects whether or not the relationship is of a predatory nature.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

sounds like we come from the same perspective. i don't necessarily agree that the kid should just be grounded for a week, but we both acknowledge that he broke the law and that the mandatory sentencing is a bad idea.
Yeah, I guess so. At first I was incredulous because I was not aware of the 16 year old limit in Georgia. Knowing that, it's undesputable that he did in fact commit a crime (although I don't agree with the law, but that's just my opinion)..but it seems unbelievable that in a matter that can have as many different instances as this one, there is a mandatory sentence that is that harsh. There should be none at all. This kid really did not do anything wrong (at least from what we know).

[fent]

But it reflects whether or not the relationship is of a predatory nature.

you're assuming that it does...we know nothing of the history of the relationship between these two.

[akhhorus]

so the Georgia law actually allows for lesser charges (or none at all) if this kid was a couple months older?

Well, he could appeal it more effectively I believe if he was 18. He's caught in a vacuum since he wasn't 18 at the time.

That would make no sense whatsoever.

Its Georgia. I know people from there who practice witchcraft on sat night and go to church on sunday morning.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Its Georgia. I know people from there who practice witchcraft on sat night and go to church on sunday morning.
Well, if that's the case, then I guess anything goes...lol...

[Ibleedburgundy]

you're assuming that it does...we know nothing of the history of the relationship between these two.

I guess that all depends on what you consider predatory. IMO, it would be when one side has a substantial advantage that is used against the other, be it a substantial age difference, inebriation, physical intimidation, etc but none of those are apparent here.

[Keino]

i would not feel it was okay if a 16 year old convinced my 14 year old daughter to have any kind of sex..

2 years is a big deal in maturity in the early teen years

I have 2 daughters. You know this.

I wouldn't blame the boy who covinced my 15 year old daughter to give him a blow, I would blame my daughter for making the decision. 2 years is a big maturity difference, but when I was in school there were plenty of Seniors dating Sophmores and that my friend is 2 years.

Fent, Im sorry, but if the law allows this type of injustice, My response is F da law. You and I both know that this law wasn't enacted for this type of circumstance and if it was, then it is the law itself that is flawed. The parents need to blame their whorish daughter as opposed to costing a man 10years of his freedom and essentially any chance he had for a successful life.

[Keino]

no axe...thrown in jail for having sex with a minor and recording it...let's not leave those last 6 words out of this.

regardless of your thoughts on the severity of the punishment, you cannot in any way deny that the kid broke two laws aimed at sexual predators.
But he is minor in all things other than age of consent in his state. He can't vote, can't fight in war, can't even register for selective service, can't buy a drink. He received a BJ. NO he should not be punished at all.

[akhhorus]

I have 2 daughters. You know this.

I wouldn't blame the boy who covinced my 15 year old daughter to give him a blow, I would blame my daughter for making the decision. 2 years is a big maturity difference, but when I was in school there were plenty of Seniors dating Sophmores and that my friend is 2 years.

Fent, Im sorry, but if the law allows this type of injustice, My response is F da law. You and I both know that this law wasn't enacted for this type of circumstance and if it was, then it is the law itself that is flawed. The parents need to blame their whorish daughter as opposed to costing a man 10years of his freedom and essentially any chance he had for a successful life.

Wait, its the girl's fault now? How?

[Fathead]

She obviously raped him, akh. :rolleyes:

[akhhorus]

But he is minor in all things other than age of consent in his state. He can't vote, can't fight in war, can't even register for selective service, can't buy a drink. He received a BJ. NO he should not be punished at all.

I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is infantilization. If he's under 18, the laws don't apply to him? Wtf? The law in Georgia is no BJs, especially if you're under 18. If the law is unjust, then challenge the law. If the courts uphold it, Tough S.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is infantilization. If he's under 18, the laws don't apply to him? Wtf? The law in Georgia is no BJs, especially if you're under 18. If the law is unjust, then challenge the law. If the courts uphold it, Tough S.
I think that's what he is doing.

[Fathead]

Keino is heading to GA to get the law off the books?

[Keino]

my interpretation is that shally's point centered on the age of the victim (the girl), not the age difference between the participants. in both cases, (marcus and this guy) the girl was at the same age, so arguably roughly the same emotional maturity. in Shally's argument it doesn't matter if the kid is 17, 19 or 30...if you're above the age of sexual consent and the girl is not, you're at fault.

shally, please correct me if i'm wrong.


I think he was addressing the point Shally made about there being a huge difference in maturity in 2 years during teen years. A point I agree with, and that is the distinction between Marcus Vick and this kid. Vick is an adult at 19 in every single state. He is college aged and therefore, not a peer of the girl. I think most people believe that if A) the allegations against Vick are true he should be punished and B) a 19 year who intentionally sleeps with a 15 year old is pretty sick. However, a 17 year old kid is a peer of a 15 year old. They are closer in maturity, and since Girls mature (Supposedly) faster than boys, theoretically they should be at about the same level of maturity. Age of consent is an arbitrary number invented by people who make laws. I contend that the spirit of the law was not broken from what we know about this incident. Jail time is an absolute miscarriage of justice.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Wait, its the girl's fault now? How?
I agree with him. It's not the girl's fault. Nobody is at fault in this situation IMO, but as a parent, if you're gonna be mad at somebody, be mad at your daughter, or at yourself.

[Keino]

Wait, its the girl's fault now? How?

Didn't she willingly give the BJ?

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Keino is heading to GA to get the law off the books?
I obviously meant that he is saying the law should be changed. At least that's what I think he is saying.

[Fathead]

If she's at fault, then they'd better charge her with contributing to the deliquency of a minor. And have the book thrown at her.

[Keino]

I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is infantilization. If he's under 18, the laws don't apply to him? Wtf? The law in Georgia is no BJs, especially if you're under 18. If the law is unjust, then challenge the law. If the courts uphold it, Tough S.

Im not saying the laws don't apply, Im saying the law establishing an age of consent that differs from what is considered "Adult" is arbitrary and useless, and in this case unjust.

I don't live in Georgia, but I sure hope the NAACP uses it's resources to challenge the law. That would be a much more productive excercise than worrying about what words are in the dictionary.

[Fathead]

Good to see that the people of Georgia aren't qualified to come up with their own laws on consent. I'm sure they'll be happy to let someone else set them straight. :rolleyes:

[Keino]

If she's at fault, then they'd better charge her with contributing to the deliquency of a minor. And have the book thrown at her.
I hope when your boy is a 17 year old Senior he doesn't hook up with a 15 year old sophmore who willingily polishes his knob. I'd hate to see him locked up for 10 years.

[Fathead]

If he's stupid enough to do it and video tape it when he's fully aware of the age of consent laws then he's stupid enough to have to serve 10 years. I guess I'll just have to make sure I teach him to act respsonsibly.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Good to see that the people of Georgia aren't qualified to come up with their own laws on consent. I'm sure they'll be happy to let someone else set them straight. :rolleyes:
If this is the law they came up with, they are obviously not qualified, or are incredibly stupid.

[Keino]

Good to see that the people of Georgia aren't qualified to come up with their own laws on consent. I'm sure they'll be happy to let someone else set them straight. :rolleyes:

Clearly they can't as now there have been 2 national cases of unjust imprisionment on this basis.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

If he's stupid enough to do it and video tape it when he's fully aware of the age of consent laws then he's stupid enough to have to serve 10 years. I guess I'll just have to make sure I teach him to act respsonsibly.
I think you are seriously underestimating what spending 10 years in jail as a sexual predator means for an 18 year old kid. If you think that what he did merits that kind of penalty then I really don't know what to say.

[akhhorus]

Im not saying the laws don't apply, Im saying the law establishing an age of consent that differs from what is considered "Adult" is arbitrary and useless, and in this case unjust.

Its up to the states to decide such things.

I don't live in Georgia, but I sure hope the NAACP uses it's resources to challenge the law. That would be a much more productive excercise than worrying about what words are in the dictionary.

Why? This isn't a racial issue at all. This is an ACLU issue.

I hope when your boy is a 17 year old Senior he doesn't hook up with a 15 year old sophmore who willingily polishes his knob. I'd hate to see him locked up for 10 years.

If its against the law where anyone lives, then they shouldn't(and I believe it would be illegal in most states BTW). And they certainly shouldn't tape the damn thing also. That was his dumbest mistake.

[Keino]

If he's stupid enough to do it and video tape it when he's fully aware of the age of consent laws then he's stupid enough to have to serve 10 years. I guess I'll just have to make sure I teach him to act respsonsibly.


You can teach responsibility, but since you yourself were a teenager, Im sure you know that lapses in judgment happen. Hopefully he heeds your lessons. I'll teahc my daughters not be whores, but I can't control what they do outside of the house.

[akhhorus]

Clearly they can't as now there have been 2 national cases of unjust imprisionment on this basis.

So, if you know of a law and violate it anyways, and you're sent to jail, its unjust? I agree its a stupid law, but its still a law. Just because its stupid doesn't give you free license to violate it.

[akhhorus]

You can teach responsibility, but since you yourself were a teenager, Im sure you know that lapses in judgment happen. Hopefully he heeds your lessons. I'll teahc my daughters not be whores, but I can't control what they do outside of the house.

My kids will have more common sense than to tape illegal sex acts in the state they live in.

[Fathead]

Do I think 10 years is appropriate? Not really. But that's the law on the books and the kid lives in the state. Should have been more intelligent.





And I know lapses in judgement happen, but when the lapse is a criminal act, then sorry, you're an idiot. And if you get a judge who follows the law, then you are an unlucky idiot.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I tihnk we can all agree that he did in fact violate a law. But I also hope that we can agree that the sentence is exactly 10 years too long.
I'm not saying he didn't violate the law, I'm saying that the law should be immediately changed, as it is obvious that it is not working.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Do I think 10 years is appropriate? Not really. But that's the law on the books and the kid lives in the state. Should have been more intelligent.





And I know lapses in judgement happen, but when the lapse is a criminal act, then sorry, you're an idiot. And if you get a judge who follows the law, then you are an unlucky idiot.
Could you define "not really"?

[akhhorus]

Do I think 10 years is appropriate? Not really. But that's the law on the books and the kid lives in the state. Should have been more intelligent.

And I know lapses in judgement happen, but when the lapse is a criminal act, then sorry, you're an idiot. And if you get a judge who follows the law, then you are an unlucky idiot.

I would like to point out that the kid can still challenge the case federally. He challenged in state court, and its a state law. No surprise they would uphold the conviction.

[Fathead]

That's something for the people of Georgia to decide. Not me. I don't live there.

[akhhorus]

I tihnk we can all agree that he did in fact violate a law. But I also hope that we can agree that the sentence is exactly 10 years too long.
I'm not saying he didn't violate the law, I'm saying that the law should be immediately changed, as it is obvious that it is not working.

They'll almost certainly in win in Fed court. The Lawrence v Texas decision will be cited and it will be hard for Georgia to argue why this case doesn't apply here.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

That's something for the people of Georgia to decide. Not me. I don't live there.
Are you answering my question?
If so, regardless of where the "act" took place, can you explain to me what in your opinion would be an equal punishment for that particular "crime", given that it was indeed not allowed where it took place?

[Fathead]

Could you define "not really"?




I personally think that 10 years is way too harsh. But I also am a firm believer in following the law and what is prescribed in it. If the statute in question had a mandatory 10 year sentence, then I see nothing wrong with it being followed. The law probably needs changed, but that's something for Georgia to deal with.





To answer your second question, I personally would probably prefer some sort of house arrest, education program, and/or community service for this kid. Assuming the law stayed in place.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

They'll almost certainly in win in Fed court. The Lawrence v Texas decision will be cited and it will be hard for Georgia to argue why this case doesn't apply here.
I sure hope so. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late.

[akhhorus]

I sure hope so. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late.

Not at all. If the kid's lawyers appeal on those grounds, he'd be freed and his conviction reversed.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I personally think that 10 years is way too harsh. But I also am a firm believer in following the law and what is prescribed in it. If the statute in question had a mandatory 10 year sentence, then I see nothing wrong with it being followed. The law probably needs changed, but that's something for Georgia to deal with.
So what you are saying is that if your son were to be in a similar situation, and you can't be sure that it could not happen, no matter how wonderful a parent you think you would be, then you would just let your son rot in jail because you are a firm believer in following the law and what is prescribed in it?

[Keino]

Its up to the states to decide such things.

Yes and they are screwing it up in GA.



Why? This isn't a racial issue at all. This is an ACLU issue.

Did you read the article?



