NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this has more to do with institutional racism. What do you want to bet that if this had been a white kid this would have never made it to trial.

I too wonder if the girl was white and probably a senator's daughter.


This is very unjust! He should be pardoned and set free. He must of had a crappy lawyer. It sounds like it is a real stupid law. There are many out there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

Oh, my, fuck! This is insane! 10 years! For something a 17-year old and a 15-year old both consented to?! I am almost speechless.

"I think prosecutors have a duty to make sure they don’t take cases to trial that they can win, when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime."

Well, duh!

*is glad that age of consent is 15 here, and that closeness in age is considered even when someone who's below 18 has sex with someone below 15 so that they never get prosecuted anyway*

As most know I am ardent about ...well executing people who have sex with children.

However, 17-15...no one should be going to jail.

I mean, maybe a 30 days for not checking an ID...and telling him to wait six months(consent where I am is 16)...hell when I was 17 if you got caught with a 15 year old usually you just got beat down.

This wasnt rape, it wasnt anything but what it was.
Sad, very sad.

BUt hopefully he gets out on the legislation change and then he wont even have to register as S.O. and have his entire life ruined.

Of course...where I live pblic urination can get ou registered as an S.O. ...but that is another thread.

Sorry, no. It doesn't happen in a real justice system.

You know what a plea deal is? It is the concept of partial proof. The Crown (or whatever the US calls the state prosecutor) does not prove guilt. The accused does not admit guilt (as they would by pleading guilty in an actual trial.)
The two parties reach an arrangement which is satisfactory to neither.

Best justification I have heard for plea deals is to reduce the caseload on courts and the cost of administering justice. Got a better reason?

Um, in the US a plea can only be received with an admission of guilt. Also in most cases a judge can refuse to accept the plea..and force trial. The prosecutor does not have final say on a plea, a judge does.

If the prosecutor wants someone to be punished they submit to the will of the court...plea deals are still considered prosecution in the US. As such they must be signed off by a judge.

The guy in question here simply had the bad luck to get caught giving a white girl (yes, this is important!) a BJ in a state in the deep South.)

My god! This case includes crossdressing?

There are times when I wonder if I'm being too hard on conservatives, and then I see this stuff and remember just what kind of nonsense I'm dealing with.

There are times when I wonder if I'm being too hard on conservatives

I don't think that's possible.

I think this has more to do with institutional racism. What do you want to bet that if this had been a white kid this would have never made it to trial.

I too wonder if the girl was white and probably a senator's daughter.


This is very unjust! He should be pardoned and set free. He must of had a crappy lawyer. It sounds like it is a real stupid law. There are many out there.

I said it was racism too, but everyone else has overlooked it.

I said it was racism too, but everyone else has overlooked it.we did not overlooked it.

we know deep inside US it was a factor.. but its US (our) custom not to talk about it. (it= race factor/race card/etc)

<<info+: by "US" I actually mean "most of US"<<
BTW I am NOT saying "we should not talk about it".. I am telling it the way I see it (http://images.google.com/images?q=3+monkeys).

You wouldn't have taken it (reduced sentence), *after* being convicted? What does the extra 5 years do for you if you're forced to register either way? Your right to appeal is the same. Seems pointless.

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but just in case:

No, his right to appeal would not be the same. If he took the deal, it would be a guilty plea - an admission of guilt. It would also be a clear agreement to the punishment offered him. He would have no opportunity whatsoever to appeal that in the court system unless he could demonstrate that he somehow wasn't qualified to take it.

As it is, unless he manages to get somewhere in court or there are major changes in the legislature, the governor is now his only hope for actually having a life. And I doubt Sonny is going to care.

I said it was racism too, but everyone else has overlooked it.

I pointed out from the very beginning that it was most likely a matter of his ethnic background, just as it clearly was with Marcus Dixon and other similar cases in GA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

Oh, my, fuck! This is insane! 10 years! For something a 17-year old and a 15-year old both consented to?! I am almost speechless.

"I think prosecutors have a duty to make sure they don’t take cases to trial that they can win, when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime."

Well, duh!

*is glad that age of consent is 15 here, and that closeness in age is considered even when someone who's below 18 has sex with someone below 15 so that they never get prosecuted anyway*

WTF?!?!?!

a TWO YEAR age gap and he gets locked up? WTF?!?!?! No doubt because of stupid attitudes like that shown in the second post. In England it's technically illegal (because it's illegal for a person over the age of consent to have sex with someone under the age of consent) but when there's such a tiny age gap, the cops use their discretion and don't make an arrest (besides, it would NEVER get to court).

For fuck sake, how insanely stupid can you get?!?!

WTF?!?!?!WTF indeed, he does not belong in prison. (not even for one day.)


In England ... it's illegal for a person over the age of consent to have sex with someone under the age of consent..same here.. and In Saudi Arabia.. and in some other Countries..


the cops use their discretion and don't make an arrest ...

I dont agree..
The US Cops and the US Judge are just following the letter of the US Law..

Thumbs up to the Cops.
Thumbs up to the Judge.

The important thing is that his promising life was ruined .

A star athlete with several scholarship options for college, now down the drain.

I have friends personally who know people who went to prison for just 1 or 2 years and it screwed them up for the rest of their life. They were raped in prison in the very sick (But often made fun of) prison rape, have all kinds of issues, ended up doing more drugs and criminal things. I would be scared to go, and would kill myself if i had been sent o prison for over 1 year.

He will probably come out mentally messed up or a criminal.

That's what he/they get for messing some little white skank. If someone has to get in trouble for this.. it should be her ass, IMO. When I was in high school some guy friends of mine (some black) went to a party at preppy, but wild ass white girls house from the high school across town. She let a bunch of dudes run a train on her. One of her friends told their parents, who of course called this girls parents.. Well long story short, she cried rape and one of the guys (black, go figure) caught the rap, and it cost his parents a shit load in court/lawyer fees and getting him out on bond. It was really some foul shit. Then someone beats her ass, and I get accused of that, because I was dating him at the time. I did not do it tho.

I know this is a different scenario, but be honest .. if this girl had been black this shit more than likely never would've been made an issue of. Not going to say if the guys were white something wouldn've happened, but I bet the out come would've been different. Just imagine them in court watching this girl sucking off them black dudes. I hope he doesn't get a child predator thing put on him and he doesn't go to jail, or if he's in, he gets out asap. And I hope they all learned a lesson.

WTF indeed, he does not belong in prison. (not even for one day.)


same here.. and In Saudi Arabia.. and in some other Countries..


I dont agree..
The Cops and the Judge are (would be) just following the letter of the British/US Law..

Thumbs up to the Cops.
Thumbs up to the Judge.

Whether you "agree" or not is irrelevant. The police here (England) can use their discretion. They would not have to arrest the boy. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would not take it to court even if the police did refer the "case" to them, due to it being fucking stupid.

Whether you "agree" or not is irrelevant. The police here (England) can use their discretion. They would not have to arrest the boy. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would not take it to court even if the police did refer the "case" to them, due to it being fucking stupid.I dont know the fairness of the UK Justice System.

But as far as US are concerned:
you precious Discretion is what Injustice is made of.

Like I said thumbs up the the Judge.

The more Judges we have like this one.. the sooner we get rid of that turd the US -Justice System- calls "Discretion" on rape cases.

I dont know the fairness of the UK Justice System.

But as far as US are concerned:
you precious Discretion is what Injustice is made of.

Like I said thumbs up the the Judge.

The more Judges we have like this one.. the sooner we get rid of that turd the US -Justice System- calls "Discretion" on rape cases.

No, discretion is what makes justice work - you don't arrest someone if no complaint is made just because the law says it would be technically illegal to do so, when it would be unreasonable to do so in the circumstances. If a complaint is made, the police have to arrest then (so no it doesn't affect rape cases) but if there's not enough evidence (like no complaint from supposed victim), the CPS don't touch it. Especially when there's only a two year age gap in consensual sex.

It's fucked-up stupid "I'm an example of how stupid Americans are" attitudes like yours that help cause injustice and make the rest of the world continue to believe Americans are stupid.

No, discretion is what makes justice work - you don't arrest someone if no complaint is made just because the law says it would be technically illegal to do so, when it would be unreasonable to do so in the circumstances. If a complaint is made, the police have to arrest then (so no it doesn't affect rape cases) but if there's not enough evidence (like no complaint from supposed victim), the CPS don't touch it.#1 So.. in the UK you have technical crimes? ..two times in a roll you use the expression "Technically illegal".. but FYI no such a thing exist in the US. Its illegal or not.

#2 as far as this case is concerned.. I stand 100% by my previous statements.
-Discretion stinks-
-Thumbs up to the Judge-

It's fucked-up stupid "I'm an example of how stupid Americans are" attitudes like yours that help cause injustice and make the rest of the world continue to believe Americans are stupid.

You know, dude, a lot of the people here calling this stupid and saying that there should have been discretion are in fact Americans. Two whole people are defending it-that's hardly cause enough to call us stupid. You might want to ease up there a bit, champ.

.. attitudes like yours that help cause injustice and make the rest of the world continue to believe Americans are stupid.It seems to me you are accusing me of being.. a racist.. a Nigga-hater..

are you?

It seems to me you are accusing me of being.. a racist.. a Nigga-hater..

are you?

No, and the fact you thought I was proves my point.

#1 So.. in the UK you have technical crimes? ..two times in a roll you use the expression "Technically illegal".. but FYI no such a thing exist in the US. Its illegal or not.

#2 as far as this case is concerned.. I stand 100% by my previous statements.
-Discretion stinks-
-Thumbs up to the Judge-

Do you actually realise how stupid you're making Americans look?

You admit that he shouldn't have been locked up, yet you contradict yourself by saying the judge is right to lock him up instead of using discretion based on the circumstances of the case.

You're happy to have him locked up purely because the law says sex with a minor is illegal, regardless of the tiny age gap, regardless of consent, regardless of the circumstances - in fact, regardless of any semblance of justice. Laws are made for reasons of justice, not for reasons of arbitrarily locking people up no matter what the circumstances

FFS, what is wrong with you?!?!

Do you actually realise how stupid you're making Americans look?

Jesus F'ing Christ.

He's one fucking guy. ONE. And now we're ALL stupid, despite the many many other arguments in this thread that aren't anything like his, we're stupid because you found one guy. Do you realize what you're making yourself look like?

Say it with me, I know you can...

"Do you realize how stupid you're making yourself look?"

See? He represents himself, not the population as a whole. I'm sure this is a concept you can understand with your inflated sense of superiority...

Do you actually realise how stupid you're making Americans look? do they need any help?

BTW #1 I am American.. Are you saying I am stupid?

BTW #2 Are you sure you are making Brits look smart rite now?


.. yet you contradict yourself.. There is no contradiction..
Maybe you see a contradiction.. but that because your sunglasses are too thick.

Jesus F'ing Christ.

He's one fucking guy. ONE. And now we're ALL stupid, despite the many many other arguments in this thread that aren't anything like his, we're stupid because you found one guy. Do you realize what you're making yourself look like?

Say it with me, I know you can...

"Do you realize how stupid you're making yourself look?"

See? He represents himself, not the population as a whole. I'm sure this is a concept you can understand with your inflated sense of superiority...

I didn't really believe all Americans were stupid or that heshe represented them, but I was hoping she/he would come to their senses.

P.S. I don't think I'm superior to anyone.

do they need any help?

BTW #1 I am American.. Are you saying I am stupid?

