# Is 10 yrs. Too Much?



## MJS (Jul 5, 2007)

I came across this story.  Apparently a male is serving a 10yr prison sentence for a consensual sexual encounter with a 15yr old girl.  Hundreds of people are protesting this.



> DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. - The Rev. Al Sharpton embraced the mother and sister of a man serving a 10-year sentence for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old, joining hundreds of supporters Thursday demanding his immediate release from prison.
> Genarlow Wilson has been in prison for two years for taking part in the sex act when he was 17 years old.


 
So, in your opinion, does the punishment fit the crime in this case?

Mike


----------



## 14 Kempo (Jul 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> I came across this story. Apparently a male is serving a 10yr prison sentence for a consensual sexual encounter with a 15yr old girl. Hundreds of people are protesting this.
> 
> So, in your opinion, does the punishment fit the crime in this case?
> 
> Mike


 
Yes, this is absolutely rediculous. Of course, if it were my daughter, I may have a different outlook. But this sort of thing was threatened on me back when I was 15 myself, with a 15 year old girl, back in the 70s. I think it was called "statutory rape". Although I was under age, the girl was as well, and as such she can not consent. I don't know if it is factual, I didn't want to find out, just scared the crap out of me, which could have been all the father was after, at the time. The real lesson learned was not to date a girl who's father is an attorney ... LOL ... I laugh now, but wsn't laughing then.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 5, 2007)

I am frankly amazed that this chap is in prison potentially for ten years for an act that someone else performed of their own volition.

Laws are meant to protect the innocent, first and foremost.  In a cirumstance such as described it doesn't sound like there were many 'innocents' present.

Morally I may find this condemnable but it is perhaps a case where the law drafted to protect is instead being used to vilify where no forced harm has been committed.  Note that I used the word 'forced' deliberately here as I do not think that the retrograde trend back to an Anglo-Saxon timetable for sexual mores is a good thing and that 'harm' can manifest in many forms.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 5, 2007)

If he was 17 and she was 15 then it's still statutory rape by the letter of the law no matter how consenting she was. Laws on the age of legal consensual sexual intercourse/acts vary from state to state. Ten years is too much in this case. She said *yes* not *NO* so there's a difference. She said yes without coercion and manipulation (well okay there's _ALWAYS_ a little of _THAT_!), and she wasn't saying yes from fear or blackmail or bribery/prostitution. If it were that the case then it's molestation or rape and ten years is far too less of a sentence. 
It's the case of a couple of horny teenagers who happened to seize the moment/opportunity. Yet the law still stands however it's written. 
But yes, I think the sentence in THIS case is too much. 2 years with time off for good behavior... simply on the basis that they got caught because they were stupid enough to do it in front of a camera. You'd think they'd learn something from Tommy and Pamela Lee or even Paris Hilton that these kind of tapes are gonna get seen by EVERYBODY! (well... almost).


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jul 5, 2007)

Wouldn't she be guilty of the same crime as he was? 
They were both underage and he should be protected just as much as she was.

I think the thing is a farce of the legal system and some kid got his life ruined by a law used in a purpose it wasn't intended for.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Jul 5, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> Wouldn't she be guilty of the same crime as he was?
> They were both underage and he should be protected just as much as she was.
> 
> I think the thing is a farce of the legal system and some kid got his life ruined by a law used in a purpose it wasn't intended for.


 
It's what is called a 'double standard' ... not good, but all too true.


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 5, 2007)

IMHO the fact that he would have only had like probation or something a lot less if her and she had done "regular" sex instead or oral means to me that this sentense is way over the top!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

Ah yesreverend Al the bastion of honesty, Tawana Brawley ring a bell 



MJS said:


> ISo, in your opinion, does the punishment fit the crime in this case?
> 
> Mike


 
Yes.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 5, 2007)

Could you elaborate a little on a simple "Yes", *Xue*?

I can't speak for your locale but, sadly, the 'crime' that this poor lad has been jailed for a decade for is all too common-place around here.

Even when I was that age (a long time ago) sexual activity was quite high amongst the nominally underage - not as bad as now I think but the principle remains i.e. don't just pick one to punish and leave it at that.  Teenage sex *is* going to happen if you don't have very strong parental oversight (and sometimes even if you do).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Could you elaborate a little on a simple "Yes", *Xue*?
> 
> I can't speak for your locale but, sadly, the 'crime' that this poor lad has been jailed for a decade for is all too common-place around here.
> 
> Even when I was that age (a long time ago) sexual activity was quite high amongst the nominally underage - not as bad as now I think but the principle remains i.e. don't just pick one to punish and leave it at that. Teenage sex *is* going to happen if you don't have very strong parental oversight (and sometimes even if you do).


 
Sorry no, not beyond let one get away with it and it will be used later as a defense by someone else who is much worse who sees the result of this case as an opportunity. 

I do not know the laws of other states but in mine a minor cannot give consent for such things also culpable mental state is not an issue either. 

No such thing as consensual sex with a minor.

My stance on things such as statutory rape are already on MT and I tend to get incredibly upset in these things and I am trying not to


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Sorry no, not beyond let one get away with it and it will be used later as a defense by someone else who is much worse who sees the result of this case as an opportunity.
> 
> I do not know the laws of other states but in mine a minor cannot give consent for such things also culpable mental state is not an issue either.
> 
> ...


