Posted on 06/12/2007 1:32:21 PM PDT by madprof98
The actual facts of Genarlow's case include a rejected offer of a plea bargain before he was ever sentenced as well as a continued rejection of a plea bargain in order to get a reduced sentence now. The Georgia AG explained it in a tiny little article tucked away in today's paper. The thing is that this punk and his dumbass mama, along with all the "civil rights" crowd, figure that every kid does a videotaped orgy on New Year's Eve, so why single out one guy just because one of his party partners was only 15 years old? Naturally, the AJC editorialists and "news" writers share this viewpoint.
So you think that a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old should be a felony? And that a 10 year prison sentence is appropriate? Nobody’s saying that what he did was classy or particularly admirable, but ten years?
The AG offered the kid a deal, as did the prosecutor, so that the sentence would be more reasonable. “Nobody’s saying that what he did was classy or particularly admirable,” eh? He wants a MEDAL for it! His mama wants to put it on her trophy shelf.
The kid has already spent 2 years in prison for something that shouldn’t have been a felony in the first place. Why should he accept a plea deal in order to allow the AG to save face? Why was he even arrested, let alone charged, in the first place? What would you consider a “reasonable” sentence for this “crime”?
Was force used in this case? I think it said everything was totally consensual. So in that case, the only thing to consider is he should really have thought twice about how young this girl was.
Sorry, it isn't possible to explain that to (1) a libertine liberal or (2) a lunkhead libertarian. I assume you are one of those.
Also I’m having trouble following your argument. In what way is Mr. Wilson a punk? I thought he was an honor student and a star football player with zero criminal record. I don’t approve of his actions, but I just don’t see how anybody is better off with him in prison — whether for one day or for ten years. Also, what do you mean by the Civil Rights Crowd? Is that a euphemism for black people?
I'm a conservative with some (not many) libertarian tendencies. But I'm being sincere here. What do you think is an appropriate sentence for a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old?
The age of consent is 16. Therefore, a 15 year old cannot consent to anything.
Genarlow and the rest of this crowd are animals. Including the one that knocked up a 13 year old.
By the way, to all you idiots out there. Videotaping a 15 year old girl performing a sex act is manufacturing child porn.
We will be reading about Ganarlow again.
The punk already raped one girl and had a head job with another at a party. Had himself videotaped doing it.Not very bright is he?
He will return and people will be wondering ,why when he rapes or forces himself on the next woman ,why he was released and why his name wasnt on the register of sexual offenders. I feel sure we will hear from him again.
Exactly. If my daughter had sex in high school and I found out, I'd ground her. If I found out that her boyfriend videotaped her I'd use every means in my power to keep him away from her. But I wouldn't press charges -- that seems completely ridiculous. Not every immoral act is or should be a crime.
Who did he rape? Source?
He will return and people will be wondering ,why when he rapes or forces himself on the next woman ,why he was released and why his name wasnt on the register of sexual offenders.
You're still not answering the question: for the crime of having consensual sex with someone nearly his own age, what do you think the sentence should have been? Why is this so hard to answer?
The State offered “...a plea deal that would have allowed Wilson to plead to first-offender treatment, which would mean he would not have a criminal record nor would be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence has been completed. The plea deal could also result in him receiving a sentence substantially shorter than the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for which he was originally sentenced, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served. Wilson, through his attorneys, rejected all of those offers.”
I guess the authorities are all libertine liberals or lunkhead libertarians as well. I can’t speak for the kid or his lawyer, but obviously they figure a juvenile (in most states)doesn’t have the mature judgement to turn down a head job at the time.
Yeah this kid must be sacrificed for the greater good...don’t want no stinkin floodgates.
I'm having a bit of trouble with this "consensual" label. At age 15, the girl in question cannot legally give "consent", so it isn't "consensual". And having read the *entire* article I discover that others were convicted of sexual battery on the the other girl. That implies coercion rather than consent. All these facts indicate that whatever occurred in the incident in question, "consent", as I understand the term, is questionable at best, and may have been the product of intimidation...
the infowarrior
I'm aware that the law is (or was) written that way. In your book do you think it should be legal for two fifteen year olds to have sex with each other, but if one turns 16 and they continue to have sex, you want the older one sent to prison on a rape charge?
Videotaping a 15 year old girl performing a sex act is manufacturing child porn.
Maybe I'm nuts, but I see a difference between a 45 year old videotaping a 15 year old and a 16 or 17 year old doing the same. Do you?
Sorry, it isn’t possible to explain that to (1) a libertine liberal or (2) a lunkhead libertarian. I assume you are one of those.
**********************************************************************************************************************
I also do not think it is possible to explain it to a red neck racist.
Read again... As part of the same incident, some of the defendants friends ended up with sexual battery convictions for their actions with another girl. Even giving this 15 year old girl a legal ability to consent that the law doesn't allow, these other goings on paint an atmosphere where the "consent" might well have been attained through intimidation...
the infowarrior
The law was changed because of this case. The legislature never forsaw ranging legalism would lead to the prosecution of a kid for this. The legilature should have made it retroactive. It is a terrible miscarriage of justice and should be rectified. Why should the boy go to jail only? Why are girls not help responsible for their behavior?
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.