BTW #2 Are you sure you are making Brits look smart rite now?


There is no contradiction..
Maybe you see a contradiction.. but that because your sunglasses are too thick.

I need say no more, it would go above your level of apparent intelligence.

FFS, what is wrong with you?!?!There is nothing wrong with me.

The only difference is that I can look at the whole picture.

Its my (default) way to see the World.

You're happy to have him locked up purely because the law says sex with a minor is illegal..there is a sharp difference between what you say I posted (about him being sent to Jail).. and what I actually posted.
WTF indeed, he does not belong in prison. (not even for one day.)
...

BTW I stand by my 2 statements regarding this case. and i am adding a 3rd:
#1 Thumbs up to the Judge.
#2 Discretion stinks.
#3 Sending this guy to prison is a crime. (In the moral sense.)

You're happy to have him locked up purely because the law says sex with a minor is illegal, regardless of the tiny age gap, regardless of consent, regardless of the circumstances - in fact, regardless of any semblance of justice. Laws are made for reasons of justice, not for reasons of arbitrarily locking people up no matter what the circumstances

Actually, he's locked up because somebody messed up when they wrote the original Romeo and Juliet law. If he had actually had vaginal sex with her, it would have been a misdemeanor. But because it was oral sex, he got charged with and put in jail for a misdemeanor.

Of course, to argue that discretion is not used in the US judicial system is idiotic. Police officers use discretion when they decide whether or not to make an arrest. Prosecutors use discretion when they decide whether or not to prosecute (and what charges to bring if a prosecution does occur). Judges use discretion when they decide what sentence (sometimes within a given legal range) to impose. Parole boards use discretion in determining when to let someone out of jail. And so on.....

Actually, he's locked up because somebody messed up when they wrote the original Romeo and Juliet law. ...exactamente.

If he had actually had vaginal sex with her, it would have been a misdemeanor. But because it was oral sex, he got charged with and put in jail for a misdemeanor. why do US lawmakers care for sexual positions? because their own sex lifes are dead ?

why do US lawmakers care for sexual positions? because their own sex lifes are dead ?

Beats me. It probably has to do with the fact that the older rape laws counted only penis-vagina penetration as rape. Anal/oral sex fell under sodomy laws. This was probably true when they wrote the first Romeo and Juliet law, so that law covered only penis-vagina sex. The rape laws have now been changed to include other types of penetration, but it took a separate act to change the laws for underage sexual acts, apparently.

Beats me. It probably has to do with the fact that the older rape laws counted only penis-vagina penetration as rape. Anal/oral sex fell under sodomy laws. This was probably true when they wrote the first Romeo and Juliet law, so that law covered only penis-vagina sex. The rape laws have now been changed to include other types of penetration, but it took a separate act to change the laws for underage sexual acts, apparently.there are other forms of rape than penis-vagina penetration? ok, maybe penis-anal penetration, but any rapist would be a moron to try and rape a girl orally :)

there are other forms of rape than penis-vagina penetration? ok, maybe penis-anal penetration, but any rapist would be a moron to try and rape a girl orally :)

It's been done. Not to mention the fact that implements other than the penis can be used (fingers/bottles/etc.) A woman could rape a man - something that was not at all covered under the old laws.

*snip reply to another poster*

BTW I stand by my 2 statements regarding this case. and i am adding a 3rd:
#1 Thumbs up to the Judge.
#2 Discretion stinks.
#3 Sending this guy to prison is a crime. (In the moral sense.)

Could I just jump ahead a bit, and suggest that you really believe in reforming the actual laws to make legal decisions fair without requiring discretion by any party? That if the written law was more just, it could simply be enforced blindly and mechanically?

I doubt you would write that though, because people might agree with you! ;)

BTW I stand by my 2 statements regarding this case. and i am adding a 3rd:
#1 Thumbs up to the Judge.
#2 Discretion stinks.
#3 Sending this guy to prison is a crime. (In the moral sense.)

I'm going to laugh if you're charged with and convicted of some absurd crime.

I'm going to laugh if you're charged with and convicted of some absurd crime.

If Occean mouths off in real life like he does here, that will happen the first time a dodgy cop pulls him over!

I still say that discretion has its place, but that place is not in the hands of the prosecutor or the defence. Those parties should behave mechanically, simply pursuing their roles to the best of their legal ability. And they should be fairly matched always, regardless of the defendent's ability to pay.

Fund free legal aid to the standard of the state prosecutor or above. Also build more courts and employ more judges, or abolish some laws. Loss of respect for the law will be far more costly than that, in the long run.

I'm sure everything has already been said, so here's my two cents:

"Geez!"

I'm sure everything has already been said, so here's my two cents:

"Geez!"

You won something on NSG once, surely your opinion is worth more than two cents?

Ten cents would get you "Geez, that's crook and no mistake!"

*lends Illie a buck*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

Oh, my, fuck! This is insane! 10 years! For something a 17-year old and a 15-year old both consented to?! I am almost speechless.

"I think prosecutors have a duty to make sure they don’t take cases to trial that they can win, when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime."

Well, duh!

*is glad that age of consent is 15 here, and that closeness in age is considered even when someone who's below 18 has sex with someone below 15 so that they never get prosecuted anyway*

Wow. Simpley put, Wow.

They both consented, it's not a crime! End of story!

Can we catch some real criminals now? :confused:

No. Talk about some other criminal or some other case, and you would be off-topic. What you need is some other thread ...

... one you are interested in, perhaps?

I think he means the police should be catching real criminals

I think he means the police should be catching real criminals

Hm? Yes, you're right. I think I carried some unnecessary intensity over from another thread. Sorry.

The racist-bias thing was interesting. I'd like to see some facts on that.

Personally I am in favour of the whole thing - the fact of the matter is that the law says that you are not supposed to get blow jobs from minors and that is it - personally I don't think laws are tough enough in that regard. This boy should be made an example of and I do hope that enough teenagers get the message and stop doing this - it is already concerning that the amount of people participating in acts like this has skyrocketed in recent years; society should not be encouraging fornication and similar acts - especially on frecking minors (by the way, the age of consent in New Zealand is 16)

Since they were both minors at the time of the encounter, and more or less of the same age, I'd say that they are just wasting taxpayer money in prosecuting this "crime", and very possibly criminalizing two youths that might otherwise have turned out ok without this puritanical witch-hunt.

Here is an interesting wrinkle on that issue....... (Make sure she swallows!)

From News Of The Weird (one of my favorite sites)

Men accusing women of "stealing" their sperm appeared in a pair of 2005 stories, including that of a Chicago doctor who impregnated herself with her doctor-boyfriend's sperm (from oral sex). (He sued her for theft, but an appeals court called the sperm a "gift.") In a less spectacular lawsuit filed in March 2007 in New York City, Quoc Pham charged that girlfriend Neli Petkova had exploited him to father a baby, and that as soon as she was pregnant, she discarded him, publicly terming him sexually inadequate and allegedly announcing that she had met another man, who "could make her cervix orgasmic just by thinking." Pham wants $1 million and visitation rights to the now-3-year-old. [New York Post, 3-27-07]

Personally I am in favour of the whole thing - the fact of the matter is that the law says that you are not supposed to get blow jobs from minors and that is it - personally I don't think laws are tough enough in that regard. This boy should be made an example of

Now that I specifically disagree with.

and I do hope that enough teenagers get the message and stop doing this - it is already concerning that the amount of people participating in acts like this has skyrocketed in recent years; society should not be encouraging fornication and similar acts - especially on frecking minors (by the way, the age of consent in New Zealand is 16)

You would do better to put a case to the teenagers -- there are many teenagers on this forum. Say why, give some examples or principles which you think would persuade teenagers not to have sex (oral or otherwise.)

Otherwise, you will just come across as a grumpy old bastard who didn't get any when he was young, and doesn't see why anyone else should.

If Occean mouths off in real life like he does here, that will happen the first time a dodgy cop pulls him over!LOL
My uncle is a Cop.. he made it all the way up in the ranks.
I know the cop mentality, they have good intentions, but they build up a lot of frustration over the years.

and yes, bad cops do exist, all the range.. from mean to criminal.


I still say that discretion has its place..#1 Its imposible to eliminate discretion.

#2 My Uncle would obviously like maximum discretion.. just like any cop.
But -in this case- Its better to keep it minimum.

Personally I am in favour of the whole thing - the fact of the matter is that the law says that you are not supposed to get blow jobs from minors and that is it - personally I don't think laws are tough enough in that regard. This boy should be made an example of and I do hope that enough teenagers get the message and stop doing this - it is already concerning that the amount of people participating in acts like this has skyrocketed in recent years; society should not be encouraging fornication and similar acts - especially on frecking minors (by the way, the age of consent in New Zealand is 16)

Okay, you just used the word "fornication" (This is an absurd and loaded word. Just say "sex") and think a seventeen-year old should have his life ruined to be "made an example of". I think any chance of me respecting your arguments on any issue ever again just disappeared.

First of all, I am a teen myself and I am not as puritanical as you might think. What does concern me though is that the response to cases like this is leading us down a path of watering down the laws regarding crimes of "immoral behaviour." There is a reason why we have age restrictions on sexual encounters; mainly to protect them from the emotional and physical effects of such encounters - and by receiving a blow job from a minor, this kid clearly broke the law. This seventeen year old chose to break the law, and whether or not it is consential, he still broke the law; and yes, he should be made an example of - the fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of teenagers are deliberately flouting the law by having sexual encounters under the age of consent, and perhaps a few cases like this will make them think twice before flouting the law again. Why am I so big on this point? Because it would encourage Generation Y, my generation, to respect the law once again - we have seen it so watered down in the last decade that we think; oh, we can break this law, we got away with having a screw at 15, we got away with drinking beer at 17, now we can break any number of laws. After all, it is the little laws that make the difference in reducing crime.

There is a reason why we have age restrictions on sexual encounters;
Puritanical views on sex and a cultural leaning towards revenge for crimes over justice?

mainly to protect them from the emotional and physical effects of such encounters Initiated by them included.

and by receiving a blow job from a minor, this kid clearly broke the law.
Never mind the fact he was legally a minor too.

and yes, he should be made an example of
Ten years for a blowjob initiated by the girl, after having fellated another boy. Totally logical to "make an example" of only one of three of them.

the fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of teenagers are deliberately flouting the law by having sexual encounters under the age of consent,
An arbitrary number instigated by wrinkly old men sitting around in a room pretending they know what is good for the country influenced by a bunch of women trying to hide their sexuality by enforcing limits on other people's sexuality so they can look more Christian. And in this case, wouldn't they both be committing a crime?

and perhaps a few cases like this will make them think twice before flouting the law again.
Hasn't stopped them before, why would it now? It only makes people making your argument look like sexual tightwads.

Because it would encourage Generation Y, my generation, to respect the law once again
Why the fuck would it do that? An absurd law putting a minor in jail for 10 years for receiving fellatio, not for having a sexual encounter with a minor but for the very act of receiving oral sex. Had they been having sex, he wouldn't have a 10 year sentence. If anything this would teach them that the law isn't worth respect because it is obviously bullshit. This is the kind of shit that stops me from respecting the law.

we got away with drinking beer at 17,
Yeah, because having the highest drinking age in the known world is really stopping underage people from drinking or stopping drunk driving. Maybe if we stopped making everything taboo, teenagers would stop breaking the law?

After all, it is the little laws that make the difference in reducing crime.

If by "reduce crime" you really mean increase crime by making more and more people criminals for petty "crimes."

