This is topic What is wrong with our justice system? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047164

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
I just read an article on espn.com that frustrated the hell out of me.

Some of you may have read it, too, but I think the vast majority are probably unaware of this situation.

Link

Some excerpts:

quote:
When he was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
quote:
Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works. The case has drawn national condemnation, from the "Free Genarlow Wilson Now" editorial in The New York Times to a feature on Mark Cuban's HDNet.
quote:
Every story needs a villain, and in this one, the villain's hat has been placed squarely on the head of Barker, the prosecutor and a former college baseball player. Barker doesn't write the laws in the books to the left of his desk. He simply punishes those who break them.

"We didn't want him to get the 10 years," he says. "We understand there's an element out there scratching their heads, saying, 'How does a kid get 10 years under these facts?' "

In Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes.

"I understand what he's saying," Barker says. "I think he's making a bad decision in the long run. Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two? Is it worth sitting in prison for eight more years, and you're still gonna be a sex offender when you get out?"

quote:
At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days.
This is all just absurd. All apologies to Olivet and others who live in Georgia, but these sorts of stories make me glad I moved back to New Jersey.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
"Expecting a student to deal with the natural consequences of their actions is certainly not a small lesson. And sadly, too many adults have never learned it."
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
See, I don't see 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole (and being registered as a sex offender) as a "natural consequence" of a 17 year old receiving oral sex from a 15 year old.

What's even more bizarre is that if he'd had intercourse with her, it would have been a misdemeanor.

Where's the logic in that?
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
There's no logic in saying that any positive law penalty is a 'natural consequence' of any behavior.

I agree with you that the penalty imposed in this case is unnecessary and unjust.

Sorry, I was just being snarky to other people who'd used that logic in a different thread. I probably shouldn't have brought my issues with some of the logic used in that thread here, but this case made what should have been my point in the other thread much better than I could have.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
There's no logic in saying that any positive law penalty is a 'natural consequence' of any behavior.
Notification of the college in the thread at issue was not a "positive law penalty."

The natural consequence of dishonesty is that others will discover it and therefore likely treat you differently. It's very different from an actual punishment.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Taking it to the other thread. (Sorry for the derailment, Mr. Cow.)
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
In Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes.
Wow, what an ass. Perhaps an enforcer of an unjust law shouldn't be telling violators of that unjust law what they should or shouldn't be doing when punished for breaking said law. I mean, outside of doing his job as a prosecutor, that is.

As for what he wanted...frankly, that Barker would call not taking a plea bargain for this an 'act of vanity' makes me wonder just how much he didn't want the kid to get a decade in prison. If it's an 'act of vanity', then really the length of his sentence is ultimately the kid's fault and no one else's.

Personally, I don't think I could continue to work as a prosecuting attorney for Georgia (or anywhere else, for that matter) if I had been so directly involved in ruining a man's life like this.

Edit: You know, I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be a good thing to actually have some laws on the books stating that in the case of convicts whose convictions are overturned, an immediate, loud, and extremely public apology becomes mandatory. I know it wouldn't do anything in this case, but still.

Also, this case is a reason I despise mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
One of the things that bothered me the most was that the jury was not made aware of the punishment for this crime. They came back with a guilty verdict, but were then incensed when they found out it was a 10 year penalty.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That's another thing about mandatory minimums that bothers me, FlyingCow. I believe in juries, and despite what the letter of the law says, I believe they should know what their verdict will do...both in cases where it might cause them to find innoctent or not guilty, ro cases where it might cause them to find guilty.

Barker looks like even more of an ass after reading the entire story than he did just from your quotations! I would hardly have thought that was possible.

quote:
Barker is quick to point out that he offered Wilson a plea after he'd been found guilty -- the first time he has ever done that. Of course, the plea was the same five years he'd offered before the trial -- not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. None of the other defendants insisted on a jury trial. Wilson did. He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."
Took their medicine?! The part about thinking it's fair, five years for oral sex from a fellow student, isn't a direct quote...but it certainly seems to accurately portray Barker's opinions in this case.

quote:
"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."
Originally, I was going to wonder if the girl was white, something I don't think we'd find out since she was a minor. But after reading the entire article, I think I agree with its conclusion: this is just the rampant ego of a collection of prosecutors, who either a) think the guy should spend five years (at least) in prison for having oral sex with a 15 year old, or b) would rather let him rot in prison than admit they were wrong.

