quote: An honor student, standout athlete and homecoming king, the 17-year-old was preparing for the SAT exams he hoped would pave the way to college. A New Year's Eve party fueled by alcohol, marijuana and sex at a Douglas County hotel changed all that.
Wilson, now 21, is serving 10 years without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl that night.
quote:
If Wilson had sexual intercourse with a teen he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex for teens still constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence.
This is pure BS. This man needs to be let go. Charge him for marijuana use, charge him for underage drinking, but not for consensual sex with another teenager. Why hasn't the girl been arrested? Shouldn't she spend as much time in jail?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The girl did not have a sexual relation with someone who was fifteen years old. He did.
I do not have any problems with it being illegal to have sexual relations with people who are too young. I don't think that fifteen is an unreasonable age for it to be too young.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The girl did not have a sexual relation with someone who was fifteen years old. He did.
I do not have any problems with it being illegal to have sexual relations with people who are too young. I don't think that fifteen is an unreasonable age for it to be too young.
So if they were both fifteen you would agree they should both go to jail?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please do not put words in my mouth, saying that I agree when you do not know if I do or not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think oral sex should cary more of a sentence than intercourse. I also think that relative age of the people involved should be a factor. Any "gang rape of a semiconcious girl" would obviously pale these other factors.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not stating anything about the appropriateness of specific punishments. It is not something that I have spent enough effort thinking about to feel like sharing any half-formed opinions.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with criminalizing sexual relations with someone who is too young, even if the perpetrator is also young themselves.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if two 15 year olds have sex (or oral sex), do you believe that they should both be punished?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we put all 17 year olds who engaged in oral sex with 15 year olds in jail, i think a vast majority of my high school would have been in jail together. As well as I'm sure countless teens around the country. We're talking about a 2 year difference here!
And the fact that this punishment was handed down for oral sex, whereas there would've been no punishment for normal sexual intercourse is even more ridiculous.
Again, this is all assuming that oral sex between a 17 year old and 15 year old is the only factor here.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it would be wrong for it to be criminalized. That is not the same thing as saying that it should be criminalized.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In your view, what would the justification for criminalizing having relations with a 15 year old, were it to be done?
I'm assuming that there is something beyond that bald statement that having relations with a 15 year old is wrong/criminalizable and looking for the reasons why it would be considered wrong/criminalizable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't think criminalizing sex with an underage person is wrong, regardless of the other persons age. However, I think that relative age and consent should be a factor in sentencing. Also, having a different, and far harsher, charge and punishment for oral sex than for intercourse seems ridiculous to me. The criminality isn't what I have issue with, it's the punishment.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morally I to have no problem with laws on the books in regards to underage sex.
But 10 years in prison for consensual sex under a law designed to go after child predators, AND the fact that when he is out he will have to register as a sex offender seems more then excessive to me.
Whether or not this guy should be in jail for rape, drugs, or underage drinking is irrelevant. He was found not-guilty for rape, and was not charged with drugs or alcohol use. The fifteen year old girl even said it was consensual, though legally it doesn't matter.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, out of curiosity, I found that in Georgia with parental consent sixteen year olds can get married. They can get married without parental consent if the girl is pregnant. Does that mean the groom is arrested after the ceremony?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not it was "consensual" could be debated, I think....
If this was "consensual", does that mean it is possible for a 15-year-old to consent? Many on this forum have argued that underage children cannot consent.
Then again, if underage children can't consent, how is it fair to send an underage child to jail for 10 years for doing something he didn't even consent to doing?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Whether or not it was "consensual" could be debated, I think....
If this was "consensual", does that mean it is possible for a 15-year-old to consent? Many on this forum have argued that underage children cannot consent.
Legally no, they cannot consent. I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere, in most of this country that line is 18. Personally I think if you are old enough to operate heavy machinery at 60 miles per hour on a crowded highway at 16, you are old enough to know to make an informed decision on this matter as well.
quote: Then again, if underage children can't consent, how is it fair to send an underage child to jail for 10 years for doing something he didn't even consent to doing?
posted
This story has been knocking around for awhile. Last I saw it, it was on the front page of Sports Illustrated (the website).
What are the details of the Romeo and Juliet clause?
Either way, it seems most people agree that this is ridiculous, since they changed the law. I have no problem with criminalizing sex with underage people, but 15 and 17 is ridiculous. Friends of mine in high school were 17 and 15 when they first had sex and such, and they either both knew what they were doing, or were both foolish in doing so, but it wasn't advantage taking. It's sexual experimentation, it's normal, and it's something 15 year olds, like it or not, do now. Criminalizing it is just going to put decent kids in jail for acting on their hormones. A 30 year old and a 15 year old is abuse and sexual molestation, a 17 or even 18 year old, and 15 year old is not (of course, depending on the circumstances).
