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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and the "took their medicine" thing bothers me, too. That seems to portray undue arrogance on the part of the prosecutor.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not convinced that just becase an activity is commonplace that it should therefore be legal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, you've told us a lot of things that you aren't convinced of What do you think would have been appropriate?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