What a steaming sack of excrement. I'm right in the angry camp with you, FlyingCow.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Why do I keep remembering that line from "Good Morning Vietnam", where the General tells the hero, in regards to the prude..."There goes a man in desparate need of a..." oh, I forget.

That Prosecuter is definately a man in desparate need of.. well, not from a 15 year old girl, but...this is a family forum so I'll quit now.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
... big hug. Right?
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
quote:
Now, if Wilson wants a shot at getting out, he must throw himself at the prosecutors' feet and ask for mercy, which he might or might not receive. Joseph Heller would love this. If Wilson would only admit to being a child molester, he could stop receiving the punishment of one. Maybe.


*groans*

Wow. Do prosecutors have some kind of discretion to not try people for laws that are broken but are, um, wrong? Like, I know there are crazy laws on the books, but for instance, if you break the one about carrying a duck on your head in Minnesota (I think it's Minnesota), will they actually try you for carrying a duck on your head? I am not saying that I think underage or unmarried sex is right. But I don't think that prison time for consensual sex acts (especially when the girl was the one who initiated it; he shouldn't have been there, but since he was, what was he to do other than stop her?) between students at the same school is right.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oh, and the "took their medicine" thing bothers me, too. That seems to portray undue arrogance on the part of the prosecutor.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Shouldn't he have spent no more than a year in juvvie? did they try him as an adult?

This is completely nuts.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
A prosecutor (or, more accurately, some executive officer, depending on jusrisdiction) has absolute discretion to not prosecute a crime or to prosecute for a lesser crime. It is intended that this be exercised precisely to accomodate situations where the application of the law does not fit the facts of the case.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
So, conceivably, the prosecutor could reduce the crime to, say, indecent exposure, and make this all go away? Or, how about charge him with the crime as the law is written now, which makes it a misdemeanor?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
As I understand it, he couldn't charge him under the crime as it is written now. I don't think you can apply laws retroactively like that possibly at all, but I think at least without some major stuff going on with the law.

On a slightly different bent, am I alone in thinking criminalizing oral sex between high schools students is crazy? I'd have been in jail for the rest of my life.
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
You're not alone. The law needs to start looking at facts and intentions more, and we should be doing our best to avoid anything like a zero tolerance policy.

If not to protect those who deserve protection, what is the system for?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea that there are sexual acts which are not lawful to perform with a minor.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
mph, it's not so much that it wasn't lawful. It was the absurdity of the punishment.

Case A, a 17 year old senior has sexual intercourse with a 15 year old sophomore. Crime is a misdemeanor.

Case B, same 17 year old has oral sex with a 15 year old. Crime is a felony child molestation sex crime with a minimum 10 year no parole sentence.

How is the act in Case B that much worse than the act in Case A?

It's also interesting to note that the law was changed as a result of this case, yet the person punished under the old law has not benefitted from the change. Essentially, the courts agreed the punishment was out of line enough to change it, but then they upheld the punishment.
 
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
 
Because of this mans ego, a child will have to be labeled a sex offender his whole life, and most likely will become embittered at such a young age. He will go to jail, and most likely find his options limited upon release being a sex offender, and a felon.

Because this man has an ego so huge that he can't admit the wrongness (is this a word?) of the law, or take a defeat on his record, this kid will not even be able to work at McDonald's. They do not hire you if you have a felony.

I love my country, but man oh man do I fear my government more each day.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
mph, it's not so much that it wasn't lawful. It was the absurdity of the punishment.
But that's not what he said -- he said:

quote:
[Am] I alone in thinking criminalizing oral sex between high schools students is crazy?
I do not think it is crazy to criminalize some sexual behaviors, including oral sex, when done with a minor*.

edit: *by minor I don't necessarily mean somone who is less than 18 years old. I mean less than some arbitrary age.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
It's especially sad because this kid was not your typical jock. I mean, he was hearing from Ivy League schools.

And now?

Edit: mph, missed Squick's post. Yours makes a whole lot more sense now.

I am curious, though, if you think it should be criminal between two minors. I mean, if two 13 year olds have oral sex, should they be put away until they're 23? What about a 16 and 15 year old? 18 and 16 year old?
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
The problem is that prosecutors and judges haven't been held to the Nuremburg standard:
"I was just doing what I was ordered to do." is not an excuse which makes committing reprehensible acts pardonable.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I am curious, though, if you think it should be criminal between two minors. I mean, if two 13 year olds have oral sex, should they be put away until they're 23? What about a 16 and 15 year old? 18 and 16 year old?
I have said nothing about appropriate punishments.

