Filthy Pervert gets 10 years jail for molesting 15 year old girl!

[PopCulturePooka]

THROW AWAY THE KEY I SAY! (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2)


Except of course the fact that the accused is a 17 year old boy.

Ga. Supreme Court rejects teen’s appeal in sex case
12/16/2006

ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a teen who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old.
In a ruling released Friday, the court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyers for Genarlow Wilson, who was 17 when he and the 15-year-old engaged in consensual oral sex. He was sentenced for aggravated child molestation.
Wilson’s case was one of two cases that were cited earlier this year when lawmakers passed a law that otherwise strengthened penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy.
Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that in easing the penalties for teens, ‘‘the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.’’
Hunstein added she was ‘‘very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior,’’ but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.

I read somewhere that the boy is black, the girl white. In Georgia.

I wonder if that made any effect on the case?

[Jetsetlemming]

Wow. :blank:
Nah, it's not a racial issue. If you look at Georgia's legislature as a whole, it's fairly insecure when it comes to sex. I'm surprised he wasn't charged additionally for engaging in an act of sex that's considered a "crime against nature" by that state.

[Aras]

It definitely didn't help, but isn't there law that if you are like 2 years apart and besides he hadn't 18. Poor kid, 10 years in jail and for that, immoral actions.

[RandomPasserby]

Crazy americans and your sexphobia!

[CrazyAce86]

Okay, so maybe it wasn't legal, but good grief, they were both minors! And good gods, it was consensual oral sex. If he's getting bitchslapped with a ten-year prison sentence, then by gods so should the girl, since she engaged in it as well. Sure, by law she has no right to give consent, but hey, neither did he!

Things like this lovely piece of idiocy makes me want to move another planet. Or hop the next Daedalus run to the Pegasus Galaxy, 'cause in the battle of Idiocy vs. Life-sucking Vampire Aliens, I'll take the aliens any day of the week.

[Cool Bones]

Things like this lovely piece of idiocy makes me want to move another planet. Or hop the next Daedalus run to the Pegasus Galaxy, 'cause in the battle of Idiocy vs. Life-sucking Vampire Aliens, I'll take the aliens any day of the week.

Why move to another planet? This kind of thing only happens in the united states and maybe Canada.

[setrict]

If I remember right the worst part of this was that oral sex is considered sodomy in GA, and is punished more severely than intercourse. Rule number one, no blow jobs in GA (or probably any bible belt state). The girls family did NOT even register a complaint with the police, it was the DA who decided to prosecute and the other 4 or 5 kids involved bargained for 'only' 2-6 years. She blew 5 other guys at the party, I don't think the law is exactly protecting her honor/chastity or anything.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1710300

If the gov of GA has any sense at all, he'll pardon the kid. It's legal injustice like this crap that makes me hate our legal system, and the people who refuse to fucking think before they legislate.

Why move to another planet? This kind of thing only happens in the united states and maybe Canada.

Yeah, in some other countries they kill and castrate for sex offenses. Like giving lashes to a woman for riding in a car with a man other than her hubby. Injustice is hardly the sole domain of the US and Canada. People doing stupid things is pretty much universal.

[RandomPasserby]

Yeah, in some other countries they kill and castrate for sex offenses. Like giving lashes to a woman for riding in a car with a man other than her hubby. Injustice is hardly the sole domain of the US and Canada. People doing stupid things is pretty much universal.
Most other countries like that tend to be islamic theocracies or at least have theocratic laws like sharia...

[Kwiz]

I never knew that Georgia could be so completely socially retarded as this.

[Overkongen]

Only in America or muslim theocracies...

[Mechs]

Wow. How did this even make it to a court?

[ruaidhri]

There is no doubt that Americans are very uptight about sex. I doubt we’re the only society in the world with hang-ups when it comes to protection of children. Every parent’s fear is that their child will be harmed by a predator. In response our legislators act tough by writing laws that are ill conceived and not properly worded. The result: The state ruins a 17 year old boy’s life. My question is: What would they have done if the girl had been 17 and the boy 15 and he performed the oral sex? If the D.A. had charged her, I assume the girl would have been sentenced to the same 10 years. The question here is: Would the D. A. have charged her with a crime?