Lawmakers shouldn't deal in absolutes like that, because real life isn't so cut and dry. I hope they get the bill passed to apply the law retroactively to him. Regardless of anything else, it seems silly to make him serve out the rest of the sentence when future offenders won't have to face the same punishment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to agree with the idea that the punishment was overly harsh in this case, but I'm not going to get too upset up for this guy. He was at party with drugs and alcohol, when he was underage and not supposed to be drinking much less using illegal drugs, having sex with multiple women it sounds like, and even though he was acquitted of the rape charge, both of the women he is engaging in sexual activity with on tape were underage.
He should have been punished, even if I agree that 10 years is too long. Sounds like the idea now is pretty good, they changed the law and now it would be misdemeanor with a one year sentence. I'm okay with that and I'd be okay with them reviewing his case and letting him out of jail now that he's served four years. But, like I said, he's not completely blameless in this and while the sentence is probably a bit overboard, he was in the wrong that night and should suffer some consequences for his poor decisions.
One thing that bugs me is the constant appeal to the fact that he was an athlete. So what? Either the sentence is wrong, and should be overturned or it shouldn't. The fact that he had potentially a promising career as a college athlete shouldn't enter into it.
So if he was an overweight, mediocre student with no college prospects or athletic prowess the sentence would be okay? That's the impression I got from the article and I think that's ridiculous.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to tie in the last thread on this topic I started back in January after ESPN did a feature. The ESPN.com story is linked in the first post:
posted
According to the article, the law now says no, he would not have to register. That's under the new law. Under the one he was convicted under, then yes he does have to register.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by Belle: both of the women he is engaging in sexual activity with on tape were underage.
Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
Edit to add: If they pass the special law to make it retroactive for him, then he won't have to register, I would think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Just to tie in the last thread on this topic I started back in January after ESPN did a feature. The ESPN.com story is linked in the first post:
I like the ESPN article, much more detailed. Sorry for the repost.
This especially caught my eye:
"If he had accepted the plea bargain, Wilson would've had to register as a sex offender and wouldn't have been permitted to live in the same house as his younger sister."
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this nation needs to do an overhaul of its sex offender laws. It sounds like if I moon somebody, and a cop sees it, I would have to register. While I agree it is important that I know if a rapist lives on my street, it is way to easy to be labeled a sex offender. But what politician is going to push for a law taking people off the registry? It would be political suicide.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is a question of whether this kid broke the law and should be punished for it. I think it is a question of whether the punishment fit the crime. Ten years without parole seems excessive, especially the 'without parole' part.
Kids smoke Pot, that is a reality. Kid drink underage, that is a reality. Kids have underage sex, that is a reality. But those are all against the law, and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time.
Society does have to set an arbitrary working standard for age of consent. In Minnesota we don't have a flat Age of Consent Law, we have a range of Criminal Sexual Conduct Laws that define several age thresholds and age spans.
By some interpretation it is possible for two 12 year olds to have sexual contact. Yet (based on memory here) a 14 year old and a 15 year old can not. A 15 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, but neither can have sex with a 17 year old, and none of them can have sex with an 18 year old. (Again, based on my very foggy memory. Even if it fails as a factual example, it still serves as an illustration.)
The point is society has to draw the line somewhere. Generally in the USA (UK and other Euro countries) it is 16. All parties 16 and over = OK. Any one party under age 16 = against the law. This is admittedly a 'one size fits all' solution. In some cases, a younger person might be mature enough to make an informed consent, but society has deemed that the exception rather than the rule. Just a some drivers are able and competent at high road speeds, we have to set a standard that works in the public interest and serves the greater good, so the speed limit is 70; no exceptions.
If this kid was so smart, such a brilliant honor student, why didn't he consider the long term consequences rather than the short term pleasure? He smoked Pot knowing it was against the law. He drank alcohol knowing it was against the law. He had sexual contact with a minor knowing it was against the law. He did all these things based on the false assumption that he wouldn't and couldn't get caught. But he did, and now he has to pay for his crimes.
But, I think the price he is paying is way way way way out of proportion to the events. Circumstances should be able to moderate a crime. The court should be able to see the difference between a 50 year old man conning a 15 year old into willing compliance, and a 15 year old and a 17 year old getting carried away at a party. Part of the problem is the Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, they take away a judges ability to view the circumstances as unique and make judgments accordingly.
Also, it is the result of over-zealous headline grabbing prosecutors trying to make a name, reputation, and career for themselves. This probably had a lot more to do with the prosecutor wanting to see his name in the paper, than it did with justice or fairness.
And for the record, I saw something about this on TV, and I'm pretty sure the guy was black, though I can't remember the race of the girl. I'm sure that didn't help.
I personally think if this has been a white boy and a white girl, there would have been a lesser charge, sufficient to make the boy realize he had broken the law, but not so much as to destroy a clearly positive and worthwhile life.
He should be punished for the crime, but it should be a fair punishment that takes into consideration the various factors involved.
Ten years without the chance of parole is clearly unreasonable and excessive considering the circumstances.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: He had sexual contact with a minor knowing it was against the law.