I have said that I see nothing wrong with criminalizing sexual acts when done with a minor.

I am not convinced that being a minor yourself is necessarily enough of a mitigating cirumstance to make such an illegal act legal.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I am not convinced that being a minor yourself is necessarily enough of a mitigating cirumstance to make such an illegal act legal.
And when both parties are minors, and both are consenting?

Also, how do you feel about the policing issue involved? And what arbitrary age did you have in mind?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
And when both parties are minors, and both are consenting?
Like I said, I'm not convinced that being a minor yourself should necessarily exempt you from a law that criminalizes sex acts with minors, even if those minors consent.

I do not have any specific arbitrary age in mind.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
That's interesting.

I don't agree with it, but it's interesting. Would two 8 year olds experimenting outside of parent supervision be criminals, then? Would it be enough to send them to juvenile detention?

Another thing that interests me in this case is that the girl who performed the oral sex act is not at all liable. Is this because he was older? If he were 15 and she were 17, would it she who would be in jail for 10 years? And if they were both 15, what then?

It really seems like an absurd application of the justice system, to me. I'm curious when that law was even put on the books.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
Because of this mans ego, a child will have to be labeled a sex offender his whole life, and most likely will become embittered at such a young age. He will go to jail, and most likely find his options limited upon release being a sex offender, and a felon.
(As an aside -- Wilson is in prison because he refused to take a plea deal that would have put him on the sex-offender registry.)

--j_k
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Actually, taking the plea deal would have put him in prison, too - albeit for fewer years.

You'd think, though, that after his case prompted the law to be changed, that he would have seen some benefit.

Is this prosecutor related at all to the Duke lacrosse prosecutor? At least that guy's up on ethics charges and might be disbarred.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
(As an aside -- Wilson is in prison because he refused to take a plea deal that would have put him on the sex-offender registry.)
You're wrong, j_k. He would've been imprisoned thanks to Barker and his associates regardless. If he'd plead guilty to being a sex offender, and thus unable to live with his mother and younger sister (aside from the enormous, lifelong social stigma), he would've gone to prison for a reduced sentence.
 
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
 
Okay how many people here preformed or had oral sex preformed on them before the age of 18? I think it was part of being a teenager to explore your boundaries and try to define who you were. I am not for premarital sex, being a father myself, but I am a realist. This CHILD was prosecuted when they can prove it was the girl that was the instigator. Bill Clinton, and adult and leader of our country at the time, did not spend one day in jail. I agree that there should be punishment, especially when minors are involved, but 10 years is way to much. Two years would have been way to much.

The punishment should fit the crime, period. Drunk drivers don't even get that stiff of a penalty, and they could kill some one.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
This is one of the most frustrating parts:

quote:
It's frustrating work. No one involved believes Wilson should be in jail for 10 years.

The prosecutors don't.

The Supreme Court doesn't.

The legislature doesn't.

The 15-year-old "victim" doesn't.

The forewoman of the jury doesn't.

Privately, even prison officials don't.

Yet no one will do anything to free him, passing responsibility around like a hot potato. The prosecutors say they were just doing their job. The Supreme Court says it couldn't free him because the state legislature decreed the new law didn't apply to old cases, even though this case was the entire reason the new law was passed. One possible explanation is that Bernstein, an admitted neophyte at backroom dealing, simply didn't know enough politics to insist on the provision. That haunts her.


 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Sometimes I'm frightened by the legal system as a whole. It has the potential, and I think often does, act like a huge bully, imposing punishments on a whim, often unjustly, with no viable recourse to those hurt by the system.
 
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
This case makes me sick.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
This CHILD was prosecuted when...
While not legally an adult, seventeen years old is not a child, let alone a CHILD.
 
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
This CHILD was prosecuted when...
While not legally an adult, seventeen years old is not a child, let alone a CHILD.
There's a case to be made that a 15 year old girl initiating an oral sex act isn't either.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't think anybody here said she is.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
The prosecutors say they were just doing their job.
They say that, but part of their job is to exercise discretion. It's a deliberate political check on the justice system, and it's withering away to almost nothing. [Frown]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:


Another thing that interests me in this case is that the girl who performed the oral sex act is not at all liable. Is this because he was older? If he were 15 and she were 17, would it she who would be in jail for 10 years? And if they were both 15, what then?

