NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.

That's it. The world has officially gone completely fucking crazy.

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.
*low whistle*

That sucks. A lot.

It's not like he got her pregnant or anything. Hell, it wasn't even actual sex...

looks like I’m going to jail!:( (I had no idea at the time honest)

Also fun to see sodomy is still a crime

I'm glad i'm not in America. :cool:

paraphrasing the judge: "i know it's not right and it's a miscarriage of justice, but it says here in this book that you have to go to jail so that's it, your screwed". i hate the legal system sometimes, it's so moronic.

"teenagers convicted of sodomy"

WTF you can still be convicted of sodomy there? what kind of backwards fucks are they where they have laws making sodomy illegal

looks like I’m going to jail!:( (I had no idea at the time honest)


I take it you have a younger girlfriend/boyfriend?


"teenagers convicted of sodomy"

WTF you can still be convicted of sodomy there? what kind of backwards fucks are they where they have laws making sodomy illegal

No, no, you misunderstand. They're AGAINST backwards fucks.

Couldn't resist.

I take it you have a younger girlfriend/boyfriend?

pfft no I hate tracksuits

I wonder when the society is going to realize that sex is not only natural, but beautiful and, of course, good. Oh well, i blame the fucking christians! :mp5:

"teenagers convicted of sodomy"

WTF you can still be convicted of sodomy there? what kind of backwards fucks are they where they have laws making sodomy illegal

In some areas sodomy is defined as any kind of "unnatural" sex, for lack of a better word.

EDIT: I Googled it and got:

Often simply refers to anal sex; however, the actual dictionary definition includes anything considered "unnatural or deviate sexual intercourse" which may include everything from oral sex to sex between partners of the same gender.

I wonder when the society is going to realize that sex is not only natural, but beautiful and, of course, good. Oh well, i blame the fucking christians! :mp5:

I wouldn't go too far

I wonder when the society is going to realize that sex is not only natural, but beautiful and, of course, good. Oh well, i blame the fucking christians! :mp5:

I also blame the muslims, jews, and just about every other religion. Also christians aren't fucking. That's exactly the problem.

I like the buddhists attitude on sex. Also many pagan religions views are cool. And don't get me started on the First Church of constant Masturbation (Blame the Daily Show)

I wouldn't go too far

I was kidding, hence the ':mp5:'

It's always interesting to note things I've done that would get me locked up in the 'land of the free'.

In some areas sodomy is defined as any kind of "unnatural" sex, for lack of a better word.

EDIT: I Googled it and got:

Up here before they were removed YEARS ago sodomy laws included oral as well ...

Which sense it is brought up in this case I assume it also covers oral down there as well

It's always interesting to note things I've done that would get me locked up in the 'land of the free'.

Yeah, about half the teenagers in america are now guilty of a crime. It's like the ban on opiates. Bunch of mostly harmless junkies became criminals overnight thanks to congress.

Well if he was charged under a Sodomy statute, then he should already be free. Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws accross the board.

I would hope he appeals to the US Supreme Court. It would be nice to have them hear an argument regarding whether such a stiff sentance for such a trivial 'crime' constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. (the answer, IMHO, is a definite YES. The very act shouldn't be called a crime, but even if we allow it to be called as such, 10 years is unacceptable for a consenual act and upon someone with no previous record.)

Oh, and I'd also love to hear some equal protection arguments before the SC. They were both underage... why wasn't the girl charged? I suspect (though fully admitting I could be wrong) that the law doesn't allow for a girl to be prosecuted for that crime, just as in many jurisdictions a woman cannot commit a rape. Bingo bango equal protection argument.

Well if he was charged under a Sodomy statute, then he should already be free. Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws accross the board.

I looked it up on wikipedia. It only struck down the laws pertaining to HOMOSEXUAL sodomy, and only in Texas.

That is just so wrong...:(

I like the buddhists attitude on sex.

not Buddhist monks I hope :p

They were both underage

no they weren’t he was 17:confused:

I looked it up on wikipedia. It only struck down the laws pertaining to HOMOSEXUAL sodomy, and only in Texas.

Yes, that's what it did, but the precedent it established easily means the rest of the nation's sodomy laws are invalid.

From our noble wikipedia -

The majority decision found that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.

I looked it up on wikipedia. It only struck down the laws pertaining to HOMOSEXUAL sodomy, and only in Texas.

WTF?!

no they weren’t he was 17:confused:

Not being from Georgia I don't know, but round here (NC) the age of consent appears to be 18. At least that's what I've heard time and time again.

Not being from Georgia I don't know, but round here (NC) the age of consent appears to be 18. At least that's what I've heard time and time again.

Actually, it's just because they didn't want to have sex with you. Or your friends wanted to save 'em for themselves.

I have four speeding tickets from georgia.

They are wankers.

Actually, it's just because they didn't want to have sex with you. Or your friends wanted to save 'em for themselves.

Not quite what I meant, but I'll keep that one in mind:p

And it appears I was wrong, in Georgia it's 16 (I know, wierd, eh? I guess the Southern Baptistness of Georgia lost against the redneck-ness of Georgia on this one). So ditch the equal protection argument and go for cruel and unusual punishment.

I have four speeding tickets from georgia.

They are wankers.

Doesn't that fall under the 8th amendment? And what about due process! You don't get any trial before they wank off in your face?

Oh, you meant that as an insult, didn't you? :eek:

I have four speeding tickets from georgia.

They are wankers.

I hope you weren’t committing sodomy at the time...

Geogria is really weird....

No, no, you misunderstand. They're AGAINST backwards fucks.

Couldn't resist.

that's the first time i've actually laughed out loud at a comment on this forum

well done sir! (or ma'am!)

how is it that the courts found out about this in the first place?:confused: :confused: :confused:

The judge should be the one thrown into jail.

The judge should be sentenced to 10 years for being a dick.

Let's go break the kid out.

Let's go break the kid out.I agree. Lets go bust in there and free the innocent!

It is a very sad world if the person gets thrown into a jail for making love to a willing younger partner :(

I agree. Lets go bust in there and free the innocent!

I would have SO done it! If only I had my Jurai Power in real world :(

I wonder when the society is going to realize that sex is not only natural, but beautiful and, of course, good. Oh well, i blame the fucking christians! :mp5:

No no no! Youve got it all wrong! Blame the non-fucking christians! the fucking ones have the right idea.



It is not the judge’s fault. They have to carry out ‘justice’ as the law is written with no choice in the matter – a judge is simply there to carry out the law no matter how stupid or ill-conceived it may be.

The ones to blame are the state legislature and more directly the prosecutor in this case – it is up to the district attorney what cases to try. Choosing to pursue charges against this boy is a travesty of justice and I hope the kid gets off on appeal. If true justice is to be served, the prosecutor’s career should take a massive hit for this one.

Actually this isn't the worst case like this I've heard. One of my constitutional law professors told us about this case in Minnesota wherein an 18 year old boy was prosecuted by an over-zealous DA for having sex with his fiancee, who happened to be two weeks shy of 18.

Now, what you guys are forgetting is that the case usually only go forward, especially when dealing with minors, if the legal guardians/parents of the plaintiff agree. Now, assuming this is a normal example and that the parents of the girl agreed to cooperate with the DA, what does that say about the parents??

Actually this isn't the worst case like this I've heard. One of my constitutional law professors told us about this case in Minnesota wherein an 18 year old boy was prosecuted by an over-zealous DA for having sex with his fiancee, who happened to be two weeks shy of 18.


once again how do the courts find out about this sort of thing?:confused: :confused:

It's always interesting to note things I've done that would get me locked up in the 'land of the free'.

That's so sigged it's not even funny.

Mainly because it ISN'T funny. :(

Oh, and I'd also love to hear some equal protection arguments before the SC. They were both underage... why wasn't the girl charged? I suspect (though fully admitting I could be wrong) that the law doesn't allow for a girl to be prosecuted for that crime, just as in many jurisdictions a woman cannot commit a rape. Bingo bango equal protection argument.

Didn't you know? Teenage girls are always innocent little angels, while teenage boys only think with their penis.

:rolleyes:

once again how do the courts find out about this sort of thing?:confused: :confused:

Big Brother is watching.


Er, I mean...I'm sure they, uh, have their methods. :confused:

*hides*

It is a very sad world if the person gets thrown into a jail for making love to a willing younger partner :(


You can't be "willing" if you're under the age of consent, by definition. However, 10 years does sound excessive. Most states separate sex crimes by the age of the victim, usually "under 14" and "14+." Since the victim here is 15, and the perpetrator only two years older, a sex act between the two would be legal in most states (at least every state I've lived in), and, even if illegal, would carry a minimal sentence. Sounds like an unfortunate technicality in Georgia state law.

once again how do the courts find out about this sort of thing?:confused: :confused:

It's not the courts who find the cases, its the police and the DA. The police are instructed to bring in any potential violations, and it's up to the District Attorney's office to decide whether or not to press charges. All the judges can do in these cases is look at the facts of the case and determine whether or not a violation of the law as it is currently written occurred.

