Go to jail for 10 years for getting head?

[Sidhe]

To the Googlemobile!

Why Is Genarlow Wilson in Prison? by Atlanta magazine

Don't tell me: he was 8 when that photo was taken, he looks about 4 years younger than me I certainly couldn't grow a full beard when I was 17.

Shame really, but then there are as many who see the spirit of the law as those who arbitrarily enforce it like idiotic automatons that have broken a circuit or two. Tragically pointless sentence, made by a tragically pointless judge. Really get a friggin' clue

 

[MjM]

If I was that dude I would immolate myself.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

No supprise here, cause under 18, youre still considered a minor here in the US.

So they should both spend 10 years in jail then?

 

[MobBoss]

I wish the law would not make this such a bold line.

A 17 year old loving a 15 year old does not make the 17 a paedophile.

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.

Teenagers do and will have sex while underage because it's natural. If both consented then there should be no problem at all.

Again, a 15 year old cannot consent to sex. Where do you propose we draw the line, if not at 16? 12? 10? Younger?

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

 

[GenMarshall]

So they should both spend 10 years in jail then?

They should spend at least some time in Juvinile detention. The 10 year in jail should only apply to the offender if he or she is over 18.

 

[warpus]

No supprise here, cause under 18, youre still considered a minor here in the US.

You agree with the verdict?

“It all boils down to the fact that there’s the letter of the law and there’s the spirit of the law,” says Manigault, who claims that she still struggles to make peace with her role in the case and that she could not sleep for months after the verdict. “Under the letter of the law these young men were guilty, but under the spirit of the law they were not guilty,” she says. “Because we were ignorant we sent this child to jail.”

Other interesting snips from the article C~G posted:

Genarlow: . . . Aggravated child molestation is when like a 60-year—some old man like messing with 10-year-old girls. I’m 17, the girl was 15, sir. You call that child molestation, two years apart?
Barker: I didn’t write the law.
Genarlow: I didn’t write the law, either.
Barker: That’s what the law states is aggravated child molestation, Mr. Wilson, not me.
Genarlow: Well, sir, I understand you’re just doing your job. I don’t blame you. . . . But do you think it’s fair? . . . Would you want your son on trial for something like this?

and this gem

In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor.

WTH?!?

 

[Xanikk999]

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.



Again, a 15 year old cannot consent to sex. Where do you propose we draw the line, if not at 16? 12? 10? Younger?

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

Well then i think the law is morally wrong.

A 15 year old can consent as much as a 17 year old IMO.

 

[Xanikk999]

You agree with the verdict?



Other interesting snips from the article C~G posted:

Genarlow: . . . Aggravated child molestation is when like a 60-year—some old man like messing with 10-year-old girls. I’m 17, the girl was 15, sir. You call that child molestation, two years apart?
Barker: I didn’t write the law.
Genarlow: I didn’t write the law, either.
Barker: That’s what the law states is aggravated child molestation, Mr. Wilson, not me.
Genarlow: Well, sir, I understand you’re just doing your job. I don’t blame you. . . . But do you think it’s fair? . . . Would you want your son on trial for something like this?

and this gem

In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor.

WTH?!?

The sad part is politicians dont want to go through the effort to change this screwed up law.

Not to mention they probably agree with the verdict.

 

[Masquerouge]

Georgia law was probably specifically crafted to make as much underage sex illegal as possible so as to discourage it, so "leniency and understanding" would be in defiance of the spirit of law as well as the letter. Not that I'm condoning the decision, of course.

The national US law is actually quite reasonable. It says that statutory rape is sex, even consensual sex, between one person below the age of 16 and another person who is both over the age of 16 and at least four years older than the first person. Thus, in most states, this would have been fine, and it still would have been fine if he was 18 (though not if he was 19). However, some states have stricter laws than the national law, mostly in the South. In some cases, the age of consent is raised to 17 or 18; in other cases the four-years exemption is tossed out the window (which, IMO, is absurd). Georgia apparently lacks the 4-year exemption.

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.



Again, a 15 year old cannot consent to sex. Where do you propose we draw the line, if not at 16? 12? 10? Younger?

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

I think the national US law is much more reasonable and sensible that this "two days older can get you 10 years in jail" BS. No need to draw a line.

 

[Bill3000]

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.