There was a case in the same state earlier in the year where a 30 year old female teacher had sex with a 15 year old student. She was given 30 days in jail.
 
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Ah, but that case was not with the horrible sin of Oral Sex.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'd bet lots of money on long odds that she wouldn't be in the same boat-even without the case of the pederastic teacher who got one month in jail-because that's another form of sexism in our society.

I'm the first to admit that overall, women get the short end of the stick when it comes to sexism...but when it comes to sex-crimes and child custody, the situation is reversed.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Just a note to say that I missed this when it was a new thread, and I am not at all attached to Georgia. Many Georgia law are effed in the head, and living here doesn't make me think any of that is less true.

We didn't want to move here in the first place, and planned on being out within a couple of years. We've now lived here longer than we've lived anywhere.

This story is horrible and the destruction of this guy's life is inexcusable.
 
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
I don't even get how it could possibly be a felony for a 17 yo to have sex with a 15 yo! It's going on daily in any damn high school you'd stop at! It's normal.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'm not convinced that just becase an activity is commonplace that it should therefore be legal.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm not convinced that just becase an activity is commonplace that it should therefore be legal.

I agree with Porter there absolutely. Theft goes on in high schools on a constant basis, its extremely important that it be discouraged.

I doubt the kid will actually serve 10 years, he will most likely be pardoned by the governor as long as enough noise is made. Legislators should prudently modify the law or remove it as rationality dictates. I think I also agree with Porter that perhaps their ought to be laws that criminalize certain sex acts with a minor.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I agree, but it's hard to stomach that this guy got a tougher sentence than many violent offenders. That's just wack. I'm not saying that everything two minors do should automatically be legal, but there has to be a reasonable middle ground. (They did change the law, but it did not affect his case.)

And whether he is pardoned by the governor or not, his future has been damaged by this. I think it is the uneven prosecution that is most troubling. Back when I was in college there was a documentary about teen sex parties in Rockdale county, GA. But those activities and videotapes or whatever didn't result in prosecution. The participants were also white kids.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Porter, you've told us a lot of things that you aren't convinced of What do you think would have been appropriate?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't know.

edit: I don't think that should bar me from participating in the discussion, including expressing my disagreement with what others are convinced of.

edit2: It seems like you are talking about two different things -- I haven't expressed anything about this specific case. I've been talking about generalities such as the idea that criminalizing sexual activities between two adolescents is crazy and that since something is commonplace, it shouldn't be illegal. I do have views about that.

[ January 26, 2007, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Criminalizing sex acts *with* a minor is different than criminalizing sex acts *between* minors.

A sexual act between a 40 year old and a 15 year old is quite different than the same act between a 16 year old and a 15 year old - at least in my opinion.

To condemn a 17 year old to ten years in prison with no parole and condemn him for life as a sex offender because a 15 year old girl decided she wanted to perform oral sex on him is a travesty of justice.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Criminalizing sex acts *with* a minor is different than criminalizing sex acts *between* minors.
The second is a subset of the first.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the law saying that X years old is too young to have sex*, and it's a crime to have sex with someone that age. Even if you're that age yourself.

*including oral
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We could even charge both of the participants, wouldn't that be a lark.

Luckily, in many (most?) states they don't criminalize such acts in most cases -- only given certain ages, or certain age differences, or certain authority relationships, typically.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I don't know.

edit: I don't think that should bar me from participating in the discussion, including expressing my disagreement with what others are convinced of.

edit2: It seems like you are talking about two different things -- I haven't expressed anything about this specific case. I've been talking about generalities such as the idea that criminalizing sexual activities between two adolescents is crazy and that since something is commonplace, it shouldn't be illegal. I do have views about that.

Of course it shouldn't bar you. But it does get frustrating when it sounds like all you are saying is, "That's wrong, but I won't tell you anymore."

So go ahead. Express something specific about this case. What do you specifically think should be the punishment for this case? Do you think the punishment he got was appropriate. What age should X be for when sex should be punishable as a felony? How would you design the rules?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yes, I've been speaking in generalities, but I've been responding to generalities. I don't know why you're frustrated about that.

I haven't said much about this specific case because I don't really have much to say.

Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions:

quote:
What do you specifically think should be the punishment for this case?
I don't have any opinion on this.

quote:
Do you think the punishment he got was appropriate.
No, but that's been covered quite well by others.

quote:
What age should X be for when sex should be punishable as a felony?
I don't know.