I can see your point Xue and stand behind it. But as Sukerkin said, it's going to happen irregardless. 
But think upon this... suppose if the girl were 17 (underaged) and the boy were 15... would that make a difference? Is it still consensual or not? Ok, with a minor but both are minors so who do you punish? 
The girl should serve some time as well if they're going to go by the laws. Boys seem to get the worse end of the deal in cases like these. A friend I knew in school, got sent up for two years for "statutory rape" because the girl told her mom that she slept with him. Her mom called the cops and there ya go. Mummy was upset that her little girl didn't come home as early as she promised and stinking of beer and her bra was missing (it was found in the back of my friend's truck). Mind you *both of them *were 16 yrs of age. 
Still *HE* went to jail and she didn't simply because her mom reported their tryst to the police. That's unfair if you ask me.  What if his parents reported the "crime"? Would she go to jail? Probably not. But he would, most likely. 
Irregardless, ten years is too long for this type of "crime". 2 years with time served and time off good behavior and maybe probation if they're so fired up to punish someone for something that likely *they* were doing and _their own kids_ are doing at that age. I mean ask yourself how old were (any of) you when you first started experiencing (consensual) sex? Some of you waited til you were married or of age I'm sure and some of you (like me) didn't.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> I can see your point Xue and stand behind it. But as Sukerkin said, it's going to happen irregardless.
> But think upon this... suppose if the girl were 17 (underaged) and the boy were 15... would that make a difference? Is it still consensual or not? Ok, with a minor but both are minors so who do you punish?
> The girl should serve some time as well if they're going to go by the laws. Boys seem to get the worse end of the deal in cases like these. A friend I knew in school, got sent up for two years for "statutory rape" because the girl told her mom that she slept with him. Her mom called the cops and there ya go. Mummy was upset that her little girl didn't come home as early as she promised and stinking of beer and her bra was missing (it was found in the back of my friend's truck). Mind you *both of them *were 16 yrs of age.
> Still *HE* went to jail and she didn't simply because her mom reported their tryst to the police. That's unfair if you ask me. What if his parents reported the "crime"? Would she go to jail? Probably not. But he would, most likely.
> Irregardless, ten years is too long for this type of "crime". 2 years with time served and time off good behavior and maybe probation if they're so fired up to punish someone for something that likely *they* were doing and _their own kids_ are doing at that age. I mean ask yourself how old were (any of) you when you first started experiencing (consensual) sex? Some of you waited til you were married or of age I'm sure and some of you (like me) didn't.


 
OK, my last post on the topic I hope. I can feel my blood pressure rising here already.

I have heard just about every single argument on the topic you can put forth and I still have the same view so please to any that follow don't try and come up with other examples, I have heard them all. 

The law is, for better or worse the law, and in my state an older woman will go to jail for going to bed with a younger boy as well. And in my state that means the 17 year old girl goes to jail.

I have been in the ER when they brought rape cases in (fake, real and statutory), it aint pretty gentleman it is rather disturbing actually. 

I cannot tell you how much it bothered me to have to be in the same ER with these things and the irate parents of BOTH sides of the issue as well and have to keep them from arguing fighting and just plain being stupid in what is an incredible emotional situation. 

MEANWHILE the female is put through all sorts of VERY invasive, and from what I am told by the nurses, painful exams that are REQUIRED by law. And in one case the girl did tell the boy yes but the parents caught them in the act and call the cops. And after all the FIGHTING, YELLING and UTTER STUPIDITY I was expose to and in the middle of form the parents and seeing the girl after the exam and the HELL she just went through. NUFF said, Im done.

I am terribly sorry the kid went away for 10, likely he will not serve 10, I am sorry if he went to jail and it was because the girl said yes (if she actaully did), REGARDLESS she IS a minor, which means, LEGALLY, she cannot say yes to such things. And if you let this case go because of this and IT WILL come back to haunt you when some kid rapes a girl and intimidates the hell out of her with threats of violence and gets her to say she said yes and he gets a light sentence or NO sentence and goes off and does it again. And before ANYONE comes back and says OH that wont happen, BELIEVE ME it will. Just look at just about EVERY rape defense going.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2007)

Well, seems like anything Sharpton is involved in, always gets heated up, but thats another story.

Knowing the laws of the state would be a help.  I came across this for CT., where I live.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0376.htm




> It is a crime for a 17-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old. The maximum possible criminal penalty the older youth could face is second-degree sexual assault. The 15-year-old is not guilty of a crime.


 
So, going on this, the younger person seems to be exempt.  What if the younger person was the aggressor?

I also found this:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

I doubt that he will serve 10yrs.  He will most likely get a lesser sentence, probation, etc.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, seems like anything Sharpton is involved in, always gets heated up, but thats another story.
> 
> Knowing the laws of the state would be a help. I came across this for CT., where I live.
> 
> ...


 
What if they had peanuts in their top pocket and were drunk and driving a scooter the wrong way down an escalator on Sunday in a closed shopping mall while playing Dolly Parton CDs.

