In my humble opinion, this is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard of

The BBQ Pit
81

First you’re assuming that the girls who were there are automatically victims, which considering that they knew what was up before they went and even packed overnight bags as part of their plan, I think the victim label is misapplied.

Also, having sex with a drunk girl is no worse than having sex with a drunk guy, and I have yet to hear anyone call it ‘base behavior’ for a girl to do that.

I realize that you think this sentence is ridiculous, but by referring to the girls as ‘victims’, you’re only reinforcing the idea that they were victimized by those evil boys.

So much for the rationalization I have heard from many ‘moral majority’ types that the double standard is to protect teenage girls from having to deal with pregnancy.

I’m glad I didn’t know you when I was fifteen.

I also don’t know any state in which the age of majority is 17.

You’re really working the spin here.

Why is that? You want to punish someone for the rest of his life for victimizing no one at all. If the law is wrong, the answer is not ‘punish severely anyone who breaks it’. The answer is ‘change the law.’

Apparently if you’re gay and an adult, it still is. Bowers v. Hardwick

I wish I could remember where I heard this before, but the general gist of the quote was that human beings are under no moral obligation to follow an unjust law.

Even Gahndi practice civil disobedience.

And then when it is, he still rots in jail, because that’s the price of justice for all?

I think it’s ridiculous to punish a high school senior for having sex with a high school sophomore.

And I’d be willing to bet you never would’ve opened your yap had this been a 15 year old boy giving oral sex to a 17 year old girl, because she never would’ve been prosecuted for it.

You seem to lack whatever it is that makes human beings human…

Oh yeah, the ability to use logic to think of things in non-binary terms.

82

Several possibilities exist:

  1. You’re blind.

  2. You’re illiterate.

  3. You’re an asshole (ie - knowingly and willfully ignoring the available evidence.)

  4. Some combination of the above.

Perhaps you should think about that a little harder.

That’s a steaming load of bullshit. Rosa Parks wasn’t doing anything about awareness & whatnot. She was willfully & deliberately disobeying an unjust law. Specifically from the Police Report:
“Rosa Parks was (cf) was charged with chapter 6 section 11 of the Montgomery city Code.”

From the wiki article
“Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violating a local ordinance. The trial lasted 30 minutes. Parks was found guilty and fined $10, plus $4 in court costs.”

By your logic, she shouldn’t be lauded as a hero. She was a criminal, so you must be chapping your own ass about now. Stop apologizing for her.

And the point still stands - the kid we’ve been talking about did not willfully and intentionally break any law, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

And that’s all beside the point - the kid was punished unjustly. We know his punishment is unjust because the law was modified **as a direct result of his case. Yet he remains imprisoned, and you by some bizarre logical fallacy, maintain that justice has been served.

You’re clearly irrational.

83

Ah. Fair enough. But just proves the arbitrary and silly nature of the laws…My goodness. 17 and in one state he’s a molester, moves a few states over he’s a victim. I won’t use the rolleye smilie, it just dosen’t go far enough back.

I’ve said it here before on the bord but I’ll say it once more:

I’ve been abused. Well only metally thank god. By my teacher when I was 11. By a guy who definitly targetly me as a good victim. He knew. New in school, no father. Smarter than I should be, which is what he focued on . Talked to me like I was a college student when he was asking for sex.

Glad I was was actually intelligent enough to not fall for his bullshit.

On the other hand…

When I was 15, had a thing with a 20 year old. Who agonized about being with an underagered girl. Quite right. I wasn’t really ready for it. But I wanted it. Made that pretty clear. He may have been a bit foolish but there is in no way he was a child molestor. He was a perfect gentleman.

I don’t know just some rumination on the current state of sex legislation.

Oh and can I say there are people who get ten years for murder and they get out and don’t get put on the official Evil Blow Job list. Sex is apparently worse than murder.

Great.

84

The Supreme Court overturned that in 1998, I believe. After Hardwick (in 1986), though, there would be no way to say you weren’t breaking the law. I think if people were to act the way Aangelica thinks they should, there would have been dancing (at least) in the streets when it was overturned.