First of all, I am a teen myself and I am not as puritanical as you might think. What does concern me though is that the response to cases like this is leading us down a path of watering down the laws regarding crimes of "immoral behaviour." There is a reason why we have age restrictions on sexual encounters; mainly to protect them from the emotional and physical effects of such encounters - and by receiving a blow job from a minor, this kid clearly broke the law. This seventeen year old chose to break the law, and whether or not it is consential, he still broke the law; and yes, he should be made an example of - the fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of teenagers are deliberately flouting the law by having sexual encounters under the age of consent, and perhaps a few cases like this will make them think twice before flouting the law again. Why am I so big on this point? Because it would encourage Generation Y, my generation, to respect the law once again - we have seen it so watered down in the last decade that we think; oh, we can break this law, we got away with having a screw at 15, we got away with drinking beer at 17, now we can break any number of laws. After all, it is the little laws that make the difference in reducing crime.

For one thing, sex is not immoral. And yes, it is illegal to have sexual restrictions with a minor, but he was a minor too. Why is the girl who instigated oral sex with him not being prosecuted? She broke the law too. Sometimes the law is stupid. This is one of those cases. And crime in itself is not a problem, important crime is. This is not a case of important crime. And "making an example" of people is a horrific concept anyway. And, finally, apparently the majority not "substantial minority" are having sexual encounters. I guess most teenagers are sex offenders. Fancy that. Is that because of the immoral decline of our decadent society? No. It is because of stupid puritanical laws.

http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/teen_sex_stats.htm

http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/teensex/index.php

http://www.theodora.com/teddy/newyork/teenage.html

First of all, I am a teen myself and I am not as puritanical as you might think. What does concern me though is that the response to cases like this is leading us down a path of watering down the laws regarding crimes of "immoral behaviour." There is a reason why we have age restrictions on sexual encounters; mainly to protect them from the emotional and physical effects of such encounters - and by receiving a blow job from a minor, this kid clearly broke the law. This seventeen year old chose to break the law, and whether or not it is consential, he still broke the law; and yes, he should be made an example of - the fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of teenagers are deliberately flouting the law by having sexual encounters under the age of consent, and perhaps a few cases like this will make them think twice before flouting the law again. Why am I so big on this point? Because it would encourage Generation Y, my generation, to respect the law once again - we have seen it so watered down in the last decade that we think; oh, we can break this law, we got away with having a screw at 15, we got away with drinking beer at 17, now we can break any number of laws. After all, it is the little laws that make the difference in reducing crime.

Well wow we must know who must be lonely and not having any sex...

There is intellectual maturity, and social maturity as far as what goes on in society. Get some.

i dont have a problem with it? what if it was a 15 yr old guy ( everyone dosnt care and looks away)

i dont have a problem with it? what if it was a 15 yr old guy ( everyone dosnt care and looks away)

Exactly. There is a huge sexism at work in all of these cases, the male is always the main one. Its like its implied that the male always has control of the sexual encounters and if any exploitation is going on, the male must be the one doing it.

I completely agree comrade, the women has a brain, it seems they want to act like they dont have control of the situation. i hate sexism :(

I completely agree comrade, the women has a brain, it seems they want to act like they dont have control of the situation. i hate sexism :(

Indeed. But don't call me comrade. Those "brotherly" terms are mainly used when someone wants control of you. Anyway, it's like everyone believes they have to protect the poor defensless females.

Interestingly enough, as I am read this I listened to ...And Justice for all by Metallica. It fit.

sorry(I dont want control over you), and it is ridiculas, this is getting out of hand, we are human beings, we can make choices. The female is aware of what she is about to do. they pull that crap how they got raped(yet i see no visible wounds?). I think women are just scarred that if someone found out they would be lable "hore" and "slut" which for you ladys out there is completly not true, so they say things like that.

Puritanical views on sex and a cultural leaning towards revenge for crimes over justice?

I highly doubt it; most juridictions have an age of consent that is in the mid to late teenage years, and to be quite frank, that is fair

Initiated by them included.

Yes - if things go wrong, and one of them get an STD for example, it is society and the taxpayer that pays. If the girl gets pregnant at age 17, then it is generally society and the taxpayer that pays

Never mind the fact he was legally a minor too.

Makes it even worse - indeed, all parties that were minors should have been prosecuted. Also, was this thing not photographed? If it was, then it falls under the child pornography juridiction

Ten years for a blowjob initiated by the girl, after having fellated another boy. Totally logical to "make an example" of only one of three of them.

I personally think all three should get a sentence. I do have issues with only one party getting the sentence and the other two parties getting off scot free

An arbitrary number instigated by wrinkly old men sitting around in a room pretending they know what is good for the country influenced by a bunch of women trying to hide their sexuality by enforcing limits on other people's sexuality so they can look more Christian. And in this case, wouldn't they both be committing a crime?

Not really, and yes they are both committing a crime, so therefore, both should be sent to prison

Hasn't stopped them before, why would it now? It only makes people making your argument look like sexual tightwads.

When a law is not enforced, then what typically happens is people are more likely to break it - if a law is strictly enforced, then people will take that into account before breaking the law

Why the fuck would it do that? An absurd law putting a minor in jail for 10 years for receiving fellatio, not for having a sexual encounter with a minor but for the very act of receiving oral sex. Had they been having sex, he wouldn't have a 10 year sentence. If anything this would teach them that the law isn't worth respect because it is obviously bullshit. This is the kind of shit that stops me from respecting the law.

Being heavy handed on minor crime has prevented increases in more severe crime - why? Because people learn to respect the law because they know it is going to be enforced, no matter how minor the offence. It is arguments like this that make me concerned; we have already watered down the law a lot through arguments along the lines of "it is already happening, so we might as well legalise it" and "this law is bullshit." One of these days, the West will be completely moraless, and once morals are lost, then our Western society will be on the verge of collapse.

If by "reduce crime" you really mean increase crime by making more and more people criminals for petty "crimes."

Being tough on petty crime works - just ask Rudy Giuliani

For one thing, sex is not immoral. And yes, it is illegal to have sexual restrictions with a minor, but he was a minor too. Why is the girl who instigated oral sex with him not being prosecuted? She broke the law too. Sometimes the law is stupid. This is one of those cases. And crime in itself is not a problem, important crime is. This is not a case of important crime. And "making an example" of people is a horrific concept anyway. And, finally, apparently the majority not "substantial minority" are having sexual encounters. I guess most teenagers are sex offenders. Fancy that. Is that because of the immoral decline of our decadent society? No. It is because of stupid puritanical laws.

I put the word immoral in inverted commas for a reason - I was not referring to sex as immoral, I was referring the laws about sex, drugs, alcohol and so on. Also, yes, I do believe that the girl should be prosecuted; and although it may seem an insignificant crime, the fact of the matter is that enforcing insignificant crime has a positive effect on crime in general.

Also, I am not sure about the statistics related to sexual encounters of minors; the last statistics that I heard was that one in four New Zealanders had sex for the first time under the age of 16; hence my use of the words substantial minority. In saying that, this behaviour is partly encouraged by the lack of enforcement of age of consent laws; I have not heard of a case in New Zealand in my time here, and if you spoke to any teenager, chances are, they would not know the age of consent.

Finally - I do think that it is a decline in our society; people in years gone by did not have sex at such a young age - this has nothing to do with being puritanical or not; I could not care less if someone had sex at 18 when their brains are developed and able to comprehend the consequences of their actions - at the age of 14, 15, they are less able to comprehend those consequences.

Well wow we must know who must be lonely and not having any sex...

There is intellectual maturity, and social maturity as far as what goes on in society. Get some.

What does the first sentence have to do with the discussion? I do not care with what is going on with people over the age of consent - I am more worried about people openly flouting the law. Also, I am aware of what is going on in society and that is what concerns me. Now, please stop with the argumentum ad hominem.

Alex, if you ever get into a position of power in the US it will be a dark day for America.

I highly doubt it; most juridictions have an age of consent that is in the mid to late teenage years, and to be quite frank, that is fair
Even the state in question has provisions for teenagers within three years of each other. If they had just boned, this would have been a misdemeanor. The real outrage of this is the disproportionate punishment, especially considering the other laws in place.



Yes - if things go wrong, and one of them get an STD for example, it is society and the taxpayer that pays. If the girl gets pregnant at age 17, then it is generally society and the taxpayer that pays
What do suspect the societal cost of locking this kid, a kid who was on his way to a quality college education (he was being courted by Ivy League schools) and the potential to play professional sports is? Of holding him for 10 years, of his stunted opportunity?



Makes it even worse - indeed, all parties that were minors should have been prosecuted. Also, was this thing not photographed? If it was, then it falls under the child pornography juridiction
Actually, they where with the exception of the girl. The one guy stood by what he thought was right because allowing himself to be registered as a sex offender would have meant that he could no longer live with his family because he has a kid sister.



I personally think all three should get a sentence. I do have issues with only one party getting the sentence and the other two parties getting off scot free
They did get a sentence, they took the plea bargain and the five year sentence.



Not really, and yes they are both committing a crime, so therefore, both should be sent to prison
At worst they should both be charged with a misdemeanor, as that fits the rest of the laws.



When a law is not enforced, then what typically happens is people are more likely to break it - if a law is strictly enforced, then people will take that into account before breaking the law
The law has to be proportional. This wasn't. There is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' point where the law becomes meaningless.



Being heavy handed on minor crime has prevented increases in more severe crime - why? Because people learn to respect the law because they know it is going to be enforced, no matter how minor the offence. It is arguments like this that make me concerned; we have already watered down the law a lot through arguments along the lines of "it is already happening, so we might as well legalise it" and "this law is bullshit." One of these days, the West will be completely moraless, and once morals are lost, then our Western society will be on the verge of collapse.
Prove your premise.


Being tough on petty crime works - just ask Rudy Giuliani
A start, but try a little harder.

Well wow we must know who must be lonely and not having any sex...

There is intellectual maturity, and social maturity as far as what goes on in society. Get some.

That is uncalled for. I asked AP for clarification, without which he/she wouldn't be out on that limb.

Like anyone, AP is entitled to express an opinion without being personally attacked. I consider disparaging someones "intellectual" and "social" maturity rather personal.

*...*

Being heavy handed on minor crime has prevented increases in more severe crime - why? Because people learn to respect the law because they know it is going to be enforced, no matter how minor the offence. It is arguments like this that make me concerned; we have already watered down the law a lot through arguments along the lines of "it is already happening, so we might as well legalise it" and "this law is bullshit." One of these days, the West will be completely moraless, and once morals are lost, then our Western society will be on the verge of collapse.

*...*

What really troubles me in your position is this "morals" thing.
Perhaps it is sheer hubris, but I like to think I am moral without the threat of punishment. In fact, if my morals and the law were in direct conflict, I would break the law before behaving immorally.

I'm no saint, and I've done things which were immoral, and which I regretted. Generally, they didn't involve breaking any law, they were more personal ... like betrayal or callousness or selfishness.

So could I just ask you this: does breaking the law make a person less moral? Wait, I'll clarify that: does the act of breaking ANY law damage a person's morals, make them less able to act morally thereafter?
OR, do people only behave morally because they are following a law which seeks to enforce morals?

Note that I make no mention of whether the person is caught and punished, caught but not punished, whatever. Just whether they follow all the laws.

sorry(I dont want control over you), and it is ridiculas, this is getting out of hand, we are human beings, we can make choices. The female is aware of what she is about to do. they pull that crap how they got raped(yet i see no visible wounds?). I think women are just scarred that if someone found out they would be lable "hore" and "slut" which for you ladys out there is completly not true, so they say things like that.