It doesn't matter a minor cannot give consent and if they are the aggressor why can't the OLDER person say no, have they no restraint or can they not defend themselves if necessary. And if the 15 year old is the aggressor, and in a violent RAPE committed by a minor that is generally the case... they go to jail.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 5, 2007)

Why is it that most people only become aware of these stories when Reverend Sharpton is involved. 

This story is old. And many in the blogging community have been discussing it for months. 

The sentence was voided almost a month ago. 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case.ap/index.html



EDIT - On another note, I believe the young lady also serviced some other older young men at the party. Those young men, if I recall correctly, agreed to plea bargain arrangements and will now live the rest of their lives as sex offenders. One wonders at the fairness of that. - END EDIT


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> What if they had peanuts in their top pocket and were drunk and driving a scooter the wrong way down an escalator on Sunday in a closed shopping mall while playing Dolly Parton CDs.
> 
> It doesn't matter a minor cannot give consent and if they are the aggressor why can't the OLDER person say no, have they no restraint or can they not defend themselves if necessary. And if the 15 year old is the aggressor, and in a violent RAPE committed by a minor that is generally the case... they go to jail.


 
Well, I hope that you're not taking anything I said in the wrong way. I'm not a lawyer, a cop, nor do I know every law in the world.

That being said, a few others made the same inquiry as I. I'm not arguing the consent, I'm saying in this case the male is in jail. Where is the female? She too engaged in underage sexual activity so why isnt she being punished? 

In this case, both people were minors, as both were under the age of 18. Unless the law is different there. This wasnt a rape, this was 2 kids, at a party, hooking up...plain and simple. People act as if this is breaking news. Well, maybe if they've lived in a closet for their entire life, but stuff like this happens all the time and I'll give you an example. I'm a dispatcher for a Police Dept. Just last night, a cop came across a car parked in one of the parks we have. 2 young people inside. Were they older than the 2 in this case? Yes, but the fact remains, sexual activity is not limited to any particular age.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> What if they had peanuts in their top pocket and were drunk and driving a scooter the wrong way down an escalator on Sunday in a closed shopping mall while playing Dolly Parton CDs.
> 
> It doesn't matter a minor cannot give consent and if they are the aggressor why can't the OLDER person say no, have they no restraint or can they not defend themselves if necessary. And if the 15 year old is the aggressor, and in a violent RAPE committed by a minor that is generally the case... they go to jail.


Xue gets to the heart of it.

Statutory rape laws exist because, even though they may be physically capable, and perhaps mentally able to give consent, the kids really aren't ready for all the ramifications of their decision.  They're too susceptible to too many pressures from too many directions; we've decided as a society through our elected legislatures that kids under a certain age, or people who lack sufficient mental capacity, are incapable of really consenting.  In VA, the laws actually make exceptions in the case of subsequent marriage... but I know attorneys who feel that the most recent law the Commonwealth of Virginia looks to is the Magna Carta.  

Some acts also remain criminal, even if done by consenting adults in reasonable privacy.  (No, we don't often go looking, unless there's a problem or it's not being done in a reasonably private location.  Public parks aren't private.)  

However, in this case, I do think that there's been a miscarriage of justice.  My understanding of the case is that Genarlow didn't initiate the activity, and, as I recall, news reports suggest that she shared her attentions with more than one guy at the party.  They were relatively close in age; we're not talking a 30 year old and 15 year old.  And it appears that he's been punished for not taking a plea deal.  Others charged in the incident accepted some sort of plea bargain; he got 10 years.  

Now, I'm not suggesting he deserved nothing.  He was guilty.  I do hold him, being 17, to a higher standard.  After all, the only difference between someone 18 years and 1 day old and someone 17 years and 364 days is that the latter is able to be charged and treated as a juvenile still...  There's not a whole lot of maturation that goes on overnight.  I just don't think that this case warranted a mandatory sentence of 10 years. 

And that's despite the involvement of Rev. Al Sharpton...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, I hope that you're not taking anything I said in the wrong way. I'm not a lawyer, a cop, nor do I know every law in the world.
> 
> That being said, a few others made the same inquiry as I. I'm not arguing the consent, I'm saying in this case the male is in jail. Where is the female? She too engaged in underage sexual activity so why isnt she being punished?
> 
> In this case, both people were minors, as both were under the age of 18. Unless the law is different there. This wasnt a rape, this was 2 kids, at a party, hooking up...plain and simple. People act as if this is breaking news. Well, maybe if they've lived in a closet for their entire life, but stuff like this happens all the time and I'll give you an example. I'm a dispatcher for a Police Dept. Just last night, a cop came across a car parked in one of the parks we have. 2 young people inside. Were they older than the 2 in this case? Yes, but the fact remains, sexual activity is not limited to any particular age.


 
Female 15 male 17 nuff said, age, at least in my state makes a big difference. Does not matter how you cut it explain it or what scenario you throw out and minor is a minor and a minor cannot give consent.

