Go to jail for 10 years for getting head?

[silver 2039]

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever....I hope there aren't too many US states that have retarted laws like this....sometimes I think I may be better off heading to Canada..

 

[MobBoss]

Just because its a far better system than most, it does not mean it is necessary to sit back and be content with it.

And we are not. Laws are constantly being changed, added or removed.

 

[-0blivion-]

Excellent. I certainly hope that will be the case in this particular scenario, as the sense of justice is distinctly lacking.

 

[woody60707]

So is it fair now to say that Bill'O with his mandatory sentencing for sex offenders is (fill in the blank)

 

[skadistic]

So is it fair now to say that Bill'O with his mandatory sentencing for sex offenders is (fill in the blank)

Bill O's pushing for a 25 year manditory for the rape of children under 13. Its called Jesicas law and would not be applicable in this case.

 

[JollyRoger]

What was this 17 year old thinking? Doesn't he know that at his age he should have been devotong his sexual energies to his Congressman and religious leaders?

 

[JohnRM]

linky

This is just ridiculous. Sentenced to 10 years in jail for getting head from your girlfriend, who is 2 years younger than you?

Would the girl have gone to jail instead if she were 17 and her boyfriend was 15? I don't think so

Who thinks up ******** laws like these?

I am getting to this a little late, I know, but this has got to be one of the most ridiculous cases that I have ever heard of.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well, lets look at this realistically shall we. Everyone is bent out of shape about this kids 10 year sentence. Guess what? I am willing to bet he will only serve a fraction of that before qualifying for parole.

Look at the OP again. The sentence is 10 years without parole.

Bottom line, this person was tried and found guilty and sentenced according to the laws of the state of Georgia. Its hard for me to get bent around the axle on it as I have an extremely dim view of people who engage in sex with minors.

Yeah, especially when these people are minors themselves...

False statement as your own link that you provided, this one: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm indicates that the guy could have been charged in several other states as well.

Not for statutory rape. My statement still stand.

Also Georgia is not the only state without age limits on the matter, as you well know.

Hey, that's why I said "the vast majority" of US states. Funny how first you questionned that and asked me for proof, and when I give it you try to turn things around instead of just admitting I was right.

Ah...no...he was not a minor in Geogia. The age of consent there is 16. Get your facts straight.

I do not think the age of consent is what's define who's a minor and who's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

"While the phrase age of consent (AoC) typically does not appear in legal statutes,[1] when used with reference to criminal law the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to any contract or behaviour regulated by law with another person. This article refers specifically to those laws regulating sexual acts. This should not be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility or the marriageable age."

Get YOUR facts straight.

Kiddo, I am willing to bet I have seen far more of the world than you have. Apparently, you are incapable of accepting the fact that regardless of whether they have sex or not, its against the law in a lot of places. Why is it against the law? Think about it. Teen promiscuity is a bad thing. It leads to ruined lives. Thats why.

It's against the law in a minority of places, precisely because the law in the vast majority of states require an age difference.

Not at all. Not all of those laws are the same...even among the 40 states who have age-differences. Morality actually has no place in the picture. Each state has the right to dictate the laws it sees fit to have on the books. I also feel compelled to point out that even in several of the states of those 40 this 17 year old was still punishable via their laws as well as several have a two year cut-off instead of a three or four year limit.

Once again, I stated that. I stated that these states had a difference in what they consider a prosecutable age difference. But you're missing the point. The point is that most of the states take into consideration the age difference, precisely because they want to avoid the ridiculous kind of situation in Georgia where two minors have consensual sex.

Then let me educate you...if you as a 15 year old have sex with a 13 year old you are guilty of a misdemeanor in the state of California and can spent as much as a year in county jail.

That's not statutory rape, and that's not 10 years without parole.

 

[CartesianFart]

The dude will probably be proposed of an early release.I say about less than 2 years served.Of course,he will be stigmatized as a sex-offender and have the parole officer harrassing him.Hope he is not a drug abuser is his chance to turn his life around.

 

[Masquerouge]

The dude will probably be proposed of an early release.I say about less than 2 years served.Of course,he will be stigmatized as a sex-offender and have the parole officer harrassing him.Hope he is not a drug abuser is his chance to turn his life around.

Again, the sentence is 10 years without parole.

 

[nonconformist]

And for that you are a much bigger man than most people on this forum.

A man as big as me faints when he opens up the babe thread

 

[Kyriakos]

Imo a very bad law.
Infact i do not see what having large sentences without the possibility of parole serves, in any case. Even if he was 40 years old it would still not make sense, since it robs him of any will to actually think of what had happened- what does it matter since he will still be in jail for 10 years nomatter what.

"Making an example" out of someone is in my view a very failed system. A society that relies on fear cannot go further in examining itself than the borders of that fear.

Really, a very bad court decision.

 

[Homie]

He also has good grades? No wonder we have prison overpopulation.

What does his grades have to do with anything?
Should people be let off for good grades? I call crap.

Btw, stupid ruling. 17 and 15, come on! They were both horny, child molestation my a$$

 

[RedWolf]

Apparently you vastly dont understand teen influence and how it works in youth today.

Underage kids cannot consent to sex...therefore they cannot make a responsible choice in regards to it. Hell, their brains have not even developed fully yet.