If the Defendant in the case believes that either the law or punishment is unjust, or feels like fucking around with the system in general, they can appeal to a higher court, who eventually might overturn the law (Thanks, Judicial Review!). But often I wish that courts didn't have to have a case like this brought to them and then appealed before they could say "Stop it you idiots, this is a stupid law, so sit down and shut up!" It's the one aspect of other judicial systems I like more than the U.S. model

once again how do the courts find out about this sort of thing?:confused: :confused:

Parents turn the kid in. Or the kid himself brags about it.. as kids do, I'm sure.

You can't be "willing" if you're under the age of consent, by definition. However, 10 years does sound excessive. Most states separate sex crimes by the age of the victim, usually "under 14" and "14+." Since the victim here is 15, and the perpetrator only two years older, a sex act between the two would be legal in most states (at least every state I've lived in), and, even if illegal, would carry a minimal sentence. Sounds like an unfortunate technicality in Georgia state law.


She's not a victim. If anybody is a victim its the 17 year old boy.

Parents turn the kid in. Or the kid himself brags about it.. as kids do, I'm sure.

Once again, what parent would see their own child humiliated like that unless the situation was seriously out of control? I think this explains so much about American culture...Parents are so obsessed about their little angels that they wreck their kids lives sometimes in order to "save them." :rolleyes:

Big Brother is watching.

Except this is twenty-two years in the future; think about how much surveillance tech has advanced since telescreens. For all we know, they have holo-imaging programs now. He IS watching, and with very rapt attention, might I add. Big Brother's a pervert like that.

~ Ferrard

She's not a victim. If anybody is a victim its the 17 year old boy.

"Victim" and "perpetrator" are words you use to describe participants in a crime. Whether you believe the activity in question is a crime is up to you. As I said, I don't think a ten-year sentence fits the crime, unless other undisclosed details warrant it.

Once again, what parent would see their own child humiliated like that unless the situation was seriously out of control? I think this explains so much about American culture...Parents are so obsessed about their little angels that they wreck their kids lives sometimes in order to "save them." :rolleyes:
case in point, the kid who's parents had him charged with car theft whe he barowed his moms car

It's not the courts who find the cases, its the police and the DA. The police are instructed to bring in any potential violations, and it's up to the District Attorney's office to decide whether or not to press charges. All the judges can do in these cases is look at the facts of the case and determine whether or not a violation of the law as it is currently written occurred.

If the Defendant in the case believes that either the law or punishment is unjust, or feels like fucking around with the system in general, they can appeal to a higher court, who eventually might overturn the law (Thanks, Judicial Review!). But often I wish that courts didn't have to have a case like this brought to them and then appealed before they could say "Stop it you idiots, this is a stupid law, so sit down and shut up!" It's the one aspect of other judicial systems I like more than the U.S. model
the how do the cops find out about it?

Parents turn the kid in. Or the kid himself brags about it.. as kids do, I'm sure.

who would tell their parents in the first place, i sure wouldn't tell my parents

Once again, what parent would see their own child humiliated like that unless the situation was seriously out of control? I think this explains so much about American culture...Parents are so obsessed about their little angels that they wreck their kids lives sometimes in order to "save them." :rolleyes:

It's usually the parent of the daughter, I'd imagine. As for parents being protective of their kids, I doubt that's a phenomenon unique to this country. :rolleyes:

"Victim" and "perpetrator" are words you use to describe participants in a crime. Whether you believe the activity in question is a crime is up to you. As I said, I don't think a ten-year sentence fits the crime, unless other undisclosed details warrant it.

See, this is just another instance where the English language lends itself so well to being twisted up...

:rolleyes:

who would tell their parents in the first place, i sure wouldn't tell my parents

Word gets around. Generally, if you have a girlfriend, you take her places. When you go places, people see you. If someone sees you, someone can relate what they've seen to a third party. There needn't be any words between the kids and the parents. Especially in small towns.

I did... some things... with a 13 year old when I was 15, is that... bad? :eek:

the how do the cops find out about it?


Oh some cop's out on the beat at the local "lovers' lane" and sees two kids going at it in a car, and pulls over to ask them to take it somewhere that's not public property, and recognizes one of the kids. Any number of circumstances could happen, really.

Word gets around. Generally, if you have a girlfriend, you take her places. When you go places, people see you. If someone sees you, someone can relate what they've seen to a third party. There needn't be any words between the kids and the parents. Especially in small towns.

i am from a small town, and it is so true.

Oh some cop's out on the beat at the local "lovers' lane" and sees two kids going at it in a car, and pulls over to ask them to take it somewhere that's not public property, and recognizes one of the kids. Any number of circumstances could happen, really.

i suppose, but it still does not make it any less ridiculous

i suppose, but it still does not make it any less ridiculous

Hey, Police just enforce the law. Blame the stinkin' legislature for pandering to religious interest groups by enacting flashy laws that don't do anything to solve real problems and create situations like this one.

Hey, Police just enforce the law. Blame the stinkin' legislature for pandering to religious interest groups by enacting flashy laws that don't do anything to solve real problems and create situations like this one.

true, however i expect cops to exercise a little discernment

how is it that the courts found out about this in the first place?:confused: :confused: :confused:

The Judges should be thrown in prison for stalking people:rolleyes:

true, however i expect cops to exercise a little discernment

And have the girl's possibly disapproving parents sue their department for negligence/God knows what else? You risk bringing the entire house down on your head when you allow even the tiniest bit of room for a lawyer to insinuate himself.

And have the girl's possibly disapproving parents sue their department for negligence/God knows what else? You risk bringing the entire house down on your head when you allow even the tiniest bit of room for a lawyer to insinuate himself.

Spoken like a true law student, sir. Well done.

:D

And this story is a perfect example on why I'm against mandatory minimums - especially minimums of 10+ years.
That is just so wrong...:(
Indeed.
The judge should be the one thrown into jail.
The judge should be sentenced to 10 years for being a dick.

Don't blame the judge, blame the legislature. It's the elected representatives that have fucked up.

That's it. The world has officially gone completely fucking crazy.

so i can go nut's and let off my nuke's

I did... some things... with a 13 year old when I was 15, is that... bad? :eek:

other way round for me ,she was 15 ,me 13

other way round for me ,she was 15 ,me 13You little womanizer you. ;)

You little womanizer you. ;)

it's the same now,my lady 24, me 23

it's the same now,my lady 24, me 23You know, I never saw myself dating an older guy until I met my recent boyfriend; he's a whopping four years older! :eek: And it's all good.

You know, I never saw myself dating an older guy until I met my recent boyfriend; he's a whopping four years older! :eek: And it's all good.

i all way's like them to older then me by one year
the 15 year old one i was just lucky to lose it to

You can't be "willing" if you're under the age of consent, by definition.

Yeah, I know, I know… I always found it just charming how they would tell me if I am old enough to make such decisions if I lived in the wonderful “Land of the Free”. This is so helpful; it really shows how much the government cares about the common citizens (Well, occasionally it gets some kids like this poor boy into jail, and his girlfriend is probably grief-stricken and blames herself for what has happened to him, but, well, this is a small price to pay, ne?)

P.S.

Just in case anyone doesn’t realize that, a lot of people (some 99%, I imagine; or at the very least I and pretty much everybody I know) mature in this regard much earlier then they reach legal “age of consent”)

You know why hes going to jail? Look at the state Georgia. Now lets look at the 17 year old kid, guess what he's black and the girl is white.

Now do you wonder why the kid has gone to jail, its racism pure and simple.

That's it. The world has officially gone completely fucking crazy.

No. Just Red States getting redder. That's where the saying Better Red than Dead came from. It wasn't coined to describe the Communists. It simply created such a horror that the psychic shockwaves of it actually caused people to hear the phrase decades before the events that inspired it. They just attached it to the big thing at the time. Like how in the 70's people started using the phrase "Jive Turkey" because they were psychicly attuned to the horrible day when hyper-evolved turkies will start singing old Cab Calloway songs.

You know why hes going to jail? Look at the state Georgia. Now lets look at the 17 year old kid, guess what he's black and the girl is white.

Now do you wonder why the kid has gone to jail, its racism pure and simple.

The article doesn't mention any of that. Link to one that does if you've found one.

WTF.

My faith in the American justice system has been crushed into a tiny ball and shoved into the back of my brain somewhere with my trust for politicians. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. Feel really sorry for the kid... it's nice to know that millions of people around the world are by American standards child molesters and should be thrown in jail.

This is a fucking joke. If Clandonia is a politically correct agitator, the preise that the law is applied so intransigently is disturbing.