And I am fully aware this goes on a lot in the world, I'm old.. not an idiot.



jks9199 said:


> Xue gets to the heart of it.
> 
> Statutory rape laws exist because, even though they may be physically capable, and perhaps mentally able to give consent, the kids really aren't ready for all the ramifications of their decision. They're too susceptible to too many pressures from too many directions; we've decided as a society through our elected legislatures that kids under a certain age, or people who lack sufficient mental capacity, are incapable of really consenting. In VA, the laws actually make exceptions in the case of subsequent marriage... but I know attorneys who feel that the most recent law the Commonwealth of Virginia looks to is the Magna Carta.
> 
> ...


 
In NY it is a felony which means greater than a year in prison. I no longer keep up on the NYS Laws, I happily do not have to, so I am not sure what the maximum is for this anymore. 

Just a note in just about every rape case it is made to look like the female is at fault in court. 

But as soon as Rev Al gets involved I generally believe the opposition.


----------



## MJS (Jul 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Female 15 male 17 nuff said, age, at least in my state makes a big difference. Does not matter how you cut it explain it or what scenario you throw out and minor is a minor and a minor cannot give consent.
> 
> And I am fully aware this goes on a lot in the world, I'm old.. not an idiot.


 
Well, I can see that this thread is getting a bit hot.  I dont know what I said to upset you, but this seems like its a difficult topic for you, judging by previous posts.  

What exactly is it, that you think I'm saying as there seems to be some misunderstanding going on???  Both parties are minors and I understand that.  You seem to be harping on rape.  This was not a rape.  

I'm simply saying that I was curious as to why the female was not charged?  If 2 minors can't give consent, why was he charged?  Additionally, it seems that there was alcohol and drugs at this party.  Kids like to experiment, so I doubt that many 17yo males would turn down a sexual favor if given the chance.

Maybe you're getting confused here.  This was  taken from the article Mike Edward linked:



> A jury found the honor student guilty in 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl during a 2003 New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. Although the sex act was consensual it was illegal under Georgia law.
> 
> Wilson was also charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with a 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury.



Seems that there was 2 females.  I'm not talking about the 17yo I'm talking about the 15 yo that he had oral sex with.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, I can see that this thread is getting a bit hot. I dont know what I said to upset you, but this seems like its a difficult topic for you, judging by previous posts.
> 
> What exactly is it, that you think I'm saying as there seems to be some misunderstanding going on??? Both parties are minors and I understand that. You seem to be harping on rape. This was not a rape.
> 
> ...


 

I am not angry at you, just not agreeing with you, nor is it likely that I will on this issue. And I have been in SOOOOO Many of these types of &#8220;conversations&#8221; I have had enough of them and it never ceases to amaze me the number of &#8220;What ifs&#8221; and excuses people come up with.

And in NY a sex act committed with a minor is Statutory Rape that is why I am using the terminology. Consent is not an issue because a minor cannot legally give consent for sex acts.

And no matter your opinion or feelings on a 17 year old excepting or turning down any offered sex act, in NY, it does not matter the 17 year old is, if caught, going to be arrested and charged with "statutory rape" Culpable mental state is not an issue the fact that the minor may have done a striptease in front of him and offered him all sorts of sex acts does not matter, he WILL end up being charged with statutory rape. And the female WILL be put through all sorts of painful, embarrassing and rather invasive tests. Nor does in matter if there were 2 , 3 or 12 females, if they were minors all that means is 2, 3 or 12 charges of statutory rape, hence the possible reason for 10 years.

By the way same goes for a 17 year old female that goes after a 15 year old male in NYS. And the age of the minor (younger) increases the number of years you are going to get in prison. 

My point is always based on the laws of NYS and any amount of reasoning, excuses, outrage, scenarios, or What if situation that
 you or anyone else comes up with are not justification for said statutory rape in NYS. 

It kind of like this, "What if the titanic didn't hit the Iceberg?"

BUT IT DID!!!! so what's your point?

You, I or 50 million other people may not like what happened in the case stated but if that is the law that is the law and the kid should have taken the plea. And complaining to others or posting on a web page for all to see may make one feel like they are dong something but they aren&#8217;t. You don&#8217;t like it ok there are ways in the US to legally go about trying to change things.

Now here&#8217;s an idea if this bothers you or anyone else so much, write your congressman, if he/she gets enough letters maybe something will change, doubtful though, she/he wants to be re-elected and taking a stand that can later be used by ones opponent as showing he/she support sex with minors is not a good political move.

OK then mount a protest get a bunch of people together an get the necessary permits (you need them in NY or you will get arrested) and go protest at the state capital to get this kids sentence reduced (But might I suggest you do it without reverend Al if you want to be taken even remotely seriously). But then again you are back at someone somewhere will say this group and/or any of the state officials that agree think sex with minors is ok and all though it may catch the eye of a few local news stations it would be political suicide for the state officials.


----------



## MJS (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not angry at you, just not agreeing with you, nor is it likely that I will on this issue. And I have been in SOOOOO Many of these types of conversations I have had enough of them and it never ceases to amaze me the number of What ifs and excuses people come up with.
> 
> And in NY a sex act committed with a minor is Statutory Rape that is why I am using the terminology. Consent is not an issue because a minor cannot legally give consent for sex acts.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I've never had any issues with you in the past, so no sense in starting now.   As for agreeing/not agreeing, thats fine too. 