You know, that is the one think they didn't teach me in family life and sex-ed. They taught me all about birth control and STDs, they skipped the part about jail time. I like all of what you wrote, except he may not have known it was against the law for a 15 year old and a 17 year old to be together. Not that ignorance of the law is an argument anyways.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
Hell look at Mary Kay Latourneau. She was in her 30's and had sex with her THIRTEEN year old student, and gave birth to his BABY after committed adultery on her husband! She was given 7 years, which was reduced to six months and a deliquency program. Then she did it AGAIN, and got pregnany AGAIN and still served 3 years less than the guy in prison for 10 years just for having oral sex.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
The reality in this case is the law is unjust and damaging to citizens.
I mean even the poor gorl had to get dragged to court and probably had to testify, at age 15, infront of a room full of adults, how she put the guys penis in her mouth.
quote:Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
If it's wrong to have sex with someone who is 17, I fail to see how being 17 yourself makes it not wrong.
But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Madb: Nicely put steve, but
"and if you do the crime then by implication you are saying that you are willing to do the time."
Dude no one ever wants to or is will to do the time, d'you even know what you are saying.
The reality in this case is the law is unjust and damaging to citizens.
I mean even the poor gorl had to get dragged to court and probably had to testify, at age 15, infront of a room full of adults, how she put the guys penis in her mouth.
I mean COME ON this is FREAKISH !
- MaSTERdb
Actually I don't think she did testify in court, I remember seeing that in one of the articles. Her testimony probably wasn't necessary either way. The defense knew that being 15 it was not legal consent, and the prosecution had a video of her doing it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, the one girl was 17, and HE was 17 at the time, you're telling me it's wrong to have sex with a girl who is the SAME AGE? And isn't he underage too?
If it's wrong to have sex with someone who is 17, I fail to see how being 17 yourself makes it not wrong.
But then, I'm not terribly satisfied with the inability to give consent being the justification for criminalizing sex with those who are too young.
In what states is it illegal for two 17 year olds to have sex? It's not illegal in Michigan, I don't know about other states. But even so, why wasn't the other girl also sent to jail then? She was taking illegal drugs and or alcohol and had sex with a 17 year old, sounds to me like she's just as guilty as he is. And if 17 is underage, the 15 year old ALSO broke the law and she ALSO be in jail. Do you agree?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
This is true. I never used drugs, waited until 20 for sex, and only had the occasional beer and wine with family before being 21. I know I am not unique either.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:She was taking illegal drugs and or alcohol and had sex with a 17 year old, sounds to me like she's just as guilty as he is.
I don't know the laws in any specific states, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's "more" illegal to have sex with a 15-year-old than a 17-year-old.
quote:And if 17 is underage, the 15 year old ALSO broke the law and she ALSO be in jail. Do you agree?
I've already said in this thread that I don't have any opinions I feel like sharing about the appropriateness of any specific punishment.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
I think it's more along the lines of a large percentage of kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's fairly normal, large amounts of poeple do it, and we should all find better ways of dealing with it than labeling it wrong and illegal and punishing them outright, such as education, open-mindedness and positive feedback role-modeling.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
I suspect that part of the reason for going against this guy so hard is because the prosecution failed to convict him for raping the other girl, so if they can't get him in prison for one crime (which they believe he deserves to be in prison for), they did their best to put him in prison for another crime.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's more along the lines of a large percentage of kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's fairly normal, large amounts of poeple do it, and we should all find better ways of dealing with it than labeling it wrong and illegal and punishing them outright, such as education, open-mindedness and positive feedback role-modeling.
Sure, we can always find better strategies for dealing with a harmful behavior. I'm just saying that popularity doesn't make a behavior like youthful promiscuity less harmful, and it doesn't make parents and other adults any less responsible for reining it in.
These are kids. They're supposed to be taught, held to standards, and given solid rules and guidelines until they're old enough to make responsible decisions. It's obvious that these particular kids needed a huge dose of that and didn't get it. And we're treating this situation like it's no big deal, and to be expected?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sad they had that party at all. What a waste. All that potential on the line. I wonder how many honor students have thrown away their honor in situations like that.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ESPN article already said that a white teacher in Georgia who had sex with her male student was only given 90 days. I don't think it's hard at all to prove the double standard that exists.
I suspect that part of the reason for going against this guy so hard is because the prosecution failed to convict him for raping the other girl, so if they can't get him in prison for one crime (which they believe he deserves to be in prison for), they did their best to put him in prison for another crime.
And that just makes me sick.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not too comfortable with the implications many are making that because some kids do X, Y, and Z, therefore it's normal and inevitable, everybody does it, and we should all just get used to it.
I think we should expect more from our children.
Let's rephrase this and see how it sounds.
It is normal for people to do Z, therefore, when people do Z, we should all already be used to it and should be careful when punishing people for it.
I think we should expect more from our legal system.
...
I'm not quite sure I'd consider sex at a young age to necessarily be considered harmful behavior.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