It's always interesting to note things I've done that would get me locked up in the 'land of the free'.

:p

"0h m33 g3ewd!!!!1!11 a 17 yr 0ld w0z h4v1n s3ckzz w1t a 15 yr 0ld!!!111 1t v10l4735 t3h h0l3 f0ck1n (0n5717u7ion!!!!11!1:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :upyours: "

:rolleyes: Now does anyone understand why I wanna move?

What's ironic is that the sentence would have been lighter in a state with harsher attitudes to sex, since if the age of consent was 18 they'd both have been minors. :headbang:

:p

"0h m33 g3ewd!!!!1!11 a 17 yr 0ld w0z h4v1n s3ckzz w1t a 15 yr 0ld!!!111 1t v10l4735 t3h h0l3 f0ck1n (0n5717u7ion!!!!11!1:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :upyours: "

:rolleyes: Now does anyone understand why I wanna move?

No, not really.

:p

"0h m33 g3ewd!!!!1!11 a 17 yr 0ld w0z h4v1n s3ckzz w1t a 15 yr 0ld!!!111 1t v10l4735 t3h h0l3 f0ck1n (0n5717u7ion!!!!11!1:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :upyours: "

:rolleyes: Now does anyone understand why I wanna move?

Impressive leet, I must say.:)

WTF.

My faith in the American justice system has been crushed into a tiny ball and shoved into the back of my brain somewhere with my trust for politicians. This is one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. Feel really sorry for the kid... it's nice to know that millions of people around the world are by American standards child molesters and should be thrown in jail.

My faith was crushed a long time ago.

Someday in the future, America will be even more backwards about sex and two 13 year olds caught kissing behind the school will face 20 years of prison for molesting eachother...

...either that, or face a special type of "behavior camp" ;)

Oh, won't somone think of the children? Please, somebody, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Impressive leet, I must say.:)

:p

I think I just n00bed up the forum again... :p

:p

I think I just n00bed up the forum again... :p

Still, having just staggered out of bed at 12.50, it amused me.....:p

Is this kind of thing endemic in US justice?

Still, having just staggered out of bed at 12.50, it amused me.....:p

Is this kind of thing endemic in US justice?

Yep. :(

My faith was crushed a long time ago.

Someday in the future, America will be even more backwards about sex and two 13 year olds caught kissing behind the school will face 20 years of prison for molesting eachother...

...either that, or face a special type of "behavior camp" ;)

Oh, won't somone think of the children? Please, somebody, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

or you may end up like the America in the moive Escape from L.A

Yep. :(

Oh my :eek:

I thought the British justice system was awful, but, this is wrong...

or you may end up like the America in the moive Escape from L.A

Haven't seen that one...

But you did catch my "behavior camp" thing, didn't you? :eek:

Oh my :eek:

I thought the British justice system was awful, but, this is wrong...

i think all of them are going down hill fast

i think all of them are going down hill fast

Apparently speaking any type of English will cause your country to go to the pits. :(

Haven't seen that one...

But you did catch my "behavior camp" thing, didn't you? :eek:

here read this link and the what
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_LA

I've decided. I hate Christians.

America's main religion is Christianity (whatever the Constitution says) and though the constitution set out certain freedoms and prohibitions NOT based on religion, further laws were heavily influenced by 'Conservative' (the title's misleading - they shout their heads off) Christians who wanted to prevent any perceived 'sin' such as an older person having sex with a younger person or such as sex before marriage.

As soon as I've found out the reason I was supposed to join Christianity (those who don't believe in spiritual feelings etc. most likely wouldn't understand if I explained what I mean by this exactly) and done what's required of me in relation to that (and until that point I will continue to refer to myself as 'Christian'), I'm chucking it in and probably joining Wicca.

And this, friends, is one reason the UK needs the Human Rights Act, in case they ever do anything so stupid.

Oh and I suggest the people who want to help the boy write to Congress asking them to somehow get the boy released.

Apparently speaking any type of English will cause your country to go to the pits. :(

it's getting that way
but right now i'am in the pits

Hang on a sec - is the law referred to a federal law? If so, can't the boy have his case taken to the Supreme Court of the United States?

Still, having just staggered out of bed at 12.50, it amused me.....:p

Is this kind of thing endemic in US justice?
Yep. :(

Wait... Leet is endemic in US justice? :confused: Woot! :p

Wait... Leet is endemic in US justice? :confused: Woot! :p

Everything involved in the US government is written in l33t. It's a little known fact, but did you know that the Constitution was even written in 1337? That's why people keep misinterpreting it.... :p

Wait... Leet is endemic in US justice? :confused: Woot! :p
You know, I wouldn't be surprised, what with the intelligence of the judges and such that's required to dispense such justice in cases like this. I can just imagine this conversation on MSN...

Judge 1: hey d00d hwo was ur day
Judge 2: l0lol0lololol!!!111one i pwnt sum n00b who sexd his underage gf
Judge 1: o rly? rofl wat did he get
Judge 2: lmao ten y3arz
Judge 1: ahahaha sucker
Judge 2: ya i no, that teach tennagers to hav sx =)
Judge 1: yeah othrwise god wil send them to hell
Judge 2: yea were doing them a favor lol

america = strange

whats so wrong about havin sex? as long as the girl was his gf? that's bullshit. exp 10 years. for a 17 yrs old. imagine him coming out of prison w/ 27. then he'll rape someone for sure -.-

The article doesn't mention any of that. Link to one that does if you've found one.

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

Poor kid, he can't even live with his family anymore now because he has a little sister.

I've decided. I hate Christians..


Not all christians are bad.

Being from GA this doesn't suprise me. GA is still pretty much a backwards state. This whole sexphobia is gettin out of hand in America by the Christian right.

My faith was crushed a long time ago.

Someday in the future, America will be even more backwards about sex and two 13 year olds caught kissing behind the school will face 20 years of prison for molesting eachother...

...either that, or face a special type of "behavior camp" ;)

Oh, won't somone think of the children? Please, somebody, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

I can speak from experience that constantly answering the "ZOMG YOU MADE OUT WITH SOMEONE WTFOMGBBQ????" Questions is more annoying then any punishment that doesn't violate the 8th amendment.

Oh my :eek:

I thought the British justice system was awful, but, this is wrong...

Tuh. My friends mother got some kind of restraining order against one of my other friends for her daughter. Because she THOUGHT MY OTHER FRIEND HAD MADE HER DAUGHTER BISEXUAL. It doesn't get much stupider than that.

As it says on the currency..

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/newcam/qqqqqqqqq189.jpg

As it says on the currency..

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/newcam/qqqqqqqqq189.jpg

I choose to believe my signature. When substituting, this means that we trust in perfect government. Now, as we all know, nothing is perfect, therefore a perfect government is impossible to achieve. As it is impossible to achieve, this means that we cannot trust in anything. They're all out to get us :(

~ Ferrard

Very soon it will be-
"You were 18 and 24 seconds when you engaged in sexual congress with your gf who was 17 years, 11 months 29 days and 20 hours old. Thats ten years in jail and your entire life being branded as sex offender"

Tuh. My friends mother got some kind of restraining order against one of my other friends for her daughter. Because she THOUGHT MY OTHER FRIEND HAD MADE HER DAUGHTER BISEXUAL. It doesn't get much stupider than that.

Oh it does. Man was accused by his neighbour for raping a sheep. He ended in jail, his picture ended in newspapers as a man who raped sheep.
He spent TWO WEEKS in jail. And only THEN veterinarian went publicly saying that he sent report immidiatly, before arrest that sheep was not raped-
How's that?

Very soon it will be-
"You were 18 and 24 seconds when you engaged in sexual congress with your gf who was 17 years, 11 months 39 days and 20 hours old.
Er, your girlfriend would be older than you in that case.

Er, your girlfriend would be older than you in that case.

Fixed, thanks.

Insane decision.

That is fucked up.

I looked it up on wikipedia. It only struck down the laws pertaining to HOMOSEXUAL sodomy, and only in Texas.

Incorrect. When the Supreme Court rules, the jurisdiction is federal. All laws pertaining to homosexual sodomy were struck down in the several states and territories.

Not just Texas. The Supreme Court may only grant state specific relief in very narrow cases (Bush v. Gore for example). This was a broad ruling that must be adhered to by all states and territories.

As for this case, it is blatantly stupid. The ruling should be immediately appealed and struck down by the Court of Appeals.

Puritanical faith leads to idiotic puritanical laws.

We have been erring on the side of hard line rules for entirely too long. It is high time the legal system in this country got a dose of common sense.

It's not like he got her pregnant or anything. Hell, it wasn't even actual sex...
true. According to an ex-president of the US, oral sex ain't sex.
He should have called up Clinton as a defence witness.

true. According to an ex-president of the US, oral sex ain't sex. He should have called up Clinton as a defence witness.