I'm not saying that what you describe never happens but it is very easy for a women to be raped without wounds being inflicted. Threats of violence towards a women or her loved ones can be enough to coerce someone into co-operating without actually giving consent

I highly doubt it; most juridictions have an age of consent that is in the mid to late teenage years, and to be quite frank, that is fair
Based on puritanical views of sex. And you do realize that he is being put away for 10 years for fellatio, not sexual contact with a minor. If they had been having sex, this wouldn't be happening.


Yes - if things go wrong, and one of them get an STD for example,
Yet the one initiating it isn't being punished. And this is the US, there is no universal healthcare system.

When a law is not enforced, then what typically happens is people are more likely to break it
People are far more likely to break absurd, arbitrary laws on accident.

if a law is strictly enforced, then people will take that into account before breaking the law
Let's create a law that says anyone who isn't married can't have sex. Anyone caught having sex outside of marriage will be hung by the neck until dead, enforced strictly. I wonder how many people that will stop from having sex.



Being heavy handed on minor crime has prevented increases in more severe crime
Putting some one away for 10 years for consensual fellatio is stopping things like rape and murder?

Because people learn to respect the law because they know it is going to be enforced,
Maybe they should enforce the law better on the more severe things instead of minor things, maybe that would make a relevant difference. I don't respect the law when they enforce absurd laws strictly, I respect it less.

so we might as well legalise it" and "this law is bullshit."
See previous example about sex.

One of these days, the West will be completely moraless, and once morals are lost, then our Western society will be on the verge of collapse.
Immoral, the word is fucking immoral. One day the West will be full of Puritanical people who fucking failed spelling because all they did was sit around and quote the Bible and stone people for having sex. Maybe you would like it better in Saudi Arabia.


Being tough on petty crime works - just ask Rudy Giuliani
You mean the guy who cheated on then dumped his wife? He's a hack.


I put the word immoral in inverted commas for a reason - I was not referring to sex as immoral, I was referring the laws about sex, drugs, alcohol and so on.
So the laws are immoral? Yes, I agree, they are too regressive for minor offenses.

Also, I am not sure about the statistics related to sexual encounters of minors; the last statistics that I heard was that one in four New Zealanders had sex for the first time under the age of 16;
Then let's raise the age of consent to 18 and see how many more people are breaking the "entirely relevant and sensible" law.

In saying that, this behaviour is partly encouraged by the lack of enforcement of age of consent laws; [/quot]e
Brilliant! Every time some one catches two minors in a sexual relationship, both shall be put away for 10 years for having sex with a minor. Let's also remember that the age of consent is 18.

[quote] this has nothing to do with being puritanical or not;
It does in the United States.

at the age of 14, 15, they are less able to comprehend those consequences.
Fault of the US education system that refuses to teach children realistically about sex.

I am not as puritanical as you might think. I'll be the Judge of that.
.

Why am I so big on this point? Because you are so fucking puritan. Thats why.
you should be living in the 19th Century.
.

I am a teen myself are you in puberty?
just how old are you?
.

Why am I so big on this point? Because it would encourage Generation Y, my generation, to respect the law once again -You retarded sex Laws are encouraging teens to break the Law... Your retarded sex Laws are the equivalent of trying to impose a ridiculous 30 Km/h on the fucking Freeway. (Freeway is the California Autobahn)
Most teens will have sex before you want them to.. regardless of your retarded sex Laws.. Its called hormones.
.

What does concern me though is that the response to cases like this is leading us down a path of watering down ...You retarded sex Laws are watering down rape..
On the long run.. your retarded sex Laws are not making any favors to the victims of rape.

Ah well. AP you are welcome to telegram my nation.
I think it's about time I took a break from this crazy place.

must be great for the then 15 year old girls parents to know that their daughter is a giving oral sex to numerous guys one right after the other.

On the tape, police saw a 15-year-old perform oral sex on one partygoer, and after finishing with him, she turned and did the same to Wilson

must be great for the then 15 year old girls parents to know that their daughter is a giving oral sex to numerous guys one right after the other.

My guess is her parents are probably EXTREMELY conservative/prudish/repressive/other similar term, because from what I've heard it's that kind of environment that tends to produce kids like this.

My guess is her parents are probably EXTREMELY conservative/prudish/repressive/other similar term, because from what I've heard it's that kind of environment that tends to produce kids like this.

I'd say parents of any extreme leanings produce messed up kids

Could I just jump ahead a bit, and suggest that you really believe in reforming the actual laws to make legal decisions fair without requiring discretion by any party? That if the written law was more just, it could simply be enforced blindly and mechanically?


In truth, no such law can be written. The world isn't black and white and there are always circumstances and occurrences we won't even think about before a law is written. Sure, it'd be great if we could have such laws. It would also be great if chocolate rained from the sky and the streets were paved in gold....

Ten years for a blowjob initiated by the girl, after having fellated another boy. Totally logical to "make an example" of only one of three of them.

In truth, they've all been "made an example" of. All three are being required to register as sex offenders, which will do more to ruin their lives than either amount of jail time.

How did this end up in court in the first place? Did the girl's parents see the video? Or did someone send the tape to the police? Who was the butthole puritan who could not bear that others have sex?
In truth, they've all been "made an example" of. All three are being required to register as sex offenders, which will do more to ruin their lives than either amount of jail time.This is completely insane. What was this really about? Surely not the sex, but some kind of bourgeois understanding of conduct rules. I thought the state exists to protect its citizens, not waste their entire lives.

Even the state in question has provisions for teenagers within three years of each other. If they had just boned, this would have been a misdemeanor. The real outrage of this is the disproportionate punishment, especially considering the other laws in place.

Oral and anal sex are treated differently to normal vaginal sex in many juridictions; just look at Singapore. In saying that though, it may seem disproportionate, but that is because of the "three year allowance." The state brought in the "three year allowance" and now this case occurs, so people are demanding that oral sex be included in the "three year allowance." One of these days, someone will be convicted because the girl was a few days shy of 15 and the bloke was a few days over 18, then the "three year allowance" will become a "three and a half year allowance" because people will say, it is unfair - the law is stupid, they were almost three years apart. That is my main issue

What do suspect the societal cost of locking this kid, a kid who was on his way to a quality college education (he was being courted by Ivy League schools) and the potential to play professional sports is? Of holding him for 10 years, of his stunted opportunity?

First of all, he has commited a crime in the eyes of the law; allowing him to get away with it would have meant that other people would have thought - sure, this kid got away with it, precedent is on my side, so I will break the law too now; then things get worse. Secondly, anything could have gone wrong, we do not know the intricate details about the kids medical history, whether or not he has STDs and so on. I do grant that the Americans do not have a public health system; however, there is some sort of societal cost - even if is means that an extra bed is taken up unnecessarily.

Actually, they where with the exception of the girl. The one guy stood by what he thought was right because allowing himself to be registered as a sex offender would have meant that he could no longer live with his family because he has a kid sister.

They did get a sentence, they took the plea bargain and the five year sentence.

At worst they should both be charged with a misdemeanor, as that fits the rest of the laws.

Alright, I'll grant the first two sections of the quote - I was merely responding to what the other posters had said without 100% knowledge of the case. Secondly, see above about my concerns; let this slip, then the laws will continue being eaten away at

The law has to be proportional. This wasn't. There is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' point where the law becomes meaningless.

Funnily enough, I agree on that point - the law does need to be proportional. What caused this case was that in days gone by, the state legislature decided to bring in the "three year allowance" most likely as the result of such arguments as "they are already doing it, make it legal" and cases like this. We must however come to a point where we say enough is enough

Prove your premise.

A start, but try a little harder.

Why must I try a little harder? Giuliani was tough on minor crime and as a result, there was a fall in major crime.

What really troubles me in your position is this "morals" thing.
Perhaps it is sheer hubris, but I like to think I am moral without the threat of punishment. In fact, if my morals and the law were in direct conflict, I would break the law before behaving immorally.

I'm no saint, and I've done things which were immoral, and which I regretted. Generally, they didn't involve breaking any law, they were more personal ... like betrayal or callousness or selfishness.

So could I just ask you this: does breaking the law make a person less moral? Wait, I'll clarify that: does the act of breaking ANY law damage a person's morals, make them less able to act morally thereafter?
OR, do people only behave morally because they are following a law which seeks to enforce morals?

Note that I make no mention of whether the person is caught and punished, caught but not punished, whatever. Just whether they follow all the laws.

Almost all criminal law is related to morals; there is the moral belief that murder is wrong, so we have legislated against it; there is the moral belief that theft is wrong, so we have legislated against it. Breaking the law may not make a person less moral, but our laws have a moral basis - take away that moral basis and our society crumbles.

Based on puritanical views of sex. And you do realize that he is being put away for 10 years for fellatio, not sexual contact with a minor. If they had been having sex, this wouldn't be happening.

Even the most socially liberal countries, Sweden, the Netherlands and the like have ages of consent around the 15/16 mark - you certainly cannot argue that the Swedes or the Dutch have puritanical views of sex. Also, I have explained above my opinions on the latter point

Yet the one initiating it isn't being punished. And this is the US, there is no universal healthcare system.

Ultimately there is a cost though - even if there is no universal healthcare system; someone that actually needs that bed may not be able to get it. Also, I do find it unfortunate that the person initiating it isn't being punished; this is part of the problem - we are allowing people to get away with such crimes and of course, we begin a move to a more watered down legal system

People are far more likely to break absurd, arbitrary laws on accident.

If it is clear as mud that the age of consent is 16, then I highly doubt that people will merely break the law by accident; that may be tolerable if the law is the tariff on imported paper from Kazakhstan, but not on crucial matters like sexual relations

Let's create a law that says anyone who isn't married can't have sex. Anyone caught having sex outside of marriage will be hung by the neck until dead, enforced strictly. I wonder how many people that will stop from having sex.

It would stop plenty of people; when something is legislated against, the vast majority of people comply - just look at Prohibition; although a minority broke the laws, the vast majority of people complied and went along with the flow.

Putting some one away for 10 years for consensual fellatio is stopping things like rape and murder?

Maybe they should enforce the law better on the more severe things instead of minor things, maybe that would make a relevant difference. I don't respect the law when they enforce absurd laws strictly, I respect it less.

See previous example about sex.


Enforcement of minor crimes worked in New York City; why not elsewhere?

Immoral, the word is fucking immoral. One day the West will be full of Puritanical people who fucking failed spelling because all they did was sit around and quote the Bible and stone people for having sex. Maybe you would like it better in Saudi Arabia.

Alright; I was typing this in the middle of doing other things in the evening, so pardon my gramatical error (also, blame NCEA - I never had the chance to do Cambridge). Personally I am not a Puritanical person that sits around quoting the Bible and stones people for having sex - my issue is that cases like this result in a watering down of the law.

In New Zealand ten years ago, we had people complaining about drinking by 18 and 19 year olds (illegal at the time), and people suggested that we should lower the drinking age - the drinking age was lowered to 18, and now we are having the same problems with 16 and 17 year olds, while drinking among 14 and 15 year olds has skyrocketed. Why? Because the law was watered down.

As the law gets watered down, the demands for pushing the barriers do not disappear - as I said at the beginning, a "three year allowance" becomes a "three and a half year allowance" and eventually, we will simply get to the stage where the allowance disappears because the age of consent has fallen.