The fact remains that the state does need strong laws to protect children from sexual molestation. True molestation, of which I do not believe this boy was guilty, often affects the victims for their entire life. Many of the female mental patients my wife treated during her career as a psychiatric nurse were victims when younger.

Obviously, this particular girl was not the victim; the boy was. His life is ruined. I doubt the D. A., judge, governor or legislature will do anything for him. I wonder how nice he’ll be when he gets out of prison.

[Roxie]

I read somewhere that the boy is black, the girl white. In Georgia.

I wonder if that made any effect on the case?
You're most likely thinking of the Marcus Dixon case which was extremely similiar.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/dixon.asp
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16557
http://www.petitiononline.com/dixon/petition.html

Marcus was a school athelete, honors student accused of raping a white girl. The girl was on Oprah and described her experience and I gotta tell you, I didn't believe her one bit. Her story sounded contrived. She said Marcus held her aganist a table with his elbows yet simotaneously pulled off his pants? I dunno it was weird for sure. I don't think it was rape, however.

[Jon885]

Wow..words can not describe how fucked up this is. If they're both minors and it was consensual..then how is this kid a sexual predator? I would understand if the girl was 10 but she was 15. I don't know if America's the only country that is sexphobic. Didn't some guy in Canada get arrested for having drawings of children having sex?

[PopCulturePooka]

I read Age of Consent in Georgia is 16 for girls?

[ZylitoL]

Didn't some guy in Canada get arrested for having drawings of children having sex?

Yeah, some guy got arrested for possession of mass quantities of simulated cartoon sex, aka hentai. If my memory serves me right, the officials stated that the fact that it depicted underage sex (rape for the most part), the mass quantities of it and the fact that it was being sold (I'm really unsure on this point though) was enough for him to be arrested.

I agree that this is stupid. Let the man go.

...and who the hell reported this to the police?

[Jetsetlemming]

His mother?

[ZylitoL]

Apparently not.

The 15-year-old girl's family did not initiate a complaint or charges. The police and district attorney charged for the act of oral sex, and as the law is written, that triggers the 10-year mandatory sentence and requirement to register as a sexual offender.
Had she been my daughter, provided that it really was consensual oral sex. I'd just beat some sense into the girl.

The law should really be refined to avoid bullshit like this.

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

This is a site petitioning to get him out of prison, and to remove his "sexual offender" tag. He's been incarcerated since February of 2005, which is more than 22 months now.

[Lateli]

What? The girl blew 6 people at that party? Why the hell wasn't she executed?!

But.. err.. yeah. I hope that guy gets cleared, as well as the others that were charged. Damn you Georgia. :(

[Kfisher]

The two kids coulda done it in a locked room or in some place where they wouldn't get caught... unless the girl squealed on the cops or something... I mean, it happens sometimes, the girl gives consent but weasels afterwards. <_<

[SlickWilly440]

Well based off what I read(Which really wasn't much), teens should be informed by the school(Or some other method that informs a mass group, uh flyers a party serving alcohol) about the oral/anal/straight/Bukkake Sex Laws of the State.

Heck I didn't even know about the underaged sex laws until I was a Senior in Highschool and by then I was already 18 (Darn I missed out! But then again I have been locked in a closet most of my life).

If I remember correctly these are the laws in my state/country.
1. Two people (Hopefully Straight) under the age of 17 cannot cum together even with consent. If the parents consent then they are liable and can be charged.

2. Even if the 2 people (Or some other size: gang/group) are over the female cannot give consent under the influence of alcohol if under 21 (So might as well get some documentation of consent before she start drinking, that the way to get around it...LOL). (Heck might a well record the event proving it consentual, so incase of any unseen situation the male can proundly put his defense into the court room's vcr, and prove otherwise)

3....
4...
5...Yeah I don't remember anymore?

Oh yeah and I think its messed up that the women is are always portray as the innocent victim of a tragic event, while the man if seen as a Woman Rapping Devlish Incubis. Not all the women in these cases are 100 innocent, I am sure they had some hand in it (especially the job), and the men always take the fall, like a Tree whoes Wood has been chopped into my a grizzley lumber jack.

[Kal]

Pure bullshit. Both underage and it was consentual oral sex and only the boy gets tried because he is 2 years older? This is what struck me the most though

"No criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender"

That is seriously fucked up, the Judge needs to be shot on the spot for this sentencing.