Replace felony with misdemeanor, and I still don't know.

quote:
How would you design the rules?
Goodness. I haven't even come *close* to saying what the rules should be. There's a world of difference between saying "There's nothing wrong with the rules being like X." and "If I were making the rules, I'd make them like X."

I have no idea how I'd make the rules.

As you can see, I really don't have much to say about this specific case. At least not that's worth saying.

[ January 26, 2007, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So it sounds like you don't have an opinion of what is right - even generalities - but you can tell when other people are wrong?
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree with Ms. Boots!
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't see anything contradictory about believing that it's not wrong for it to be illegal to have sex with somebody who is too young, even without having come to a conclusion about how young is too young.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
So it sounds like you don't have an opinion of what is right - even generalities - but you can tell when other people are wrong?
If only more people had such restraint and willingness to admit that they are - not to mention the thoughtfulness to actually be - unsure, we wouldn't have the hundreds of bad laws that get passed in response to outrageous incidents.

People made a lot of very general statements in this thread. At least one of them - that something should not be illegal simply because it's extremely common - is a horrible principle that can lead to great injustice. One doesn't have to have thought through every possible permutation to be able to reasonably and confidently declare that to be an immoral axiom upon which to base laws.

The fact that an axiom can be used to reach a good conclusion does not mean that the axiom itself is good.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
What is wrong with our justice system?
We confuse justice for the penal system.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Agreed. ( ETA:with what it said the first time, that we expect too much from it-- not sure what you meant by the edit)

I'm also in agreement with mph, in that I don't know a lot of answers to those questions. Me, I'm not even sure sex acts with consent between two minors that are close in age, but making those things discretionary leaves the door open for inequitable application of the law.

I think it's really cool to be able to say that you don't know, when you don't know, instead of feeling obligated to make up a plan to fix the world's ills.

I can tell when my bike is broken, even though I don't know how to fix it.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I think there should be a wide gap between immoral and illegal. We may not like the idea of teenagers experimenting with sex, but I think it's exceedingly short sighted of society to ruin the lives of young adults curious about their sexuality.

In many countries, and even sometimes in the United States, 15, 16 and 17 year olds get married. How does it make sense that a 17 year old can get married, but can't legally have sex?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I doubt the kid will actually serve 10 years, he will most likely be pardoned by the governor as long as enough noise is made.
What difference does that make? Have you ever been to jail or prison? It's a terrible thing, despite all the hooplah we get in America about how cushy our prisoners have it. I'm aware you're not saying this makes it OK, you're just making a statement. But still, the statement got to me.
 
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
If you read the article, also, you'd know that the governor doesn't have pardoning powers in Georgia. That's one of the avenues they were considering for his release, to try to get a law passed reinstating them. So, basically, unless the prosecutor relents or they can get a new law passed, he's screwed.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
What's silly is the law that was made to make sure this never happens again. It was specifically legislated in reaction to this case, but they specifically didn't make it retroactive. I think the article said there was a bill introduced in their state congress to make it retroactive, but that doesn't give the kid back the time stolen from him, or a bright future that is surely no more.

Many states allow teens younger than 18 get married, often without parental consent, but it's still illegal for some of those same married teens to actually have sex, how's that for a confused set of rules?

I don't think that just because something is common practice it should be made legal. But I also think that sexual experimentation between teens is something that shouldn't be legislated. It's something Congresses should most definetely NOT have their hands in. I might not like the idea of fourteen and fifteen year olds doing these types of things, but I also think that they do know what they are doing, at least in the decision making process if not the actual act. They aren't stupid, by and large, and it's their bodies and their lives, and experimentation, learning, etc is part of maturing and growing up now. Government telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies, or that they CAN do what they want, but only with government approved people, is ridiculous, and a gross violation of their rights in my opinion.

Then again, I think the dumbest thing that happened in this whole case is the fact that the kids videotaped themselves doing it.
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
There's something that's been nagging at my mind, but I'm not sure how well I can express it.

Here goes:

Age of consent laws, so far as I am to understand, are designed and put into place to protect those who are not mature enough to make responsible decisions for themselves.

Children cannot consent to sexual interaction with adults, because our laws do not recognize their ability to make such decisions and take their long term consequences into consideration. So, no matter how much a 13 year old may want to have sex with a 30 year old teacher, they do not have the legal ability to grant consent.