85

Of course. Those would be discussions where someone makes an inane universal assertion that it is wrong to side with someone who breaks the law. You made that assertion. QED.

It is a matter of historical record that she was arrested. How, pray tell, did that come to happen as a result of not breaking the law?

86

I dont think you and I disagree much on the moral issues here. Elsewhere Im on record criticizing age of consent laws, and among the reasons that I cited were unjust application based on race and circumstance.

So I agree the old Georgia law should have been changed. It was.

Given the law that applied to this case, what should have happened, in your view? Who should have acted differently?

You mention civil disobedience. Great. That is arguably what the defendant did, to some success. The law changed as a result.

But those who practice civil disobedience must expect to be prosecuted. Civil disobedience is not a defense to a criminal charge.

So, I ask again: Who should have acted differently here, and what should he or she have done, in your view?

87

Aangelica can I ask you what you feel about the following principles as they apply to our lawmaking and justice system?

Enforcement of the statute being in line with legislative intent.

Proportional justice, punishment in proportion to the severity of the crime.

Strict liability statutes, the so-called “zero tolerance” laws where there are no allowed defenses and prosecutors, judges, and juries are given no discretion.

Statutes which are poorly worded and do not accurately convey legislative intent.

Here’s my take on each of these. Firstly I think enforcement should line up with legislative intent. The legislature is the only piece of the system the electorate(the source of political power in a democracy) generally has influence over. We can vote out people who write bad laws, but if the executive branches enforce them outside of the legislative intent we have no remedy.

Secondly, I believe proportional justice is a necessary feature of any workable system. The punishment must fit the crime.

Thirdly, I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance laws. There are ALWAYS shades of grey in this world and black and white laws have no place IMO.

Lastly, poorly crafted statutes, such as writing a “Romeo and Juilet” exemption for intercourse but leaving off other sex acts in that exemption(which was clearly not the intent as evidenced by the changes the legislature made to the statutes in response to this case) should be treated with extreme discretion by the other areas of the justice system.

About the only comments I have on this particular case are that I think the legislative intent should have restrained the prosecution originally and they should have gotten him on some illegal substance posession charges or something similar. The remaineder of the sentence should be commuted. The guy did some bad shit and he should serve some time, but he’s been there three years so far and I think that’s adequate.

Enjoy,
Steven

88

In my view, all convictions under the old law should be reviewed to see if they would still be convictions under the new law, and resentenced accordingly. When the legislature makes the mistake of unintended consequences, it should also offer remedy to those affected. The Georgia Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, did not do that. I won’t even begin to guess why they chose not to go that route.

89

No. She just disagrees with you.

You see, thats the problem with the system you advocate. People disagree. If you leave justice up to the individual judge on the case, youre in great shape if his view on things comports with yours.

But that wont always happen. Thats why we elect people to pass laws that constrain and guide the administration of justice.

So think very carefully before you argue that the appellate court should have substituted its evaluation here.

You are correct, as far as I know. As I recall, she appealed, and the law was found to be unconstitutional.

Are you contending that the law here is unconstitutional? On what basis, if so?

Cite for the proposition that the defendant did not know that underage sex is illegal?

What specific process do you advocate? Please address the problem of allowing judges to substitute their views on morality and equity without constraint.

90

I’m not even sure we should blame the application of the law.

Let’s be clear - I’m not arguing that the guy’s action was inherently bad behavior. If you recall, I admitedly behaved in a similar fashion when I was the same age (and my partner was the same relative age actually). Howsoever, in my case the behavior was legal.

If you’re willing to commit an illegal act, then that’s your business. If you think a law prohibiting an act you would like to commit is unjust, then by all means work to have it changed or stricken from the books. If, however, you are aware that an act is illegal and go right ahead and do it anyway, then be prepared to face the consequences.

“Everyone does it” is not a valid defense in my eyes.