You mean the guy who cheated on then dumped his wife? He's a hack.

Alright, I do disagree with that, but everyone is not perfect now, are they? My point is that he enforced petty laws and the crime rate dropped in New York

So the laws are immoral? Yes, I agree, they are too regressive for minor offenses.

Not the laws, the acts - I used inverted commas to differentiate them from other criminal law (i.e. murder, theft, &c.)

Then let's raise the age of consent to 18 and see how many more people are breaking the "entirely relevant and sensible" law

Highly unlikely that anymore people would break the law - a majority of people would comply with the new law.

Brilliant! Every time some one catches two minors in a sexual relationship, both shall be put away for 10 years for having sex with a minor. Let's also remember that the age of consent is 18.

Yep; and then you will notice that people will realise that this law actually exists and has teeth - strict enforcement does produce results, and if you want another example; look at New Zealand - traffic offences have been steadily decreasing since those laws were strictly enforced

It does in the United States

Sweden has 15 as it's age of consent, the Netherlands 16; they are far from puritanical countries

Fault of the US education system that refuses to teach children realistically about sex

You will find that mental development does not discriminate between countries - the brain of a 14 year old is less able to comprehend consequences than the brain of a 19 year old, whether or not they are American, Canadian, New Zealander, Australian, British, Swedish or Dutch

I'll be the Judge of that.

Fine, although nowhere have I advocated that the age of consent should be raised or that laws other than the "three year allowance" should be altered.

Because you are so fucking puritan. Thats why.
you should be living in the 19th Century.

I am no puritan - read above. I am big on this point because it is cases like this that give lawmakers the excuse to water down law; as I said before, in New Zealand, we used to have a problem with 18 and 19 year olds drinking - now we have the same problems with 16 and 17 year olds drinking, and that has been linked to the lowering of the drinking age

are you in puberty?
just how old are you?

18

You retarded sex Laws are encouraging teens to break the Law... Your retarded sex Laws are the equivalent of trying to impose a ridiculous 30 Km/h on the fucking Freeway. (Freeway is the California Autobahn)
Most teens will have sex before you want them to.. regardless of your retarded sex Laws.. Its called hormones.

How do you know when I want them to have sex? I have never said that the age of consent should be raised; I personally think that, aside from the "three year allowance," the status quo should be maintained. Sex laws may seem retarded, but we have them for a reason, and it is not an eleven letter word starting with p either.

You retarded sex Laws are watering down rape..
On the long run.. your retarded sex Laws are not making any favors to the victims of rape.

I don't see rape watered down. Yes it is unfortunate that it is referred to as statutory rape; I would personally prefer a different name to be used, however, rape is still as severe as it should be

Also, bear in mind that there was a tape made of this; a frecking tape - that would fall under the child pornography laws.

Does it seem like oral sex should be treated considerably more liberally then actual sex, not MORE puritanically.

Does it seem like oral sex should be treated considerably more liberally then actual sex, not MORE puritanically.

It should but it doesn't happen because when one says 'oral sex', your average sex-a-phobe thinks of one gay guy going down and doing the nasty on another.

"10 years for consensual fellatio"

I might end up waiting longer than that...
:(

How do you know when I want them to have sex? from your posts..
You want them to wait until whatever age the Gov decides is morally acceptable.

Oral and anal sex are treated differently to normal vaginal sex in many juridictions; just look at Singapore. In saying that though, it may seem disproportionate, but that is because of the "three year allowance." The state brought in the "three year allowance" and now this case occurs, so people are demanding that oral sex be included in the "three year allowance." One of these days, someone will be convicted because the girl was a few days shy of 15 and the bloke was a few days over 18, then the "three year allowance" will become a "three and a half year allowance" because people will say, it is unfair - the law is stupid, they were almost three years apart. That is my main issue.

A "slippery slope" argument. No proof. And unless you are saying that oral sex is worse than anal and vaginal sex, I do not understand what you are getting at.

First of all, he has commited a crime in the eyes of the law; allowing him to get away with it would have meant that other people would have thought - sure, this kid got away with it, precedent is on my side, so I will break the law too now; then things get worse. Secondly, anything could have gone wrong, we do not know the intricate details about the kids medical history, whether or not he has STDs and so on. I do grant that the Americans do not have a public health system; however, there is some sort of societal cost - even if is means that an extra bed is taken up unnecessarily.

Wrong. Breaking stupid laws does not equal breaking smart laws. Most people can understand that. And as for STD's, thats why we use condoms. Which is why we teach kids about them. Or not, because some fundamentalist idiots were stupid and arrogant enough to think they could override hormones. And extra bed? WTF? Why dont we ban anything that has any potential societal cost? Breathing? Taking up valuable air! outlawed! eating? taking up valuable food! outlawed! Having sex? Taking up valuable beds! From now on me must have sex on the floor, by official decree!


Alright, I'll grant the first two sections of the quote - I was merely responding to what the other posters had said without 100% knowledge of the case. Secondly, see above about my concerns; let this slip, then the laws will continue being eaten away at



Funnily enough, I agree on that point - the law does need to be proportional. What caused this case was that in days gone by, the state legislature decided to bring in the "three year allowance" most likely as the result of such arguments as "they are already doing it, make it legal" and cases like this. We must however come to a point where we say enough is enough.

There is a point where enough is enough. It is not here. It is far off in the distance.

Why must I try a little harder? Giuliani was tough on minor crime and as a result, there was a fall in major crime.



Almost all criminal law is related to morals; there is the moral belief that murder is wrong, so we have legislated against it; there is the moral belief that theft is wrong, so we have legislated against it. Breaking the law may not make a person less moral, but our laws have a moral basis - take away that moral basis and our society crumbles.

Wouldnt being tough on Major crimes be better? or making it so that foolish minor crimes like this arent crimes? And yes, the laws do have a moral basis, but they are agreed upon by almost everyone and are neccesary for the continuation of civilization. Foolish morals imposed by the few that have no benefit to society does not fall under this.

Even the most socially liberal countries, Sweden, the Netherlands and the like have ages of consent around the 15/16 mark - you certainly cannot argue that the Swedes or the Dutch have puritanical views of sex. Also, I have explained above my opinions on the latter point

But thats mainly to stop those older from preying on minors, not to keep minors from preying on each other.

Ultimately there is a cost though - even if there is no universal healthcare system; someone that actually needs that bed may not be able to get it. Also, I do find it unfortunate that the person initiating it isn't being punished; this is part of the problem - we are allowing people to get away with such crimes and of course, we begin a move to a more watered down legal system

I have already adressed the extreme stupidity of the "bed" statement.

If it is clear as mud that the age of consent is 16, then I highly doubt that people will merely break the law by accident; that may be tolerable if the law is the tariff on imported paper from Kazakhstan, but not on crucial matters like sexual relations

The law is clear, but the reasons are not. Because the reasons are stupid.

It would stop plenty of people; when something is legislated against, the vast majority of people comply - just look at Prohibition; although a minority broke the laws, the vast majority of people complied and went along with the flow.

Do you know anything about prohibition? It was a major failure. And when we change it to something like sex, it will fail even harder. You would have to be supremley arrogant to believe any legislation could control teenage hormones.


Enforcement of minor crimes worked in New York City; why not elsewhere?



Alright; I was typing this in the middle of doing other things in the evening, so pardon my gramatical error (also, blame NCEA - I never had the chance to do Cambridge). Personally I am not a Puritanical person that sits around quoting the Bible and stones people for having sex - my issue is that cases like this result in a watering down of the law.

Sometimes the law must be watered down. In Iran, for example, major law-watering is called for.

In New Zealand ten years ago, we had people complaining about drinking by 18 and 19 year olds (illegal at the time), and people suggested that we should lower the drinking age - the drinking age was lowered to 18, and now we are having the same problems with 16 and 17 year olds, while drinking among 14 and 15 year olds has skyrocketed. Why? Because the law was watered down.

Source? also, drinking and sex laws are very different. Drinking can very easily be harmful to others. Sex between two consenting individuals, with proper birth control, harms no one.

As the law gets watered down, the demands for pushing the barriers do not disappear - as I said at the beginning, a "three year allowance" becomes a "three and a half year allowance" and eventually, we will simply get to the stage where the allowance disappears because the age of consent has fallen.

I support an age of consent law for Minor-non-minor intercourse. But two minors of the same or very close ages should be able to have sex without fear of prosecution.

Alright, I do disagree with that, but everyone is not perfect now, are they? My point is that he enforced petty laws and the crime rate dropped in New York.

Neither is the 17-yr old whose life is ruined.

Not the laws, the acts - I used inverted commas to differentiate them from other criminal law (i.e. murder, theft, &c.)



Highly unlikely that anymore people would break the law - a majority of people would comply with the new law.

Already adressed how deluded the second part is. And you have now stated that consensual oral sex is immoral. I fail to see how this is not puritanical.



Yep; and then you will notice that people will realise that this law actually exists and has teeth - strict enforcement does produce results, and if you want another example; look at New Zealand - traffic offences have been steadily decreasing since those laws were strictly enforced.

But these are not results that are particularly desirable. Consenting sex between minors (unless there is a significant age gap) is not wrong. Also, hormoned are stronger than laws.

Sweden has 15 as it's age of consent, the Netherlands 16; they are far from puritanical countries.

Havent we already covered this?

You will find that mental development does not discriminate between countries - the brain of a 14 year old is less able to comprehend consequences than the brain of a 19 year old, whether or not they are American, Canadian, New Zealander, Australian, British, Swedish or Dutch

If proper birth control is used, what are the consequences? I can't think of any.

Fine, although nowhere have I advocated that the age of consent should be raised or that laws other than the "three year allowance" should be altered.



I am no puritan - read above. I am big on this point because it is cases like this that give lawmakers the excuse to water down law; as I said before, in New Zealand, we used to have a problem with 18 and 19 year olds drinking - now we have the same problems with 16 and 17 year olds drinking, and that has been linked to the lowering of the drinking age

already talked about this.


18



How do you know when I want them to have sex? I have never said that the age of consent should be raised; I personally think that, aside from the "three year allowance," the status quo should be maintained. Sex laws may seem retarded, but we have them for a reason, and it is not an eleven letter word starting with p either.

what is the reason? Kinfdy enlighten me. I see no good reasons.


I don't see rape watered down. Yes it is unfortunate that it is referred to as statutory rape; I would personally prefer a different name to be used, however, rape is still as severe as it should be

Also, bear in mind that there was a tape made of this; a frecking tape - that would fall under the child pornography laws.

first part- fine

second part- wrong.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

The tape was not distributed.

Nice effort, but overall, I give your post an F. Maybe an F+

Does it seem like oral sex should be treated considerably more liberally then actual sex, not MORE puritanically.you ask Bill Clinton...

I'd agree with almost all of your points Slythros. The only beef I have is that you think minor-minor relations should not have a law. Clearly there is a large difference in the age of minors (and their ability to consent).

Acts between consenting people, either subject to a psychological exam to evaluate how well they could have consented or within 2-3 years of each other work well though only when you have a complete package of laws about intercourse otherwise you end up like this poor sod.

I'd agree with almost all of your points Slythros. The only beef I have is that you think minor-minor relations should not have a law. Clearly there is a large difference in the age of minors (and their ability to consent).

Acts between consenting people, either subject to a psychological exam to evaluate how well they could have consented or within 2-3 years of each other work well though only when you have a complete package of laws about intercourse otherwise you end up like this poor sod.