SIGGED

SIGGED
Yay!! I've been sigged
It's like an early xmas present from Minaris.

Here, have a cookie and a fluffle:fluffle:

There's a reason I drink.

I wish this was an unforeseen consequence, but it isn’t.
It’s what happens when you let men and women who hold sex in contempt make laws concerning sex. I guarantee you that they don’t give a fuck about this kid. They probably think he got what he deserved for daring to have sexual relations before marriage.

That's disgraceful. He'll probably be killed in prison - they tend to do all sorts of nasty things to those convicted of child molestation, and the fact that he's 17 doesn't bode well for his ability to defend himself.

Justice, indeed.

That poor boy.

People seriously need to get off the moral highground. Or maybe they just need to get off.

Seriously, is getting a headjob actual justification for having one's life ruined?

*cries*

There's a reason I drink.
Because you're a damned alcoholic?

Is there anyone who can appeal the decision of this Judge? If there's enough popular outrage, can there be a change to the sentence?

Then again, it is the USA, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's as much support for this sentence amongst certain circles as there is outrage against it.

pfft Georgia....they've been fucked up one way or another ever since they were first established as a colony.

paraphrasing the judge: "i know it's not right and it's a miscarriage of justice, but it says here in this book that you have to go to jail so that's it, your screwed". i hate the legal system sometimes, it's so moronic.

Yeah, it can be a bit black and white at times. It just doesn't mesh with the world we live in, which is in shades of grey, and lots of pretty colours too.

I wonder when the society is going to realize that sex is not only natural, but beautiful and, of course, good. Oh well, i blame the fucking christians! :mp5:

agreed 100%, except about the "christians".

Not being from Georgia I don't know, but round here (NC) the age of consent appears to be 18. At least that's what I've heard time and time again.

Why don't you actually RESEARCH?

I did... some things... with a 13 year old when I was 15, is that... bad? :eek:

Well it's illegal in a lot of countries... You really should know that.
If you're this clueless about everything in life, I guess you could pleed that you were on an equal level of maturity with the 13-year-old.

other way round for me ,she was 15 ,me 13

Oh, well then technically she broke the law.

Then again, it is the USA, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's as much support for this sentence amongst certain circles as there is outrage against it.

The law's already been changed. The kid couldn't be arrested today. It's on him to appeal it now, but his lawyers can't seem to handle it.

....
Just in case anyone doesn’t realize that, a lot of people (some 99%, I imagine; or at the very least I and pretty much everybody I know) mature in this regard much earlier then they reach legal “age of consent”)

Agreed. I lost my virginity at age 14, to another 14-year-old.

america = strange

whats so wrong about havin sex? as long as the girl was his gf? that's bullshit. exp 10 years. for a 17 yrs old. imagine him coming out of prison w/ 27. then he'll rape someone for sure -.-

What is wrong is that he broke the law. Sure, the law seems stupid, but he broke it, nonetheless. The age of consent laws have the ability to protect many minors, particularly when the age gap is more substantial.

I don't think that you have any right to say that he will rape someone.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.
Why I hate being in Georgia.

It's Georgia, if you remember Georgia didn't Vote out ANYONE in this year's election. Georgia is more backwards than Alabama these days. Heck Bush made 2 stop overs here and got two massive crowds of Neo-con drones.

Well it's illegal in a lot of countries... You really should know that.
If you're this clueless about everything in life, I guess you could pleed that you were on an equal level of maturity with the 13-year-old.You assume too much. I knew it was illegal and I'm not clueless.

Oh, well then technically she broke the law.

do you think she didn't knew that

I'm glad i'm not in America. :cool:

Your an idiot. The age of consent, 16, like in america occurs in many countries. Such as Australia. Here if your over 16 and have sex with someone under 16 you go to jail. Only in one state is there a clause for a couple that are close in age.

And for you people that complain about this. If you allow this then where the hell do you draw the line. If a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old isn't taking advantage then what is, an 18 year old? a 30 year old? The line has to be drawn somewhere. And i think 16 is the right age.

The judge should be the one thrown into jail.Nope.. That judge did the rigth thing.

do you think she didn't knew that

No, I just read another one of his posts later, and I realised that I'd made an error.

The law's already been changed. The kid couldn't be arrested today. It's on him to appeal it now, but his lawyers can't seem to handle it.

Well, he's fucked, then. If he gets out alive, what is he going to do with himself? He'll never find a job that can adequately support himself.

This is just insane :( poor teen :(

Your an idiot. The age of consent, 16, like in america occurs in many countries. Such as Australia. Here if your over 16 and have sex with someone under 16 you go to jail.what if a girl told your brother she was 16.. and she was actually 15.99 ..
what If she lied to your bro.. so she could have sex with him..
Would you send your 16 years old Brother to Jail.

Your an idiot. The age of consent, 16, like in america occurs in many countries. Such as Australia. Here if your over 16 and have sex with someone under 16 you go to jail. Only in one state is there a clause for a couple that are close in age.

In France it's 15, which is quite sane.

And for you people that complain about this. If you allow this then where the hell do you draw the line. If a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old isn't taking advantage then what is, an 18 year old? a 30 year old? The line has to be drawn somewhere. And i think 16 is the right age.

Well, the french system is quite sane. The age of consent is 15. So, 15-18 is allowed. Below the age of consent, you can face jail. But if yourself you are below 18, you cannot be judged in any normal court, only in a very special justice system, which is very unlikely to send you to jail, unless you did something very very bad. Minors are well protected here. Or at least, they were so, until the recent changes done by this extreme right government.

This rules out most of the troubles. Sure there can be genuine love between a 14 years old and a 18 years old, and the 18 years old will then face the "hard", real justice. But also, in France, no law ever states a minimal penalty, always a maximal one (and the current attempt of Sarkozy to change that is rejected massively by judges, lawyers, and even a huge part of the police). So the judge has the full right to not give a sentence, or to give a symbolic one, if he judges the case of being a genuine love.

Of course, there can be some "bugs" in any system, and someone can end up in jail "by mistake" under any system. But I think a well-designed system, like the french one is (well, was... :/) on this specific aspect (it's very broken on some other ones), can really minimize the risks.

What is wrong is that he broke the law. Sure, the law seems stupid, but he broke it, nonetheless. The age of consent laws have the ability to protect many minors, particularly when the age gap is more substantial.

I don't think that you have any right to say that he will rape someone.

Every teen in the world should be going to prison then. Kids will be kids.

Well, he's fucked, then. If he gets out alive, what is he going to do with himself? He'll never find a job that can adequately support himself.

So true. I hope noone makes stupid laws like that out here. Or I'll be starting an underground railroad for my students. Or possibly a bordello. I could make a lot of moolah.

*Begins campaigning for the Australian Christian Lobby*

Every teen in the world should be going to prison then. Kids will be kids.

Way to assume. :rolleyes:

So true. I hope noone makes stupid laws like that out here. Or I'll be starting an underground railroad for my students. Or possibly a bordello. I could make a lot of moolah.

*Begins campaigning for the Australian Christian Lobby*

Considering that it is against the law for anyone 16 years and over to have any type of sexual intercourse (yes, this includes oral sex, anal sex and mutual masterbation) with someone who is under the legal age of 16 in Australia, that "stupid" law already exists "here".

Way to assume. :rolleyes:

Oh come off it, a huge majority of teens get hot and heavy with their partners at some point before they reach adulthood. And sometimes in the most inappropriate of places :eek: .

Oh come off it, a huge majority of teens get hot and heavy with their partners at some point before they reach adulthood. And sometimes in the most inappropriate of places :eek: .

So? That doesn't make it LEGAL, does it?

Considering that it is against the law for anyone 16 years and over to have any type of sexual intercourse (yes, this includes oral sex, anal sex and mutual masterbation) with someone who is under the legal age of 16 in Australia, that "stupid" law already exists "here".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania

Australian Capital Territory
It is an offence in the Australian Capital Territory to engage in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 {s55(2)}. However the law does permit as a defence if brought to court, an age difference of 2 years for those older than 10 years {s55(3b)}. (Last updated 24th December 2005)

Tasmania
It is an offence in Tasmania to have sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17 {s13-124}. However it is a defence if no anal sex occurred and the younger person was of or above 12 years and the older was not more than 3 years their senior or, if no anal sex occurred and the younger person was of or above 15 years and the older was not more than 5 years their senior {s13-124(3)}. (Last updated 24th December 2005)

Victoria
It is an offence in Victoria to take part in sexual penetration with a person under the age of 16 {s45(1)}. However it is a defence if the younger party was aged 10 years or older and the defendant was not more than 2 years older than the younger party {s45(4)(b)}. It is a separate offence for a person to take part in sexual penetration with a 16 or 17 year old person who is under the care of the defendant {s48} (guardian, teacher etc).