[4letterwords]

Someone should take a big steamy dump on Georgia... now.

[Kaji]

Pure bullshit. Both underage and it was consentual oral sex and only the boy gets tried because he is 2 years older? This is what struck me the most though

"No criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender"

That is seriously fucked up, the Judge needs to be shot on the spot for this sentencing.

Mandatory sentencing is called such for a reason. Or would you rather have your judges legislating from the bench?

Not saying I support the predicament in any way, however it's the lawmakers that should be blamed, not the judges (especially since it was the lawmakers who explicitly stated that there would be no reprieve given to those caught prior to the new law).

What has me wondering though is how it works out since he was a minor when the case came forth. From what I recall in Virginia, anyway, it doesn't matter how severe the crime is, if you're under 18 at the time you're released at 21, and your record is permanently sealed, so long as it's your only offense (Kass, feel free to correct. You deal with this area, after all...). Hence, so long as he doesn't pull anything while in prison, violate his probation, etc., he wouldn't have any permanent records/labels/etc. that are made known to the general public. If Georgia's laws pertaining to minors are in any way similar, he may well have a case grounded in that.

[Random]

I find it amusing that he'd be in less trouble if they had actual sex. Heh.

[setrict]

... unless the girl squealed on the cops or something...

There was a 17 year old girl there too, and she was the one who went to the police. There was also a videotape.

The law should really be refined to avoid bullshit like this.

The law was. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember it allowing no more than 1 year punishment if the ages were less than 3 years apart. This case was one of the arguing points. The worst part is explained in the following quote explaining WHY the court didn't have much choice in the matter.

Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that in easing the penalties for teens, ‘‘the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.’’


Damn legislators.

[Roxie]

I read Age of Consent in Georgia is 16 for girls?
It is. But you if the guy (or girl) is 3 years older, it's a crime. Don't ask me how it works.

So in the Marcus Dixon case it was like the girl 15, well on her way to 16 and Marcus had *just* turned 18.

[Jetsetlemming]

So yeah, these two were two years apart, 15 and 17. Why didn't that come up in the case, then?

[Soli]

I don't think they should have done things like that in the first place. :knockout: ....Eww, that girl is my age. x.x

[setrict]

So yeah, these two were two years apart, 15 and 17. Why didn't that come up in the case, then?

It did, the revised law was passed in response to this case and others. The 'crime' was commited before the law was revised which would have reduced his maximum sentence to one year or less, but the legislators specifically forbid cases prosecuted before the law was enacted from being revisited.

Court: Sorry, you're screwed. .
Him: This sucks
Legislation: Yeah, it does suck. We'll fix it so this doesn't happen to kids like yourself anymore. Look everyone, we fixed it!
Him: Sweet, so when do I get out of here?
Legislation: Sorry man, but allowing past convictions to be revisited using a new law would be terribly inconvenient and probably cost the state a lot of money. Technically, you DID receive the correct punishment. It's just that the punishment has been changed.
Him: ... WTF?
Legislation: Come on, take one for the team.
Him: Screw this, Ima appeal.
Court: It's not my fault. I'm really sorry, but I have to confirm that you are indeed screwed. The only thing you can do is vote the legislators who put you into this position out of office.
Him: .... WTF? Hey, wait. Convicts can't vote can they?
Court: ...
Legislators: ... *smirk*

Every sane person in America:... WTF?

[Mastiker]

Court: Sorry, you're screwed. .
Him: This sucks
Legislation: Yeah, it does suck. We'll fix it so this doesn't happen to kids like yourself anymore. Look everyone, we fixed it!
Him: Sweet, so when do I get out of here?
Legislation: Sorry man, but allowing past convictions to be revisited using a new law would be terribly inconvenient and probably cost the state a lot of money. Technically, you DID receive the correct punishment. It's just that the punishment has been changed.
Him: ... WTF?
Legislation: Come on, take one for the team.
Him: Screw this, Ima appeal.
Court: It's not my fault. I'm really sorry, but I have to confirm that you are indeed screwed. The only thing you can do is vote the legislators who put you into this position out of office.
Him: .... WTF? Hey, wait. Convicts can't vote can they?
Court: ...
Legislators: ... *smirk*

Every sane person in America:... WTF?