So, in essence, children are not held as responsible for their actions because they do not have the maturity to make such decisions. This also holds true for juvenile detention vs. adult detention - juveniles are not prosecuted in the same way as adults.

That said, I don't think you can hold two minors to the same standard as an adult and a minor.

If an adult has sex with the child, the child is not punished under our laws - the adult is. If two children who do not have the ability of consent have sex, who is at fault? Neither has the legal ability to consent.

This being the case, how do you criminalize that behavior?

This particular case is just awful. Oral sex carries felony charges, while intercourse does not? How exactly is oral sex that much more criminal? If nothing else, it doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy - so shouldn't intercourse carry a higher weight of responsibility?

***

On a separate note, if everyone involved thinks it's wrong for this kid to be in jail for 10 years for this act, why do our laws hold him there? Shouldn't there be some provision to let him out? Especially now that the law that put him in jail no longer exists? And the *reason* it doesn't exist is because the people felt it was unjustly applied in his case?

This whole thing is just absurd.
 
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
 
I have a question... I didn't have time to read the article properly just now, so it's probably something that was covered there and maybe it's silly for me to ask, but what happened to the other boys who were convicted? I understood that they got less jail time, but did they also have to register as sex offenders? If they did wouldn't this icident affect their lives almost as badly, albeit with less years spent in jail? Or how big of a thing is it when you have to register as a sex offender? Will it still enable them to live their lives as proper people? (I don't really know since we don't have such registries in Finland.)

Also, I understand that something should not be legal simply because it is commonplace, but what I don't understand is why sex between two minors or teenagers should be illegal in the first place. If the age differences are small enough it's clearly not abuse... so what is really achieved by outlawing it? I also don't understand what could possibly be a proper punishment in such a case.
 
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Unforunately, there are three real problems (in my opinion) involving sex in this country.

1) Some laws are simply carried out in absurd ways that unjustly affect minors
2) Even the smallest offense, even with someone your age and whom has given consent, can brand you as a sex offender, and destroy much of your opportunities in life. People don't care about degrees or intentions in this country; they see the black label, and thus you are evil.
3) There is nothing to prevent people whom are falsely accused of rape. All it takes is for someone to claim you did it, and suddenly you're never looked at the same again.

Fun, ain't it?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The limited number of false accusations of rape is a "real problem," but 200,000 sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults each year in this country isn't?
 
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Snail, the other boys plead guilty to rape and molestation, but were offered 5 years with the opportunity for parole. They served less than two years and are out now, though they are still on the sex offender registry.

Wilson plead not guilty, the rape charge was thrown out during trial, but he was found guilty of aggravated child molestation, which carries a minimum 10 year no parole sentence, with sex offender registration.
 
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
 
OK. So the injustice here is that this guy shouldn't be in jail and none of them should be on the sex offender list, right? Cause the article made it sound as if all problems will be solved when this guy is released from jail.

EDIT: Not that this guy being in jail isn't currently the biggest problem.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
quote:
This particular case is just awful. Oral sex carries felony charges, while intercourse does not? How exactly is oral sex that much more criminal? If nothing else, it doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy - so shouldn't intercourse carry a higher weight of responsibility?

Yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding that oral sex is criminalized more severely than intercourse. I would agree with you - seems like it should be the other way around.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
The penal system doles out punishment. It makes victims happy, deters criminal actions, engineers a sense of balance. Nice things, all of them, on the surface, it even gives the appearance of justice.

True justice is the natural exponent of wisdom. It's people doing the right thing because they see it's the right thing to do and have the courage to risk shame and harm to do it. Insight and fortitude are the ingredients necessary to cultivate justice.

Instead of putting our efforts a constructing this behemoth of legal system and then getting upset when it runs amok, we should be seeking justice from the source. The penal system is going to err. It's going to be biased. It's going harm good people and give bad ones a pass, and all of that is made the worse because it punishes actions and doesn't give a good faith attempt to provide insight or supply courage.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
The limited number of false accusations of rape is a "real problem," but 200,000 sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults each year in this country isn't?

I think a lot of people don't believe the statistics on sexual assaults/attempted sexual assaults. Or they don't want to believe them. As I recall, the numbers are pretty sad.

At any rate, criminalizing consensual sex acts between minors seems utterly ridiculous to me. But I still think that we need to stop making sex dirty and wrong and bad...until we're married, and then the magical switch flips, and it's a good thing.

