WTF: Teen Given 10 Years For Having Sex With Girl Two Years Younger
 

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/ind...ange_well_id=2

ATLANTA (AP) — The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a teen who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old.
In a ruling released Friday, the court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyers for Genarlow Wilson, who was 17 when he and the 15-year-old engaged in consensual oral sex. He was sentenced for aggravated child molestation.
Wilson’s case was one of two cases that were cited earlier this year when lawmakers passed a law that otherwise strengthened penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy.
Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that in easing the penalties for teens, ‘‘the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.’’
Hunstein added she was ‘‘very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior,’’ but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature. ———
On the Net:
Georgia Supreme Court: http://www.gasupreme.us.

That's reeruned. There are many freshman in HS that give oral sex. Not that I personally know now but at the time I did. That law needs to be changed.

Many.

Good lord you know how many whores went to our school?

Many.

Yep, follow the letter of the law instead of allowing common sense to enter into the discussion. I really worry about this country some days. Other days, I just throw my hands up in the air and say fug it.

What a pimp

In GA no less. Half that state is related and they are bitching about 2 years.....damn.

Wow! They're both minors engaging in consensual oral sex; he gets ten years and she's the "victim"???

He loses 10 years of his life and has to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Way to go justice system.

Unbelievable. I'd have done time for sure.

IIRC, there is no penalty for consensual intercourse between two teens of this age. But willingly give a blowjob ...

Every single person involved in the investigation, the filing of charges, and trial should be convicted of being too stupid to function in society, and everyone who voted for that legislative body should be assembled in an angry torch bearing mob on the capital steps right now.

Yep, I read in another article about this case that if he had sex with her and got her pregnant, it would have been fine.

Maybe if he avoids unloading in her mouth they could take the "aggravated" part out?

So, did he go down on her or vice versa?

You stay classy Zach.

:)

http://margieandmel.tripod.com/siteb...nchorman01.jpg

ROFL ROFL

And we wonder why other countries think we are ****ing reeruned shitbags... Our judicial system/ legislative system / executive system is fooked.

That sucks!

an old woman not approving of kids having oral sex what a shock

This is what happens when women make it to positions of power.

Agreed. 10 years is ridiculous. Unless he absolutely drilled a hole into the back of her mouth. Hope the kid can get some relief through an appeal or by any other means.

Good point.


This is absolutely inexcusable. I suspect that some judge is destroying a kid's life to make a political protest about the law.

Wow, that is just crazy. Think about it, if you are a year and a month older then your high school girlfriend, you turn 17 they can throw you in jail if you get caught doing anything that month. Heck, then it completely limits any job you could ever get, though your stuck in Jail for 10 years so things are already in the shitter.

Welcome to "morality revival" America.

:rolleyes:

Done time, have we?

I think the way I read it, the judge was on the kid's side as a question of reason, but was bound by legislation, so accepting the appeal would have been illegal. Representatives appealing to conservatives with reactionary legislation against sex offenders are actually at fault.

And wake up people, many states just got hoodwinked into this crap in the last election under the guise of protecting children.

Like I said before, time for the torch carrying mob on the capital steps.

Edit, this sounds like I disagree with you, but I think we agree on the judge's actions right?

hah!

bastard.

Like I said before, the letter of the law. I would think that a judge should be able to exercise some JUDGEment on this. If it is just about strictly following the law we might as well put a computer up there as the judge instead of a thinking (hopefully) human. I don't care what the law is, each case is individual and needs to be treated on such a basis.

It's Georgia.
 

If this guy were smart he would checkout and move to some other less rednecky state.

That is insane. What is this world coming to??? :banghead:

The really sad thing is if her dad of another male family member raped her, they'd get a slap on the wrist and it would be swept under the carpet.

Try not to jerk yourself off too hard. You might get put in the slammer for molesting little Zach

I thought according to Bill Clinton that wasnt considered having sex.

No shit. I think the next time I leave the country I'll wear a shirt that says "I'm an American and I'd like to apologize for my government." :shake:

I think you need write George Bush and tell him you're cancelling your season tickets. Send him a clear message.

I'd rather he cancelled his season tickets.