Oh my. I... I need to show this to everyone. This is hilarious, yet disturbingly true.

This whole thing seems kind of outrageous to me... I'm 17, and I've dated girls who are two years younger than me. (Hell, I'm dating someone who's just barely one year younger) and it scares me to think that had I been in Georgia, I could have gotten in trouble for half of the things we did D: And they were more willing to do them than me!

But... besides that, she blew other guys at the party! She isn't this hapless little victim that didn't know what she was getting into, and, on top of that, she didn't even complain to the cops. Somebody else did. If that isn't a severe case of cockblock...

[ZylitoL]

Nice explanation setric.

God damn...it actually sucks for the guy. As far as I know, there weren't any consequences for the girl, which is just plain f'd up.

This whole thing seems kind of outrageous to me... I'm 17, and I've dated girls who are two years younger than me. (Hell, I'm dating someone who's just barely one year younger) and it scares me to think that had I been in Georgia, I could have gotten in trouble for half of the things we did D: And they were more willing to do them than me!

Consider yourself lucky man. Exercise your rights where and while you can haha.

Georgia sucks.

[drdan]

It did, the revised law was passed in response to this case and others. The 'crime' was commited before the law was revised which would have reduced his maximum sentence to one year or less, but the legislators specifically forbid cases prosecuted before the law was enacted from being revisited.

Court: Sorry, you're screwed. .
Him: This sucks
Legislation: Yeah, it does suck. We'll fix it so this doesn't happen to kids like yourself anymore. Look everyone, we fixed it!
Him: Sweet, so when do I get out of here?
Legislation: Sorry man, but allowing past convictions to be revisited using a new law would be terribly inconvenient and probably cost the state a lot of money. Technically, you DID receive the correct punishment. It's just that the punishment has been changed.
Him: ... WTF?
Legislation: Come on, take one for the team.
Him: Screw this, Ima appeal.
Court: It's not my fault. I'm really sorry, but I have to confirm that you are indeed screwed. The only thing you can do is vote the legislators who put you into this position out of office.
Him: .... WTF? Hey, wait. Convicts can't vote can they?
Court: ...
Legislators: ... *smirk*

Every sane person in America:... WTF?

If what you say is true, then that is a violation of due process. At least hear in California I remember a class (back in 11th or 12th grade?) where we talked about situations where if a law changes, for example, if it was illegal to sell aspirin and now it's legal to sell aspirin, then anyone in prison for selling what used to be illegal aspirin is released.

[Jetsetlemming]

dr dan, most laws work like that, or have "grandfather clauses" and things of that nature. This one was especially made so that previous cases for this crime convicted before the new law don't get the new punishment.

[Karthak]

Ten years? For a blowjob? Only in america...

[Kass]

At age 17, you are considered an adult when it comes to criminal responsiblity in every state. Your case is handled through regular adult courts. As far as all law is concerned, he is not a minor in this matter.

This case shows why I object to removing judicial discretion from sentencing guidelines. Absolute minimums and mandatory registrations remove justice from the sentence. What this kid did was illegal (whether or not it should be is another debate), but it didn't merit 10 years. Probation, but not jail time. A restraining order to stay away from the victim, but not a lifetime sex offender registration.

Judges rarely stray from sentencing guidelines unless there is an extreme mitigating circumstance. The legislature taking that discretion away from them is unnecessary.

The simple fact is sexual predators are increasingly common--internationally. Just ask Interpol. They work with law enforcement all over the world to crack down on sexual crimes against children. They routinely participate in massive simultaneous raids and arrests of sex offenders whose victims are children.

That is scary, especially if you are a parent. Most legislators and voters are or know parents. Our laws regarding sex crime used to be very lax. The desire to stop actual predators and make those laws stiffer isn't a bad thing, but legislators, in their zeal to do something often write laws that don't take into account execeptions like this. They are too general or vague and lump many crimes into one category. It takes a case like this to make the problem known and get laws changed.

It sure sucks to be the defendant in that case though.

Also, let this be a lesson: if you are a kid and are going to screw around, for the love of God, DON'T TAPE IT. It's almost as dumb as the morons who videotape themselves breaking into homes and such.