It makes him a sexual offender by definition because he's breaking a sexual law, but he is not a pedophile. First of all, one does not have to be a pedophile to have sex with underage kids. Pedophilia is a medical term, and a lot of sexual offenders are situational rather than lusting after actual children. Second of all, it's not a paraphilia for an underage child to be sexually attracted to someone of similar age.

 

[Xanikk999]

I say there should be a 4 year safety zone.

Meaning that no matter how old either of the consenters are, if they are 4 years of age or under apart there can be no charge.

That is all.

 

[fishjie]

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.



Again, a 15 year old cannot consent to sex. Where do you propose we draw the line, if not at 16? 12? 10? Younger?

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

the age of consent is stupid. kids have sex at young ages. they enjoy it. they know what they are doing and consent to it. deal with it.

 

[Xanikk999]

It makes him a sexual offender by definition because he's breaking a sexual law, but he is not a pedophile. First of all, one does not have to be a pedophile to have sex with underage kids. Pedophilia is a medical term, and a lot of sexual offenders are situational rather than lusting after actual children. Second of all, it's not a paraphilia for an underage child to be sexually attracted to someone of similar age.

QFT.

Mobboss you are sickening me if you find a 17 year old a pedophile to be attracted to a 15 year old.

I am not going out of line when im saying this, but YOU are just messed up for thinking that. This law is messed up. I want it to change.

 

[Masquerouge]

QFT.

Mobboss you are sickening me if you find a 17 year old a pedophile to be attracted to a 15 year old.

I am not going out of line when im saying this, but that is just messed up. This law is messed up. I want it to change.

Again, Georgia law is messed up, the US national law is apparently fine.

 

[GenMarshall]

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

Somehow, I agree with that statement.

Well then i think the law is morally wrong.

A 15 year old can consent as much as a 17 year old IMO.

Sorry, but a 15 year old cannot consent if he or she is under the age of majority. Same goes for the 17 year old if he or she is also under the age of majority.

You agree with the verdict?

I only agree to the vertict somewhat in that these two minors should be sentance to a time in Juvinile Deteniton, not Jail or Prision.

 

[MobBoss]

Well then i think the law is morally wrong.

A 15 year old can consent as much as a 17 year old IMO.

Depends on the state (and also the country btw). Some states have the age of consent at 18...some at 16. Ditto with countries.

This isnt a USA thing by any means. Other countries have minimum age sex laws as well and enforce them too.

But I disagree with you, I dont think the law morally wrong at all. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say thats the absolute youngest age a person can consent to sex. And if you have sex with a minor its a crime.

Its the same thing about alcohol laws. I happen to think a 20 year old can drink a beer as responsibly as a 21 year old...but the law states you have to be 21 to do it legally. Its not morally wrong to arrest a 20 year old for drinking and not a 21 year old, its called enforcing a standard.

 

[warpus]

No. If the age of consent is 16, then its 16. Regardless of the closeness in age.

Surely a 50 year old sleeping with a 15 year old is a much more serious offense than a 17 year old getting head from a 15 year old.

Don't tell me you agree with this ******** law?

 

[Xanikk999]

Sorry, but a 15 year old cannot consent if he or she is under the age of majority. Same goes for the 17 year old if he or she is also under the age of majority.

Blah blah blah. They went through sex-ed did they not?

I think they are old enough.

And what boils my blood is that men are always the offenders in these cases. ALWAYS.

 

[Masquerouge]

Somehow, I agree with that statement.


Sorry, but a 15 year old cannot consent if he or she is under the age of majority. Same goes for the 17 year old if he or she is also under the age of majority.


I only agree to the vertict somewhat in that these two minors should be sentance to a time in Juvinile Deteniton, not Jail or Prision.

So you disagree with the US national law that says there must be a 4-year-difference for statutory rape?

 

[TheLoneMan]

Rape is not love and under-age kids cannot consent to sex. And yes, it does make him a pedo and a sexual offender.

So... consensual sex with somebody two years younger than you is rape?

Well, in that case, I suppose I'm the product of a crime, and my father should be wasting away in jail as we speak.

And two people two years apart from each other are in the same developmental stage in their lives... how does that make the older one a pedophile?

Again, a 15 year old cannot consent to sex. Where do you propose we draw the line, if not at 16? 12? 10? Younger?

Why do you propose that we have to draw the line?

Maybe a bit of a gray area? As in it's illegal for somebody 18 or older to engage in sexual activities with somebody 16 or younger?