If its against the law where anyone lives, then they shouldn't(and I believe it would be illegal in most states BTW). And they certainly shouldn't tape the damn thing also. That was his dumbest mistake.

SUre it was dumb. It shouldn't cost him his freedom.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Not at all. If the kid's lawyers appeal on those grounds, he'd be freed and his conviction reversed.
After having spent time in jail as a sexual predator, when he did nothing that half the teenage kids in the world do not do.

[Fathead]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I can't fault the system for the mistake of the kid. They followed the law, he didn't. I'd fight like hell to get the case overturned, and to get his life back in order. But I'd also acknowledge that he was a retard who did something illegal and videotaped it.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I can't fault the system for the mistake of the kid. They followed the law, he didn't. I'd fight like hell to get the case overturned, and to get his life back in order. But I'd also acknowledge that he was a retard who did something illegal and videotaped it.
But you can fault the kid for the mistake of the system?

[Keino]

So, if you know of a law and violate it anyways, and you're sent to jail, its unjust? I agree its a stupid law, but its still a law. Just because its stupid doesn't give you free license to violate it.

Really? I don't feel anyone should be oligated to follow a law that is unjust. If people did that, then there would've been no civil rights movement, no sit ins, no protest marches, all outdated stratgies in and of themselves, but very effective in their time.

[Keino]

My kids will have more common sense than to tape illegal sex acts in the state they live in.

You hope.

[akhhorus]

Yes and they are screwing it up in GA.

Until there's a federal law, its up to the states. I would bet you safe money that Maryland and Florida have similar laws on age of consent. There was a case of a young couple who drove across state lines, had sex and got married and got arrested when they went home where it was illegal.

Did you read the article?

The NAACP won't get involved unless race is an issue here. It isn't here unless you can find a case of white kids being let free for videotaping having illegal sex. There's no law that says in any state: "No African Americans may not have oral sex, except on St Crispin's day". Just because the two cases are African Americans who got convicted doesn't mean its a racial issue. Its a Civil Liberties one.

SUre it was dumb. It shouldn't cost him his freedom.

If its against the law, he should be penalized for it. 10 years is a bit...stiff(ZING!), but the law is the law until reversed.

[akhhorus]

Really? I don't feel anyone should be oligated to follow a law that is unjust. If people did that, then there would've been no civil rights movement, no sit ins, no protest marches, all outdated stratgies in and of themselves, but very effective in their time.

Perhaps not, but even MLK and Gandhi understood that you would/could still go to jail even if the law was unjust. And don't even TRY to compare protesting some Jim Crow or other blatantly unjust law with this law. The georgia law is stupid, but hardly some outrage.

You hope.

Handguns tend to scare children straight.

[Keino]

Until there's a federal law, its up to the states. I would bet you safe money that Maryland and Florida have similar laws on age of consent. There was a case of a young couple who drove across state lines, had sex and got married and got arrested when they went home where it was illegal.

I hvaen't investigated FL or MD's laws on age of consent, but Fent said the FL age of consent is 18, which is the same age as being a legal adult. Seems consistant and fair.



The NAACP won't get involved unless race is an issue here. It isn't here unless you can find a case of white kids being let free for videotaping having illegal sex. There's no law that says in any state: "No African Americans may not have oral sex, except on St Crispin's day". Just because the two cases are African Americans who got convicted doesn't mean its a racial issue. Its a Civil Liberties one.

Actually if a person of color is victimized unjustly they can and do get involved. In my mind race plays a roll here, as it did with Dixon.


If its against the law, he should be penalized for it. 10 years is a bit...stiff(ZING!), but the law is the law until reversed.

Im not talking about what is, Im talking about what should be. Again, I don't believe in following laws that are unjust or serve no purpose other than to regulate personal behvior that doesn't adversely effect others....and I don't.

[Keino]

Perhaps not, but even MLK and Gandhi understood that you would/could still go to jail even if the law was unjust. And don't even TRY to compare protesting some Jim Crow or other blatantly unjust law with this law. The georgia law is stupid, but hardly some outrage.

The application of the law is the outrage. The law itself, as I posted earlier makes sense as long as it is applied with some sense as well. If this were a 22 year old kid, I wouldn't be complaining at all.



Handguns tend to scare children straight.

Only when they are in their face. The forget once they leave the house.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

The application of the law is the outrage. The law itself, as I posted earlier makes sense as long as it is applied with some sense as well. If this were a 22 year old kid, I wouldn't be complaining at all.
If this were an 18YO kid I wouldn't be complaining.
The power that the states have of changing the age of consensual sex is absurd. In some states it's even different for boys and girls. Wtf is that? Basically what they are saying is that in Utah for example, if 2 17YO kids have sex, the girl can be arrested because the boy must be 18 to be able to give cinsent, while the girl has to only be 16? Are you kidding me?? THEY ARE THE SAME AGE!!
And in Idaho, a girl is considered an adult for sexual consent at 14?? Fourteen?? This means that in Idaho it is legal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Meanwhile in Georgia a 17 year old boy is doing 10 years in jail for getting a BJ by a consenting 15YO girl. Riiiight....
Please tell me I am reading the chart wrong.

[akhhorus]

I hvaen't investigated FL or MD's laws on age of consent, but Fent said the FL age of consent is 18, which is the same age as being a legal adult. Seems consistant and fair.

In SC its 15, MD is 16. Its up to the state since there is no fed standard. If you don't like it, then don't live in that state. In SC, there's a proposed law to waive some of the consent issues if and I quote "they're in love".

Actually if a person of color is victimized unjustly they can and do get involved. In my mind race plays a roll here, as it did with Dixon.

Unless you have proof that Georgia didn't apply this laws to white kids(which shouldn't be that hard unless it hasn't happened--especially since the author of the article brings up race and never mentions Georgia not applying it to white kids), you're creating legions of phantom klansmen in your mind.

Im not talking about what is, Im talking about what should be. Again, I don't believe in following laws that are unjust or serve no purpose other than to regulate personal behvior that doesn't adversely effect others....and I don't.

Unjust or not, you still have to pay the penalties for it if its illegal whether you like it or not. This is why we have the appeals process. If the Feds and SCOTUS agree with Georgia, then he's SOL.

The application of the law is the outrage. The law itself, as I posted earlier makes sense as long as it is applied with some sense as well. If this were a 22 year old kid, I wouldn't be complaining at all.

If the law says X, then it says X. The application seems rather fair then, no matter how stupid it is. And this still isn't some major civil liberties issue like segregation.

Only when they are in their face. The forget once they leave the house.

Then you haven't pointed it enough lol.

[akhhorus]

If this were an 18YO kid I wouldn't be complaining.
The power that the states have of changing the age of consensual sex is absurd. In some states it's even different for boys and girls. Wtf is that? Basically what they are saying is that in Utah for example, if 2 17YO kids have sex, the girl can be arrested because the boy must be 18 to be able to give cinsent, while the girl has to only be 16? Are you kidding me?? THEY ARE THE SAME AGE!!
And in Idaho, a girl is considered an adult for sexual consent at 14?? Fourteen?? This means that in Idaho it is legal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl. Meanwhile in Georgia a 17 year old boy is doing 10 years in jail for getting a BJ by a consenting 15YO girl. Riiiight....
Please tell me I am reading the chart wrong.

Welcome to Federalism.

[BurgundyNGold]

I wish I could be jailed for having sex. It would all be worth to a married man, lol.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Welcome to Federalism.
Wow. And people think your biggest problem is in the Middle East...

[akhhorus]

Wow. And people think your biggest problem is in the Middle East...

Its actually easily fixed with a federal law or Constitutional amendment which overrides state laws. And with the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, there are few disputes(if any). This sounds like a tangle, but it really isn't.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Its actually easily fixed with a federal law or Constitutional amendment which overrides state laws. And with the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, there are few disputes(if any). This sounds like a tangle, but it really isn't.
But the fact remains that in this instant a 30 year old man could be legally having sex with a 14 YO girl in Iowa and South Carolina. That is messed up.

[akhhorus]

But the fact remains that in this instant a 30 year old man could be legally having sex with a 14 YO girl in Iowa and South Carolina. That is messed up.

Generally ages of consent that low have ceilings. In SC, it applies to everyone under the age of 21. I would assume thats true in states where its that young.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Generally ages of consent that low have ceilings. In SC, it applies to everyone under the age of 21. I would assume thats true in states where its that young.
I hope so.

[akhhorus]

I hope so.

Iowa and other states have "age plus X years" laws. So if one is 14, the oldest a person they can have sex with is 14+X. And there's conditions if the older person is in a position of authority(such a teacher, coach, more posts on HR). The consent laws are a major tangle in each state.

[dukeuch]

surprise surprise...the thread's misleading from the very beginning. the seventeen year old (likely considered an adult) had sexual contact with a 15 year old...what do you expect to happen to him?

Amn, I don't know what it was like when you were in high school, but a two year difference in age when minors were concenred was not that big of a deal. That would be like a junior dating (and having sex with) a freshman, or a senior with a sophmore. I'm not saying I would want my kids having sex at that age, but I did (in a pretty fumbling way) ant that was over 30 years ago.

[dukeuch]

surprise surprise...the thread's misleading from the very beginning. the seventeen year old (likely considered an adult) had sexual contact with a 15 year old...what do you expect to happen to him?

And by the way, how in ANY way can the thread be misleading when the article is about a teenager, under 18, is facing a jail sentence for having consensual sex with another teenager (who interestingly will not be going to jail), and my title is "Teenagers jailed for having sex"? Is it the plural of teenager because only one of the participants faces jail rather than both?

[dukeuch]

my wife knew a teacher who had the extreme misfortune of having a relationship with a girl that began about 1 month before her 18th birthday.
he did jail time. he was also white..
it comes down to selective prosecution

Well, tossing in "teacher" makes it a little different, but I am sure he was overprosecuted too.

[dukeuch]

That's exactly who I have an issue with. One, who brought it to the court's attention in the first place? Two, why procede with it at all?


Basically, becuase parents hope that the threat of jail time will prevent their kids form having sex, at least, sex that willnot get their kids pregnant, in which case they will have gotten what they deserve!:rolleyes:

[fent]

And by the way, how in ANY way can the thread be misleading when the article is about a teenager, under 18, is facing a jail sentence for having consensual sex with another teenager (who interestingly will not be going to jail), and my title is "Teenagers jailed for having sex"? Is it the plural of teenager because only one of the participants faces jail rather than both?

it's misleading because you conveniently left out the point that one was over the state's age of consent line and another under it. if you can't see why that's misleading, then it's a waste of time explaining it to you.

[fent]

Akh has pretty well made my argument in response to all these...i will say again, though, for people that think the state is wrong. these are the people that were elected by the general populace...you know...that whole mandate thing. they saw these cases and decided "yes, there's a problem." but what did they address? they addressed the punishment, not the crime. in Georgia, they don't feel a need to keep an X+N type of arrangement to accomodate people that have sex with a minor but are within a couple years. that very action tells us that they find a problem with the sentencing, not the underlying crime.

this is in no way a racial issue. just because it happens to be a young black man doesn't mean that it's white america out to get him. if that were the case, the author, who appears to be very educated and has access to caselaw, would have pointed out other cases where the same DA and GA court system allowed a white kid to go free.

the facts that we know of this case are the following. This kid was 17, his accomplice 15. the age of consent is 16. the kid was thus charged with sexual assault of a minor (or however they termed it) which he did...you cannot deny that by the letter of the law AND by the spirit of the law (as evidenced by the legislature not amending the age of consent law) the kid committed a crime. the kid then ALSO taped it which is also illegal. anything more than that such as whether this was his girlfriend, whether he is a predator, etc. is pure conjecture. in that none of that was included in the article, it can be assumed that it had no effect on the outcome of the case. based on this, the kid committed a crime and because of a very questionable minimum sentencing law is in jail. we can debate the question of minimum sentencing if you want, but it doesn't seem that we'll have much support for those minimum sentences. what we CAN'T debate is that the kid broke the law and the state of georgia continues to think that he broke the law. how do we know they still think he broke the law? because they didn't address the issue when they had the opportunity.