[Jetsetlemming]

I think there should be mandatory minimums for some crimes, like murder, and rape, but not most, just guidelines.
You know, I'm not sure of this, but it's disturbing anyway, so i thought I might ask; Are people convicted of things like public indecency or urinating in public and things like that really considered sex offenders? I heard about that a while ago but never managed to look into it's truthiness.

[Digital Masta]

A restraining order to stay away from the victim, but not a lifetime sex offender registration.

But...who's the victim?

[Kass]

Legally, the girl is the victim. Morally, ethically, there isn't one. Unfortunately, in this case, only the legal definition matters.

And Jetsetlemming, technically, having sex with a minor--consensual or no--is rape. There you have your mandatory minimum sentence kicking in again. So some 18-year-old guy (because it is almost always the guy who is charged, almost never the older woman)with a 16-year-old girlfriend rapes his girlfriend every time she spreads her legs for him. He gets the mandatory minimum sentence, even if the girl ripped his clothes off and banged him like a Salvation Army drum. No discretion, no justice.

~~~

Public indecency and urinating in public vary from state to state. In some places (Texas) urinating in public is a Class C misdemeanor which means it is only punishable by a fine. Now, if a man was waving his dick around and pissing in a school yard full of kids or a woman was naked and flashing her crotch and pissing in a school yard, then the charge is something entirely different--indecency with a minor.

The charge changes dependent on the situation in Texas. Other states lump them all together.

In Virginia, it is INSANELY stupid in many cases. Much of it depends on whether the victim is a family member or not. Domestic violence and most any other crime where the victim is a family member is heard in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Rape your neighbor's daughter--go to criminal court, go to jail. Rape your own daughter, go to JDR and likely end up on probation and back in the home with the victim. Punch a stranger in the nose, go to criminal court and end up with some jail time and probation. Punch your wife in the nose and go to a class and get the case completely expunged from your record.

There was a case in Virginia many, many years ago (but the law hasn't changed) where the mother engaged in sexual activity with her underage daughter (who was a willing participant) and the step-father video taped it. The step-father got 40 years for a variety of sexual assault of a minor and misconduct charges from a criminal court. The mother got 20 years for incest in JDR court. The irony? If the step-father had waited just one more year, he'd have done absolutely nothing illegal because he isn't related by blood to the girl.

Now ask yourself, which is worse? Is the mom banging her daughter really less offensive than a non-relative standing there with a video camera?

[Jetsetlemming]

O_________O
Thanks for sharing. ._.
For the mandatory minimums, I'm sure the lawmakers can make instances in the minimums for the differences in people who are young and close in age and consensual, and the creepy neighbor touching the little girls in the neighborhood. If they can legislate that it's illegal to sleep inside a refridgerator, they SHOULD be able to get off their asses and get sober long enough to handle something like this. Unfortately, that should doesn't mean they are, and in almost all cases they aren't capable of something as rational and obvious as differentiating between teenage lovers and pedophiles.

[Kass]

Once you start making exceptions, there is no such thing as a mandatory minimum. Besides, you can't come up with a comprehensible legal code that takes into account every possible exception to the rule. There are just too many possible permutations of the situation.

The difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old is much less than the difference between a 13-year-old and an 18-year-old. The average 13-year-old lacks a lot of the judgment and knowledge to give informed consent to a sexual relationship with someone that much older. The 18-year-old holds way too much implied power and sway. A 16-year-old? Perfectly capable of making an informed decision to sleep with an 18-year-old.

Now add in the infinite number of possible situations. What if the 18-year-old is mildly mentally disabled and has the emotional and mental capacity of a 12-year-old with an 18-year-old's libido? What if the 13-year-old was molested as a young child and does what many female victims of molestation do--becomes overly sexual and promiscuous and initiated the whole thing? What if the girl lied about her age? What if the guy pressured her or got her drunk? What if he was drunk and didn't realize her age?

Mandatory minimums don't take into account all the possible circumstances of a crime.

There was never a problem with judicial discretion in sentencing for these crimes. The problem was public outrage and officials wanting to get elected. mandatory minimums sound good and make voters happy. They do not serve the interests of justice.