___________________________________________

So, in at least 3 states, the kid would have been free. Wiki is a wonderful thing.

You were saying about the "stupid law" already existing?

So? That doesn't make it LEGAL, does it?

No, but it doesn't make it right to jail the poor kids for doing something perfectly natural, and that's practically forced down their throats by the media and marketing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Australia_and_Oceania

Australian Capital Territory
It is an offence in the Australian Capital Territory to engage in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 {s55(2)}. However the law does permit as a defence if brought to court, an age difference of 2 years for those older than 10 years {s55(3b)}. (Last updated 24th December 2005)

Tasmania
It is an offence in Tasmania to have sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17 {s13-124}. However it is a defence if no anal sex occurred and the younger person was of or above 12 years and the older was not more than 3 years their senior or, if no anal sex occurred and the younger person was of or above 15 years and the older was not more than 5 years their senior {s13-124(3)}. (Last updated 24th December 2005)

Victoria
It is an offence in Victoria to take part in sexual penetration with a person under the age of 16 {s45(1)}. However it is a defence if the younger party was aged 10 years or older and the defendant was not more than 2 years older than the younger party {s45(4)(b)}. It is a separate offence for a person to take part in sexual penetration with a 16 or 17 year old person who is under the care of the defendant {s48} (guardian, teacher etc).

___________________________________________

So, in at least 3 states, the kid would have been free. Wiki is a wonderful thing.

You were saying about the "stupid law" already existing?

It's still stagetory rape.

It's still stagetory rape.

Uh, I think you'll find in Australia it's called Carnal Knowledge.

No, no, you misunderstand. They're AGAINST backwards fucks.

Couldn't resist.

Lmfao.

Uh, I think you'll find in Australia it's called Carnal Knowledge.

Nope. It's called statutory rape. Carnal knowledge is old skool.

Nope. It's called statutory rape. Carnal knowledge is old skool.

bull never heard it used at all

Nope. It's called statutory rape. Carnal knowledge is old skool.

Really? I did not know that. I was looking through the Criminal Codes and could only find Carnal Knowledge though. have they changed very recently?

I always thought if you had "Carnal Knowlege" then it was "of a person" and it meant that you had had sex (of some sort) with that person. Here I've always head the offence of sex with someone under the age of 16 as Satutory Rape. The law here says that a person under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex (even if they were indeed willing) and so anyone found doing so is commiting rape according to statute regardless of the willingess of parties involved.

However, I do believe that this case is WAY OTT. I don't think it's out of order for a 17 year old to have a 15 year old girlfriend. The age difference is only 2 years. I think the spirit of the law could have been upheld simply by giving him the scare of his life perhaps (the law has to be seen to be upheld) but leniency given that the girl was his girlfriend and that it was consensual. No way do I think he deserved a 10 year sentence and a lifetime registration as a Sex Offender.

Uh, I think you'll find in Australia it's called Carnal Knowledge.

No, no it's not.

Really? I did not know that. I was looking through the Criminal Codes and could only find Carnal Knowledge though. have they changed very recently?

Can I just say that, from experiences that I'd rather not go into, it's definitely called "stagetory rape", according to the cops, at least.

I always thought if you had "Carnal Knowlege" then it was "of a person" and it meant that you had had sex (of some sort) with that person. Here I've always head the offence of sex with someone under the age of 16 as Satutory Rape. The law here says that a person under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex (even if they were indeed willing) and so anyone found doing so is commiting rape according to statute regardless of the willingess of parties involved.

However, I do believe that this case is WAY OTT. I don't think it's out of order for a 17 year old to have a 15 year old girlfriend. The age difference is only 2 years. I think the spirit of the law could have been upheld simply by giving him the scare of his life perhaps (the law has to be seen to be upheld) but leniency given that the girl was his girlfriend and that it was consensual. No way do I think he deserved a 10 year sentence and a lifetime registration as a Sex Offender.


I agree with everything you said. It is rape, because the law says so, even if the party is willing. But I would hate for any boy I've been with to be sentenced for 10 years, because it simply isn't fair punishment.

Can I just say that, from experiences that I'd rather not go into, it's definitely called "stagetory rape", according to the cops, at least.

I already admitted that I was wrong. And gave the reason why I thought this was so.

Your an idiot. The age of consent, 16, like in america occurs in many countries. Such as Australia. Here if your over 16 and have sex with someone under 16 you go to jail. Only in one state is there a clause for a couple that are close in age.

And for you people that complain about this. If you allow this then where the hell do you draw the line. If a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old isn't taking advantage then what is, an 18 year old? a 30 year old? The line has to be drawn somewhere. And i think 16 is the right age.

That's why the judge needs to have the power to exercise discretion. Minimum sentences are plain stupid and aim at appeasing the selfish, stupid electors in society. 10 years for a blow job. Ridiculous.

If it was a 30 Y.O. with a 14 Y.O. the judge would rightfully throw the book.

A new point. I notice he was black. Does anyone know if the little Angel was white? I have a feeling that might have affected his chance of being prosecuted by the D.A.

I already admitted that I was wrong. And gave the reason why I thought this was so.

I didn't realise.

That's why the judge needs to have the power to exercise discretion. Minimum sentences are plain stupid and aim at appeasing the selfish, stupid electors in society. 10 years for a blow job. Ridiculous.

If it was a 30 Y.O. with a 14 Y.O. the judge would rightfully throw the book.

A new point. I notice he was black. Does anyone know if the little Angel was white? I have a felling that might have affected his chance of being prosecuted by the D.A.

I am sick to death of people pulling the race card, but since I don't live in Gorgia, I don't know what their views are there. If their general population fits the stereotype I've so often heard of, that Southern Americans are racists, christian, anti-homosexual extremists, then I can see how his colour could affect his sentencing.

I am sick to death of people pulling the race card, but since I don't live in Gorgia, I don't know what their views are there. If their general population fits the stereotype I've so often heard of, that Southern Americans are racists, christian, anti-homosexual extremists, then I can see how his colour could affect his sentencing.

I lived in the South for 26 years and I can say without equivocation that I think it has only improved in the rural South slightly. Major metropolitan areas like Atlanta aren't bad. But the stereotype is there for a reason.

I think it might be because you tend to find more of those misbegotten types there. The modern South has been trying to get rid of that label for a while.

But sadly, it never surprises me when I hear about anti-gay or racist things going on in the South. I've lived there in a sufficient amount of years to know that it will take a long time for that to go away, especially in the rural South.

Age of consent issues in the South have long been confusing. It used to vary from 13-16.

It is darn shame this kid has been screwed over by the system. If he had a bright future, it has been cut down before it even happened. This is why I have long not favored mandatory sentencing guidelines. Silly, foolish things like this happen when a judge does not have latitude and discretion to interpret the law reasonably.

Another bit of fallout of the whine from neoconservatives that "judges legislate from the bench" and appoint the most hard line conservative jurists to the bench.

Agreed. I lost my virginity at age 14, to another 14-year-old.

you are lucky you were not caught. If you ended with this DA and this judge you'd BOTH end in jail as child molesters.

Lmfao.

I'm here 'till thursday folks.


I am sick to death of people pulling the race card, but since I don't live in Gorgia, I don't know what their views are there. If their general population fits the stereotype I've so often heard of, that Southern Americans are racists, christian, anti-homosexual extremists, then I can see how his colour could affect his sentencing.

They are like that, in many places, I'm afraid. I hate the race card too, but in this case it is almost certainly a valid point.

And carnal knowledge? I'm in trouble. I have all kinds of carnal knowledge. I mean, I get more every week when I have to look things up on Urban Dictionary.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.

That's just fucked up. Laws on child molestation should take age differences into account. If a 17 year old sleeps with a 16 year old, it should be accepted as consensual. Same thing for the two 13 year olds who were accused of raping each other.

you are lucky you were not caught. If you ended with this DA and this judge you'd BOTH end in jail as child molesters.

That's not true. 14 year olds don't get thrown in jail.

Same thing for the two 13 year olds who were accused of raping each other.

Holy shit. That actually happened?

This is fucking insane. 2 fucking years. To prove a point? To maintain principles? What principle is he maintaining by imprisoning a young man, barely over the legal limit himself (in the UK, that is, where it's 16), who appears to have had consensual oral sex with a girl 2 years his junior (15, the age of consent in France among other countries; the limit in Portugal, as well as a number of other countries being 14)?

Fuck... I think we should start realising that people under 20 are not fucking paedophiles, given that they are still pubescent themselves until the age of 21 in many cases. Let's bring some sanity and common sense back to rulings in these cases.

Fuck... I think we should start realising that people under 20 are not fucking paedophiles, given that they are still pubescent themselves until the age of 21 in many cases. Let's bring some sanity and common sense back to rulings in these cases.

