Posted on 06/11/2007 11:05:28 AM PDT by John Cena
ATLANTA — A Georgia judge on Monday voided a 10-year sentence given to a man who was convicted while a teenager of having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.
Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson voided Genarlow Wilson's sentence and dropped 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
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Again, I notice that you’ve failed to answer the question and you’ve taken a detour into a land of ethics.
Whether or not such a law is “just” is a decision for the people of the state in which the law exists. It is of no relevance to what I am saying.
The law simply is. If it exists, then people unquestionably better able to plan their affairs than if such a doctrine were arbitrarily enforced, as you would prefer. A system of randomness, in which one’s affairs are left to the cogs of fate, is simply not beneficial.
This is the sort of thing that makes the kid's middle-aged, overweight, cheerleading female attorney seem to be a nutcase (in retrospect).
Wonder what she has planned to celebrate with her client.
It depends. If 99% of the defendants are guilty, sure—it’s a very good thing, because it adds a higher level of predictability to those who are choosing whether or not to take certain courses of action. It better allows people to adequately assess risk and to internalize all the costs of action.
BTW, this was the second of two rape situations attributed to the kid. There will undoubtedly be a third. Then the people of Georgia can put him away ~ and another young woman will learn that she should stay away from parties.
On the other hand, if less than 99% of the people are guilty, then it is bad, because an element of randomness (which you ought to prefer) is injected into the equation.
People are unable to adequately assess risk in plotting their behavior. This is unquestionably bad.
It used to be that 15 was an acceptable marrying age. My aunt was 15 when she married my uncle and they were married for 50 years until he died. A lot of girls are far from virgins by the age of 15. I don’t think older guys should be out looking for 15 year old girls to fool around with, but I don’t think a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old should go to prison and have to register as a sex offender the rest of his life either. That’s crazy. Even if the guy was 19 I’d think it was crazy. Maybe the 19 year old should do some jail time to deter him and others from doing the same thing, but it’s over the top to make him register as a sex offender the rest of his life. That happens all the time though these days. In my opinion sex offender registration should be reserved for the predators out there, rapists and pedophiles who fool around with little kids, perverts who are a real threat to society. If it were me, I think I’d rather do a couple of years in prison than have to register as a sex offender the rest of my life. I think we’re going a little too far with this sex offender registration business.
That's what makes this case so weird. The law under which this kid was convicted has already been repealed. The judge was not 'legislating from the bench', bu ruling on the fact that a ten-year sentence was being served for a violation that no longer existed. Only a pin-eyed law book sniffer wouldn't have released Genarlow at the time of repeal.
But if the law says 16 is the age of consent, how can a 15 year-old give consent?
It’s like saying you cannot drive until you are 16 but 15 year-olds can get a license and drive because they are almost 16.
I have to laugh at situations like this being placed under a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law. My Shakespeare is a bit rusty, but the situation in this case seems to me to be more like The President and the Intern. Young student (intern) in awe of the football star (President) finds self-esteem in “servicing” the BMOC.
Of course not. The question is consent. Did she consent before she passed out? I don't want to get too technical but there are some feminists who believe a woman has the right to claim rape in "mid-act" after she initially agrees to the deed. Guess both parties will need a lawyer present to sign mutual consent forms prior to any sexual act.
She packed a bag, she meant to stay the night. See the article i linked to.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody’s.
Mine!
And mine!
And mine!
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O’er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that’s spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
Excuse me?? I am one of those “Bible thumpers” you are dismissing and I consider myself logical and thoughtful.
“Neither 18 or 20 are minors.”
The term “minor” can mean different things depending on which statute you are looking at. In my state for instance you have to be 21 to drink. If you are caught with alcohol before you turn 21 you get charged with “Minor in Possession of Alcohol.” The law specifically provides that for the purpose of that subsection the term “minor” refers to a person who has not yet reached the age of 21. But then of course there are plenty of other sections of our code where a minor is considered to be one who has not yet reached the age of 18.
She must have been a white girl...
Maybe, just MAYBE because he didn’t rape her??? gee, ya think?!
It's pretty difficult to just be walking down the street and next thing you know you are surrounded by these people, and it's going on, and you just whistle bravely, and so forth.
I'd ask if he watched and bust him on something else.
I did not see the tape, though it is supposedly on the internet. Sen. Johnson agrees with me and all reports that I have seen of the tape show the girl to be semiconscious or unconscious. She cannot give consent nor can a 15 yr old give consent.
I would venture to guess that if these had been the daughters of some Freepers now taking wilson's side, we might well be discussing murder charges and vigilante justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.