Im not advocating rape.  I'm not condoning sexual activity between kids.  Nothing irks me more, than to see a 15 yo with a child.  I for one, am not crazy about supporting someone elses mistake.  But, thats not the thread.  Fact is, sex happens.  Unless we watch kids 24/7/365 we can't possibly know everything they do.

Was this situation wrong? Yes.  My point and I think one thats being misunderstood, is that I'm saying, this 17yo male went to jail.  Why?  For sexual contact with a minor.  Why did nothing happen to the female?  She is a minor too, and participated just as much as he did.  I dont care who initiated the act, the fact is, both parties are guilty.  Do you think if I was in a car with 3 people and fell asleep, and while I was sleeping, they rob a store.  The cops pull us over, I wake up and wonder what the hell is going on.  Do you honestly think the cop is going to buy the story I was sleeping?? Of course not, so why is the female getting off without any jail time?  

The article states its consensual, but do we know that?  Were any of us there?  No on both accounts so we can speculate 'til we're blue in the face.  Reading that article, I did not once get the impression is was a forced act.  There was no mention of that.  I doubt that either of those kids were thinking about laws, consequences, jail or anything, except what they were doing.

Mike


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, I've never had any issues with you in the past, so no sense in starting now.  As for agreeing/not agreeing, thats fine too.
> 
> Im not advocating rape. I'm not condoning sexual activity between kids. Nothing irks me more, than to see a 15 yo with a child. I for one, am not crazy about supporting someone elses mistake. But, thats not the thread. Fact is, sex happens. Unless we watch kids 24/7/365 we can't possibly know everything they do.
> 
> ...


 
Actually I am not misinterpreting what you are saying, it may be that I am not being clear in response and I am being overly verbose which I am from time to time and more so when I am suffering from sleep deprivation, which you would have no way of knowing is the case at the moment.

In NY, a minor is 15 years old therefore it does not matter if said minor gave consent or initiated the act they are a minor and are not consider responsible for their actions in such cases and cannot legally consent to sex. Therefore they are guilty of nothing and therefore considered the victim and will not be charged. This is why culpable mental state is not an issue when it comes to the person that is considered the adult. An adult is considered responsible for their action and as glib as this may sound "they should know better."

It may not be fare in all cases but it is the law.

As to the car, you go to jail too. Interesting point, in Massachusetts the DRIVER is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on in his car. If you are the driver and see a hitchhiker and stop and pick them up and later get pulled over and the police find drugs on the passenger the driver is getting charged. And this one is even better, if you are underage in MA (not old enough to drink) and you give a person who is not your parent or legal guardian but is old enough to drink a ride to the package store (Liquor store for all you Non MA people) and later get pulled over by the police and the alcohol is in the car and unopened the passenger that bought the alcohol, even though no one is drinking, will get charged with absolutely nothing, however the driver that is not old enough to drink will get arrested and charged with minor transporting and end up in court.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> And if you let this case go because of this and IT WILL come back to haunt you when some kid rapes a girl and intimidates the hell out of her with threats of violence and gets her to say she said yes and he gets a light sentence or NO sentence and goes off and does it again. And before ANYONE comes back and says OH that wont happen, BELIEVE ME it will. Just look at just about EVERY rape defense going.



Personally I think using the same term "Rape" to describe a consensual act between two teens and a violent act against someone is a insult to all the people that really have been through rape.

Stat rape is not agreed upon in any way.  Ages vary from country to country, and in your case state to state.  Real Rape is pretty much universally seen as a horrible crime. A 15 & 17 year old having sex is seen as completely natural as often as it is seen as a crime.

But in terms of it coming back...  How about the flip side.  Some 15 year old girl decides she has a grudge against some guy for whatever reason.  Decides to ruin his life, initiates, pushes for it, everything and he agrees.  She then calls the cops and destroys his life.

Strictly following the letter of the law and ignoring the purpose of the law is IMO, just as dangerous and judges should be free to make decissions on a case by case in this sort of situation.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Jul 6, 2007)

The other part of this story is that after the 17 year old was convicted of a felony (sex with the 15 year old), but later, the laws were changed so it is a misdemenour, so many feel that his sentence should be downgraded to reflect the new laws.

AoG


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Personally I think using the same term "Rape" to describe a consensual act between two teens and a violent act against someone is a insult to all the people that really have been through rape.
> 
> Stat rape is not agreed upon in any way. Ages vary from country to country, and in your case state to state. Real Rape is pretty much universally seen as a horrible crime. A 15 & 17 year old having sex is seen as completely natural as often as it is seen as a crime.
> 
> ...


 
Before you attack the terminology you may want to read the rest of my posts. 

Also as I stated, I have heard ALL of the scenarios and "what if" situation you can come up with and they all amount to the same thing (see titanic reference). Also other countries are not a good argument if the case in the US. If that is your argument than it is likely in parts of China and South America he may have been put to death, so other countries are not exactly a good example. The flip side, ok what if the girl has a puppy and the guy likes cats.... IT MEANS NOTHING, this is NOT what happened here. If you do not like the law that is your prerogative, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (See my other posts on that). You don't think following the law is right then again DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT (again see my previous posts)

And a 15 year old FORCED to have sex with a 17 years old is rape. A 15 year old that has sex with a 17 year old is (please note this) "in * NYS*" called statutory rape.