The recommended sentencing guidelines worked in cases like these.

[D-pad]

I don't think they should have done things like that in the first place. :knockout: ....Eww, that girl is my age. x.x

You've never given oral sex at 15? Maybe I'm just a slut, but even I had by that time.

[Roxie]

You've never given oral sex at 15? Maybe I'm just a slut, but even I had by that time.
OMG!!!

I never kissed a boy till I was sixteen and didn't have sex until I was a freshman in college!

[seiji]

I never kissed a boy till I was a sophomore in college! Is there a prize here?

[D-pad]

Although I lived in a rather rural area where rules did not always apply...

I've known chicks that suck dick from 10+ and fuck from 12+.

I was 14 for my first kiss. She had great tits... I miss those damn tits...

[Y.T.]

Scheiße. Georgia is a fucked up state. ... My country recently lowered the age of consent to 14 (alongside criminal responsibility age .. that's 14. So we wouldn't have cases of 14 yr olds having sex sentenced for statutory rape .... though some legal 'experts' disagreed and claimed it promoted "immorality" .. ).

I don't think anything consensual ought to be a crime. Even murder. If people wish to die, why not allow someone else to save them the trouble... especially women have a lot of problems in getting it done...

.. Yeah. Land of the free, home of the brave...

[Overkongen]

Zawalke, the last thing you're talking about is youth in asia. Or somesuch.

About teh age of consent... Around here it's 15. At that point, people should be able to make that choice. Yet we have had sort of a case going on here in Denmark that proves otherwise.

There was this here "safe-chat"-consultant, who worked teaching kids how to avoid evil stalkers on the net. Funny thing is, he was one of those guys himself. He worked as an amateur photographer, and had young girls come to get their pictures taken. Thet were always over the age of consent, though.
Anyway, he'd tell them that if they wanted to get famous, they oughta give him some head, or more. And he'd DVD-tape them while they did it. Naturally, he never made them famous. Now, it is illegal to tape people under 18 getting it on, but he was exposed on a television show, before charges were filed, so he was able to cover up all evidence behind him, and none of the girls he'd partied with bothered to give their testimonials.

Devil's advocate:

HOWEVER, seeing as how these girls were above the age of consent, his only crime is filming them. Besides the fact that it is impossibly hard to prove a girls age when she won't step forward, and all you have is a paris hiltonish tape of her, it won't be punished very severely, since they were between 15 and 18.

Funny thing is, what most people take offence at, is that he lied to these girls to get blowjobs. But... I mean, honestly, I believe that there is a nice solid amount of guys (and girls, for that matter), who've lied to obtian sexual gratification.

I'm going in sooo many different directions right now, but what about the parents? I'm not 100% convinced that you're doing an awesome job of parenting if you let your daughter go alone on a vacation with a 50-year-old man that you don't know. Christ, with a minimum of effort, you would be able check the plans, and maybe start wondering if you think it's a-okay that your daughter and said man have only booked one room during the trip.

Also, I liked the one anonymous interview they had on the show. It was one of the girls, who talked about how she felt really bad about it after she found out that this guy wasn't going to make her famous. Before that, she'd been just fine about giving sexual favours to a man older than her own father, to get ahead in life. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a slut.

[delen]

Zawalke, the last thing you're talking about is youth in asia. Or somesuch.

Euthanasia is not the same as 'youth in asia'. Stop giving young asians a bad name. Lol.

[Plekto]

Mandatory sentencing is called such for a reason. Or would you rather have your judges legislating from the bench?

You know... I thought the part where we call them "Judges" implies that they, well.. make decisions on sentencing.

All mandatory sentencing does(besides look good on T.V./in politics - look, we're tough on crime!!!) is remove the juciary from the process entirely.

Ie - you do a certain crime... might as well just have the police arrest you and haul you off to jail without a trial, because the end result is exactly the same.

And, yes, most of the U.S. is stuck in the 1850s as far as sex goes. What a wonderful message I get to tell my sone when he's old enough...

"well, you can't have sex because if you get caught or anyone hears about it, you'll do 10 years in jail".(as opposed to any moral reason).

Gheez. Yet another reason to move someplace... anyplace other than the U.S.

P.S. How come it's sex in Georgia but it wasn't for our President?

[seiji]

Because Georgia law defines anything other than male-female vaginal intercourse as "sodomy". Sex that can't get you pregnant is unnatural and therefore worse than sex. Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