If you will look at my post, you will see that I stated "unless there is a significant age difference". Glad I could clear that up. And now I am off to bed (to sleep. no other meaning.).

The state of Georgia (where the boy is from) because of its capital of Atlanta which is a huge city with over 5 million is known for the highest AIDs rate in the South and even one of the highest in the United States, and going after this boy won't change that. And besides it has already been SAID if he had actual sex with the girl it would NOT have been covered under this "molestation" law, but by the Romeo and Juliet law meaning he would not even have been in trouble. How outrageous is that?

Out of the hundreds of thousands of guys under 18 who have any kind of sex in Atlanta, and Georiga (And people in Georgia are known for being hugely sexual and "freaky" with males and males, females and females, males and females, and all kinds of stuff going on. I know this personally from having several friends from ATL. This party is just a small taste of what goes on, no pun intended) this 1 guy out of millions with actual potential gets to spend 10 years in prison?

In truth, no such law can be written. The world isn't black and white and there are always circumstances and occurrences we won't even think about before a law is written. Sure, it'd be great if we could have such laws. It would also be great if chocolate rained from the sky and the streets were paved in gold....

I saw OcceanDrive hedging his position with a minefield. I urged him to just state a simple position which I saw as the logical consequence of "no discretion."

I shouldn't have tried to characterise OD's position. I certainly won't defend that silly characterisation.

Even the most socially liberal countries, Sweden, the Netherlands and the like have ages of consent around the 15/16 mark - you certainly cannot argue that the Swedes or the Dutch have puritanical views of sex. Also, I have explained above my opinions on the latter point
Except the legal age to have sex is the age of consent. In the US, the legal age is 18.



Ultimately there is a cost though - even if there is no universal healthcare system; someone that actually needs that bed may not be able to get it.
Irrelevant. That fact stands any time anyone walks into a hospital.

In New Zealand ten years ago, we had people complaining about drinking by 18 and 19 year olds (illegal at the time), and people suggested that we should lower the drinking age - the drinking age was lowered to 18, and now we are having the same problems with 16 and 17 year olds, while drinking among 14 and 15 year olds has skyrocketed. Why? Because the law was watered down.
Bullshit. 14 to 17 year olds were drinking back then too.

Highly unlikely that anymore people would break the law - a majority of people would comply with the new law.
Or disguise the fact they were breaking it :rolleyes:
Raising the age requirement makes anyone below it previously following the law now criminals.



Yep; and then you will notice that people will realise that this law actually exists and has teeth - strict enforcement does produce results, and if you want another example; look at New Zealand - traffic offences have been steadily decreasing since those laws were strictly enforced
Potatos and oranges.



Sweden has 15 as it's age of consent, the Netherlands 16; they are far from puritanical countries
America's is 18, try again. In those countries, this case wouldn't have occurred.

You will find that mental development does not discriminate between countries - the brain of a 14 year old is less able to comprehend consequences than the brain of a 19 year old, whether or not they are American, Canadian, New Zealander, Australian, British, Swedish or Dutch
This occurred between a 15 year old and 17 year old.
Please stop rambling off the "you are all immoral!" bullshit and keep up with the facts of the topic.

Also, bear in mind that there was a tape made of this; a frecking tape - that would fall under the child pornography laws.

Horror! People taping their own sex acts for their personal use!

What has the world come to?

Allow me to present my argument:

Stupids laws make America suck.

That will be all.

I saw OcceanDrive hedging his position with a minefield. I urged him to just state a simple position which I saw as the logical consequence of "no discretion."

I shouldn't have tried to characterise OD's position. I certainly won't defend that silly characterisation.me bad..
Me and my evil minefields.
__________________

Johnny
we're sorry
won't you come on home?
We worry
won't you come on?
Johnny
we're sorry.

Who do you know
where will you stay?
Big city life is not what they say.
Johnny
we're sorry
won't you come on home? . . .

Can't find a room
money's all blown.
Nowhere to sleep out in the cold
nothing to eat
nowhere to go.
Johnny
we're sorry
won't you come on home? . . .

Won't you come on home ? We worry
won't you come on home ?
Johnny
won't you come on home? We worry -.
Johnny......
_____________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvf3daRgWk

Looks like a judge has vacated the sentence and reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor.
http://wsbradio.com/common/ap/2007/06/11/D8PMNHIG0.html

ATLANTA (AP) -- A Georgia judge ordered the release Monday of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

The judge threw out Genarlow Wilson's previous sentence and amended it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month sentence, plus credit for time served. Under the new ruling, he will not be required to register as a sex offender.


But the state AG wants to appeal the ruling. Why?

This is good. Almost too good to put in the same post...

He thinks that there are a lot of other kids jailed under similar circumstances.

WTF???

Looks like a judge has vacated the sentence and reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor.
http://wsbradio.com/common/ap/2007/06/11/D8PMNHIG0.html


But the state AG wants to appeal the ruling. Why?

This is good. Almost too good to put in the same post...

He thinks that there are a lot of other kids jailed under similar circumstances.

WTF???

Why the FUCKING HELL does he think this guy deserves a sentence at all? If you MUST sentence him, how about a few months of probation? Man, he might've made things better, but he's still a dumbfuck.

Why the FUCKING HELL does he think this guy deserves a sentence at all? If you MUST sentence him, how about a few months of probation? Man, he might've made things better, but he's still a dumbfuck.

He brought it down to a lower level of dumbfuckery. Still a dumbfuck, but less of one.

Looks like a judge has vacated the sentence and reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor.
http://wsbradio.com/common/ap/2007/06/11/D8PMNHIG0.html


Under the new ruling, he will not be required to register as a sex offender.

like I said Thumbs up to the Judge.

and.. Congrats to Genarlow Wilson's (and his Family.)
.. I am very proud of you man.

But the state AG wants to appeal the ruling. Why?Why the FUCKING HELL does he think this guy deserves a sentence at all? If you MUST sentence him, how about a few months of probation? Man, he might've made things better, but he's still a dumbfuck.He brought it down to a lower level of dumbfuckery. Still a dumbfuck, but less of one.at this point The AG is irrelevant, he does NOT matter, his opinion does NOT matter, anything he does is now irrelevant.

The (10 years sentence) Judge made sure of that.
Thumbs up to the Judge.

Wilson was to be free.. with NO guilty pleading and NO .."rapist" stamped on his forehead.

at this point The AG is irrelevant, he does matter, his opinion does not matter, anything he does does not matter.

The (10 years sentence) Judge made sure of that.
Thumbs up to the Judge.
Not entirely irrelevant. If he appeals, Wilson could be incarcerated for the duration of the appeal. There are appeal bonds, but it seems those are easier to get (unless you're Scooter Libby) if you're not yet in jail.

Why the FUCKING HELL does he think this guy deserves a sentence at all? If you MUST sentence him, how about a few months of probation? Man, he might've made things better, but he's still a dumbfuck.

Because he committed crime...Even under the new law, it was a crime. His new sentence is 12 months with credit for time served. That's 21 months. I think the state owes him 9 months, by my calculation.

Not entirely irrelevant. If he appeals, Wilson could be incarcerated for the duration of the appeal. There are appeal bonds, but it seems those are easier to get (unless you're Scooter Libby) if you're not yet in jail.

I don't understand why he would be appealing this. Unless he specifically wants to make an example out of this kid, there's just no reason for ruining 10years of this kid's life for mouth banging his girlfriend.

Because he committed crime...Even under the new law, it was a crime. His new sentence is 12 months with credit for time served. That's 21 months. I think the state owes him 9 months, by my calculation.

Aye. Wait...this kid's been in jail for almost two years already??

I don't understand why he would be appealing this. Unless he specifically wants to make an example out of this kid, there's just no reason for ruining 10years of this kid's life for mouth banging his girlfriend.
What I heard the reporter say on the radio is that the AG is worried because there are other kids in jail for similar crimes. I would think that he would be interested in serving justice and try to get them freed, but it seems like he's trying to prevent that.

He fucking AG is 100% irrelevant at this point.


Is there anything you want to bet.. money, you house , your car, your ass.. anything at all? ;)

Incorrect. The AG is far from irrelevant, especially if he appeals. Which it seems like he will.

Not entirely irrelevant.The fucking AG is 100% irrelevant at this point.


Wilson could be incarcerated for the duration of the appeal.I say he is going to be free soon, even if the retarded AG appeals..
Is there anything you want to bet.. money, you house , your car, your ass.. anything at all? ;)

Sweden has 15 as it's age of consent, the Netherlands 16; they are far from puritanical countries

Actually the age of consent is a sliding scale in the Netherlands.
Sex under the age of 12 is forbidden.
Sex under the age of 16 is only allowed if the partners are married (which in theory is possible in the Netherlands, though in practice exists for foreign cultures) or if "society deems it acceptable", which in practice means about an 8 year difference at most. The acceptable part is not defined exactly on purpose.
Sex under the age of 18 is only allowed if it is not prostitution or pornography, nor between people where a clear dependency relation exists (caretaker and child, teacher and pupil and so on).

What I heard the reporter say on the radio is that the AG is worried because there are other kids in jail for similar crimes. I would think that he would be interested in serving justice and try to get them freed, but it seems like he's trying to prevent that.

That's a stupid argument. "There are people in here for this for an idiotic duration, so instead of serving justice in getting them a more reasonable sentence, we're going to fuck this kid over." Aaaagh stupid people.

On a side note, I was watching a "Last Days on Planet Earth" show on History Channel, and the #1 "potential cause of the apocalypse" was, you guessed it, Global Climate Change. And I couldn't help thinking, "If Myrmi was watching this show, he probably just had an aneurism."

Because he committed crime...Even under the new law, it was a crime. His new sentence is 12 months with credit for time served. That's 21 months. I think the state owes him 9 months, by my calculation.the AG/Gov. owes him a front page apology and (since this is America) ...money.

If Macdonald's had to pay 100000 (I dont remember the settlement figures) to a woman burning herself with coffee...
How much is this guy owed?

That's a stupid argument. "There are people in here for this for an idiotic duration, so instead of serving justice in getting them a more reasonable sentence, we're going to fuck this kid over." Aaaagh stupid people.

On a side note, I was watching a "Last Days on Planet Earth" show on History Channel, and the #1 "potential cause of the apocalypse" was, you guessed it, Global Climate Change. And I couldn't help thinking, "If Myrmi was watching this show, he probably just had an aneurism."
There are stupid people everywhere. And sometimes smart people do stupid things. In general, Baker has been a good AG -- reelected several times.

As far as global warming, I don't disagree that the climate is changing, my thoughts regarding the human contribution are that consensus alone doesn't make good science and we shouldn't rush into expensive fixes without some good planning. Besides, I got scanned -- They tell me I don't have any potential aneurysms. Ever watch the Great Santini? Remember the part where he was reading the paper? And asking God why he put so many stupid people on the face of the earth at the same time? That's kind of how I read the paper...

There are stupid people everywhere. And sometimes smart people do stupid things. In general, Baker has been a good AG -- reelected several times.

As far as global warming, I don't disagree that the climate is changing, my thoughts regarding the human contribution are that consensus alone doesn't make good science and we shouldn't rush into expensive fixes without some good planning. Besides, I got scanned -- They tell me I don't have any potential aneurysms. Ever watch the Great Santini? Remember the part where he was reading the paper? And asking God why he put so many stupid people on the face of the earth at the same time? That's kind of how I read the paper...