I am trying REAL REAL hard not to get angry on this topic, I have been in heated discussions on MT before on this and I really do not wish to repeat them. I think my next response may be a link to the last one so it can be read and applied to this.

And heres a bit of info, Judges do have some leeway in making decisions.

OK Here's one and I blame the press. It is however not a minor in a sex act. A Doctor had a patient and the patient fell in love with the doctor and the doctor being married with kids and faithful told the patient he was not interested. She screamed rape, he stuck to his guns... that is until the press got involved and printed his name and address in the paper. There were protests outside of his house, calls for his suspension from practicing medicine and a suspension, his family being put though Hell and he hung himself in his garage. This of course was taken as an omission of guilt, but afterwards the patient confessed and admitted it was all a lie. No apologies from the press no big story in the paper no public outrage or posts on web pages just a forgotten dead MD and his destroyed family. And She did not get charged with a thing, why yo may ask? because you see, she got herself listed as incompetent by another MD and therefore not responsible for her actions. 

OR how about reverend Al and Tawana and the guy that hung himself there and no one remembers his name and NO one apologized for the LIE that was Tawana's claim of rape either. As a matter of fact it made the dear reverend famous.

Or then there is the State Level LEO that had sex with a 15 year old the he claimed he believed was 18...even though she was a friend of his 15 year old daughter and they went to the same school. 

Yup the DA messed that case up and he got off, but good thing he had to stand a state level tribunal after that and lost his job. Every single LEO I knew at the time said the same thing. "He did it" and "he is guilty" But the letter of the law was followed and they could not get a conviction. And she (the 15 year old) came on to him and offered him sex. But you see he is an adult and should no better and have some restraint and a father of a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old is just BIT to CREEPY for me and just plain WRONG. 

But he got away with it and she did consent after all so I guess that is ok right??? Wrong, Nope, Not a chance in hell. 

He did loose his job and family but he got away with statutory rape in a state he was sworn to protect form such things, but she consented, offered actually, so I guess that is ok with you then.


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Jul 6, 2007)

Yeah, Ten years! Terrible.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 6, 2007)

Judges don't always have leeway.  In many cases, the legislatures have responded to what they (or their constituents) feel to be overly lenient sentences by passing various forms of mandated sentencing laws.  In other cases, specific sentencing guidelines and formulas have been set up to limit judicial discretion, and try to ensure that sentences for similar offenses are not grossly disparate.  In any case, the judge is often bound within the sentencing range for an offense (for example, 1-5 years), and may not be able to suspend all of the sentence.

Changes in laws typically don't affect those convicted of an offense prior to the change; that's the definition of an ex post facto law, and they are prohibited by the US Constitution.  Generally, it's in the convict's best interests; they can't be punished more harshly or for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time they did it.  In relatively rare cases, like this one, it would benefit the convict.

Based on a little research, it appears that Genarlow Wilson is still in prison, as the government is appealing an order to release him.  The case is winding it's slow way through the legal system; a petition for certiorari has apparently been filed with the Georgia Supreme Court.  Depending on the outcome there, my guess is that the next step would be to move to the federal system on an argument that Wilson's punishment violates the US Bill of Rights prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment.

Personally, as I've said, I disagree with the 10 year sentence (actually 11; the judge could only suspend 1 year, according to the petition for certiorari), but not the conviction.  I personally feel that 17 year olds should be held accountable for their actions; I feel that accountability should increase gradually instead of a "magical transformation" on someone's 18th birthday.  The adult and juvenile systems are quite different, even in today's climate of more harsh punishment for many juvenile offenses.  

And -- I can't help but place some blame on the parents and even the hotel staff.  I can't understand why parents assist or hotels permit kids to obtain rooms for parties...  It's rare that anything good comes of this sort of hotel rental for kids.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 6, 2007)

Dude, next time go to North Carolina.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 6, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

This is a sensitive topic, let's all try to keep the conversation polite and respectful.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

Questions and I'm done

How many in this discussion are parents?

How many have daughters?

Me, yes to both.

Next, I have noticed something here, I have on at least 2 occasions said that in my state that if an adult female has sex with a minor male the female will get charged and do jail time and there has been no acknowledgement of that at all.

And since some like hypothetical situations (actually it is not hypothetical it happened)

This mean if a female 18 or older is propositioned by a male, say 15, and excepts the proposition she will get charged and he will not, He is a minor that is not considered responsible for his actions.... 

so indignation anyone???

Or is it different if the woman gets charged and the boy does not?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> And in NY a sex act committed with a minor is Statutory Rape that is why I am using the terminology. Consent is not an issue because a minor cannot legally give consent for sex acts.



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

"If the victim is under 15 and the perpetrator is at least 18, this constitutes a 2nd degree sexual offense. However, if the defendant is less than 4 years older than the victim, this may constitute an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are those in which the defendant introduces evidence which negates criminal liability."

The way I read that, in New York he would have been ok, no laws broken.

In fact, in a good number of states he would have been ok.  Georgia has even revised there laws to make it a misdemeanor now rather then a felony, but that was after he was convicted.