[smoak]

Akh has pretty well made my argument in response to all these...i will say again, though, for people that think the state is wrong. these are the people that were elected by the general populace...you know...that whole mandate thing. they saw these cases and decided "yes, there's a problem." but what did they address? they addressed the punishment, not the crime. in Georgia, they don't feel a need to keep an X+N type of arrangement to accomodate people that have sex with a minor but are within a couple years. that very action tells us that they find a problem with the sentencing, not the underlying crime.

this is in no way a racial issue. just because it happens to be a young black man doesn't mean that it's white america out to get him. if that were the case, the author, who appears to be very educated and has access to caselaw, would have pointed out other cases where the same DA and GA court system allowed a white kid to go free.

the facts that we know of this case are the following. This kid was 17, his accomplice 15. the age of consent is 16. the kid was thus charged with sexual assault of a minor (or however they termed it) which he did...you cannot deny that by the letter of the law AND by the spirit of the law (as evidenced by the legislature not amending the age of consent law) the kid committed a crime. the kid then ALSO taped it which is also illegal. anything more than that such as whether this was his girlfriend, whether he is a predator, etc. is pure conjecture. in that none of that was included in the article, it can be assumed that it had no effect on the outcome of the case. based on this, the kid committed a crime and because of a very questionable minimum sentencing law is in jail. we can debate the question of minimum sentencing if you want, but it doesn't seem that we'll have much support for those minimum sentences. what we CAN'T debate is that the kid broke the law and the state of georgia continues to think that he broke the law. how do we know they still think he broke the law? because they didn't address the issue when they had the opportunity.

I agree and I think baseless accusations do nothing but set us back further as a people. If there is evidence to support this claim, then I'd be the first to get line for severe punishment of the DA and anyone envolved.

But as you said this is not a racial issue.

[Keino]

Akh has pretty well made my argument in response to all these...i will say again, though, for people that think the state is wrong. these are the people that were elected by the general populace...you know...that whole mandate thing. they saw these cases and decided "yes, there's a problem." but what did they address? they addressed the punishment, not the crime. in Georgia, they don't feel a need to keep an X+N type of arrangement to accomodate people that have sex with a minor but are within a couple years. that very action tells us that they find a problem with the sentencing, not the underlying crime.

this is in no way a racial issue. just because it happens to be a young black man doesn't mean that it's white america out to get him. if that were the case, the author, who appears to be very educated and has access to caselaw, would have pointed out other cases where the same DA and GA court system allowed a white kid to go free.

the facts that we know of this case are the following. This kid was 17, his accomplice 15. the age of consent is 16. the kid was thus charged with sexual assault of a minor (or however they termed it) which he did...you cannot deny that by the letter of the law AND by the spirit of the law (as evidenced by the legislature not amending the age of consent law) the kid committed a crime. the kid then ALSO taped it which is also illegal. anything more than that such as whether this was his girlfriend, whether he is a predator, etc. is pure conjecture. in that none of that was included in the article, it can be assumed that it had no effect on the outcome of the case. based on this, the kid committed a crime and because of a very questionable minimum sentencing law is in jail. we can debate the question of minimum sentencing if you want, but it doesn't seem that we'll have much support for those minimum sentences. what we CAN'T debate is that the kid broke the law and the state of georgia continues to think that he broke the law. how do we know they still think he broke the law? because they didn't address the issue when they had the opportunity.

Taken from the article:

When an African-American suffers a disproportionately severe punishment for a real crime, such as murder or rape, compared to his white counterparts, this disproportion rightly inspires our criticism and concern, even if we do not believe that the defendant is himself a worthy candidate for our compassion. It is a whole other matter, however, when the person involved did nothing wrong, as is evidently the case for Genarlow Wilson.

The injustice to Wilson is thus complete: A person innocent of any wrongdoing is spending ten years of his life in prison, and there is reason to think that he would not be doing so if he were white. (The alternative hypothesis is that white teenagers always ask for identification when they receive oral sex, to make sure that their companions are not themselves teenagers a year or two younger than they). Such conduct should not be criminal at all, and it is shameful that a prosecutor has the audacity to act as though he had no choice but to pursue the case.

If you people want to choose to ignore historical context that's fine by me, but I contend that given the history of race relations, especially in a State like Georgia, if a 17 year old Black man has his life railroaded by White actors within the justice system like the overzealous White DA in question, it may not be a total racial issue, but it is an issue with Racial overtones and it is perfectly legitimate to question whether or not race played a role in how said black youth was treated. I don't need evidence that white kids are getting away with it to have that sentiment....Statistics accross the board show that Black men do more time for the same crime than their white counterparts. That is fact not conjecture.

[fent]

Taken from the article:



If you people want to choose to ignore historical context that's fine by me, but I contend that given the history of race relations, especially in a State like Georgia, if a 17 year old Black man has his life railroaded by White actors within the justice system like the overzealous White DA in question, it may not be a total racial issue, but it is an issue with Racial overtones and it is perfectly legitimate to question whether or not race played a role in how said black youth was treated. I don't need evidence that white kids are getting away with it to have that sentiment....Statistics accross the board show that Black men do more time for the same crime than their white counterparts. That is fact not conjecture.

but what was disproportional about this case? no one, including the author, has offered a single case outlining the idea that another similar crime resulted in a white kid getting a lighter sentence or had his case ignored. until that is done, claiming racial bias in this case is grasping for straws to get a kid off for breaking the law. furthermore, while the DA played a major role in this, he also had to prove his case to a jury. was the entire 12 man jury composed of white racists? i seriously doubt that.

beyond that, there are 48 black members of the state legislature (at least there are 48 in the black caucus). did every one of them become an uncle tom by not taking this kid's case and making it a rallying cry? there is simply no evidence, hard or soft, that this kid was charged, convicted and sentenced based on the color of his skin and any attempt to say that he was is muddying the waters of the debate.

[RedskinsDave]

Statistics accross the board show that Black men do more time for the same crime than their white counterparts. That is fact not conjecture.

They also show that black juries give black defendants longer sentences than white juries.

[dukeuch]

it's misleading because you conveniently left out the point that one was over the state's age of consent line and another under it. if you can't see why that's misleading, then it's a waste of time explaining it to you.

Nope. My point includes the fact that the law is stupid. My question includes the age of consent issue in the query of "is this what parents want"? We could go around and around on should this kid have had the age of consent law in his mind when he did this. What if they were doing the exact same thing legally before he turned 17, and then once he turned 17, it became a criminal act? What if they were having intercourse instead? Why this kid rather than any of the tens of thousands of other "17 year olds having sex with 15 year olds". You know, these two might be only a grade level apart, depnding on when thier respective birthdays are.

So OK, if your opinion is "yeah, it's dumb, but that's the law and the kid should pay", fine. I disagree. But the title of this thread is not in any way an attempt to slam or mislead anyone, and basically nobody but you seems to have a problem with it.

[fent]

Has it really come to this? Is this what parents want to happen to their randy teenagers?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html?cnn=yes

how exactly does this in anyway mention that one was above age of consent and one wasn't? what parents want has nothing to do with age of consent.

[dukeuch]

but what was disproportional about this case? no one, including the author, has offered a single case outlining the idea that another similar crime resulted in a white kid getting a lighter sentence or had his case ignored. until that is done, claiming racial bias in this case is grasping for straws to get a kid off for breaking the law. furthermore, while the DA played a major role in this, he also had to prove his case to a jury. was the entire 12 man jury composed of white racists? i seriously doubt that.

beyond that, there are 48 black members of the state legislature (at least there are 48 in the black caucus). did every one of them become an uncle tom by not taking this kid's case and making it a rallying cry? there is simply no evidence, hard or soft, that this kid was charged, convicted and sentenced based on the color of his skin and any attempt to say that he was is muddying the waters of the debate.

On the other hand, we all know that there are all kinds of laws in all kinds of states, cities, municipalites, etc, that are routinely ignored because they are antiquated, stupid or unenforceable. Nobody tries to get them off the books until something like this comes along. Like the one in Texas banning sodomy (which includes oral sex) even for consenting adults, that nobody applied for YEARS until they decided to apply it to a GAY couple. Never heard of it being brought against consenting heterosexual adults.

Argue all you want, but this is obviously one such example.

[dukeuch]

how exactly does this in anyway mention that one was above age of consent and one wasn't? what parents want has nothing to do with age of consent.

My question is simple, given whatever law is in place or not in place, do parents 17 year old teenagers tossed in jail for 10 years for commiting consensual sexual acts such as this one? Don't read anything more into the questions than that, please, because that is all there is to the question.

[fent]

My question is simple, given whatever law is in place or not in place, do parents 17 year old teenagers tossed in jail for 10 years for commiting consensual sexual acts such as this one? Don't read anything more into the questions than that, please, because that is all there is to the question.

you don't want me to read into the question but you expect me to pull age of consent out of your original quote? there's a BIG difference legally between two teenagers having sex that are both under or over the age of consent line and a case, like this one, in which one is under and the other is over. argue all you want, but you can't get around that pesky little fact.

[fent]

Argue all you want, but this is obviously one such example.

this is obviously NOT one such example. because of this case, the legislature took action. the action was to reduce the punishment, not change the law that makes the act a crime...again, argue all you want, but you can't get around that pesky little fact.

[CNYSkinFan]

this is obviously NOT one such example. because of this case, the legislature took action. the action was to reduce the punishment, not change the law that makes the act a crime...again, argue all you want, but you can't get around that pesky little fact.
The leg should have made it retro-active as well though, but didn't. espescially since this was one of the cases that prompted the leg to action.

You are right about the technicality of the law being broken buy the sentence is still absurd and if the Judge had any balls he would have violated the mandatory sentencing guideline in protest.

This is the nightmare scenario and why I hate madatory sentencing. Each crime is different.

And BTW 16 is too low for the age of consent and that is what led to this issue. Kids are not out of HS and not considered adult in any way in GA except for having sex. Most likely the age was kept low so billy jo Bob who was 40an going through a midlife crisis could hit on his daughter's friends.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

The leg should have made it retro-active as well though, but didn't. espescially since this was one of the cases that prompted the leg to action.

You are right about the technicality of the law being broken buy the sentence is still absurd and if the Judge had any balls he would have violated the mandatory sentencing guideline in protest.

This is the nightmare scenario and why I hate madatory sentencing. Each crime is different.

And BTW 16 is too low for the age of consent and that is what led to this issue. Kids are not out of HS and not considered adult in any way in GA except for having sex. Most likely the age was kept low so billy jo Bob who was 40an going through a midlife crisis could hit on his daughter's friends.
Read my previous post regarding the absurdity of lowering the adult consent age. In two states, the age was lowered to 14, and in many others, it is higher for males than it is for females, meaning that a 17 YO girl can be arrested for having consentual sex with a 17 YO boy.

[Fathead]

Most likely the age was kept low so billy jo Bob who was 40an going through a midlife crisis could hit on his daughter's friends.


When in doubt, insult the populace.

[fent]

The leg should have made it retro-active as well though, but didn't. espescially since this was one of the cases that prompted the leg to action.

You are right about the technicality of the law being broken buy the sentence is still absurd and if the Judge had any balls he would have violated the mandatory sentencing guideline in protest.

This is the nightmare scenario and why I hate madatory sentencing. Each crime is different.

And BTW 16 is too low for the age of consent and that is what led to this issue. Kids are not out of HS and not considered adult in any way in GA except for having sex. Most likely the age was kept low so billy jo Bob who was 40an going through a midlife crisis could hit on his daughter's friends.

the GA state constitution may not let them. again...i think the kid shouldn't have gotten 10 years. even the DA that brought the case says that. the jury says that as well. however, that's what the law states. (are we getting the picture that i'm a law and order guy :) ). and again, the mandatory sentencing is what the legislature changed, not the issue he was charged with.

also, just so the "antiquated law" argument doesn't start to spin out of control, the law he was tried under was written in 1996.

[fent]

just a little more background on the case, Genarlow isn't the only one involved in this case. there are 5 others that took plea deals for the same event. also, there's another girl in the tape, a 17 year old, that's obviously intoxicated that all the boys had intercourse with. Genarlow was found not guilty for rape charges because she didn't say "no" in the film. she did, however, call her mother as soon as she woke up naked freaking out that she had no clothes on. doesn't sound like she really knew what was going on. the more you read, the more and more you begin to realize that Genarlow wasn't the little angel he's made out to be.

furthermore, to put to bed the cries of racism by the DA, every case that has ever been brought up as a claim for him letting white people off lighter has A. involved victims over the age of consent (except one), and B. they were decisions made by the judge to list them as first time offenders, decisions which court records show he strenuously objected to.

[Ibleedburgundy]

When in doubt, insult the populace.

They changed the law. That is an admission that they knew it was stupid. Did the populace have a problem with them changing the law?