:cuss: activist judges!



er, wait. :spock:

There has to be some happy medium between some liberal asshat who would give the founder of NAMBLA a slap on the wrist and the zealot puritanical monster who ruined this kid's life over getting his knob slobbed. When did sanity and reason become crimes? :(

Nope, if they do they fall under the label "activist judges" who fail to uphold the strict letter of the law that the legislative branch carefully constructed.

When ideology trumped rationality

And when people started voting for anything named after a little girl before reading the whole proposal and soundly judging it.

when I was 16 I lost my virginity to a 14 year old!!!

Glad that went undetected! I mean, we dated four years after that...so I got her legal a few times, too!

be careful ..... nobody will buy your CD.

when i was 15 i lost my viginity to a 20 year old.



raping bitch ... i feel so violated. :sulk:

Dig deeper, I mean really dig when you get to the core of the matter you will realize that the teen they convicted was black. This same law convicted a highschool kid who was excepted into collage to play football at a major university, but because the girl was white and he was black the father press the issue for the max sentence even though the girl made passes at him he was 17 and she was 15. The is a racist world and we live here.

WOW. This is a complete outrage. I don't know the statutes in that state, but that is just wrong to give a kid 10 years for blowin' it in some dumb whores face. What do parents think goes on when their kids are in high school? This crazied moral legislation makes me sick. The worst part is how is this kid ever going to get a job? I'm going to go break this kid out of prison, no lie. There is no way this won't get overturned someday, if it doesn't, expect it to become major news, especially if the kid was black.

Back when I was 20, I was dating the police chief's daughter in my home town. She was 17, and like a month away from 18. Needless to say I was scared shitless, so I did all the research I could on the age of consent in Iowa to see if I would be goin' to the slammer. I was surprised to say the least. The age of consent is 16 if the other person is below 40. So that means that a 39 year old guy can legally bang a high school sophomore legally in a bunch of states, but this guy is going to get 10 years. Somebody deserves an ass kicking for this law.

You might think that, but the judge is bound by law.
It's reactionary mandatory sentencing crap laws that get passed.
Think about that the next time you get all pissed off about some horrible crime and demand for tougher laws.

mandatory sentencing is bullshit really.

I will bet right now that the dude is black and the ho is white. Thats why he got 10 years. This is utterly rediculous.

That is terrible.

Genarlow Wilson:

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/genarlow4.jpg

The women in the case were both black, but the prosecutor was the same as the Dixon case a few years ago. Same county. Same "10 year mandatory."


http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158

http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

Hmm intresting read. Kinda like a Harper Lee novel.

Absolutely ridiculous. 10 years. That's like armed robbery level punishment. Insane.

Wow, we take a kid that could very well make a decent life for himself and guarantee that he'll spend the rest of his life as a hardened criminal. Our country is truly f***ed at this point. There are violent rapists and real child molestors getting less than 10 years.

My wife was 15 when I started dating her, 2 months before my 18th birthday. A year later she was pregnant, and her mother was going to go after me with a vengeance if I left her in the lurch, which I had no intention of doing. But lemme tell you, the idea of being labled a sex offender or rapist was scary as hell...

As far as activist judges, judges are to interpret the spirit of the law. If the law really states that this is a jailable offense, and that the sentence was correct, the judge has no choice. But the stupid people of Georgia need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that all these laws simply don't make sense and were created out of fearmongering by extreme "moralists" in that state.

I haven't read through the entire thread of comments so if this has been said before I apologize.

The prosecution of this "crime" is so ridiculous that there has to be something that doesn't meet the eye. Without knowing much about this, I can't help but think the kid (male) was black and that he got his hummer from a white youth with an embarassed influential white mom and dad.

My gut reaction says racism.

That post bring up the scene from "Traffic" where the lily-white daughter of the drug czar is getting railed by a large African American gentleman so she can have money for drugs. Utterly disturbing scene.

Back on point, I think someone said both people in the case were black. It's just a case of a reeruned law and the judge didn't have the guts to go out on a limb and set a new precedent by not prosecuting/sentencing to the letter of the law.

Hey, I don't have a problem with some morality laws. But this is way beyond stupid. Like Phil said, I would've been thrown in jail for sure if they had this law when I was that age.
:shake:

Check out this BS... Kindergarten kid gets written up for sexual harassment. :shake:



The Herald-Mail ONLINE
http://www.herald-mail.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday December 20, 2006
School accuses 5-year-old of sex harassment
by ERIN CUNNINGHAM
[email protected]

HAGERSTOWN - A kindergarten student was accused earlier this month of sexually harassing a classmate at Lincolnshire Elementary School, an accusation that will remain on his record until he moves to middle school.