That is why the 17 year old is in hot water. He had sex with someone who could not legally give consent to such activity. Dont try to tell me he didnt know what he was doing.

Mobboss.. I understand your point that lines have to be drawn and that this young man was sentenced as per the letter of the law.

But let's look at it from a common sense standpoint - and we'll see that in certain cases these laws don't really make a lot of sense when enforced this strictly and without some kind of age difference allowance.

If this girl was 2 days away from being 16... and he was 2 days over the age of 16... he would STILL be guilty and sent to prison for 10 years. From a "real life" point of view... do you actually believe that the person 2 days over the age of 16 is somehow more able to consent to sexual activity then the girl 2 days under the age of 16? 4 days of growth would somehow bestow upon him some level of maturity that the younger girl does not have?
Lets use some common sense here.

Or lets consider another scenario.. Two teenagers age 15. The boy is 10 days older then the girl.. They're engaging in sexual activity - legally. All of a sudden the boy turns 16... For 10 days he's breaking the law and is temporarily a sexual predator?

That makes no sense... and thats why the sliding age window allowance exists - to MAKE these laws make sense.

 

[CartesianFart]

Again, the sentence is 10 years without parole.

Opps,i guess once again i've allowed my laziness of not reading the OP first before i strike a comment.Oh i fail at trivial threads.

 

[MobBoss]

Look at the OP again. The sentence is 10 years without parole.

The first reference in the story does not reflect this, but the second reference does. I wonder what the reality of the situation is according to Georgia state law.

Yeah, especially when these people are minors themselves...

Again, he was of the age of sexual consent...the girl was not.

Not for statutory rape. My statement still stand.

Sigh. Read your own resources please. For example, yes, you can be convicted of rape in Idaho for having sex with an underage minor. Your statement was false. Also, please recognize the fact that your own link mentions that a lot of states dont use the specific words 'statutory rape' but instead use 'sexual assault' or 'sexual abuse' to indicate prohibited behavior. Pretty much the same thing if you ask me.

Hey, that's why I said "the vast majority" of US states. Funny how first you questionned that and asked me for proof, and when I give it you try to turn things around instead of just admitting I was right.

Oh, I will admit you were correct in that a majority of states have age-differences on the books; however, you totally ignore that not all of them are the same and in more than just a handfull a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old would still be charged and go to jail under those laws.

It's against the law in a minority of places, precisely because the law in the vast majority of states require an age difference.

And yet, even with only a two year age difference, he could have seen jail time in 19 states to varying degrees. Hell, he is lucky he didnt do it in Montana (possible life sentence) or Wisconsin (25 year sentence).

Once again, I stated that. I stated that these states had a difference in what they consider a prosecutable age difference. But you're missing the point. The point is that most of the states take into consideration the age difference, precisely because they want to avoid the ridiculous kind of situation in Georgia where two minors have consensual sex.

Apparently more than just a few dont think its so ridiculous.

That's not statutory rape, and that's not 10 years without parole.

No, but it is still against the law and a jail sentence.

 

[MobBoss]

If this girl was 2 days away from being 16... and he was 2 days over the age of 16... he would STILL be guilty and sent to prison for 10 years.

Incorrect. Apparently you missed the nugget in the news story that since this case occurred, Georgia had modified its statutory rape laws. The new law reads:

One to 20 years in prison, but (1) 10 to 20 years if the offender is age 21 or older and (2) up to one year in prison if the victim is age 14 or 15 and the offender is no more than three years older.

 

[JollyRoger]

Too bad for the 17 year old that he actually wasn't a 34-year old preacher, one state to the south, with a soft-on-crime congregation crying to the Judge:

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/weathersbee323

the Rev. Alexie Kelly, was there to be sentenced for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in his congregation – during the course of a three-month affair. The good reverend is 34, which makes that a felony.

But the type of justice that the congregants wanted the judge to carry out wasn’t on behalf of the girl, but on behalf of Kelly. They blamed the “forces of evil,” for trying to discredit a preacher who had helped to rebuild and restore their church, and they begged the judge to go easy on him.

Even the girl’s mother bought into that craziness – saying that the reverend had confessed his sin, and that putting him in jail wouldn’t restore her daughter’s virginity. As if her child’s lost virginity, rather than her stolen esteem and Kelly’s betrayal, was the issue here.

But what the mother said got to the judge. According to The Florida Times-Union, her testimony influenced his decision to give Kelly six months in jail and three years probation. Sentencing guidelines for statutory rape in Florida call for five to 30 years in prison.

The Times-Union story described the courtroom scene as that of an old-fashioned prayer meeting, because the support for Kelly was so intense.

 

[MobBoss]

Too bad for the 17 year old that he actually wasn't a 34-year old preacher, one state to the south, with a soft-on-crime congregation crying to the Judge:

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/weathersbee323

Well, thats just sick. They should have buried that guy under the jail. That judge should be removed from his position.

 

[RedWolf]

Incorrect. Apparently you missed the nugget in the news story that since this case occurred, Georgia had modified its statutory rape laws. The new law reads:

Ok well it's good that the law has been modified slightly...

But it doesn't change the fact that they're still saying it's a crime.. which is still absurd for all of the original reasons that I listed. The sentence is somewhat irrelevant.