[fent]

They changed the law. That is an ommission that they knew it was stupid. Did the populace have a problem with them changing the law?
no they didn't change the law dealing with age of consent...they changed the law that has to do with the sentencing of breaking that law...how many times do i have to say this??? :banghead:

[RedskinsDave]

I suspected that article was a little short on details. Nice find Fent.

[Ibleedburgundy]

just a little more background on the case, Genarlow isn't the only one involved in this case. there are 5 others that took plea deals for the same event. also, there's another girl in the tape, a 17 year old, that's obviously intoxicated that all the boys had intercourse with. Genarlow was found not guilty for rape charges because she didn't say "no" in the film. she did, however, call her mother as soon as she woke up naked freaking out that she had no clothes on. doesn't sound like she really knew what was going on. the more you read, the more and more you begin to realize that Genarlow wasn't the little angel he's made out to be.

furthermore, to put to bed the cries of racism by the DA, every case that has ever been brought up as a claim for him letting white people off lighter has A. involved victims over the age of consent (except one), and B. they were decisions made by the judge to list them as first time offenders, decisions which court records show he strenuously objected to.

Nobody made this kid out to be an angel. The argument that we don't have a precedent of white kids getting off for the same crime is weak for two reasons. 1) What if charges were simply not pressed in the first place for white kids? Can you not see how a tape of a black guy and white girl might impact certain prosecutors/parents more than a white/white tape? and 2) we've already established that this is a very particular and somewhat rare circumstance so to expect a perfect precedent might be overreaching.

And yes I know they changed the punishment for the law not the consent age, duh. It still means they admitted a legislative problem.

[fent]

Nobody made this kid out to be an angel. The argument that we don't have a precedent of white kids getting off for the same crime is weak for two reasons. 1) What if charges were simply not pressed in the first place for white kids? Can you not see how a tape of a black guy and white girl might impact certain prosecutors/parents more than a white/white tape? and 2) we've already established that this is a very particular and somewhat rare circumstance so to expect a perfect precedent might be overreaching.

And yes I know they changed the punishment for the law not the consent age, duh. It still means they admitted a legislative problem.

but the admitted legislative problem has nothing to do with whether the kid committed a crime or not...it has to do with what they feel is a proper response.

also, where do you get the idea this is a black/white tape. i'm under the impression, and have seen nothing to state otherwise, that the girl involved is an african american. also, if you do a little research, the media is making this kid out to be a good kid that would never do anything wrong. and regardless of whether kids were charged, the police would still have records of an investigation any time this issue came up, regardless of whether charges were eventually brought. any lawyer or public group worth their salt could get that information to establish a legitimate cry of racism.

[Keino]

you don't want me to read into the question but you expect me to pull age of consent out of your original quote? there's a BIG difference legally between two teenagers having sex that are both under or over the age of consent line and a case, like this one, in which one is under and the other is over. argue all you want, but you can't get around that pesky little fact.


The difference is arbitrary and in the minds of most is not as big as the law in this case makes it out to be. There is no real difference other than the imaginary line drawn in the imaginary sand by legislators. There's legality and then there is pragmatism.

[CNYSkinFan]

When in doubt, insult the populace.
look the GA populace has been insulted by better people then I am :)

[RedskinsDave]

The difference is arbitrary and in the minds of most is not as big as the law in this case makes it out to be. There is no real difference other than the imaginary line drawn in the imaginary sand by legislators. There's legality and then there is pragmatism.

Then what about the jurors? The foreman said they had no choice but to convict based on the letter of the law even though the spirit of it may have called for something else.

[CNYSkinFan]

just a little more background on the case, Genarlow isn't the only one involved in this case. there are 5 others that took plea deals for the same event. also, there's another girl in the tape, a 17 year old, that's obviously intoxicated that all the boys had intercourse with. Genarlow was found not guilty for rape charges because she didn't say "no" in the film. she did, however, call her mother as soon as she woke up naked freaking out that she had no clothes on. doesn't sound like she really knew what was going on. the more you read, the more and more you begin to realize that Genarlow wasn't the little angel he's made out to be.

furthermore, to put to bed the cries of racism by the DA, every case that has ever been brought up as a claim for him letting white people off lighter has A. involved victims over the age of consent (except one), and B. they were decisions made by the judge to list them as first time offenders, decisions which court records show he strenuously objected to.
If this is true (and I have no doubt that it is) then it does bring up a whole new side to the case. This was not a simple boyfriend girlfriend act like I assumed (admittedly upon reading the article).

10 years is still too harsh but I now understand more of the context.

I still think and I know most on here agree, mandatory sentencing is the culprit here.

[fent]

The difference is arbitrary and in the minds of most is not as big as the law in this case makes it out to be. There is no real difference other than the imaginary line drawn in the imaginary sand by legislators. There's legality and then there is pragmatism.

and for the hundredth time, it's a situation that the legislators had a chance to address and chose not to. at least in their opinion, it's not an imaginary line at all.

[fent]

If this is true (and I have no doubt that it is) then it does bring up a whole new side to the case. This was not a simple boyfriend girlfriend act like I assumed (admittedly upon reading the article).

10 years is still too harsh but I now understand more of the context.

I still think and I know most on here agree, mandatory sentencing is the culprit here.

agree 100%

[RedskinsDave]

I think the summary is: The sentence is unfortunate and wrong. He was stupid not to plea bargain. The police had no choice once they found the video and the other girl claimed she was raped. They couldn't charge them with raping the girl because "technically" she did not say no. Other than made up stuff, there isn't anything to support any racism claims.

[fent]

I think the summary is: The sentence is unfortunate and wrong. He was stupid not to plea bargain. The police had no choice once they found the video and the other girl claimed she was raped. They couldn't charge them with raping the girl because "technically" she did not say no. Other than made up stuff, there isn't anything to support any racism claims.

he was charged with rape, but was found not guilty in spite of her intoxication and reaction because there was no plea to stop.

[CNYSkinFan]

and for the hundredth time, it's a situation that the legislators had a chance to address and chose not to. at least in their opinion, it's not an imaginary line at all.
Just because the legislators choose not to address the consent law does not make it proper....legal maybe, but definitely not proper. Age of 16 consent is just a horrible horrible middleground. It asks for cases like this since the consent age is in the middle of the age range for HS where most kids start their sexual experience. Thus kids who are 16 are being charged with crimnes that kids who are 15 would not be guilty of.

Almost evey reasonable person would draw the hard distinctive line at 18 as so many of societies big responsibilities (vote, draft, emancipation from parents) occurs at that point. 16 is ridiculous.

[Keino]

and for the hundredth time, it's a situation that the legislators had a chance to address and chose not to. at least in their opinion, it's not an imaginary line at all.

And for the equally hundereth time that fact doesn't make the age of consent relative to all other "Adult Age activities" any less arbitrary.

[fent]

Just because the legislators choose not to address the consent law does not make it proper....legal maybe, but definitely not proper. Age of 16 consent is just a horrible horrible middleground. It asks for cases like this since the consent age is in the middle of the age range for HS where most kids start their sexual experience. Thus kids who are 16 are being charged with crimnes that kids who are 15 would not be guilty of.

Almost evey reasonable person would draw the hard distinctive line at 18 as so many of societies big responsibilities (vote, draft, emancipation from parents) occurs at that point. 16 is ridiculous.

i also recognize that the age of consent should probably be 18...however, it stands to reason that if the GA legislature saw it as a problem, they would have addressed it. i'll readily admit they have a better handle on their state than a Texan that lives in DC, so i'll defer to them on their decision in the case. i'm just trying to get people to realize that the elected body of the state saw no reason to change it, so at least to Georgians, the laws that govern this situation were sound.

[fent]

And for the equally hundereth time that fact doesn't make the age of consent relative to all other "Adult Age activities" any less arbitrary.

again...the elected officials of georgia find this to be the best situation for their state. they've had lord knows how many times to address it and have decided not to. i'll defer to the thoughts and actions of the elected body of a state that none of us live in to decide what they feel is best for their state.

furthermore, georgia doesn't have a hard 18 on everything else. from what i've found by researching this case, when you turn 17 you're tried as an adult in Georgia PERIOD.

[Keino]

Then what about the jurors? The foreman said they had no choice but to convict based on the letter of the law even though the spirit of it may have called for something else.

Im saying the law itself creates an arbitrary limit...or in this case age of consent.

[Keino]

again...the elected officials of georgia find this to be the best situation for their state. they've had lord knows how many times to address it and have decided not to. i'll defer to the thoughts and actions of the elected body of a state that none of us live in to decide what they feel is best for their state.

Fine you defer to legislators, I will defer to my own concepts of common sense and right and wrong. The tone of all my arguments here relate to what should be not what is. Law and order be damned if the law doesn't make sense and in this case creates more chaos than order.

[fent]

Fine you defer to legislators, I will defer to my own concepts of common sense and right and wrong.

and when you become an elected official for a state body, you'll be able to let those concepts be known. you have no knowledge of the history of the state, especially when it comes to the specific issue of age of consent, yet you think we should listen to you rather than the actions of the people who are directly responsible for making that decision.

[CNYSkinFan]

i also recognize that the age of consent should probably be 18...however, it stands to reason that if the GA legislature saw it as a problem, they would have addressed it. i'll readily admit they have a better handle on their state than a Texan that lives in DC, so i'll defer to them on their decision in the case. i'm just trying to get people to realize that the elected body of the state saw no reason to change it, so at least to Georgians, the laws that govern this situation were sound.
not to go into the whole race decision but you do understand that this kind of philosophy and POV were used by those who promoted segregation and even slavery. State legislators do all kinds of things that are just silly, so do federal governments. I will never solely allow for a situation to be excusable just because the leg or local body ruling says it was. Maybe my Northeastern arrogance is showing (i did live in FL for five years but that probably did more to encourage that bias more then discourage) but the GA leg missed the boat on this one, and probably did so for politicaly tricky reasons.

[fent]

not to go into the whole race decision but you do understand that this kind of philosophy and POV were used by those who promoted segregation and even slavery. State legislators do all kinds of things that are just silly, so do federal governments. I will never solely allow for a situation to be excusable just because the leg or local body ruling says it was. Maybe my Northeastern arrogance is showing (i did live in FL for five years but that probably did more to encourage that bias more then discourage) but the GA leg missed the boat on this one, and probably did so for politicaly tricky reasons.

it's not that tricky to go to a situation like other states have with the age proximity. adding in a n+X formula isn't that difficult, especially considering the media frenzy this case appears to be creating. if they wanted to "fix it", they could very easily.

[Keino]

and when you become an elected official for a state body, you'll be able to let those concepts be known. you have no knowledge of the history of the state, especially when it comes to the specific issue of age of consent, yet you think we should listen to you rather than the actions of the people who are directly responsible for making that decision.

Given that I have been an adolescent boy, I think I have plenty of knowledge of "Age of Consent" and it's practical applications. The specific state of occurrence is immaterial to me, especially when you consider that...(And You probably didn't catch my edit so I will repeat it) I am speaking of what should be and not what is.

Why do I need to be State or any kind of legislator to make known my thoughts on right and wrong and common sense?

[fent]

Given that I have been an adolescent boy, I think I have plenty of knowledge of "Age of Consent" and it's practical applications. The specific state of occurrence is immaterial to me, especially when you consider that...(And You probably didn't catch my edit so I will repeat it) I am speaking of what should be and not what is.

Why do I need to be State or any kind of legislator to make known my thoughts on right and wrong and common sense?

you don't need to be, but to claim that this kid is obviously being taken advantage of without looking into the rest of the facts of the case places you on shaky ground. when you get beyond that and realize that your common sense may not be my common sense (and in this case isn't), you can't rely on that kind of argument.

also, in that less than 10 states have laws on the books to account for "youthful indiscretion" by allowing for sex with a minor as long as you're within a certain age range of the victim, i'd say it's more likely that "common sense" is that Georgia has it right.

[RedskinsDave]

The thought that this is just some simple age of consent problem ignores the fact that there was a girl who five guys admit to having sex with. She may have been wasted but she doesn't appear to have wanted it.

[fent]

The thought that this is just some simple age of consent problem ignores the fact that there was a girl who five guys admit to having sex with. She may have been wasted but she doesn't appear to have wanted it.

6...the 5 others just realized that they didn't have a case and plead guilty to lesser charges. if i did my math correctly, some of those guys are already free.

[Keino]

you don't need to be, but to claim that this kid is obviously being taken advantage of without looking into the rest of the facts of the case places you on shaky ground. when you get beyond that and realize that your common sense may not be my common sense (and in this case isn't), you can't rely on that kind of argument.


