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 ...
These were a bunch of convicted felons(except for wilson)who gang raped a semi-conscious/unconscious 17 yr old and then all had oral sexual relations with a minor. They pled guilty!
Imagine that you were the girls' fathers. What would you do?
Actually the 17 yr old said that she didn’t consent to have sex with these 6 thugs. That’s sorta what brought about this whole thing.
The common law principle of abatement was upheld in this case. It’s not surprising the Democrat AG wants to overrule common law.
The legislature DID change it.
My aunt married my uncle when she was fifteen, and they stayed married until he died fifty years later. She wasn’t pregnant by the way and grand dad wasn’t standing there with a shotgun. I think fifteen is way too early to get married, but that was common in the old days. When a girl filled out and was physically able to bear children, she was old enough to marry. These days people wait until they are older to get married. But they mature physically just as early as they used to, if not sooner.
I’ve heard a lot of people argue that girls are filling out a lot earlier these days because of all the growth hormones and whatnot in meat these days. That may be true. My eleven year old daughter is frighteningly developed. By the time she finished the fifth grade she was more developed in the chest area than a lot of full grown women. Now she’s going into junior high and I’m always catching guys staring at her. Like her a lot of girls are starting their periods in the fourth or fifth grade. The scary thing for me of course is that I know that when kids go through puberty they tend to start thinking about sex, a lot. I don’t think girls do as much as boys when they go through puberty, but I do know how much boys tend to think about sex at that time in their lives and if girls think about it even 25% as much as boys do that’s way too much.
Kids these days are probably developing earlier than kids did in the old days, and they’re waiting longer than ever to get married. It is inevitable that a lot of them will end up having sex before they get married. We want to try to keep them from having sex before they get married, but we are fighting against human nature here. They are physically mature enough at an early age to get a great deal of enjoyment out of sex, and we’re demanding that they wait ten years, often more than that, before they start having sex. Most aren’t getting married these days until they are in their mid twenties. A lot of them, most probably, aren’t going to be able to make it that long. Certainly a big part of it is because of all the sexuality in popular culture, but you can’t discount the power of raging hormones, human nature, in all of this.
I don’t think we should start letting kids have sex earlier or anything like that. We should discourage it. We should try to keep them out of situations where it is likely to happen. We should punish them if we find out they are doing it, etc. But should we treat them like axe murderers if they let their hormones get the best of them? Should we put them in prison and make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives if they have consensual sex with someone around their same age?
I don’t know what happened in the case that is the subject of this article. It sounds like a pretty creepy party and maybe there was some nonconsensual sex going on. But the thing is, the way that law was before it changed, even plain old boyfriend-girlfriend sex between teens when one was under the age of sixteen (or both it looks like from reading the old statute) was a felony, one that would require sex offender registration. I’m glad to see that changed.
This whole case was absurd. Sending a 17 year old away for ten years for a consensual act with a 15 year old is idiotic. What a waste or resources to try this case and lock the kid up. Having made the kid spend time in jail around hard core criminals for nothing also makes him more likely to become a real criminal himself.
If a sentence is applied to one person and one person only before the law imposing that sentence is repealed, that would tend to suggest that the imposition of that sentence is "unusual". IMHO, for such a sentence to stand without being deemed "cruel and unusual", the state should have to show:
“They only prosecuted this guy because he is black and the girl is white. “
Sadly I think that if he was white he would have never been tried too.
“There is no “honor” in raping a 15 year old girl —even though it was consensual, it was statutory rape.”
If he was 25 i’d agree with you but a 15 year old minor and a 17 year old minor having consensual relations should never be considered rape. The law was badly flawed and the DA lacked judgment and human decency.
I’m sure when the Fairness Doctrine becomes law again, these people who think no law can be wrong won’t complain.
“He should be punished; she should be locked up somewhere if it was truly consensual. “
A lot of kids in Georgia would be in jail if we held to your absurd position.
Rape was one of the charges, but not the one he as convicted on.
Rape was one of the charges, but not the one he was convicted on.
Still only a misdenmeanor - 10 years is excessive
If I’ve confused you with someone else I’m sorry, and looking at some of your posting history it appears that may be the case. I just took offense to the initial comparison with the lady incapable of having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex who was making excuses for all her clients and “crying and carrying on, and crawling on the floor, and folding up into fetal positions, and just turning into a total emotional mess,” and our conversation went downhill from there for me.
He is on video having sex with an intoxicated/ unconscious 17 yr old.
I typed this really long reply to you about my kids, our parenting, an interesting pre marital sex discussion we had last night, and erased it.
I’ll just say, I agree with you mostly (I’m raising my kids to be moral and the two teens are, they’re sorta appalled by some of the stuff I say regarding teens in love, experimenting, etc.). My 16 yo and 15 yo are way more moral than I was as a teen (and I was a vigin when I married, my husband wasn’t - far from it - but I wasn’t an angel either).
As for this case, I thought the sentence was harsh if it was consenual sex between a 15 and 17 yo. I didn’t know about the video with the other girl and I’m still not sure of all the details of the case.
First of all please please show that this is the only such sentence.
Just because the District Nifong did that made him guilty? Jury said no.
The 5 took the deal the DA offered.
He took a chance on the Sixth Amendment. The Jury saw that tape and said "No crime here"
(Which is why the miffed DA made sure he failed the oral.)
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.