I don't know much about the AG in particular, but I do agree that smart people can (and in many cases frequently do) do stupid things.

I gathered that from previous conversation on the global warming subject in other threads. I'm still trying to get more information on the subject than I currently have, though it seems to me increasingly that "fixing the problem" isn't as important at this point as "figuring out how to deal with the problem."

And no, I've never watched the Great Santini...though I get what you mean.

And no, I've never watched the Great Santini...though I get what you mean.

There's those that has got 'em, Deus, and those that don't!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case

Down to a year now, if I can read that correctly...
And the court battle goes on...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case
"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice,"

"If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner," wrote Judge Thomas H. Wilson.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case

Down to a year now, if I can read that correctly...
And the court battle goes on...

He'll get out if the AG doesn't appeal the sentence, as he's already done 27 months. If the AG appeals, then he has to stay in during the appeals process.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of guys under 18 who have any kind of sex in Atlanta, and Georiga (And people in Georgia are known for being hugely sexual and "freaky" with males and males, females and females, males and females, and all kinds of stuff going on. I know this personally from having several friends from ATL. This party is just a small taste of what goes on, no pun intended) this 1 guy out of millions with actual potential gets to spend 10 years in prison?

You know people in Atlanta and you think that you thus have a representative view of habits in GA?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

Except the legal age to have sex is the age of consent. In the US, the legal age is 18.

This is incorrect. The age of consent varies from state to state. In most states, it is 16 or 17. Not completely sure what it currently is in GA, but it was 17 when I went legal...

What I heard the reporter say on the radio is that the AG is worried because there are other kids in jail for similar crimes. I would think that he would be interested in serving justice and try to get them freed, but it seems like he's trying to prevent that.

Apparently, the worry is that the court will be flooded with lots of appeals like Wilson's. Eric Johnson (a state senator) has made this same complaint. Apparently, justice takes a back seat to convenience.

Appeal blocks release in teen sex case (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html)

Apparently, the worry is that the court will be flooded with lots of appeals like Wilson's. Eric Johnson (a state senator) has made this same complaint. Apparently, justice takes a back seat to convenience.

Appeal blocks release in teen sex case (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html)

This all blows. You know what caused this whole problem? Our inept state legislature. They did go as far as passing a law that made sure this was handled more reasonably -- in direct response to the Wilson case. But they forgot to make the damned thing retroactive...

This all blows. You know what caused this whole problem? Our inept state legislature. They did go as far as passing a law that made sure this was handled more reasonably -- in direct response to the Wilson case. But they forgot to make the damned thing retroactive...

Doesn't that pretty much ALWAYS happen in these situations? I remember another court case, similar in nature, that ended up going down the same way. Kid goes to jail anyway, new law gets passed, jack shit can be done about kid currently in jail.

This all blows. You know what caused this whole problem? Our inept state legislature. They did go as far as passing a law that made sure this was handled more reasonably -- in direct response to the Wilson case. But they forgot to make the damned thing retroactive...

They didn't forget. They were well aware that they could make it retroactive and they refused to do so. Eric Johnson has been quite outspoken about it. Apparently, making it retroactive would be bad because the court system would suddenly have a lot of appeals from people who got screwed over by the old law...

They didn't forget. They were well aware that they could make it retroactive and they refused to do so. Eric Johnson has been quite outspoken about it. Apparently, making it retroactive would be bad because the court system would suddenly have a lot of appeals from people who got screwed over by the old law...
And so it goes back to convenience...Well, I'm about done in the lab, I guess I'll go home and see what the local news has to say about it.

This all blows. You know what caused this whole problem? Our inept state legislature. They did go as far as passing a law that made sure this was handled more reasonably -- in direct response to the Wilson case. But they forgot to make the damned thing retroactive...What about setting up such laws in the first place?

What about setting up such laws in the first place?
I think most of us agree that there is some age below which consensual sex is not possible. Just what that age is and what the penalties should be for having sexual relations with an underage partner is certainly something for consideration.

I think most of us agree that there is some age below which consensual sex is not possible. Just what that age is and what the penalties should be for having sexual relations with an underage partner is certainly something for consideration.I can tell you, consensual sex is possible with 12.

I can tell you, consensual sex is possible with 12.
I don't know too many 12 year olds that would be able to make that decision and handle the consequences. Most twelve year olds aren't even able to do chores like cleaning and laundry. I don't think they're ready for the responsibility of sex.

My choice for an age of consent would be a lot closer to 18.

is the age of consent 18 in all of the USA? on this handy chart-


http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

it says that in many states it's 16

I don't know too many 12 year olds that would be able to make that decision and handle the consequences. Most twelve year olds aren't even able to do chores like cleaning and laundry. I don't think they're ready for the responsibility of sex.

My choice for an age of consent would be a lot closer to 18.

I'd advocate a middle ground. Something more reasonable, like 16. At 16 in Jersey you can get a permit to drive a car with supervision. Now, to allay jokes about fucking under supervision, here is a cat picture:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f359/dcthomp/lolcat1.jpg

I don't know too many 12 year olds that would be able to make that decision and handle the consequences. Most twelve year olds aren't even able to do chores like cleaning and laundry. I don't think they're ready for the responsibility of sex.

My choice for an age of consent would be a lot closer to 18.What responsibility? We are talking about a consensual decision to have sex. There are no thoughts of "responsibility" or even consequences involved.

This all blows. You know what caused this whole problem? Our inept state legislature. They did go as far as passing a law that made sure this was handled more reasonably -- in direct response to the Wilson case. But they forgot to make the damned thing retroactive...

Forgot my ass, they do this kind of thing over and over. Making laws in response to something and then not making the law retroactive. They made the damn law, they could have made it retroactive if they wanted.

Forgot my ass, they do this kind of thing over and over. Making laws in response to something and then not making the law retroactive. They made the damn law, they could have made it retroactive if they wanted.

The legislature is composed of people.

People are stupid.

Ergo, the legislature is composed of stupid...wait...:D

I believe a judge just reduced it to time served:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3266347

Forgot my ass, they do this kind of thing over and over. Making laws in response to something and then not making the law retroactive. They made the damn law, they could have made it retroactive if they wanted.
Yeah, I think we covered that a little earlier. Catch up, huh?

I believe a judge just reduced it to time served:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3266347

Better ... though it is kind of sad that the attorney general is pushing apparently pretty hard to have the modification of sentencing overturned

Yeah, I think we covered that a little earlier. Catch up, huh?
Catch up with what? You always play the same game, I can play the same position.

I believe a judge just reduced it to time served:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3266347

Well this is good news, to an extent.

Well this is good news, to an extent.

Besides the douchebag attorney general playing "tough on crime" for the governor and whoever elected him.

Besides the douchebag attorney general playing "tough on crime" for the governor and whoever elected him.

Which is why I qualified that statement with "to an extent".

Besides the douchebag attorney general playing "tough on crime" ...I think AGs should be "tough on crime".. for real Criminal.. who commit real rape.

the law defining this as rape is retarded.

Judge ordered him released today.


A judge has ordered that Genarlow Wilson be freed from prison, where he has spent more than two years for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson also amended Wilson's felony conviction this morning to a misdemeanor without the requirement that he register as a sex offender.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html


Case - CLOSED.

[quote author=dasmi link=topic=7336.msg119359#msg119359 date=1181590461]
Judge ordered him released today.


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html


Case - CLOSED.

Georga - if you're locked up, you're guilty - forever.

"One issue that attorneys general have to worry about is the so-called floodgate problem," Carlson said. "Since dozens and dozens have been sentenced under the law as it previously existed ... the attorney general may well be worried about hundreds of prisoners banging on their cell doors and demanding the same treatment as Genarlow Wilson. That is a valid concern."
Oh no, they might have to let retroactively innocent people convicted under bullshit laws out of jail!

Judge ordered him released today.


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html


Case - CLOSED.
Not really, seeing how he hasn't been released because the state Attorney General is appealing the decision...

Case - CLOSED.You haven't read the recent pages of this thread, have you?

You haven't read the recent pages of this thread, have you?

That wasn't part of my damn post, it was Allanea's. Have you even read this page of the thread?

My quote was contradicting him with his own article. The attorney general is fighting this so they don't have to let now innocent people out of jail.

Why, why, WHY?! Why is the attorney general appealing this? :(

God, some people...

Why, why, WHY?! Why is the attorney general appealing this? :(

It's simple, really. If they actually make a just decision in this case, all the other people who are unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined will want justice as well. Do you have any idea how inconvenient that would be?

Obviously, it is better to ruin this young man's life than to make an attempt at being just.

the law defining this as rape is retarded.

Umm...you're saying the judge did the right thing...and then criticizing the law...

Umm...you're saying the judge did the right thing...and then criticizing the law...Exactamente.

#1 That sex Law is retarded. It has to changed. (this has been partially achieved thanks to that Judge and Wilson)

#2 Justice for All the other people who are unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined by retarded sex Laws.

Thumbs up to the Judge and wilson.

Exactamente.

#1 That sex Law is retarded. It has to changed. (this has been partially achieved thanks to that Judge and Wilson)

#2 Justice for All the other people who are unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined by retarded sex Laws.

Thumbs up to the Judge and wilson.

What...the....FUCK?

That post was contradictory in every single way.

What...the....FUCK?

That post was contradictory in every single way.Only if you cant see the big picture..

How long have those retarded Sex laws been in place in the US?

How many people has been unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined by these retarded sex Laws?

______________________

US attention span is short.. You may be innocent.. but If you are not in the headlines today.. you are yesterday news.. the window of oportinity for justice is closing on you.
______________________
BTW I am going AFK in 2 min.. shall answer your other questions tonite.

Only if you cant see the big picture..

How long have those retarded Sex laws been in place in the US?

How many people has been unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined by these retarded sex Laws?

______________________

US attention span is short.. You may be innocent.. but If you are not in the headlines today.. you are yesterday news.. the window of oportinity for justice is closing on you.
______________________
BTW I am going AFK in 2 min.. shall answer your other questions tonite.

Okay...how the hell can you give a thumbs up to the judge for incarcerating someone under a law, and then oppose the law?

I think AGs should be "tough on crime".. for real Criminal.. who commit real rape.

the law defining this as rape is retarded.

I agree the AG is being an ass.

But your understanding of the case is skewed. Wilson was not convicted of rape, but of aggravated child molestation.

It is the sentence that Wilson received that is wrong, not his conviction. He was guilty of the crime charged. The ten-year mandatory minimum was what was objectionable.

BTW, for those that have implied otherwise, Wilson, his five co-defendants, and the two women involved were all black. This wasn't because Wilson had sex with a white girl.

It's simple, really. If they actually make a just decision in this case, all the other people who are unjustly incarcerated and have had their lives ruined will want justice as well. Do you have any idea how inconvenient that would be?

Obviously, it is better to ruin this young man's life than to make an attempt at being just.

"Inconvenient"... :(

Me no like!

But your understanding of the case is skewed. Wilson was not convicted of rape, but of aggravated child molestation.

It is the sentence that Wilson received that is wrong, not his conviction. He was guilty of the crime charged. The ten-year mandatory minimum was what was objectionable.
My viewpoint is: these sex law are retarded.
My question for you is:
Do these Laws make Wilson a Criminal? (Rape/molestation/harrasement/Blow Job/anal/whatever)

If they do.. then these sex Laws are fucked up.

I say these sex law are wrong.. Legal technicalities are not going to change the bottom line.