My friend and I had a similar thought a few months ago. Why can't minors look at porn depicting minors? We thought we should keep adults away from the stuff, but with people in roughly the same age range, it would be okay. Like a 16 year old looking at porn of a 14 year old or vice versa or whatever.


It was just a weird point.

No, but it doesn't make it right to jail the poor kids for doing something perfectly natural, and that's practically forced down their throats by the media and marketing.

The problem is that, despite your opinion being completely justified, it is illegal. Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the law should be changed.

The problem is that, despite your opinion being completely justified, it is illegal. Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the law should be changed.

the law is totally unjust. And, I have to make a jibe here:
(Do not highlight if easily offended)
Media ideas about sex aren't the only thing that went down her throat. Heh heh heh.

the law is totally unjust. And, I have to make a jibe here:
(Do not highlight if easily offended)
Media ideas about sex aren't the only thing that went down her throat. Heh heh heh.

The problem is that the law protects a lot of individuals also. I personally think that anything besides actual intercourse is fine, because so many people fall in love (and lust) with an older man/woman, but I guess that this would be really hard to define. My 16/17 year old ex-boyfriend made love to me when I was 15, but it was my decision, and I actually instigated it. It was perfectly natural, enjoyable and not what I'd call "rape". However, defining the law would be so hard. If you could base the law on maturity rather than age it would be much more effective. I have nothing against sex. I LOVE sex, haha! And I'm probably one of the first people to say age is just a number and sex is natural, but when it comes to situations where a 40-year-old and, say, a 13-year-old engage in intercourse it's absolutely innapropriate, and I believe that the older person is responsible because they should know better.

So, ten whole years for this poor bastard.

Fuck... I think we should start realising that people under 20 are not fucking paedophiles, given that they are still pubescent themselves until the age of 21 in many cases.

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescents. As such it is fully possible for a teenager to be a pedophile. Sanity and common sense? What does yours tell you about say, a 16 year old and a 9 year old? No pedophilia there?

My friend and I had a similar thought a few months ago. Why can't minors look at porn depicting minors? We thought we should keep adults away from the stuff, but with people in roughly the same age range, it would be okay. Like a 16 year old looking at porn of a 14 year old or vice versa or whatever.
Problem is that that porn has to be made in the first place. And chances are it would be involving adults who make it, and chances are that the 14 year old wouldn't have been giving consent.

Its interesting to note that in 12 pages of people expressing outrage and ire at this decision, nooone has seen fit to mention that in fact the State of Georgia has since enacted a Romeo and Juliet law making this behavior legal and the point of contention in the appeal was if this R&J law could be applied retroactivly. The courts found that the language of the new law did not allow retroactive coverage. However this is no longer a currently valid law that would allow this to happen again.

Its interesting to note that in 12 pages of people expressing outrage and ire at this decision, nooone has seen fit to mention that in fact the State of Georgia has since enacted a Romeo and Juliet law making this behavior legal and the point of contention in the appeal was if this R&J law could be applied retroactivly. The courts found that the language of the new law did not allow retroactive coverage. However this is no longer a currently valid law that would allow this to happen again.

So what? The poor guy's life is ruined.

So what? The poor guy's life is ruined.

This is the point of my annoyance. If you know it's wrong, make a "Romeo and Juliet" law to prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring, then why does your own Supreme Court REJECT the kid's appeal?

I know why, a stupid BLOODY TECHNICALITY. This kid gets screwed because the idiots in black robes at the Ga Supreme Court say because this kid was sentenced under the old law he gets no reprieve while mouthing sympathetic platitudes as to the kid's ruined life.

:rolleyes:

The judge should be the one thrown into jail.Nope.. That judge did the rigth thing. We need more judges like him.

Nope.. That judge did the rigth thing. We need more judges like him.

If we did, I'd reccomend abolishing the judicial system and just let crimes go unpunished. I would rather let 100 people who are truly criminals go free, than convict one person of a stupid "crime"

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.

Shit, that's messed up. I hope I can't be sentenced that severely for touching 14-year-old in a movie theatre.

(FYI, I'm 15)

Its interesting to note that in 12 pages of people expressing outrage and ire at this decision, nooone has seen fit to mention that in fact the State of Georgia has since enacted a Romeo and Juliet law making this behavior legal and the point of contention in the appeal was if this R&J law could be applied retroactivly. The courts found that the language of the new law did not allow retroactive coverage. However this is no longer a currently valid law that would allow this to happen again.

So?
The point is that this poor guy's life is fucked up because of a technicality.
Doesn't matter that that technicality doesn't exist anymore if it doesn't get him off.

So?
The point is that this poor guy's life is fucked up because of a technicality.
Doesn't matter that that technicality doesn't exist anymore if it doesn't get him off.

While noone thinks that this kid going to jail for 10 years is a good thing, i think it was important to note that this wrong has been adressed for future occurances and despite the ill effects of the old law on this particular individual my goal of posting the change of the law was to show this would no longer happen in the future. Yet all i get is "so what" reactions which somewhat confuses me as opposed to "well good at least they have fixed the law" which i would have expected.

This is the point of my annoyance. If you know it's wrong, make a "Romeo and Juliet" law to prevent miscarriages of justice from occurring, then why does your own Supreme Court REJECT the kid's appeal?

I know why, a stupid BLOODY TECHNICALITY. This kid gets screwed because the idiots in black robes at the Ga Supreme Court say because this kid was sentenced under the old law he gets no reprieve while mouthing sympathetic platitudes as to the kid's ruined life.

:rolleyes:

Its not the Supreme Courts job to decide when a law starts and when it doesnt. Its hands are tied by the Legislature. The Supreme Court rejected the childs appeals based on the wording of the law that the Legislature wrote. This is the Supreme Courts only job. What exactly did the Court do wrong in your opinion?

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescents. As such it is fully possible for a teenager to be a pedophile. Sanity and common sense? What does yours tell you about say, a 16 year old and a 9 year old? No pedophilia there?

Sorry, I should've been clearer: A teenager is naturally an ephebophile, if that's even the right word ("a youth of 18 who has gone through the dokimasia" is one definition; not highly relevant, given the dokimasia was an element of ancient Athenian democracy. I'm going for a word for one who loves adolescents and this is the closest one I've found. I'm loath to create a new one as I don't know enough Ancient Greek to create a new word that's not a synthesis of Latin and Greek..)... anyway, attracted to other teenagers.
In any case, for it to be diagnosed as paedophilia or ephebophilia (or whatever) it has to be a lasting sexual preference. For example, a young man or woman of 18 who falls in love with a young man or woman of 14 or 15, then pursues a relationship with her into adulthood would not be a paedophile. These terms are really only of use in cases where there is an abuse of trust, or consent cannot truly be given, the consequences of ones acts not fully understood. While a blanket law, such as an age of consent, is advantageous in a great number of cases, protecting children and adolescents from abusive older adults, it can have a detrimental effect on those only slightly over the lines either way. While not inside the supposed societal "norms" I do not believe people such as those in the hypothetical case I desrcibed above (14-15 and 18) should be prosecuted as child molesters, given the very small disparity in age between two consenting parties, insofar as both understand their actions and the consequences thereof. Obviously the maturity of the parties must be taken into account, so I don't reccommend a change in law; simply the assessment of each case on its individual merits.

Bloody hell that was long. 0_0

There are laws...You break them, you deserve your punishment.

There are laws...You break them, you deserve your punishment.

Because all laws are just. *snort*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533

There are laws...You break them, you deserve your punishment.

In a rational society, we weigh laws and thier validity. We change them if we think they are unjust and unfair and have negative unforseen impacts on people. We dont just blindly shrug and say hey thems is the rules tough shit.

What's really sad is that if I hadn't seen it on here, I'd never have heard anything about it. This kind of injustice needs to be more widely reported so that hopefully we can stop going to newer and newer heights of utter stupidity.

Worst part about it is that particular act would have been perfectly legal in most states, yet in Georgia it's considered so severe that you get a 10 year prison term on the FIRST OFFENSE. That's lunacy.

We have got to stop electing officials who run on the "getting tough on crime" or using catchphrases like "think of the children" or "tougher laws" without actually applying common sense and reason. Sometimes using an ever bigger hammer isn't the way to deal with stuff.

What's really sad is that if I hadn't seen it on here, I'd never have heard anything about it. This kind of injustice needs to be more widely reported so that hopefully we can stop going to newer and newer heights of utter stupidity.

Worst part about it is that particular act would have been perfectly legal in most states, yet in Georgia it's considered so severe that you get a 10 year prison term on the FIRST OFFENSE. That's lunacy.

We have got to stop electing officials who run on the "getting tough on crime" or using catchphrases like "think of the children" or "tougher laws" without actually applying common sense and reason. Sometimes using an ever bigger hammer isn't the way to deal with stuff.