[Citizen]

According to Georgia's criminal code, a 17-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old has commited a misdemeanor. I'm fairly certain that it also applies to sodomy. Last I checked, America doesn't incarcerate misdemeanants for more than 12 months. Odd.

[Roxie]

According to Georgia's criminal code, a 17-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old has commited a misdemeanor. I'm fairly certain that it also applies to sodomy. Last I checked, America doesn't incarcerate misdemeanants for more than 12 months. Odd.
Well, with the Marcus Dixon case, he was (by a few months) 18 and the girl was 15 (about 2 months b-4 she turned 16). And because of this, they were able to tack on a sexual child abuse charge which is where the mandatory 10 year sentence comes in.

[Citizen]

How old is that case? Also, did it take place in Georgia? Every state has different Age of Consent laws, as the Federal government decided not to regulate them.

It's possible that that case simply fell under a different set of laws. However, in present day Georgia, it should still be considered a misdemeanor, as the offender was under 19, the victim was over 14 and the age gap between them was less than four years.

[Roxie]

To answer your questions basically:
Yes, the Dixon case took place in GA and it all started in 2003, with the case happening in 2004.

If you'd like more info, I quote myself

You're most likely thinking of the Marcus Dixon case which was extremely similiar.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/dixon.asp
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16557
http://www.petitiononline.com/dixon/petition.html

Marcus was a school athelete, honors student accused of raping a white girl. The girl was on Oprah and described her experience and I gotta tell you, I didn't believe her one bit. Her story sounded contrived. She said Marcus held her aganist a table with his elbows yet simotaneously pulled off his pants? I dunno it was weird for sure. I don't think it was rape, however.

[Citizen]

In that case, the sentence would be due to the fact that the girl convinced the court that she didn't give consent. You're not going to get knocked down from a felon to a misdemeanant in a case like that.

Wilson should have been, though. At least, according to Georgia law.

Oh law, you're so quirky.

[Roxie]

In that case, the sentence would be due to the fact that the girl convinced the court that she didn't give consent.
No, that wasn't the case. Dixon was acquitted of rape charges, but b/c of the age difference at the time of the intercourse the prosecutor got to tack on the child molestation charges.

[Citizen]

No, that wasn't the case. Dixon was acquitted of rape charges, but b/c of the age difference at the time of the intercourse the prosecutor got to tack on the child molestation charges.

The laws must have changed since 03/04, then.

Section 16-6-3 C of Georgia state law (as of right now):

If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Kass]

"Mandatory sentencing is called such for a reason. Or would you rather have your judges legislating from the bench?"

First off, trial court judges can have no impact on legislation. They don't have the authority. That is reserved to appellate courts, state supreme courts and federal courts. Trial court judges are obligated to follow the law whether they like it or not just like in this case. The judge said the sentence was unfair and said that the new law should be applied, but can't be because it isn't retroactive. The judge also said that sucked (paraphrasing). The judge's hands are tied. If the judge was "legislating from the bench," he/she would have tossed out the charges, ingnored the mandatory sentencing or expunged the kid's record.

Legislating from the bench, a behavior I abhor, can only be done by justices with the power to do so. Criminal court judges have no such power. That phrase is also tossed around like beads at Mardi Gras. It's overused to scare people.

Second, judges are such so that they render *gasp*judgments. It's their job. It's what they go to school for. It's what they train to do. It's what they get continuing education for.

Mandatory sentencing is contrary to JUSTICE. It sounds great in a 30-second sound bite, but as this case proves, it doesn't work. Judges were given judicial discretion when the courts were established because it was known that no case ever fit neatly into the same box as the next. That is why until recently, there have always been sentencing guidelines. They are recommended sentences for a crime and allow the judge to impose a sentence appropriate to the offense.

Imposing the appropriate sentence for the crime is one of the primary functions of the American judicial system. The system must protect the rights of individuals and ensure that justice was applied fairly. Arbitrary decisions are contrary to fairness.

I find it amusing that a few of the people who are arguing for mandatory sentencing are the same people who kick and scream about zero-tolerance punishments in schools. They are the same thing. Why is it that one isn't fair and the other is?