Which is basically my point, no one seems to agree on what statutory rape is.  Rape on the other hand pretty much everyone agrees on what it is.  But with Stat rape crossing a border, even a state border, can make a felony into a legal activity.



> Now heres an idea if this bothers you or anyone else so much, write your congressman, if he/she gets enough letters maybe something will change, doubtful though, she/he wants to be re-elected and taking a stand that can later be used by ones opponent as showing he/she support sex with minors is not a good political move.



Well, Age of consent where I am is 14.  There is a bill up to raise it to 16, allowing for a close in age exception allowing 14 / 15 year olds to consent, providing there is no more then 5 years between them.

It does however become 18 if the older person is in a position of authority, such as a teacher.

I'm ok with either law.




> OK then mount a protest get a bunch of people together an get the necessary permits (you need them in NY or you will get arrested) and go protest at the state capital




Really?  Wow, but thats another topic...  yikes... what happened to freedom of speech?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2007)

If you want to eliminate the behavior the sentence is right on; however, I doubt it would be fairly applied across the boared; so, yes the sentence is too harsh.
sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Really? Wow, but thats another topic... yikes... what happened to freedom of speech?



Oh please... well at least you read some of what I preveiously posted, picked sections to respond to to support your point and forgot the rest but that I guess is to be expected... see ya.

With that bye, I'm out of this and since my last posted questions appear to be unanswered, I feel they have been answered and I can see, at least were Andrew is coming from.

Not going to waste time and energy here or do I wish to get this post locked based on what will become my outrage, enjoy your indignation.

I would be REALLY interested to see if there was even a post on this issue had the sexes of the people involved were switched.But again asince that part was apparently missed.... 3 times... Later


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Bye, I'm out of this and since no one answered my last posted questions, I feel they have been answered.
> 
> Not going to waste time and energy here or do I wish to get this post locked based on what will become my outrage, enjoy your indignation.
> 
> ...


I didn't read your post but my post just addressed it.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Questions and I'm done
> 
> How many in this discussion are parents?
> 
> ...


 
Married with no kids.



> Next, I have noticed something here, I have on at least 2 occasions said that in my state that if an adult female has sex with a minor male the female will get charged and do jail time and there has been no acknowledgement of that at all.
> 
> And since some like hypothetical situations (actually it is not hypothetical it happened)
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, but I have to address a few things.

1) There was apparently 2 cases, one involving oral sex between a 15 and 17yo and another involving a rape in a hotel.  The link I posted was to discuss the oral sex between the 17yo male and 15 yo girl.

2) While the laws vary from state to state, IMO, the only law that we need to focus on is Ga.

3) Intercourse and oral sex are two different things.

4) Nobody is asking or telling you to go.  That is your choice.  I do find it interesting though, when people say that its a touchy subject, yet they still subject themselves to posting.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> Sorry, but I have to address a few things.
> 
> 1) There was apparently 2 cases, one involving oral sex between a 15 and 17yo and another involving a rape in a hotel. The link I posted was to discuss the oral sex between the 17yo male and 15 yo girl.
> 
> ...


 
Nice jab at someone you had no problems with and I know which case you are talking about I just wish you would stop trying to make it look like I didn't, try reading my previous post to you and you will see that.

Also it is interesting that you now are no longer into scenarios and apparently do not want to address mine. Also interesting selective definitions you got there. And now we have georgraphical rules to follow when I believe it was Andrew threw in other countires and you did not seem to have a problem with that.

Also I did not ask permission to leave nor did I feel I was told to go. 

As for posting when it is touchy, on occasion it is worth it when people are trying say sex with minors is ok and when they apparently would not care if it were a young male and older female. Interesting double standard there too.

Sorry I can't agree here guys and think sex with a minor consensual or not is wrong and believe oral sex is sex.... could be why the word sex is generally put with it. 

Alrighty then you want to post your upset at the kid getting 10 years for it go ahead I said it before, actually just before your little jab, I was done and I am. Jab away if you will. 

I await the inevitable yet predictable response from the others. And I will let then you and the rest give themselves collective pats on the back because they told me off and I stopped posting.

Truth be known, you have all made up your mind and so have I and we will never agree here and that says a lot to me. 

Have a nice day


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 6, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I would be REALLY interested to see if there was even a post on this issue had the sexes of the people involved were switched.But again asince that part was apparently missed.... 3 times... Later



Well...  Here's a even wackier case: http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_210004013.html

My belief would be that had the sexes been reversed, chances are there would have been no conviction.


----------



## MJS (Jul 6, 2007)

OK, my last post on the topic I hope. I can feel my blood pressure rising here already.

I am trying REAL REAL hard not to get angry on this topic, 

Questions and I'm done



With that bye, I'm out of this 



Xue Sheng said:


> Nice jab at someone you had no problems with and I know which case you are talking about I just wish you would stop trying to make it look like I didn't, try reading my previous post to you and you will see that.


 
No jab intended. I feel that I've been on the topic.



> Also it is interesting that you now are no longer into scenarios and apparently do not want to address mine. Also interesting selective definitions you got there. And now we have georgraphical rules to follow when I believe it was Andrew threw in other countires and you did not seem to have a problem with that.