Washington County Public Schools spokeswoman Carol Mowen said the definition of sexual harassment used by the school system is, "unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others."


Mowen said that definition comes from the Maryland State Department of Education.


According to a school document provided by the boy's father, the 5-year-old pinched a girl's buttocks on Dec. 8 in a hallway at the school south of Hagerstown.


Charles Vallance, the boy's father, said he was unable to explain to his son what he had done.


"He knows nothing about sex," Vallance said. "There's no way to explain what he's been written up for. He knows it as playing around. He doesn't know it as anything sexual at all."


The incident was described as "sexual harassment" on the school form.


School officials consider a student's age and the specific action when determining what administrative action to take, Mowen said.


Lincolnshire Principal Darlene Teach and Mowen said they were unable to discuss he incident involving the Lincolnshire student.


Teach said any student, regardless of grade level, can be cited for sexual harassment.


"Anytime a student touches another student inappropriately, it could be sexual harassment," Teach said.


School administrators at a Texas school in November suspended a 4-year-old student for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide after the prekindergarten student hugged the woman.


"It's important to understand a child may not realize that what he or she is doing may be considered sexual harassment, but if it fits under the definition, then it is, under the state's guidelines," Mowen said. "If someone has been told this person does not want this type of touching, it doesn't matter if it's at work or at school, that's sexual harassment."


The incident will be included in the boy's file while he remains at Lincolnshire, but Mowen said those files do not follow students when they move on to middle school.


She described the incident as a "learning opportunity."


During the 2005-06 school year, 28 kindergarten students in Maryland were suspended for sex offenses, including sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual activity, according to state data. Fifteen of those suspensions were for sexual harassment.


During the 2005-06 school year, one Washington County prekindergarten student was suspended from school, and 12 of the county's kindergartners were suspended for various offenses, according to state data.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CopyrightThe Herald-Mail ONLINE

Wow, that's just plain idiocy. WTF?

I think the teachers are the ones that should be accused of sexual harrassment for taking it that way. How STUPID are these people?

No kidding. The teachers, principals, etc. should have the knowledge to realize that 4 and 5 year olds know nothing about sex. That's asinine.

I agree 100%. These are educated care givers and they don't seem to understand the behavior of small children. They are little kids. Kids at that age are always going to push, pinch, and grab. What happened to the teacher saying "Keep your hands to yourself".

These crazy kids today with their blow jobs and text messaging and funny shoes. It's good we have laws like this to protect them from themselves. I'm sure that now word has gotten out about the punishment these teens won't want anything to do with oral sex.

Perhaps we can look at the bright side, this is stellar resume material for him to join the Bengals upon release.

I'm certain this sentance will be appealed. In fact, I'm sure there will be plenty of defense lawyers who will volunteer their efforts to challenge this law on constitutional grounds. I would be very surprised if there weren't some liberal law professor at the Univ of Georgia that is putting together a student team to challenge it. I bet this is going to the US supreme court.

Unfortunately, mandatory sentancing has held up against challenge in most states. But here, the distinction between oral sex vs. regular intercourse seems irrational. The natural ground to challenge this law is as "cruel and unusual punishment" (on the basis that the magnitude of the crime doesn't match the sentance, but this theory hasn't worked well in previous mandatory sentancing cases) or under the due process clause because it is an "abitrary and capricious" distinction between regular intercourse between minors and agg. sexual assault.

The problem is, the trial judge doesn't have the power or the authority to dismiss the case on these grounds. The party I really blame is the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor has "prosecutorial discretion" to file charges and frankly, I find it unbelievable that the prosecutor chose to pursue this action. When the judge is making these statements, the judge is likely not very happy with either the legislature OR the prosecutor. This is judge-speak for "you are MORONS!".

The legislature CHANGED the law...cited this case as one reason, then expressly said that the change in the law shouldn't apply to already adjudicated cases.

OK....the way out here is for the governor to issue a pardon. If you guys want to do something...we should all e mail the governor of georgia.

What is it with you? Can you read? You are always asking for clarifications?

Lesson learned: never hug anyone if your face is only at the height of their hips.