But your understanding of the case is skewed. Wilson was not convicted of rape, but of aggravated child molestation.

It is the sentence that Wilson received that is wrong, not his conviction. He was guilty of the crime charged. The ten-year mandatory minimum was what was objectionable.

I believe it is more that the ten-year mandatory minimum was objectionable in this case, given the similarity in age and the Romeo and Juliet law already in place.

BTW, for those that have implied otherwise, Wilson, his five co-defendants, and the two women involved were all black. This wasn't because Wilson had sex with a white girl.

I still think it is highly unlikely that Wilson (or the co-defendants) would have ever been tried if they had been white. I could be wrong, but I know the way politics work in this state - and how much racism runs rampant, and it would not surprise me in the least.

Do these Laws make Wilson a Criminal?The don't make him a criminal, they declare him a criminal.

My viewpoint is: these sex law are retarded.
My question for you is:
Do these Laws make Wilson a Criminal? (Rape/molestation/harrasement/Blow Job/anal/whatever)

If they do.. then this Laws are fucked up.

I say this law is wrong.. dont you agree?

No. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a law that makes it a crime to have sex (oral or otherwise) with someone that is 15 or younger.

And before you object based on the facts of this specific case, be sure to consider all the facts. We are talking here about six young men that had oral sex with a drunk and stoned 15-year old and 17-year old, one of whom claimed she was raped.

If Mr. Wilson, was 45 would you still believe he had committed no crime?

If Mr. Wilson's victim was 12, would you still believe he had committed no crime?

I believe it is more that the ten-year mandatory minimum was objectionable in this case, given the similarity in age and the Romeo and Juliet law already in place.

Exactly. That is what I should have said. Thanks.

I still think it is highly unlikely that Wilson (or the co-defendants) would have ever been tried if they had been white. I could be wrong, but I know the way politics work in this state - and how much racism runs rampant, and it would not surprise me in the least.

That may very well be the case. I was just correcting the speculation that the victim was white. That wasn't a factor in this case.

The don't make him a criminal, they declare him a criminal.please no more technicalities.. please?

You all know what i mean. You all know what i want.

I want justice.
the Law is unjust? Change the Law.. free Wilson.

please no more technicalities.. please?

You all know what i mean. You all know what i want.

I want justice.
the Law is unjust? Change the Law.. free Wilson.free wilson. shit on the law. law is to serve man, not the other way round.

No. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a law that makes it a crime to have sex (oral or otherwise) with someone that is 15 or younger.the AG (The one figthing to keep Wilson in Jail) agrees with you.

But I dont.
You are entitled to your opinion.. just like the AG.

going AFK now.. I ll be back tonite.

the AG (The one figthing to keep Wilson in Jail) agrees with you.

But I dont.
You are entitled to your opinion.. just like the AG.

going AFK now.. I ll be back tonite.this is not about opinion, this is about money. if they now set wilson free, many others will file appeals. and this will cost an awful lot of money for the courts.

No. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a law that makes it a crime to have sex (oral or otherwise) with someone that is 15 or younger.

Even if the partner is also 15 ?

If Mr. Wilson, was 45 would you still believe he had committed no crime?

If Mr. Wilson's victim was 12, would you still believe he had committed no crime?

Which is exactly why I support the sliding scale age of consent. 12 with 12 ? Icky, but no crime. 12 with 45 ? Crime. 15 with 17 ? No crime. 15 with 45 ? Up to the judge - I'd say crime.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I don't like mandatory minimums in any case...

15 with 45 ? Up to the judge - I'd say crime.

45 with 45? Icky, but no crime.

:p

Okay...how the hell can you give a thumbs up to the judge for incarcerating someone under a law, and then oppose the law?sometimes you need public outrage to change a bad piece of legislation.

"Discretion" is a band-aid that allows these unfair Laws to keep lurking around for decades. (and randomly send some teens to Jail)

Several posters have pointed out.. that "kids do happen to get BJs at US High schools parties .. but White kids are unlikely to get charged by police..."


-look to me like discretion blues-

45 with 45? Icky, but no crime.

:pLOL.

Imagine your Grandparents doing it.. ARGGGHH MY EYES !!!

I am going to write my congressman to pass a Law.. to ban my Granny, and my Mom from gettin some. :D

We are talking here about six young men that had oral sex with a drunk and stoned 15-year old and 17-year old, one of whom claimed she was raped. I'm sure.

If Mr. Wilson, was 45 would you still believe he had committed no crime?

If Mr. Wilson's victim was 12, would you still believe he had committed no crime?
What if bananas were apples and dogs were pants.

First of all, sorry about the delay and I hate dragging this back out, but I need to deal with some lingering points

A "slippery slope" argument. No proof. And unless you are saying that oral sex is worse than anal and vaginal sex, I do not understand what you are getting at.

I am not saying that oral sex is worse or better, I am saying that oral and anal sex is treated differently in some juridictions, Singapore for example. In terms of the slippery slope argument; I cast my eye toward the lowering of the drinking age in New Zealand. Prior to the drinking age being lowered, there were issues with 16 and 17 year olds drinking, but it was not that bad. When the age was lowered to 18; the issues became much worse - the health authorities were very concerned about it. It is human nature, we always want to push the boundaries that little bit more, just look at a naughty child.

Wrong. Breaking stupid laws does not equal breaking smart laws. Most people can understand that. And as for STD's, thats why we use condoms. Which is why we teach kids about them. Or not, because some fundamentalist idiots were stupid and arrogant enough to think they could override hormones. And extra bed? WTF? Why dont we ban anything that has any potential societal cost? Breathing? Taking up valuable air! outlawed! eating? taking up valuable food! outlawed! Having sex? Taking up valuable beds! From now on me must have sex on the floor, by official decree!

So you really think that condoms are 100% fool proof? They have a mere 97% success rate if used properly and if used in the manner that most teenagers use them, the success rate drops by about ten percentage points. In terms of extra bed, I am talking about in the reasonably unlikely event that said condom fails and the kid squirts out an STD on the unsuspecting gal

There is a point where enough is enough. It is not here. It is far off in the distance.

And when we reach that point and people are demanding that we push even further, then what are we going to do?

Wouldnt being tough on Major crimes be better? or making it so that foolish minor crimes like this arent crimes? And yes, the laws do have a moral basis, but they are agreed upon by almost everyone and are neccesary for the continuation of civilization. Foolish morals imposed by the few that have no benefit to society does not fall under this.

It would be just as good to be tough on major crimes, however, as I said, New York went tough on minor crime and as a result, crime statistics overall dropped dramatically. In terms of laws being agreed on by almost everyone, why not do a survey on sex laws in your area; I highly doubt that many parents would want little Julie to be able to legally have sex at 13 now would they? Or little Julie sucking several cocks in a row at the age of 15? Indeed, the only people that would support a change would be people on the left, teenagers and that is about it - certainly a bare majority of the population.

These aren't morals imposed by a few, these are morals imposed by a majority or a near enough majority of the population.

But thats mainly to stop those older from preying on minors, not to keep minors from preying on each other.

Still, there is a quite high age of consent in those countries you have to admit

have already adressed the extreme stupidity of the "bed" statement.

I have clarified the "bed" argument

The law is clear, but the reasons are not. Because the reasons are stupid.

The reasons are not stupid - the reason is to prevent our children from gaining carnal knowledge at too young of an age; how many parents would want little Julie losing her virginity at 13?

Do you know anything about prohibition? It was a major failure. And when we change it to something like sex, it will fail even harder. You would have to be supremley arrogant to believe any legislation could control teenage hormones.

Prohibition may have failed in terms of policy, however, there was a point proven by that exercise - the vast majority of people will obey a law when it is changed.

Also, teenage hormones are typically the same throughout the ages, yet in past years, they were much more controlling of their sexual urges; a good majority of people did not lose their virginity until their late-teens until the latter part of the twentieth century when the average age of people losing their virginity decreased. What made the difference? Social change, and in part, social change is dictated by the firmness/looseness of the law - in years gone by, parents would have people charged with statutory rape, these days, they tend not to.

Sometimes the law must be watered down. In Iran, for example, major law-watering is called for.

Sometimes, but rarely. When it is clear that it will benefit society, such as laws relating to discrimination against women, then I am fine with it, however, when it is laws that can be continually watered down and can very easily have an impact on our children, then I get more concerned.

Source? also, drinking and sex laws are very different. Drinking can very easily be harmful to others. Sex between two consenting individuals, with proper birth control, harms no one.

I cannot give you a proper source, however, the NZ Herald in about 2005 published a range of articles about how health professionals in New Zealand had noticed a spike in 16 and 17 year olds being admitted to hospital with drink related problems, after the drinking age was lowered in 1999. I believe there were also TV articles at the time.

Also; as I said before, birth control is not 100% fool proof - a condom works 97% of the time if used properly and that reliability rate drops by up to ten percentage points if used improperly. So, we have a 13% chance that sperm creeps in and a chance that the girl gets pregnant or an STD. That has harms to society as a whole.

I support an age of consent law for Minor-non-minor intercourse. But two minors of the same or very close ages should be able to have sex without fear of prosecution.

I say no, simply because as I said in prior posts, you have a "three year allowance," then a 14 year old that is due to turn 15 in a week, and an 18 year old that just turned 18 get prosecuted, then people clamour for the allowance to be extended; then it changes to three years six months and so on.

Neither is the 17-yr old whose life is ruined.

I never expected him to be, but he chose to have his dick sucked - for that night of pleasure, he learnt a very tough lesson; and I certainly hope that this case will make people think twice.

Already adressed how deluded the second part is. And you have now stated that consensual oral sex is immoral. I fail to see how this is not puritanical.

Alright, for goodness sake I am not saying that oral sex is immoral; I am putting it in the same basket as laws relating to sex in general, alcohol consumption, drug prohibition, restrictions on homosexuality and so on - that is what I meant by "immoral" - it was in inverted commas to reflect that it does not reflect my own opinion.

I have also addressed the first part of your sentence above.

But these are not results that are particularly desirable. Consenting sex between minors (unless there is a significant age gap) is not wrong. Also, hormoned are stronger than laws.

See above

If proper birth control is used, what are the consequences? I can't think of any.

See above

what is the reason? Kindly enlighten me. I see no good reasons.

I see plenty of good reasons - we do not start properly comprehending consequences and thinking about our actions until our later teens and early twenties; early-teens therefore do not think carefully and therefore need the help of the law; if it is illegal, then a good majority of thinking people would follow it

first part- fine

second part- wrong.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---A000-.html

The tape was not distributed.

Nice effort, but overall, I give your post an F. Maybe an F+

Still, the tape was made - and therefore it would fall under child pornography, even if it were not distributed. Also, considering that I posted this post while eating dinner and being slightly rushed for time, I think an F+ is satisfactory (by the way, I am a little rushed for time now, so I did not go into as much depth as I hoped).

Not spam yet?

Imagine your Grandparents doing it.. ARGGGHH MY EYES !!!

Grandad's blood pressure meds prevent such stuff and have done so for the last 20 years if not more... but I guess they must've done it at some point to beget my dad... :eek:

(Mom's parents have been dead for nearly a decade now. :()

Oh, and not all STDs can be avoided with condom use. Many things can also be transferred via hand-to-genital or mouth-to-genital contact.

Oh, and not all STDs can be avoided with condom use. Many things can also be transferred via hand-to-genital or mouth-to-genital contact.

Microperforation ftw!

Holes < sperm
Holes > virus
?