Our common Sense is closer than you think. We both think 10 years for this is way excessive. As for Facts, I used the facts and argument provided in the article and my own life experience to determine my position. I still think that Race plays a role in these issues (as does the author of the article BTW)and I think that the penalty is way excessive and beyond good sense given the facts (And even considering the additional facts you provided) of the case. I understand that the jury was handcuffed by the letter of the law

You can talk about law, legislators, age of consent etc. until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything to me, because at the end of the day, a kid is sitting in jail looking at 10 years for receiving a blow job from his peer. This wasn't some grown man taking advantage of an innocent girl which is in my estimation why we have these types of laws.

[fent]

You can talk about law, legislators, age of consent etc. until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything to me, because at the end of the day, a kid is sitting in jail looking at 10 years for receiving a blow job from his peer. This wasn't some grown man taking advantage of an innocent girl which is in my estimation why we have these types of laws.

you're right...it was a group of 6 17 year olds having sex with any young girl that came through the door. and on the flip side of your argument, you can talk "common sense", everyone else does it arguments, and claim racial bias until you're blue in the face and you will never change the fact that the kid broke the law.

[dukeuch]

you don't want me to read into the question but you expect me to pull age of consent out of your original quote? there's a BIG difference legally between two teenagers having sex that are both under or over the age of consent line and a case, like this one, in which one is under and the other is over. argue all you want, but you can't get around that pesky little fact.

Look, it seems that you are arguing a fact of law; the law says this, so that's what the kid gets. I do not argue that the law does not say what you say it does, I am saying the law, and it's application, are wrong. That's it. I don't think mst parents would think that if their high school kid, or some other high school kid, was having sex with a schoolmate, that they should be exposed to 10 years in jail. That's it. That's the entire point I am trying to make, and I guess by the legislature changing the law, or at least the penalty for violating it, that they agree too. Not that it will do this kid any good. he'll get what the law called for and what he deserves. Is that your opinion?

[Keino]

you're right...it was a group of 6 17 year olds having sex with any young girl that came through the door. and on the flip side of your argument, you can talk "common sense", everyone else does it arguments, and claim racial bias until you're blue in the face and you will never change the fact that the kid broke the law.

I will continue to call it how I see it. The kid broke the law by crossing over an arbitrary line that half of my HS graduating class crossed on prom night.

[fent]

Look, it seems that you are arguing a fact of law; the law says this, so that's what the kid gets. I do not argue that the law does not say what you say it does, I am saying the law, and it's application, are wrong. That's it. I don't think mst parents would think that if their high school kid, or some other high school kid, was having sex with a schoolmate, that they should be exposed to 10 years in jail. That's it. That's the entire point I am trying to make, and I guess by the legislature changing the law, or at least the penalty for violating it, that they agree too. Not that it will do this kid any good. he'll get what the law called for and what he deserves. Is that your opinion?

so you admit you were misleading?

[Keino]

so you admit you were misleading?

How so? A teenager is being jailed for having sex.

[fent]

I will continue to call it how I see it. The kid broke the law by crossing over an arbitrary line that half of my HS graduating class crossed on prom night.

i'm willing to bet that half your class didn't also record having sex with another girl at the same time. there's nothing at all similar between what this kid did and what your classmates did 15 years ago. and furthermore, when did "he did it too" amount to ANY kind of defense. surely you've said exactly that when your daughters step outside the lines of the rules that you have "arbitarily" placed upon them and tries to get off by saying a friend or her sister did it too.

[fent]

How so? A teenager is being jailed for having sex.

sean...i've made it abundantly clear through quoting what he said that he "conveniently" left out the part about violating the state's age of consent laws. if he doesn't agree with them fine, but "kids being jailed for having sex" is a MAJOR oversimplification of this case.

[dukeuch]

so you admit you were misleading?

No: the title of my thread is: "Teenagers jailed for having sex". He was a teenager, he had consensual sex with another teenager, and he was thrown in jail. My original question made it clear that the point of my thread was "do parents really want this type of punishment for this type of "crime".

Please, how is this misleading? Nobody else here seems to think so but you, and most posters here seem to agree with my opint. So why are you insisting on this line of (non) argument?

[fent]

No: the title of my thread is: "Teenagers jailed for having sex". He was a teenager, he had consensual sex with another teenager, and he was thrown in jail. My original question made it clear that the point of my thread was "do parents really want this type of punishment for this type of "crime".

Please, how is this misleading? Nobody else here seems to think so but you, and most posters here seem to agree with my opint. So why are you insisting on this line of (non) argument?

how many times do i have to tell you that you "conveniently" left out the part about one of them being a minor before you get it through your skull that you left out a MAJOR part of the story. everyone else has moved beyond this aspect of the argument because they recognize that you left out the biggest part of this story. if it was a 17 year old girl and a 17 year old boy or even a 15 year old girl and 15 year old boy, your title would have been fine. since it's not, you were misleading...simple as that.

[dukeuch]

how many times do i have to tell you that you "conveniently" left out the part about one of them being a minor before you get it through your skull that you left out a MAJOR part of the story. everyone else has moved beyond this aspect of the argument because they recognize that you left out the biggest part of this story.

Thank you for your comments and your interest in my thread.

[fent]

Thank you for your comments and your interest in my thread.

thank you for giving up and leaving with your tail between your legs.

[Keino]

i'm willing to bet that half your class didn't also record having sex with another girl at the same time. there's nothing at all similar between what this kid did and what your classmates did 15 years ago. and furthermore, when did "he did it too" amount to ANY kind of defense. surely you've made the same argument when your daughters step outside the lines of the rules that you have "arbitarily" placed upon them.

As I said earlier, I am raising my daughters not to be whores. That means not getting yourself in that situation. If my daughter is taped giving a blow job, my issue will be with my daughter not with the receipient of said blow-job (Though I won't be happy with him either). Im not making a legal defense. The taping of it adds a certain air of scumbaggishness to the incident, but he is being jailed for the act not the taping. The taping provided the evidence of the act. What I am saying is that we are punishing a kid for being a kid and doing what kids do. (Evidently, you don't know some of my Good Counsel, Class of 1991 classmates)

Furthermore, No rule in my household with regard to my children is arbitrary. There is clear and defined purpose behind my rules and I can easily convey what that prupose is. The household rules are not whimsical or determined by chance, but rather determined by reason...reason which can be conveyed to both of my children.

[dukeuch]

thank you for giving up and leaving with your tail between your legs.
Thank you for your comments, your spirited defense of an overwhelmingly minority position, and the 178th post of this thread.

[fent]

Furthermore, No rule in my household with regard to my children is arbitrary. There is clear and defined purpose behind my rules and I can easily convey what that prupose is. The household rules are not whimsical or determined by chance, but rather determined by reason...reason which can be conveyed to both of my children.

and do you really think that on such an issue this is not the same response you'll get from ANY Georgia legislator?

[fent]

Thank you for your comments, your spirited defense of an overwhelmingly minority position, and the 178th post of this thread.

Actually, if you read "your thread" you'll recognize that there is no "overwhelming" minority position that i hold here. There have been several posters that have actually come around to my view on most of this because of my arguments. Your total still sits at 0.

[Keino]

sean...i've made it abundantly clear through quoting what he said that he "conveniently" left out the part about violating the state's age of consent laws. if he doesn't agree with them fine, but "kids being jailed for having sex" is a MAJOR oversimplification of this case.


Still a teenager is being jailed for having Sex. It's no different than many other threads that get started in this forum. The article in the link he provides gives you all the gory details that he left out of his own words. How then can that be misleading? If he didn't provide the link and then recapped it that way, then you would be correct in calling it misleading.

[RedskinsDave]

Sean, what about the fact that he appears to have gotten off of a rape charge because the girl was too wasted to say no?

[fent]

Still a teenager is being jailed for having Sex. It's no different than many other threads that get started in this forum. The article in the link he provides gives you all the gory details that he left out of his own words. How then can that be misleading? If he didn't provide the link and then recapped it that way, then you would be correct in calling it misleading.

so making a statment that paints the picture one way while providing a link to a story that paints it in a completely different color is in no way misleading?

[Keino]

and do you really think that on such an issue this is not the same response you'll get from ANY Georgia legislator?

Im not sure what you are asking me. I frankly don't care what a Georgia legislator would say to my opinion that they have no place writing laws if they can't get them correct.

[RedskinsDave]

Still a teenager is being jailed for having Sex. It's no different than many other threads that get started in this forum. The article in the link he provides gives you all the gory details that he left out of his own words. How then can that be misleading? If he didn't provide the link and then recapped it that way, then you would be correct in calling it misleading.

Hell, even the link is misleading since the author of the article conveniently leaves out a ton of information.

[fent]

Im not sure what you are asking me. I frankly don't care what a Georgia legislator would say to my opinion that they have no place writing laws if they can't get them correct.
you assert that none of your household rules are arbitrary. that's your opinion. i guarantee you that those responsible for the creation of these laws would make the same argument that there was no arbitrary decision on such an important bit of legislation. again...there opinion, but no less valid than yours that your rules are not arbitrary.

[Keino]

so making a statment that paints the picture one way while providing a link to a story that paints it in a completely different color is in no way misleading?


I don't think it paints a different color only adds more detail than what was initially provided. The Article still confirms that what he wrote as the title of the thread is true. A teenager is jailed for having sex. Is that a false claim? If it is then you can claim misleading.

[Keino]

Hell, even the link is misleading since the author of the article conveniently leaves out a ton of information.

That may be, but thats not Dukeuch being misleading, He formulated his opinion and title from the info contained in the link he provided.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't think it paints a different color only adds more detail than what was initially provided. The Article still confirms that what he wrote as the title of the thread is true. A teenager is jailed for having sex. Is that a false claim? If it is then you can claim misleading.

Holy symantics. I could make the same claim of someone charged with rape and sodomy. "Man charged for having sex and getting some head". I could always leave out the fact that his partner wasn't willing OR legal. :rolleyes:

[fent]

I don't think it paints a different color only adds more detail than what was initially provided. The Article still confirms that what he wrote as the title of the thread is true. A teenager is jailed for having sex. Is that a false claim? If it is then you can claim misleading.

it is false in that it left out information...information that, when omitted, causes sympathy for this boy. in that it causes a certain emotion/thought process because this info was omitted, an emotion/thought process that is completely opposite of what many of us here have come to after observing the other facts of the case, the thread title/original post are misleading.

back to small children (i'll avoid using your daughters anymore...i apologize for doing that previously). if a small child is asked if he has something he shouldn't and says "no" only to find out that the child has put that thing in his room and it isn't actually on him...is he telling the truth or is he misleading you? ommission of central facts is misleading.

[Keino]

Holy symantics. I could make the same claim of someone charged with rape and sodomy. "Man charged for having sex and getting some head". I could always leave out the fact that his partner wasn't willing OR legal. :rolleyes:

Both kids were teenagers. You guys think that Dukeuch had some nefarious goal when he posted his opinion and the link that simply isn't there. He has stated and restated what his point was. It wasn't misleading. A teenaged boy is sitting in jail for having a sexual encounter with a teenaged girl.

[fent]

Both kids were teenagers. You guys think that Dukeuch had some nefarious goal when he posted his opinion and the link that simply isn't there. He has stated and restated what his point was. It wasn't misleading. A teenaged boy is sitting in jail for having a sexual encounter with a teenaged girl.

nefarious intent or not, the end result is the same. sounds a bit like the argument many of us have made about the specific case we're discussing.

[Keino]

it is false in that it left out information...information that, when omitted, causes sympathy for this boy. in that it causes a certain emotion/thought process because this info was omitted, an emotion/thought process that is completely opposite of what many of us here have come to after observing the other facts of the case, the thread title/original post are misleading.

back to small children (i'll avoid using your daughters anymore...i apologize for doing that previously). if a small child is asked if he has something he shouldn't and says "no" only to find out that the child has put that thing in his room and it isn't actually on him...is he telling the truth or is he misleading you? ommission of central facts is misleading.

For me it only caused me to click the lnk to see what it was all about. I don't think it was posted with the intention of misleading. I futher think that some folks have issues with the poster and so judge his posts with more scrutiny than had this come from say Spence.

With children you have to ask the right question. The question should be "Did you take X?" then whether it is on his/her person or not is immaterial. Did his title frame the direction he wanted to take the topic? Absolutely, but it wasn't factually inaccurate, and therefore in my mind, not misleading. The body of the post provides the details that you say he omits. Really I think all of that is wasted energy and Im sorry I keep addressing it.

