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

[|Zach|]

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.

[Donger]

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

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

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

You stay classy Zach.

[thedude]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

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

[teedubya]

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

[milkman]

That sucks!

[88TG88]

Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein

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

[thedude]

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

[thedude]

Originally Posted by 88TG88

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

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by greg63

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

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.

[morphius]

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.

[Adept Havelock]

Welcome to "morality revival" America.

Originally Posted by morphius

though your stuck in Jail for 10 years so things are already in the shitter.

Done time, have we?

[underEJ]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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?

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Phobia

Done time, have we?

hah!

bastard.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by underEJ

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?

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.