 
We can talk about all the laws in all 50 states, but the only one that matters, is the one in the state where the sex act took place. 



> Also I did not ask permission to leave nor did I feel I was told to go.
> 
> As for posting when it is touchy, on occasion it is worth it when people are trying say sex with minors is ok and when they apparently would not care if it were a young male and older female. Interesting double standard there too.
> 
> ...


 
See above where I posted quotes from all of your posts where you said you were done and I see you're still at it. You are seriously getting confused, angry and putting words in my mouth. First, I was not questioning the 10yr sentence. I'm asking why the female did not get any jail time. Second, whether or not we think its consensual, the fact is, it happend and it happens all the time. I never said it was ok, that was you twisting my posts around to your needs. The Ga. law was broke and I'm sure it will continue to be. How can it be enforced unless someone complains about it. This is my point...its apparently against that states law, even though the female and male agreed to it, so both should be punished for breaking the law.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 6, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS - FINAL WARNING!

THIS TOPIC IS SENSITIVE - PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION POLITE AND RESPECTFUL AND REVIEW OUR SNIPING POLICY. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486.

FEEL FREE TO USE THE IGNORE FEATURE FOUND ON EACH MEMBER'S PROFILE.

THANK YOU,

G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA
MT ASSIST. ADMINISTRATOR*


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Why is it that most people only become aware of these stories when Reverend Sharpton is involved.
> 
> This story is old. And many in the blogging community have been discussing it for months.
> 
> ...


 
The sentense was voided, but the kid is still in jail cause the attourney general (I think) or some other state laywer is appealing the ruling stating that the law the judge used to void the sentence can not be appliied retroactively.


----------



## Ceicei (Jul 7, 2007)

Ok, here are my thoughts about this.

There are two views about this.  One view is concerning the term "minor", defined as a person under 18 (and in some places, under 21).  The other view is concerning the term "teenager", defined as a person who is approaching adulthood.

The problem here is not necessarily that these two views may at times conflict each other (as is evidenced by this thread).  To change the laws just because the individuals are teenagers would effect the laws regarding minors, for teenagers ARE minors.  We should not be seeking to change the laws defining minors, for the laws are there to protect the minors--which also involve teenagers.  What then is the REAL problem?  

What is happening here is a relatively new phenomenon--"_mandatory sentencing_" which came within the past few decades.  Because of the types of certain crimes being committed and the charges determined by the law enforcement and prosecutor(s), the sentencing guidelines require that the mandatory sentencing (certain number of time served) must be imposed, and often because of that, the judge's hands are tied.  [Not certain whether the mandatory sentencing might have come about because there were incidents that the sentencing may seem to be too lax to fit the crime?]  Mandatory sentencing were then written into the code (by the legislature) and more often than not, does give appropriate punishment to the crime.  However, removing the discretion from the judges to consider all the factors in the situations--_without the hand-tying of mandatory sentencing_--would allow a wise judge to accept the decision of the jury and impose the proper sentence that fits the particular case.

- Ceicei


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2007)

Can I ask why each state has different laws? It seems strange that a country should have so many different laws, seems like inequality somehow. We have different laws in England, Scotland and N Ireland but they are different countries not states or counties.

This thread reminds me of the Rabbi who was counselling a married couple who were constantly arguing. He listened to the husband then said 'you are right, he listened to the wife then said 'you are right'.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 13, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Can I ask why each state has different laws? It seems strange that a country should have so many different laws, seems like inequality somehow. We have different laws in England, Scotland and N Ireland but they are different countries not states or counties.


 
Because we are a federation of independent states, at least, we are supposed to be.  Don't think of it as inequality, think of it as an array of choices - if you don't like the way they run things in Kansas, for example, pick up your stuff and move to California.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 13, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Can I ask why each state has different laws? It seems strange that a country should have so many different laws, seems like inequality somehow. We have different laws in England, Scotland and N Ireland but they are different countries not states or counties.
> 
> This thread reminds me of the Rabbi who was counselling a married couple who were constantly arguing. He listened to the husband then said 'you are right, he listened to the wife then said 'you are right'.


 


CoryKS said:


> Because we are a federation of independent states, at least, we are supposed to be. Don't think of it as inequality, think of it as an array of choices - if you don't like the way they run things in Kansas, for example, pick up your stuff and move to California.


 
Let me expand...

The United States of America is a relatively loosely bound collection of 50 sovereign States, each of which has the responsibility to secure the safety and well being of the citizens and residents.  The US Constitution defines the relationships between the States, and the structure of the Federal government.  It also defines the relationship between the people and the government more broadly, giving the minimum freedoms and maximum intrustions of the State or Federal government upon the People.  Each State also has its own Constitution (or similar document), serving a similar purpose.  An individual is governed first by their local government (town, city, or county, typically), then by their State, and, finally, by the Federal government.  

Remember how the USA came about; a king and national government tried to rule from afar, with no real input from those that were being governed.  So, the government that resulted (largely from trial and error) gives the governed a lot of input and control over their government, with more input as the government interference in their freedoms increases.  It's all about local control, as one of my law instructors would say...


----------