[RedskinsDave]

Both kids were teenagers. You guys think that Dukeuch had some nefarious goal when he posted his opinion and the link that simply isn't there. He has stated and restated what his point was. It wasn't misleading. A teenaged boy is sitting in jail for having a sexual encounter with a teenaged girl....

...with 5 of his friends, in a hotel room while taping it and then being accused of rape by another girl in the room.

[Keino]

nefarious intent or not, the end result is the same. sounds a bit like the argument many of us have made about the specific case we're discussing.

Fent it's a thread title. The details were provided in the link.

[fent]

Fent it's a thread title. The details were provided in the link.

it's a thread title and an original post...the tools used to frame the discussion. it was framed in a way as to induce sympathy for a kid that, along with 5 other young men, had oral sex with a minor and had intercourse with an intoxicated 17 year old.

[Keino]

...with 5 of his friends, in a hotel room while taping it and then being accused of rape by another girl in the room.

Oh I get it...can't make the other charge stick, so get him on this one. Now I see where the DA was coming from. Does this girl in question, the one he had the encounter with allege that it was not consensual?

[fent]

Oh I get it...can't make the other charge stick, so get him on this one. Now I see where the DA was coming from. Does this girl in question, the one he had the encounter with allege that it was not consensual?

the one that was video taped having sex with all 6 of them? the one that woke up and got freaked out that she was naked and had obviously had sex? the one that called her mom to come and get her immediately because she didn't know what was going on? yes...she alleges that it wasn't consensual.

this was not a case of "not getting the charges to stick." both were tried in the same trial, in front of the same jury, by the same attorneys and decided by the same jury at the same time.

[Keino]

it's a thread title and an original post...the tools used to frame the discussion. it was framed in a way as to induce sympathy for a kid that, along with 5 other young men, had oral sex with a minor and had intercourse with an intoxicated 17 year old.


And so was the article. That amounts to the article being misleading in light of additional facts, but the poster used his opinion on the article to formulate both the thread title and the post. Your issue about misleading is with the author of the article not Dukeuch, as she is the one who leaves all these other facts out of the discussion.

[fent]

And so was the article. That amounts to the article being misleading in light of additional facts, but the poster used his opinion on the article to formulate both the thread title and the post. Your issue about misleading is with the author of the article not Dukeuch, as she is the one who leaves all these other facts out of the discussion.

it is with both of them as she leaves facts out and then he goes further than her and leaves out some of the facts that she acknowledges.

[Keino]

the one that was video taped having sex with all 6 of them? the one that woke up and got freaked out that she was naked and had obviously had sex? the one that called her mom to come and get her immediately because she didn't know what was going on? yes...she alleges that it wasn't consensual.

No ther other one, the one he actually got the BJ from. Dave says there were 2 girls.

[fent]

No ther other one, the one he actually got the BJ from. Dave says there were 2 girls.

there were two. the 15 year old does say it was consensual....with all 6 of them. consensual or not doesn't change the fact that the act is illegal.

[Keino]

it is with both of them as she leaves facts out and then he goes further than her and leaves out some of the facts that she acknowledges.

He doesn't leave the details out if he provides the link that contains said details, does he?

[fent]

He doesn't leave the details out if he provides the link that contains said details, does he?

ummm...yes he does. he gives the fact he finds to be pertinent and requires the reader to go get the "other" facts...the same thing the author did. c'mon sean, you know exactly what he did. just because you know that none of the other posters here like him doesn't mean you have to defend him to the death.

[Keino]

there were two. the 15 year old does say it was consensual....with all 6 of them.

Right. So again, he is sitting in jail for getting a consensual Blow job from his peer.

[RedskinsDave]

Oh I get it...can't make the other charge stick, so get him on this one. Now I see where the DA was coming from. Does this girl in question, the one he had the encounter with allege that it was not consensual?

Jesus H man, there was a video. He was charged with all the crimes the police saw on the tape. He was convicted of one because of the letter of the law and was acquitted on another because of a technicality. Why are you so defending of one and ignoring the other?

[Keino]

ummm...yes he does. he gives the fact he finds to be pertinent and requires the reader to go get the "other" facts...the same thing the author did. c'mon sean, you know exactly what he did. just because you know that none of the other posters here like him doesn't mean you have to defend him to the death.

I honeslty don't think his intent was to mislead which is why I am defending him so.

[fent]

Right. So again, he is sitting in jail for getting a consensual Blow job from his peer.

a "peer" that the law in most states doesn't recognize as his peer.

[fent]

I honeslty don't think his intent was to mislead which is why I am defending him so.

can you give me an honest answer as to how "teenager sent to jail for having sex: do you really think this is how parents want their randy kids dealt with" would cause ANYONE to realize that the case in question involved sexual contact with a minor?

[Keino]

Jesus H man, there was a video. He was charged with all the crimes the police saw on the tape. He was convicted of one because of the letter of the law and was acquitted on another because of a technicality. Why are you so defending of one and ignoring the other?


I am defending what he was actually convicted of. If there was evidence to convict him of rape, then he would've been convicted of rape and then none of us are having this discussion.

[Keino]

can you give me an honest answer as to how "teenager sent to jail for having sex: do you really think this is how parents want their randy kids dealt with" would cause ANYONE to realize that the case in question involved sexual contact with a minor?

It woudn't until they clicked on the lnk, the link which he provided. Had he made the post and re-capped the story in that way abset the link, and then someone else came in and posted the link, then I would think that he intended to be misleading. I think, his intentions were to get people to read the link, which provides all of those details and to offer his opinion. I further think that a Teenager is in jail for having an encounter with another teenager, which is the point he was driving home here.

[RedskinsDave]

I am defending what he was actually convicted of. If there was evidence to convict him of rape, then he would've been convicted of rape and then none of us are having this discussion.

Riiiiiight, because juries never get acquittals wrong, only convictions. OJ Simpson says hi.

[fent]

It woudn't until they clicked on the lnk, the link which he provided. Had he made the post and re-capped the story in that way abset the link, and then someone else came in and posted the link, then I would think that he intended to be misleading. I think, his intentions were to get people to read the link, which provides all of those details and to offer his opinion. I further think that a Teenager is in jail for having an encounter with another teenager, which is the point he was driving home here.

okay...so i think we both realize that we disagree on this point as well as whether or not application of the law is a good thing. given that, i'm going to bow out out of this conversation unless something new is added.

[Keino]

a "peer" that the law in most states doesn't recognize as his peer.

Yet the school they attend does. Interesting. The law is well intentioned, just misses the boat in certain individual circumstances and in Georgia this and the Marcus Dixon cases are examples in My opinion.

[Keino]

Riiiiiight, because juries never get acquittals wrong, only convictions. OJ Simpson says hi.

If the girl was so wasted she couldn't say no, how then can she identify who had sex with her? I suspect the 5 who did pleaded guilty because they knew they did. Im totally speculating here, because I haven't seen a link going over the details, but perhaps, just perhaps he didn't have sex with the other girl, he was just in the hotel room. He was content with his willingly given BJ. It seems to me that there would be DNA evidence to say who actually had sex with the girl, though we know condoms do prevent an semen evidence. Was he taped having sex with the girl?(The 17 year old)

I simply don't know, as all I have is Fent's post providing more details absent a link.

[RedskinsDave]

There. Was. A. Video. Tape.

[fent]

I simply don't know, as all I have is Fent's post providing more details absent a link.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=genarlow+wilson

[Keino]

There. Was. A. Video. Tape.

I asked "Was he taped" and I see reading the link that he was. That certainly changes my view of things a bit.

[akhhorus]

As I said earlier, I am raising my daughters not to be whores. That means not getting yourself in that situation. If my daughter is taped giving a blow job, my issue will be with my daughter not with the receipient of said blow-job (Though I won't be happy with him either). Im not making a legal defense. The taping of it adds a certain air of scumbaggishness to the incident, but he is being jailed for the act not the taping. The taping provided the evidence of the act. What I am saying is that we are punishing a kid for being a kid and doing what kids do. (Evidently, you don't know some of my Good Counsel, Class of 1991 classmates)

Furthermore, No rule in my household with regard to my children is arbitrary. There is clear and defined purpose behind my rules and I can easily convey what that prupose is. The household rules are not whimsical or determined by chance, but rather determined by reason...reason which can be conveyed to both of my children.

Good to know that even after the facts are out and it looks like this could be considered rape(sexual assault and statutory rape at the least), that you still want to label the girls as "whores". I don't have words for how little I think about you now. We have good debates(and bad ones) in this forum, but this is beyond the pale.

If you're willing to excuse borderline rape and at the minimum sexual assault to continue defending people just because of the color of your skin, you are among the biggest fools I've ever met and just as bad-morally-as the white racists you've convinced yourself are going around trying to imprison black america are. Further discussion with you on any topic is pointless since it will always come back to excusing any behavior for and infantilizing your own race. A real shame Keino, I rather thought a lot of you and had some good times. You're dead to me now.

[Keino]

Good to know that even after the facts are out and it looks like this could be considered rape(sexual assault and statutory rape at the least), that you still want to label the girls as "whores". I don't have words for how little I think about you now. We have good debates(and bad ones) in this forum, but this is beyond the pale.

If you're willing to excuse borderline rape and at the minimum sexual assault to continue defending people just because of the color of your skin, you are among the biggest fools I've ever met and just as bad-morally-as the white racists you've convinced yourself are going around trying to imprison black america are. Further discussion with you on any topic is pointless since it will always come back to excusing any behavior for and infantilizing your own race. A real shame Keino, I rather thought a lot of you and had some good times. You're dead to me now.

I stand by my comments, and Im not the one who introduced my daughters into this thread. The same way you said your hypothetical kid wouldn't be in the situation as the boy, Im sayng my real kids won't be in the situation as the girls. It is true, I am raising my daughters not to be whores, and part of that is making sure that they aren't in a situation at age 15 where they feel compelled to give 6 blow-jobs, consensually. How do you define whore? That sounds whorish to me.

As for your other comments about being dead to you....SO WHAT?!?! Who TF are you? I took a position based on the facts that were available to me, and changed my position when other facts were introduced to me. I won't apologize for believing and stating that I think that a White DA in Georgia may have factored in race when deciding how he was to procede. It happens as it did with Marcus Dixon. This coming from a guy who says he will poitn guns at his own damn children. Gimme a friggin break. You aren;t the moral compass of the forum, so get over your cheap ass self.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Ok guys, the situation is getting a little out of hand, so I'm not gonna discuss the matter any more, and besides, I've already made my point pretty clearly.
What I did want to say is that I absolutely 100% agree with Keino that the age consent limit is totally an arbitrary line, based on who knows what kind of logic. The proof of this is the fact that it is different in basically every state, and the age range goes from a "normal" 18 to a ridiculous 14, with some crazy exceptions in which the age is different between males and females. How this is tolerated is beyond me.

[shally]

I stand by my comments, and Im not the one who introduced my daughters into this thread. The same way you said your hypothetical kid wouldn't be in the situation as the boy, Im sayng my real kids won't be in the situation as the girls. It is true, I am raising my daughters not to be whores, and part of that is making sure that they aren't in a situation at age 15 where they feel compelled to give 6 blow-jobs, consensually. How do you define whore? That sounds whorish to me.

As for your other comments about being dead to you....SO WHAT?!?! Who TF are you? I took a position based on the facts that were available to me, and changed my position when other facts were introduced to me. I won't apologize for believing and stating that I think that a White DA in Georgia may have factored in race when deciding how he was to procede. It happens as it did with Marcus Dixon. This coming from a guy who says he will poitn guns at his own damn children. Gimme a friggin break. You aren;t the moral compass of the forum, so get over your cheap ass self.

without introducing myself into a highly charged discourse beyond this point, i think that the term whore or whorish has taken on meaning that is not specific to the word in modern times... it is now used to describe behavior or dress which may be merely sexually provocative.. or sexually loose and permissive behavior... but it is not actually whorish.. to me, that means selling ones body sexually (male or female).. and from the limited reading i have done on this sad matter, i do not think that was what was going on..
bad enough to behave that way for free, but once commerce is introduced, i think it takes it to another level..

just my thoughts, for what it is worth..

[akhhorus]

I stand by my comments, and Im not the one who introduced my daughters into this thread. The same way you said your hypothetical kid wouldn't be in the situation as the boy, Im sayng my real kids won't be in the situation as the girls. It is true, I am raising my daughters not to be whores, and part of that is making sure that they aren't in a situation at age 15 where they feel compelled to give 6 blow-jobs, consensually. How do you define whore? That sounds whorish to me.