To be fair (and to acknowledge intestinal fluids) you can't get a 10 year sentence for this particular act in Georgia anymore.
I'm going to post Georgia's law here now and see what people say about it.
I read it, and it's now a 10 year sentence for a 21 year old and a 16 year old (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=6&section=3). Better, but still a bit Draconian.

There are laws...You break them, you deserve your punishment.

Quit trolling. You can't possibly think that this law is just.

Quit trolling. You can't possibly think that this law is just.

Well, certain people in Saudi Arabia seem to think Saudi Arabian laws are just.
Too bad they're not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia).

I realize this is kinda gravedigging, but I just had to add another point:
This is clearly cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)and so this guy should appeal this to the federal courts.

Every time I think this thread is dead and start to forget about it, it comes back.:D


IT'S THE JESUS OF THREADS!

Every time I think this thread is dead and start to forget about it, it comes back.:D


IT'S THE JESUS OF THREADS!

Yeah, it just won't die.
Can I use gun smileys to kill it?
Pweeease??? :D :p

10 years is insane first of all i feel bad for the kid but i'm not saying the law sholdn't of done anything. It is the law and I think its fine rather than the punishment dealed out (especially in this case, since it wasn't actual sex and he seemed like he was a pretty good kid marks wise) but people gotta have some self disipline and self control

10 years is insane first of all i feel bad for the kid but i'm not saying the law sholdn't of done anything. It is the law and I think its fine rather than the punishment dealed out (especially in this case, since it wasn't actual sex and he seemed like he was a pretty good kid marks wise) but people gotta have some self disipline and self control

Oral sex deserves some kind of punishment?
What? :confused:

In minors, if the law thinks so then i won't fight them

Yeah, it just won't die.
Can I use gun smileys to kill it?
Pweeease??? :D :p

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/images/smilies/AR15firing.gif:mp5:http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/images/smilies/rocketwhore.gifhttp://www.newtiburon.com/forums/images/smilies/guns/qright2.gifhttp://www.newtiburon.com/forums/images/smilies/guns/qright3.gif
http://www.newtiburon.com/forums/images/smilies/guns/qright3.gifhttp://www.wannabebigforums.com/images/smilies/shoot.gif

http://www.flatto.de/sml/gun-04.gif

Anybody else wanna negotiate?

Well, he obviously wasn't in Vermont. I just heard that a Vermont prosecutor made a deal with a man that molested a young child either 4 or 5 yrs old. Prosecutor reduced the charges to some kind of battery or assault charge which would make it his 3rd conviction and the Judge gave him no jail time and mandatory Rehab. Now that's absurd.

As a strong believer in harsh penalties for sex offenders, I can't agree with sentencing a 17 yr old for having consensual sex with a 15 yr old. 13 yrs. old I'd say absolutely but not 17/15.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.
Only in America.:)

Only in America.:)

*Cue 'America the Beautiful'*

*Cue 'America the Beautiful'*

The land of the freeeeeee.....:D

The land of the freeeeeee.....:D

In the land of corporate greeeeeed
And the hoooome
of theee
slaaaaveeees
-Radical Cheerleader National Anthem.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.

Simply unbelievable. Well, actually, it's completely and unfortunately believable. If the governor of the state isn't working on a pardon and the state is not revising the law, then I certainly hope they have a complete turnover next election. This is heartbreaking.

Simply unbelievable. Well, actually, it's completely and unfortunately believable. If the governor of the state isn't working on a pardon and the state is not revising the law, then I certainly hope they have a complete turnover next election. This is heartbreaking.

For the love of GOD... PLEASE go back and actually read the thread. 14k posts you should know better. This is discused less than a page ago.

In minors, if the law thinks so then i won't fight them

A law as stupid as this needs fixed with my lubed fist. Dripping lube on the paper it's on, making the ink run and making the law invalid. PERVERT!

For the love of GOD... PLEASE go back and actually read the thread. 14k posts you should know better. This is discused less than a page ago.

Um, I've not read all 14 pages, and I'm quite entitled to my opinion. I responded to everything available in the article. However, if you see something the article that I missed, make an argument. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look silly. You'll notice I didn't attack the court. I attacked the law and the act of punishing this child. I suggested he be pardoned which is perfectly legal when the law is unjust and that the law be changed. Reading not your strong suit?

EDIT: I see you're referring to the fact that they already amended the law. However, it still leaves this child in jail and you acting like an idiot because I've not gotten to your post yet.

Its interesting to note that in 12 pages of people expressing outrage and ire at this decision, nooone has seen fit to mention that in fact the State of Georgia has since enacted a Romeo and Juliet law making this behavior legal and the point of contention in the appeal was if this R&J law could be applied retroactivly. The courts found that the language of the new law did not allow retroactive coverage. However this is no longer a currently valid law that would allow this to happen again.

Glad to hear it. It's sad that they made such a grievious mistake in the first place. They of course could have written the law so that this child could have been freed but didn't. They are still culpable.

Meanwhile, they still allow for this young man to be jailed for consensual sex with his girlfriend of only two years difference. This post, this remarkably unremarkable post, is the one that drove you to behave in such a manner? Really? You present none of the pertinent information and the information you present is misleading if one is to give you benefit of the doubt. This law would still allow for this child to be sent to prison for 15 months for doing NOTHING wrong. Hardly defensible. It also names itself after a tragedy designed to teach us what happens when people try to stifle love. The behavior is still not legal.

Wow, I also committed this crime when I was 17. Except we had full-on intercourse.

However, it still leaves this child in jail and you acting like an idiot because I've not gotten to your post yet.

Gotten to my post yet? LMAO sorry it was only posted 3 WEEKS ago my apologies for thinking you had enough time to get around to it by now.

ALSO posted earlier in this thread http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

July 1st, the new Romeo and Juliet law went into effect in Georgia for any other teen that engages in consensual sexual acts. That change in the law means that no teen prosecuted for consensual oral sex could receive more than a 12 months sentence or be required to register as a sex offender.

Had this law been in effect when Genarlow Wilson was arrested, or had been done after the Marcus Dixon case, Genarlow would not now be in jail.

Gotten to my post yet? LMAO sorry it was only posted 3 WEEKS ago my apologies for thinking you had enough time to get around to it by now.

Amusing. I opened the thread today and your post was hardly worth noticing. It was provably wrong. The behavior this child was prosecuted for is still illegal. You might find this surprising, but I don't read every thread that comes through general. This thread fell off about the same time as that post was made, perhaps because nothing was being said that had any merit.

You are noticeably unapologetic for the errors in your post and the FACT that this is still illegal and everything, every word of my original post is still accurate.

Now, care to address the topic and your errors in your understanding of the R & J law or would you like to keep digging this whole.

Gotten to my post yet? LMAO sorry it was only posted 3 WEEKS ago my apologies for thinking you had enough time to get around to it by now.

ALSO posted earlier in this thread http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

July 1st, the new Romeo and Juliet law went into effect in Georgia for any other teen that engages in consensual sexual acts. That change in the law means that no teen prosecuted for consensual oral sex could receive more than a 12 months sentence or be required to register as a sex offender.

Had this law been in effect when Genarlow Wilson was arrested, or had been done after the Marcus Dixon case, Genarlow would not now be in jail.

Okay, now let's see what your post says -
nooone has seen fit to mention that in fact the State of Georgia has since enacted a Romeo and Juliet law making this behavior legal

So this behavior is still illegal. It's still wrong that it's illegal. The legislature and the governor still have work to do. And you were wrong as proven by the very link you quoted. Embarrassed, yet?

EDIT: And let's see what I said and if I posted accurately.

Simply unbelievable. Well, actually, it's completely and unfortunately believable. If the governor of the state isn't working on a pardon and the state is not revising the law, then I certainly hope they have a complete turnover next election. This is heartbreaking.

Hmmm... can you please point out what part of my post is wrong? Obviously, you were wrong and clearly ignorant when you said this behavior is now legal, but what part of my post was wrong or ignorant? Notice how I didn't say it wasn't being revisited, but instead said IF IT ISN"T BEING REVISITED it should (an admission that I wasn't sure if it was or wasn't). Reading comprehension is certainly a class you've completed by now. Please employ it.

So this behavior is still illegal. It's still wrong that it's illegal. The legislature and the governor still have work to do. And you were wrong as proven by the very link you quoted.

You are correct i misread the wording originallly. My bad. Thed punishment has been dramatically reduced but not made legal. But i was correct in asserting that legislaters had given the issue consideration and had said as much. Clearly you were unaware of this effort despite the fact i stated it was all.

You are correct i misread the wording originallly. My bad. Thed punishment has been dramatically reduced but not made legal.