-pH
 
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
See, I don't see 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole (and being registered as a sex offender) as a "natural consequence" of a 17 year old receiving oral sex from a 15 year old.

What's even more bizarre is that if he'd had intercourse with her, it would have been a misdemeanor.

Where's the logic in that?

I'm not defending anything here, including the logic I'm about to point out, but I believe the law was made by people who would define oral sex, not as a "lesser" thing than intercourse, but as a "perversion", that is, "unnatural". Intercourse is what male and female are supposed to do with each other, that is "normal", only to be illegal because of other factors, that is, relative ages, that the two are not married to each other, or that one or both are married to someone else, while oral sex should not happen at all, ever: it's abnormal. It's probably also influenced by the matter that it's one of the two things that gay men are able to do with each other.
 
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
 
The situation is certainly tragic. While many people are arguing the lack of justice in this matter, I don't think anyone is saying that what this boy did was not wrong. They are simply saying the punishment is completely unfair and out of proportion to the crime. He should be punished but he should be punished in proportion to the crime.

First, to a 17 year old boy, opportunity means much much more than legality. The kid had the opportunity of sex and he seized it. However, the to a rational mind, the girl was underage, and the should have been enough to persuade the boy to decline the offer. Still 17 year old boy are not the most rational of beasts.

While a crime was certainly commited, I think the boy has some Constitutional grounds that he can argue.

He can argue the concept of 'Equal Justice Under the Law'. Clearly other people are commiting equally serious crimes, and are getting off with much softer sentences.

He can argue 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'. Clearly the punishment is completely disproportionate to the crime; in the extreme. Further, the circumstances surrounding the crime should be reasonably considered, and should therefore moderate the sentence. This was not an act of violence, but more an act of compliance; she offerred, he accepted. That is a far cry from a similar offense in which the victim is bullied, seduced, coerced, forced or otherwise compelled to act.

Third, in line with Cruel and Unusual Punishment, I think to some extent, the harshness of the punishment is because the boy chose to fight the charges. He is not being punished so much for the actual crime, but for forcing the system to do its job and hold a trial.

This is one of the big complaints I have toward the 'Plea Bargain' system that is dominating the court system today. If you are innocent, unless you have unlimited monetary resource, you are force to admit guilt because the consequence of asserting your right to a fair trial are so astronomically BAD, that you simply can't take the chance with some randomly court appointed lawyer.

In a sense, it is a form of Blackmail. 'Take our offer or we will destroy you'. I don't think people should be excessively punished for simply asserting their right to a fair trial. That 'Fair Trial' is at the heart of our system of justice.

I think that is what is happening here. This kid is not sentenced to 10 year for having sex with an underage girl, he is being crucified for making the District Attorney and the Judge do their job; for asserting his rights as an American Citizen. When the results of asserting your rights is vindictive and spitefull to the point where innocent people will plead guilty just to avoid the oppressive consequences of asking the court system to do its job, then our country has seriously lost its legal perspective.

This also account for the District Attorney's and the courts unwillingness to set aside or modify the sentencing. A sentence that they all admit is inappropriate to the circumstances. They are adamant about the sentence because it is their vindictive justice and retribution for this kid asseting his rights and making them do their job.

That is just plain wrong, and I have to believe it is sufficient to warrent a challenge in a higher court.

The boy did commit a crime and he needs to be punished for the crime, but the punishment must be fair and in proportion to other similar cases, and any special circumstances must be taken into consideration in sentencing.

In my opinion, this is pure vindictiveness on the part of the court system, and I challenge the constitutionallity of that action.

Further, back to the concept of Equal Justice Under the Law, how does Oral Sex rate a felony while intercourse only rates a misdemeanor. That is clearly an injustice. That injustice is re-enforced by the fact that that particular 'oral' aspect of the law has been repealed. Now that may not be retroactive to the kids case, but it established the law as unfair, unreasonable, and unnecessarily vindictive. In a sense, he has been convicted of a law that the state itself has already declared unfair.

For what it's worth.

Steve/BlueWizard

[ January 27, 2007, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
However, to a rational mind, the girl was underage, and that should have been enough to persuade the boy to decline the offer.
As a former 17 year-old, I'm not sure that fifteen is too young to perform oral sex or seventeen is too young to receive it, depending on the circumstances.
 