Thanks for reinforcing my point here. The case history makes it look like the women were impaired and they were victimized, but yet, its their fault for sex acts to you. If there's ANY question of consent(which they CLEARLY is in this case), anyone with a soul should refrain from labeling the women as responsible for the sex. Especially also since they were underage. Your hero who you're trying to make into MLK is a sexual predator and the judge threw the book at him for the facts of the case. Real classy anyways on your part..

As for your other comments about being dead to you....SO WHAT?!?! Who TF are you? I took a position based on the facts that were available to me, and changed my position when other facts were introduced to me. I won't apologize for believing and stating that I think that a White DA in Georgia may have factored in race when deciding how he was to procede. It happens as it did with Marcus Dixon. This coming from a guy who says he will poitn guns at his own damn children. Gimme a friggin break. You aren;t the moral compass of the forum, so get over your cheap ass self.

Your position wouldn't have changed no matter the facts of the case. You're just looking for more evidence of this "white cabal" out to throw every black person in prison no matter how much its a square peg into a round hole. There's absolutely zero evidence that race was a factor here and there's the same amount of evidence that a white person/kid was let go free for the same or similar crime.

If you want to see where the problem is with race in the country, look in the mirror. Your attitude and your defensive stand does more to harm race relations than any group of good old boys telling N-word jokes over bud lights. In fact, you're as racist as they are since you're perfectly willing to paint an entire race as working to "oppress" your people. You've let your unfounded paranoia turn you into a walking joke.

[akhhorus]

Ok guys, the situation is getting a little out of hand, so I'm not gonna discuss the matter any more, and besides, I've already made my point pretty clearly.
What I did want to say is that I absolutely 100% agree with Keino that the age consent limit is totally an arbitrary line, based on who knows what kind of logic. The proof of this is the fact that it is different in basically every state, and the age range goes from a "normal" 18 to a ridiculous 14, with some crazy exceptions in which the age is different between males and females. How this is tolerated is beyond me.

The problem being that this case isn't as simple as the Georgia law on BJs or age of consent. The facts of the case make rape a major possibility here. Clearly the sentence he got(which was almost certainly the maximum) was because the judge decided to throw the book at him because of the implication of rape.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

The problem being that this case isn't as simple as the Georgia law on BJs or age of consent. The facts of the case make rape a major possibility here. Clearly the sentence he got(which was almost certainly the maximum) was because the judge decided to throw the book at him because of the implication of rape.
Yeah, that I agree with. Obviously the initial picture was not complete, and so my judgement was made not knowing all the facts. Since the situation seems much more screwed up than what was initially said, the sentence may not be completely absurd anymore. Other than the age "technicality", the video and the drunken behavior and all the other stuff cannot be ignored, and clearly play a big part.
But I was just pointing out something that Keino said that I thought was true, regardless of this case. 4 years (especially at that age) seems WAY too much between one state and another. I could understand let's say 18 and 19, but 14 in some states and 18 in others? That doesn't make sense, and I can't understand with what logic they came up with those age limits.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, that I agree with. Obviously the initial picture was not complete, and so my judgement was made not knowing all the facts. Since the situation seems much more screwed up than what was initially said, the sentence may not be completely absurd anymore. Other than the age "technicality", the video and the drunken behavior and all the other stuff cannot be ignored, and clearly play a big part.
But I was just pointing out something that Keino said that I thought was true, regardless of this case. 4 years (especially at that age) seems WAY too much between one state and another. I could understand let's say 18 and 19, but 14 in some states and 18 in others? That doesn't make sense, and I can't understand with what logic they came up with those age limits.

10 years for basically rape in extremely light, especially in the south. In SC, I knew someone who raped a friend of mine(and I testified at the preliminary hearing because she called me right after it happened and I drove her to the hospital) and he pled out to 30 to life.

[Keino]

Thanks for reinforcing my point here. The case history makes it look like the women were impaired and they were victimized, but yet, its their fault for sex acts to you. If there's ANY question of consent(which they CLEARLY is in this case), anyone with a soul should refrain from labeling the women as responsible for the sex. Especially also since they were underage. Your hero who you're trying to make into MLK is a sexual predator and the judge threw the book at him for the facts of the case. Real classy anyways on your part..


Actually, you are wrong. There were 2 women, one was impaired and allegedly raped. Here is what the jury forewoman said about her "rape" after reviewing the video evidence.

"I mean it wasn't even an hour," said jury forewoman Marie Manigault. "We immediately saw the tape for what it was. We went back and saw it again and saw what actually happened and everybody immediately said 'not guilty'."

The second woman, or girl I should say who I contend is a peer of the boy in question despite what the Law says, was not impaired an freely gave the BJ's. You can believe that she wasn't old enough to make a decision, because that's what the GA Statute says, but I was 15 once, and I knew what I was doing in every decision I made. Furthermore, as I have stated, half of the boys in my SR Class were dating Sophmores and all I talked to said they were sexually active. So my frame of reference says this is what teenagers do.

And yes, I have 2 daughters. Do you think my 15 year old daughter is going to a hotel with 6 boys? Or 1 boy for that matter? This is not R Kelley who I think should be thrown under the jail, this is a kid who was with another kid.


Your position wouldn't have changed no matter the facts of the case. You're just looking for more evidence of this "white cabal" out to throw every black person in prison no matter how much its a square peg into a round hole. There's absolutely zero evidence that race was a factor here and there's the same amount of evidence that a white person/kid was let go free for the same or similar crime.

The post above your latest offering says that I altered my position a bit, when finally able to see the full facts of the story. Nobody posted a link before that and I didn't have the time at work to go searching myself. As for your contention about zero evidence, the white woman who wrote the original article and my only source of info until about 3:19 seems to believe that race is a factor as well. But feel free to continue to cling to your theories and conclusions. In today's climate there will never be a smoking gun with regard to racism and racial bias.

If you want to see where the problem is with race in the country, look in the mirror. Your attitude and your defensive stand does more to harm race relations than any group of good old boys telling N-word jokes over bud lights. In fact, you're as racist as they are since you're perfectly willing to paint an entire race as working to "oppress" your people. You've let your unfounded paranoia turn you into a walking joke.


Yep, I've painted an entire race as keeping the black man down. Yep, I am the reason racism still exists, not the police using racial profilling, not the fact that Black men are jailed at exponentially higher rates than their counterparts, not the fact there is disproportional poverty, unemployment etc etc(All either Systematic or systemic) with blacks relative to whites, but me, who doesn't ignore historical context in places like GA, where Marcus's Dixon's white adoptive parents were called Nigger Lovers from their community in 2004, or my own mother was called a nigger lover by her own father. You know what, I don't need to try and justify myself and my positions to you. As I said earlier, someone who would point a gun in a child's face attempting to be a moral compass is laughable at best.

[Keino]

The problem being that this case isn't as simple as the Georgia law on BJs or age of consent. The facts of the case make rape a major possibility here. Clearly the sentence he got(which was almost certainly the maximum) was because the judge decided to throw the book at him because of the implication of rape.

Wrong again. The sentence was a Mandatory Minimum for charge per the statute. The Judge had no discretion either way.

[Ibleedburgundy]

10 years for basically rape in extremely light, especially in the south. In SC, I knew someone who raped a friend of mine(and I testified at the preliminary hearing because she called me right after it happened and I drove her to the hospital) and he pled out to 30 to life.

That might explain why you overreacted. I've been there. It's the kind of thing that can keep you up at night.

[akhhorus]

Actually, you are wrong. There were 2 women, one was impaired and allegedly raped. Here is what the jury forewoman said about her "rape" after reviewing the video evidence.

It would be helpful to know what the tape showed and what it did not and what the girls says. And so much for your rigged judicial system argument also.

The second woman, or girl I should say who I contend is a peer of the boy in question despite what the Law says, was not impaired an freely gave the BJ's. You can believe that she wasn't old enough to make a decision, because that's what the GA Statute says, but I was 15 once, and I knew what I was doing in every decision I made. Furthermore, as I have stated, half of the boys in my SR Class were dating Sophmores and all I talked to said they were sexually active. So my frame of reference says this is what teenagers do.

If she was 15, then he's guilty of statutory rape in Georgia. Along with half the boys in your SR class(even in MD, where the consent age is 16). Doesn't make it right at all. Why do you want to make illegal practice, even if its "accepted", acceptable?

And yes, I have 2 daughters. Do you think my 15 year old daughter is going to a hotel with 6 boys? Or 1 boy for that matter? This is not R Kelley who I think should be thrown under the jail, this is a kid who was with another kid.

According to the laws of the soverign state of Georgia, this was a crime.

The post above your latest offering says that I altered my position a bit, when finally able to see the full facts of the story. Nobody posted a link before that and I didn't have the time at work to go searching myself. As for your contention about zero evidence, the white woman who wrote the original article and my only source of info until about 3:19 seems to believe that race is a factor as well. But feel free to continue to cling to your theories and conclusions. In today's climate there will never be a smoking gun with regard to racism and racial bias.

:rolleyes: and no evidence of racism. You're trying to create phantom klansmen out to get the black man again. As for the woman who wrote the article, she throws the race card out there and doesn't bother to offer any proof that race was an issue. Much like you're doing here. If you have a case where a white kid was let slide on this, then you would have a point. The author of the original article mysteriously neglected to mention any examples of that.

Yep, I've painted an entire race as keeping the black man down. Yep, I am the reason racism still exists, not the police using racial profilling, not the fact that Black men are jailed at exponentially higher rates than their counterparts, not the fact there is disproportional poverty, unemployment etc etc(All either Systematic or systemic) with blacks relative to whites, but me

And you have any proof that there is a white conspiracy to make this all happen? And yes, your attitude to is blame for racial tensions more than all your phantom klansmen. There's no cabal out there to keep anyone down. Even when I lived in SC and I knew(and was disgusted by) some big time racists(even some self hating black people), i must have missed all the meetings or notices of meeting where the white people got together to make sure they stayed in charge of everything. And for the record, the most powerful SC politician is Black(Clyburn).

who doesn't ignore historical context in places like GA, where Marcus's Dixon's white adoptive parents were called Nigger Lovers from their community in 2004, or my own mother was called a nigger lover by her own father. You know what, I don't need to try and justify myself and my positions to you. As I said earlier, someone who would point a gun in a child's face attempting to be a moral compass is laughable at best.

And the tap dancing continues. If you honestly think I would do that to my child, much less anyone's, you're more delusional that I think you are. However, you've played the race card in debates even when it has no place.

[akhhorus]

That might explain why you overreacted. I've been there. It's the kind of thing that can keep you up at night.

Its not overreacting to say that you give the benefit of the doubt in a potential rape case. The facts of this case make it a valid question and excusing his behavior anyways is ridiculous.

[ryflan47]

So I could go to jail if a 17 year old gave me a BJ?

[akhhorus]

Wrong again. The sentence was a Mandatory Minimum for charge per the statute. The Judge had no discretion either way.

See, I thought he was convicted of Georgia's law against oral sex. He was convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation. 10 years is light for that IMO.

[akhhorus]

So I could go to jail if a 17 year old gave me a BJ?

If an underaged girl in Georgia did, then yeah. I believe Wilson was convicted of oral sex from the 15 year old, not the 17 year old. 16 is the age of consent in GA and child molestation wouldn't apply.

And for the record, here's the law he broke:
""A person commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person…. "A person commits the offense of aggravated child molestation when such person commits an offense of child molestation which act physically injures the child or involves an act of sodomy""

Seems pretty clear that this is exactly what Wilson did. Even getting a BJ in the presence of an underaged person is enough to satisfy violating this law.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

So I could go to jail if a 17 year old gave me a BJ?
In some states yeah. In others, you could have complete sexual intercourse with a 14 YO girl and it would be perfectly legal.

[Keino]

It would be helpful to know what the tape showed and what it did not and what the girls says. And so much for your rigged judicial system argument also.

Agreed on 1st sentence. I don't know what was in the heart of the DA who chose to proceed and hell even RD was initially of the opinion that this didn't need to be prosecuted..


If she was 15, then he's guilty of statutory rape in Georgia. Along with half the boys in your SR class(even in MD, where the consent age is 16). Doesn't make it right at all. Why do you want to make illegal practice, even if its "accepted", acceptable? According to the laws of the soverign state of Georgia, this was a crime.