So again, what part of my post was based on ignorance or was incorrect? So much so that you attacked me, hmmm? I clearly stated that [b]if it's not being revisited it should[b] which says both that it needs to be changed and that it could already be changed or in the process. I'll wait for you to explain your response in the event you'd like to save face, because right now it seems like you hold others to higher standard than you hold yourself to. Apparently, I'm supposed to read 14 pages of ranting, but you're not supposed to read a tiny little article that explains that this is still illegal.

Okay guys, you don't have to argue over whether you undestood each other or not.
It's just too small, even for NS.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2&weak

"Child Molestation" Being making love to his 15 year old girlfriend.

Getting a 15 year old girl to suck him off hardly qualifies as making love.
Luckily there will plenty of time for oral sex where he is going.

Getting a 15 year old girl to suck him off hardly qualifies as making love.
Luckily there will plenty of time for oral sex where he is going.

So should they both go to jail? He was underage as well. Would you be dancing around the pyre if this was a 17-year-old girl who had talked a 15-year-old boy into oral sex.

You claim facts not in evidence. We don't know that he talked her into anything. My 13-year-old nephew has been offered oral sex in his neighborhood several times, by girls around his age. I hardly think he should spend two decades in prison if he agrees (though I would think it a very bad decision on his part).

So should they both go to jail? He was underage as well. Would you be dancing around the pyre if this was a 17-year-old girl who had talked a 15-year-old boy into oral sex.

You claim facts not in evidence. We don't know that he talked her into anything. My 13-year-old nephew has been offered oral sex in his neighborhood several times, by girls around his age. I hardly think he should spend two decades in prison if he agrees (though I would think it a very bad decision on his part).

It doesnt really matter.
Age of consent in Georgia is 16(FACT)
She was 15(FACT)
It has no bearing if she was laying there begging for it, she isnt of the age to consent..meaning under the law she could not have consented under the law.
The law doesnt make exemptions for females going after males under the age of consent so a 17 year old girl would be in the same position if she did that to a 15 year old boy. Get over yourself.

So he gets what he deserves.

The law isnt biased against boys--he is considered old enough and he made a choice to be with a girl who isnt...would you be screaming if he had emptied a draw of cash from a liquor store just because it was left open?

You claim facts not in evidence--him being under age....oh wait did you even check that before you started defending him?

How old are you?

I have an 11 year old daughter almost the age of your nephew....and you know what no, she isnt anywhere near responsible enough to consent to sex.

Typically two people belive kids should be allowed to consent to sex, pedophiles and other kids....which one are you?


And before you stat in about the gender bias....I would press charges for a woman fecking with my sons just I would a man fecking with my daughters.


Anything else you want me to cover?

Almost as bad as the Vermont guy with 2 priors for assault (1 including stabbing his wife with a screw driver) who plead guilty to molesting a 4 year old. The 4 year old says 10 times. Now that's a MAJOR felony and all the judge gave him was rehabilitation and parole.

The American justice system isn't justice.

It doesnt really matter.
Age of consent in Georgia is 16(FACT)
She was 15(FACT)
It has no bearing if she was laying there begging for it, she isnt of the age to consent..meaning under the law she could not have consented under the law.
The law doesnt make exemptions for females going after males under the age of consent so a 17 year old girl would be in the same position if she did that to a 15 year old boy. Get over yourself.

So he gets what he deserves.

So you feel that 17-year-old children should be imprisoned for 20 years for having sex with a girl two years his junior. Your love for children overwhelms me. Not old enough or responsible enough to vote, but this young man is responsible enough to end up in prison for 20 years. How equitable.

Now, do you agree that if this would have been two fifteen-year-olds they should both go to prison for 20 years?

The law isnt biased against boys--he is considered old enough and he made a choice to be with a girl who isnt...would you be screaming if he had emptied a draw of cash from a liquor store just because it was left open?

You claim facts not in evidence--him being under age....oh wait did you even check that before you started defending him?

How old are you?

I have an 11 year old daughter almost the age of your nephew....and you know what no, she isnt anywhere near responsible enough to consent to sex.

I said that. I said that if my nephew ended up saying yes to these girls that he would clearly be making a very bad decision, but I wouldn't throw him or the girls into prison.

Typically two people belive kids should be allowed to consent to sex, pedophiles and other kids....which one are you?

Amusing, but an obviously fallacious argument. Typically two kinds of people rely on such a ridiculous argument, people who hate children and idiots. Which one are you? See, we could do this all day.

I didn't say they should be allowed to consent to sex. I said they shouldn't be thrown in prison for it. I don't think children should drink either, but I'm not up for giving them two decades of prison time to become and actual criminal in an effort to protect them from a minor offense.

Yes, I think sex is too mature an act for teenagers. I also think that this girl having to deal with the fact that she is a contributor to her boyfriend ending up in prison for 20 years.

Pedophilia does not apply to teenagers. Pedophilia by definition refers to prebuscent children. 15 does not qualify.

And before you stat in about the gender bias....I would press charges for a woman fecking with my sons just I would a man fecking with my daughters.
Forrest? Or do you just rely on the same fallacies?

Anything else you want me to cover?

Well, first I think you should probably recognize that you've suggested that the sex act requires one to be less responsible than voting. I disagree.

You've also claimed that the sex act requires one to be less responsible than drinking. I disagree.

And clearly, had these two young people been drinking a beer, you would also support a two decade term, no?

Meanwhile, you realize that the legislature that made the law said this was not the intent of the law and changed it. FACT. They seem to disagree that he got what he deserved.

You know what I think would be worse for your children than having sex? Prison. I'm sorry you don't care enough about them to agree.

Almost as bad as the Vermont guy with 2 priors for assault (1 including stabbing his wife with a screw driver) who plead guilty to molesting a 4 year old. The 4 year old says 10 times. Now that's a MAJOR felony and all the judge gave him was rehabilitation and parole.

The American justice system isn't justice.

Of course, this doesn't remotely resemble justice. The law is designed to deal with predators, not a horny teenaged boy who made a really bad decision. This wasn't even some 30-year-old, it was a 17-year-old whose life is ruined and likely thanks to the justice system so is the 15-year-old girl's life. Everyone she knows undoubtedly knows this happened. She has to know for the rest of her life that her actions contributed to destruction of the life of another person who was quite clearly only equally responsible or irresponsible. She has to know that everyone in her family and everyone of her friends are aware that she blew the guy.

Sex, love, relationships, likely all ruined for her. But hey, look our friend a couple of pages earlier says you cannot protest such a ridiculous position unless you are a pedophile or a child. Which are you?

I haven't read the thread but I really just need to say

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST; THAT POOR BOY

several times.

this fucking destrooooooooooooyed an otherwise perfectly good evening.
jesus.

You poor asswipes in Georgia - no - in the US. You sad, whipped, sods. How *do* you do it?

I haven't read the thread but I really just need to say

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST; THAT POOR BOY

several times.

this fucking destrooooooooooooyed an otherwise perfectly good evening.
jesus.

You poor asswipes in Georgia - no - in the US. You sad, whipped, sods. How *do* you do it?

A. Not all Americans agree with such a miscarriage of justice.
B. They already attempted to correct this problem, except they altered the law to make it still illegal with a less stiff penalty (still ruining a child and a young man for not particularly good evening).

...but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.

:mad: That's just fucking America... :(

It doesnt really matter.
Age of consent in Georgia is 16(FACT)
She was 15(FACT)
It has no bearing if she was laying there begging for it, she isnt of the age to consent..meaning under the law she could not have consented under the law.
The law doesnt make exemptions for females going after males under the age of consent so a 17 year old girl would be in the same position if she did that to a 15 year old boy. Get over yourself.

So he gets what he deserves.

The law isnt biased against boys--he is considered old enough and he made a choice to be with a girl who isnt...would you be screaming if he had emptied a draw of cash from a liquor store just because it was left open?

You claim facts not in evidence--him being under age....oh wait did you even check that before you started defending him?

How old are you?

I have an 11 year old daughter almost the age of your nephew....and you know what no, she isnt anywhere near responsible enough to consent to sex.

Typically two people belive kids should be allowed to consent to sex, pedophiles and other kids....which one are you?


And before you stat in about the gender bias....I would press charges for a woman fecking with my sons just I would a man fecking with my daughters.


Anything else you want me to cover?

Unfortunately, it was individuals like yourself who claimed that my molester was not able to consent to sex and therefore should not be prosecuted (she was thirteen). It's exactly the kind of attitude that people like yourself have that says that there is a magical moment where responsibility occurs. If the boy had been a year younger, no crime. But he hits seventeen and he's in prison for 20 years and labeled a sex offender.

You can't claim that 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 17-year-old while saying that a 13-year-old is responsible for sex with a prepubescent. As a result, my molester was able to get away with molesting me for over a year and molesting another child while suffering a slap on the hand, particularly in comparison to 20 years.

*Snip frothing-at-mouth rant*

...You didn't get any in high school, did you?