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
 
Irami Osei-Frimpong

As a former 17 year-old, I'm not sure that fifteen is too young to perform oral sex or seventeen is too young to receive it, depending on the circumstances.

It is not a matter of function as to whether 15 is too young or 17 is too old, it is a matter of law. In most states in the USA, the Age of Consent is 16, if you are 16 and older and she is UNDER 16, any sexual action is against the law.

Further, these idiots were stupid enough to video tape everything (if I remember correctly) and that in and of itself is 'child pornography'. Even if the sex were legal for all parties, video taping it still constitutes 'child pornography' if any participant is under age 18.

Again, to the main point, it is not a matter of whether a 15 year old is capable or willing to commit the act, it is a matter of law, and by most laws in most states, this action was against the law.

Steve/BlueWizard
 
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
 
I don't honestly think he did anything wrong. Sex happens in high school, and in my opinion they were certainly close enough in age that neither did anything wrong (well I can see a strong case for video taping the act being wrong, but still).


In response to
quote:
it is not a matter of whether a 15 year old is capable or willing to commit the act, it is a matter of law, and by most laws in most states, this action was against the law.
BlueWizard, you seem to be arguing at least in part that the action was wrong because it was against the law (and please, correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying). But if the "victim" here is bot h"capable and willing" then I would say that she is not, in fact, a victim, and if nobody was hurt by said action, there is no reason for it to be illegal. Yes, they did break a law, but if it was a bad law (and I think it is), I see nothing wrong with that, and in my opinion, this is a case in which the guilty verdict was the wrong one.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Nope it wasn't...not at all.


However, the punishment should fit the crime.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
First, to a 17 year old boy, opportunity means much much more than legality. The kid had the opportunity of sex and he seized it. However, the to a rational mind, the girl was underage, and the should have been enough to persuade the boy to decline the offer. Still 17 year old boy are not the most rational of beasts.
I don't grant this premise, BlueWizard. While I think that 15 and 17 is too young to be having sex (oral or otherwise), I don't think it should be crime, and I don't think that "to a rational mind", she was underage in those circumstances. He, too, was also underage. I don't know what his train of thought at the time was, but I don't think it follows that would've been irrational of him to think he wasn't committing a crime, or that he was underage for him.

Was it a good idea? Clearly not, and in my opinion not just because he got caught and sent to prison.

quote:
...think to some extent, the harshness of the punishment is because the boy chose to fight the charges. He is not being punished so much for the actual crime, but for forcing the system to do its job and hold a trial.
I think you're wrong. There were only two likely outcomes from this in that given locale. One, he chooses not to fight. Gets a lesser sentence and is branded a sex-offender for life. Two, he choses to fight, loses because he clearly is a criminal under the law, and gets the only legal possible punishment for that 'crime'. If you mean "harshness of the punishment" by the 10 year sentence, then you're wrong-that was a mandatory minimum, unavoidable under the law given the guilty verdict. If you simply mean that he could've gotten a lesser sentence by pleading guilty to being a child molestor, then I agree with you.

---------

That's something I'm not sure I could do. I mean, 2 years versus 10 years, still branded a child molestor either way...but admitting I was a child molestor? We can all agree that being a child molestor is right near or at the top of the list of twisted, despicable, loathesome things anyone can be. Would eight years in a state prison be worth it to me to stand in a court in front of others and admit I was such a thing?

I don't know. I'd hope not...but prison, even jail, is awful, too.

Edit: And as for the guilty verdict...I'm not sure if I would've voted guilty. I'm a bit informed about the law, enough to know that "aggravated child abuse" (if I'm remembering the term correctly) would probably result in the label "sex-offender" for the rest of Wilson's life. To hell with the law, part of me thinks and wonders if that's what I were in a jury like this, I'm not tacking that label on him for the rest of his life for this.

I'm a fan of The Law, but I don't put it above all else.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The prosecutor may have violated federal laws against child pornography in his zeal to prevent the legislature from freeing the defendant.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I would love if that SOB got the hammer dropped on him in this fashion. Maybe he can get a felony conviction, and a sex-offender label.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm not opposed to prosecutors lobbying for changes to the criminal code, but I think lobbying to make sure one case goes a particular way is at best in poor taste and at worst an unethical conflict of interest.

If he used the video tape to accomplish his personal political ends - and that's what lobbying is - and it's a violation of the federal law, I hope he's prosecuted.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2