I hate to say it but if this boy had been black no one would care that he was an honour student, blah, blah.
If this sentence had been handed to a black young man involved with a white girl this story would not have even made the news, I’d bet.
:smack:
Read the news article before posting! 
Of course, if it had been a seventeen year old boy giving head to a fifteen year old boy, he’d not only have gotten ten years, but people would be complaining that he didn’t get twenty.
I believe catsix said “17 year old,” not “teacher.”
The same may not apply if they were both female though… Maybe it would though, at that. I suppose it would depend on how homophobic the keepers of the law were in the place it occured in?
If he was 18 it would be different too. What is really outrageous is that he got 10 years for a blow job. Straight sex would have been ONE year. That is fucked.
I agree…I mean it sounds like the guy is one of those agrrongent (sp?) Jock types.
Read Our Guys which is the story of the Glen Ridge rape. The jocks in that story were all arrgononent pusbags who purely saw sex as a game or as a way to “buff” their machoness. If this had been about a reltionship between two kids…I’d say whatever. But this case really smacks of Jock Privilage or "I need to have sex with women I don’t even love to stoke my immature male ego. "
Uh, in the case of the Glen Ridge rape, a mentally retarded girl was talked into going into the basement, where she was raped with a broomhandle, among other things. This was consentual-maybe these girls weren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but it’s hardly comparable.
I did say the sentence might be excessive.
But I certainly don’t like the idea of a bunch of teenagers hiring a hotel room and using drugs with an alleged gang-rape going on.
Well the law sets an age limit on both drinking, drug use and sex. So I don’t think it’s right just to say he was trying to ‘get lucky’. From the description, it’s hardly two young people getting romantically involved.
Yes, I agree that the law needs to review this case.
But as a teacher, I am depressed by the casual attitude, annoyed by the filming and sickened by the alleged gang-rape (which is not hanky-panky). That is why teenagers shouldn’t be left unsupervised in this way.
Dumb kids doing what dumb kids do. Dumber law with no excuse for how stupid it is. Consensual sex between two kids should not result in a 10 year sentence and a permanent sex offenders tag on this kid. His life is utterly ruined for getting a blow job for a girl only two years younger. Bullshit!
This kid did not participate in the alleged Gang Rape or do any video taping. What his stupid friends did, should not be held against him. The law is extremely stupid that he was convicted under.
If the kid was guilty in the gang rape, he should be charged separately for this actual crime and 10 years sounds like it would be appropriate.
Jim
“Arrogant.”
Ooohh, you found a TYPO :eek: :rolleyes: Boy I tell you, finding a typo in someone elses post does make you automatically the winner here, that’s ferdamnsure. :rolleyes:
Some give this moron a cookie. A small, one rather stale, and make sure it’s not a flavor he likes.
Who rented the room? Don’t most/all hotels require someone 18+ to sign for it?
There has been much anti-realistic, sanctimonious prudery and moralizing in this thread, but there are a several errors and sloppy thinking in all that self-righteous piety.
First, it’s clear from my reading of the details of the case that everyone knew in advance what the plans were. There was no secret goal of tricking innocent young girls in there and seducing them with drugs and intentionally videotaping it. They all knew what they were doing, and the article makes it clear that the videotaping was a result of one of them “goofing around with a video camera” and was not part of some nefarious plan to make child porn or a hidden “Girls Gone Wild” tape or anything like that. They were all willing participants with advance knowledge of what was up, and everyone knew when they were being taped.
Second, these days, most (all?) states have decriminalized most instances of non-forcible teenage sex. The wiser among these have realized that, as long as there is only a few years’ difference between the partners, they have no business legislating morality. I bring this up not because of the legal ramifications of this particular case, but rather because it means most legislatures – even Georgia’s at the time – recognize that teens, being human and also flush with hormones, will have sexual relations and that outlawing genuinely consensual acts is foolish, unjust, and, in my view, immoral. The only immorality related to such activity is when teachers and parents refuse to love their kids enough to educate them about the true risks and how best to try to avoid them, which experience and medical science has told us is not merely preaching abstinence. (The kids in this case did use condoms, fortunately).
Third, the girl involved had no complaints and neither did her family. The Georgia courts took this case up on their own initiative and against the families’ wishes. I understand that in some instances the State must pursue legal action regardless of whether charges are pressed by the alleged victim, but this should sort of case should not be one of them, in my opinion.
Fourth, the law in Georgia at the time of the events in question held that vaginal intercourse between even a 14 year-old and another person less than four years difference in age was merely a misdemeanor and required no sex offender registration. Note that I’m not merely expressing outrage or bafflement over this difference between vaginal and oral sex that has already been expressed; I bring it up primarily because it shows that the Georgia legislature felt that teens fucking other teens was no big deal. (But if they engage in the safer practice of oral sex, then it’s off to the gallows.) The point again being that not even the Georgia legislators were as moralistic as you folks seem to be. Even the author of the statute in question argued that the law was never intended to criminalize inter-teen sexuality, only the adult predation of teens.
Fifth, there’s this from an article about the case:
Don’t get your BVDs in a bunch and start preaching again right away, okay? I’m certainly not blaming the victims here or even hinting at the ugly “they deserved what they got” bullshit. Having sex with drunk girls is pretty base behavior. But the jury found no cause for the rape charge! Which should tell you something that you obviously haven’t grasped.
You all sound like you’re in your seventies and teach Bible classes and refuse to remember when you were young. Teens are more savvy when it comes to these things than adults give them credit for, especially over the course of the last couple of decades. If none of you had sex when you were younger than 18, I can’t help feeling sorry for you. But you shouldn’t take it out on these people.
This would be why everyone needs to know about jury nullification, damnit.
Oh, and if any of you are as outraged by the miscarriage of justice in this case as I am, you should consider visiting the following web site and signing their online petition: Why Is Genarlow Wilson In Prison??
You said, and i quote, “We’re talking about a typical all-American sort of kid here (”…football player, honor student…homecoming king"), not someone with a history of unfortunate instances."
The argument apparently did work on you, becaue your whole line of reasoning in post #6 was based on this kid’s alleged “all-American” qualities, not on the extent or the nature of his crime.
Pay attention, stupid.
I’m not “okay with children having sex with their peers & then being tossed in jail for a decade.” I made no comment whatsoever about that issue. In fact, i agree that the sentence was too harsh, and that the law is often too punitive when it comes to issues of consensual sex that are also statutory rape.
I merely noted that your apparent deploying of the “honor student” argument didn’t say much for your intelligence.
Oooooh, burn!
You caught me in a typo. I guess you win.
No, that’s why everyone needs to know about talk to your goddamn Legislature so they don’t pass knee-jerk feel-good laws without considering the consequences.
If this is a travesty (and I can’t be bothered to look at the opinions to see if this actually was reported accurately), it can be laid squarely at the feet of the legislature and the people who elected said legislature.
The “honor roll” argument is perfectly valid according to American jurisprudence (and I suspect other countries as well). The purpose is less to give good kids a break (and this was indeed a good kid) and more to give recidivists and troublemakers less of a break.
I’m pretty much with Birdmonster.
Not quite. While technically, of course, the legislature can be blamed for not foreseeing the consequences of their poorly drafted statute, the author of the bill in question argued that the law was never intended to felonize inter-teen sexuality. And they’ve already fixed the problem.
It seems to me that in this case, the problem’s more with the state supreme court – who refused to address the problem – and with the Governor who has refused to commute or modify the sentence.
There is no justice in a “justice” system that refuses to right a wrong.