Im saying the statute is well intentioned but not particularly applicable when talking about ones peers. I understand what the law says, but don't particulary care when it is applied in this manner. As I said to Fent, I am speaking of what should be not what is. Don't you think it incredibly stupid (I know you do because you already wrote that) that a 17 year old kid can get a Blowjob from a 15 year old and it is a mandatory 10 years on a felony charge, and have to register aas a sex offender the rest of his life, but those same 2 kids can have sex and The law in Georgia provides if one person is 14 or 15 years old and the other person is within three years of age and they have intercourse, it is only a misdemeanor and no sexual offender registry.


:rolleyes: and no evidence of racism. You're trying to create phantom klansmen out to get the black man again. As for the woman who wrote the article, she throws the race card out there and doesn't bother to offer any proof that race was an issue. Much like you're doing here. If you have a case where a white kid was let slide on this, then you would have a point. The author of the original article mysteriously neglected to mention any examples of that.

If you say so. You're right though, the lady did write that without providing evidence. It's called sentiment grounded in experience. Im sure you've never drawn a conclusion grounded in experience and knowledge of certain socioeconomic and political factors.

And you have any proof that there is a white conspiracy to make this all happen? And yes, your attitude to is blame for racial tensions more than all your phantom klansmen. There's no cabal out there to keep anyone down. Even when I lived in SC and I knew(and was disgusted by) some big time racists(even some self hating black people), i must have missed all the meetings or notices of meeting where the white people got together to make sure they stayed in charge of everything. And for the record, the most powerful SC politician is Black(Clyburn).

Who said a white conspiracy was in place. If all of these issues are in fact systematic, then yes that would mean a function of the system, but if they are systemic, then they are a consequence of the system not necessarily intentioned. For example, Racial profilling is indeed systematic. Disproportionate poverty for example is systemic, but at one time was systematic. Is any of that false?

And the tap dancing continues. If you honestly think I would do that to my child, much less anyone's, you're more delusional that I think you are. However, you've played the race card in debates even when it has no place.

Tap dancing? You asked me a specific question that Im avoiding? As far as I can tell you are conversing with a ghost. All I know about you is what you say and what I see. You said it, so I believed it. And for the record, I didn't introduce the so called race card (Though in card games I always thought you had to play the hand you are dealt), it was introduced on the first post in the thread. Other threads have no relevance here at all.

[ryflan47]

In some states yeah. In others, you could have complete sexual intercourse with a 14 YO girl and it would be perfectly legal.

Damn, what is the law in Italy?

[akhhorus]

Agreed on 1st sentence. I don't know what was in the heart of the DA who chose to proceed and hell even RD was initially of the opinion that this didn't need to be prosecuted..

Then its unfair to question his motives as racist if you don't know what they were. The law makes it clear that even masterbation in front of a minor can get you 10 years.

Im saying the statute is well intentioned but not particularly applicable when talking about ones peers. I understand what the law says, but don't particulary care when it is applied in this manner. As I said to Fent, I am speaking of what should be not what is. Don't you think it incredibly stupid (I know you do because you already wrote that) that a 17 year old kid can get a Blowjob from a 15 year old and it is a mandatory 10 years on a felony charge, and have to register aas a sex offender the rest of his life, but those same 2 kids can have sex and The law in Georgia provides if one person is 14 or 15 years old and the other person is within three years of age and they have intercourse, it is only a misdemeanor and no sexual offender registry.

The law is the law, like it or not. He was legally an adult(for purposes of consent) in Georgia and the law is clear. No sex in front of or with minors. He violated it. We can split hairs that he wasn't much older than the girl in question and such, but the law is the law. A bar can't appeal a fine for selling booze to a 20 year old in any state on the grounds that the underaged person was "close to 21". He broke the law(was offered a light plea deal and rejected it) and there are penalties for that. He doesn't have much of a federal appeal also.

If you say so. You're right though, the lady did write that without providing evidence. It's called sentiment grounded in experience. Im sure you've never drawn a conclusion grounded in experience and knowledge of certain socioeconomic and political factors.

If the prosecutor/judge/jury/asian hookers/chief executive of city or county had some sort of racial history, I guess you could bring this up. No matter the history of Georgia or your personal history, I don't see how race is an issue here. Or is a valid one to bring up sans evidence of it. Wilson broke the law and there's no proof of even a hint of a racial dimension to this.

Who said a white conspiracy was in place. If all of these issues are in fact systematic, then yes that would mean a function of the system, but if they are systemic, then they are a consequence of the system not necessarily intentioned. For example, Racial profilling is indeed systematic. Disproportionate poverty for example is systemic, but at one time was systematic. Is any of that false?

Poverty cuts across racial lines, racial profiling is wrong and still goes on, but this isn't 1959 in south Alabama. I lived in the deep south(Tampa isn't that btw) and I've seen and heard disgusting racism that both black and white are guilty of. But at no time have even caught a whiff of some eeven vaguely organized conspiracy. And I was involved(through a gf) with a family that was one of the old moneyed families of charleston and went to thousands of political functions/bbqs/drinking contests. The sins of the past aren't being repeated today and its unfair to paint a broad picture of rogue white folks in positions of powers trying to keep the black man down. Especially with examples like-until recently-the powerful police chief of Charleston was black AND Jewish and which state has the most Black voted office holders in the whole Country---Mississippi!

Tap dancing? You asked me a specific question that Im avoiding? As far as I can tell you are conversing with a ghost. All I know about you is what you say and what I see. You said it, so I believed it. And for the record, I didn't introduce the so called race card (Though in card games I always thought you had to play the hand you are dealt), it was introduced on the first post in the thread. Other threads have no relevance here at all.

IBB was the first to bring up race, you cranked it up with this comment:
"He commited the crime of being an African American Man....."

That is complete crap and you know it. Especially now that the full facts of the case are out.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Damn, what is the law in Italy?
I meant in some states in the US. In Italy we don't have federalism, so it's one law for the whole country, and the law is that it is illegal to have any kind of sexual relationship with a child under the age of 14, even if he/she is consenting. For kids between 14 and 18 it depends on the age of the partner.

[dukeuch]

See, I thought he was convicted of Georgia's law against oral sex. He was convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation. 10 years is light for that IMO.

Yeah, but one of the incredible ironies is that if he had intercourse with the same girl, it would NOT have been aggravated child molestation, it's because it was oral sex that he was, if I read a lot of the commentary correctly.

[akhhorus]

Yeah, but one of the incredible ironies is that if he had intercourse with the same girl, it would NOT have been aggravated child molestation, it's because it was oral sex that he was, if I read a lot of the commentary correctly.

You're not reading the law. Having sex in front of the girl is not aggravated Child Molestation, its just child molestation, having sex with the girl(or rough oral sex or certain kinds of sex) is.

[dukeuch]

You're not reading the law. Having sex in front of the girl is not aggravated Child Molestation, its just child molestation, having sex with the girl(or rough oral sex or certain kinds of sex) is.

I am basing my statement on the below, which came form the first article listed when you open up the Google link that I think was provided by Fent. I have seen basically the same statement in just about every article concerning this case, some in a lot moer detail going into the actual language of the law. Perhaps it has to do with precedents upon which applicaiton of the law are based? I don't know, but the observation is made again and again in most of the articles:

In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor.

[akhhorus]

I am basing my statement on the below, which came form the first article listed when you open up the Google link that I think was provided by Fent. I have seen basically the same statement in just about every article concerning this case, some in a lot moer detail going into the actual language of the law. Perhaps it has to do with precedents upon which applicaiton of the law are based? I don't know, but the observation is made again and again in most of the articles:

In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor.

Ah, didn't know thats what you were talking about. Georgia outlawed oral sex quite a while ago(called oral sodomy). So, its a double crime there. The aggravated part speaks to physical injury during the sex act according to the law.

[dukeuch]

Ah, didn't know thats what you were talking about. Georgia outlawed oral sex quite a while ago(called oral sodomy). So, its a double crime there. The aggravated part speaks to physical injury during the sex act according to the law.

But to this kid, that's not the important distinction. The important distinction is that instead of being guilty of stutuatory rape (which he probably would have beaten if he had just screwed the girl) where he would have gotten a much lighter sentence had he been found guilty, now he is a child molester and will always be a registered sex offender (if I understand the result of his conviction correctly), all because he put it in one orafice, the one that wouldn't get the girl pregnant, instead of the other.

And while I don't really care to go back to examine your view concerning "was this selectively applied" or "does this make sense" vs. "well, it's the law", if oral sex is a crime, I'd love to see how many times heterosexual teenagers, adults, or whoever, NOT involved in rape, have been treid and convicted under that law. If Geogia is going afte consenting adults for oral sex, it will be one mighty empty state soon.

[akhhorus]

But to this kid, that's not the important distinction. The important distinction is that instead of being guilty of stutuatory rape (which he probably would have beaten if he had just screwed the girl) where he would have gotten a much lighter sentence had he been found guilty, now he is a child molester and will always be a registered sex offender (if I understand the result of his conviction correctly), all because he put it in one orafice, the one that wouldn't get the girl pregnant, instead of the other.

if he had full sex with the girl, it would be clearly statutory rape. She was underaged and he wasn't in the state of georgia. He violated the georgia law on child molestation. I don't know what the problem is here. The law says no sex acts in front of minor(s) if you're over the age of 16. He did that at the very least. Any sex act with the minor is also a crime and it appears he did that also. Why are you defending this guy again?

And while I don't really care to go back to examine your view concerning "was this selectively applied" or "does this make sense" vs. "well, it's the law", if oral sex is a crime, I'd love to see how many times heterosexual teenagers, adults, or whoever, NOT involved in rape, have been treid and convicted under that law. If Geogia is going afte consenting adults for oral sex, it will be one mighty empty state soon.

It was struck down in 98, my bad. But the child molestation laws clearly discuss oral sex(a vestige of the oral sex laws, I'm sure). Any sex: oral, anal, regular, frog, limbless, etc in front of a minor is illegal. Wilson violated that. Whats the problem again?

[dukeuch]

if he had full sex with the girl, it would be clearly statutory rape. She was underaged and he wasn't in the state of georgia. He violated the georgia law on child molestation. I don't know what the problem is here. The law says no sex acts in front of minor(s) if you're over the age of 16. He did that at the very least. Any sex act with the minor is also a crime and it appears he did that also. Why are you defending this guy again?



It was struck down in 98, my bad. But the child molestation laws clearly discuss oral sex(a vestige of the oral sex laws, I'm sure). Any sex: oral, anal, regular, frog, limbless, etc in front of a minor is illegal. Wilson violated that. Whats the problem again?

The problem is, that the penalty for statuatory rape is much less than that for aggravated child molestation, and the only difference in this case is where he put his prick. I might be wrong, but I don't see any discussion in the articles that what brought him down was that he had sex in front of a minor, so I don't know why you bring that up at all.

I admit what he did was against Georgia law, but my whole point in bringing this thread to life is that the punishment, whatever the law says, does not fit the crime, and most of the people the scores of articles covering this, including church groups, feel the same way. The tenor of just about every article, and every person quoted in this article, is that this is not justice, and I am sure that you would agree (perhaps not in this case) that application of the law does not always coincide with justice (unless you feel that by definition, the law IS justice)? Well, all I am saying is this is not justice, and I think most parents in Georgia also feel this is not justice, that the law is not in place to be applied as it was in this case, and in fact, some of the state lawmakeers, including those who drafted the law in the first place, ALSO say this is not what they intended.

Believe me, I am not arguing that the kid didn't break the law. I am arguing th law is stupid and what happened to this kid is a travesty.

[akhhorus]

The problem is, that the penalty for statuatory rape is much less than that for aggravated child molestation, and the only difference in this case is where he put his prick. I might be wrong, but I don't see any discussion in the articles that what brought him down was that he had sex in front of a minor, so I don't know why you bring that up at all.

I admit what he did was against Georgia law, but my whole point in bringing this thread to life is that the punishment, whatever the law says, does not fit the crime, and most of the people the scores of articles covering this, including church groups, feel the same way. The tenor of just about every article, and every person quoted in this article, is that this is not justice, and I am sure that you would agree (perhaps not in this case) that application of the law does not always coincide with justice (unless you feel that by definition, the law IS justice)? Well, all I am saying is this is not justice, and I think most parents in Georgia also feel this is not justice, that the law is not in place to be applied as it was in this case, and in fact, some of the state lawmakeers, including those who drafted the law in the first place, ALSO say this is not what they intended.

Believe me, I am not arguing that the kid didn't break the law. I am arguing th law is stupid and what happened to this kid is a travesty.

10 to 20 for Statutory rape in Georgia. If you're 17-20(like wilson was), its 1-20.

And he was offered a deal with minimum jail time, he turned it down. I don't have much sympathy for him. He broke the law and thats it.