I’m completely willing to attach blame to the criminal here. Granted he’s a young criminal who violated a law I don’t necessarily agree with, but he’s still a criminal. Why is it that he’s plenty old enough to make informed decisions about sex - and the girl, two years younger, is capable of giving adequate consent to sex - but he’s not old enough to bear the legal responsibility of the act? In this case, the legal responsibility for the crime he was convicted of - and which act he does not dispute performing - can include a term of imprisonment up to (I believe) 12 years.

91

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I said “I suspect” it was because he was black that the case prosecuted, that parenthetical part of my point was conjecture. My point was that he is spending 10 years in prison for doing something that is as common as dirt. For argument’s sake let us just say the inequity is video taped vs. non-video taped occurrences of this exact sex act, it doesn’t matter. The kid is still being screwed for doing something most people did/do at that age (minus the orgy setting and video camera of course).

92

PS: Im aware of the testimony offered by the defendant that he didnt check IDs. I believe that testimony. I dont think that establishes that he didnt know sex with a 15-year old was illegal. If he claimed that, I doubt Id believe him. Thats general knowledge. Not that it matters. Ignorance of the law is not a defense here.

93

One point is that a prosecutor can more easily ignore situations where the evidence is unclear, or disputable.

Also, even a prosecutor who hypothetically wants to put every 17 year old blow job receipient in jail wont be able to do so if the evidence isnt there to prove guilt beyond a reaosnable doubt. So many 17 year olds with smiles will escape. That doesn*t provide a defense to the unlucky or unwise 17 year old who hands the necessary evidence to the prosecutor.

94

And once again, if the law prohibits oral-genital contact between consenting adults, is it reasonable to expect to go to jail for going down on your wife?

I would like a cite for the proposition that he did. When I was 19, my best friend waited to have intercourse with his girlfriend until she was 18 (As he felt it was unwise to give one’s girlfriend recourse to the law). Thing of it is, the age of consent in New York State was, and is 17. What Exit? seems to think he was in a similar situation, but if I remember my Saturday Night Live correctly, the age of consent in NJ in the early 80s was 14. Who the hell thinks they’re going to jail for 10 years for fooling around with a sophomore?

95

Personal attacks aside, you’ll note that I said the sole exception I was willing to entertain was when people chose to break the law and accept their lawfully imposed sentance in order to draw attention to what they saw as the injustice of the law. In other words, when their breaking of the law was a deliberate part of an organized effort to reform said law. That was not the case in this instance. You will also please note the distinction that in the situation of an activist working to change a law they find abhorrent, if they are anything other than *totally willing * to serve the sentance imposed for their breaking of the law in question, they get no sympathy from me either.

This guy was not punished unjustly. He was given a fair trial and convicted under the current at the time law of his state. He freely admitted that he did, in fact, perform the act for which he was convicted. The fact that the law was changed subsequent to his trial does not make his punishment unjust. It might (or might not) make his continued incarceration unjust - but that is why procedures exist under state law to redress situations just such as that. Presumably his attorney is pursuing those procedures.

As for whether or not he willfully broke the law - you have information to indicate that he had no notion of the law in the area of age of consent, statutory rape, or child molestation? Even if you do, ignorance of the law has never been a valid defense.

96

Four.

If you can convince a jury of 12 of your peers that although you did the crime, you do not deserve to be convicted and can get a “not guilty” verdict out of them, there is nothing that can be done to set aside that verdict or try the case again.

There are people who may not like the fact that jury nullification exists or that it can be used to give notice that a law is either unjust or being unjustly applied.

97

Part of the issue here isn’t just that it’s a bunch of random whiners on the Dope saying “oh, that law is unfair”. The very people who MADE the law have said it was unfair, as is evidenced by the fact that it has been changed, and that language was already in place in the law to attempt to prevent similar over-sentencings from occur, but which happened to only apply to intercourse (which, I think everyone would agree, is generally more serious than oral sex).
This is not a case where the people of the state of Georgia, as evidenced by their elected representatives, honestly believe that the appropriate punishment for consensual oral sex between teenagers is 10 years in prison, and we dopers disagree, and are whining. This is a case where the people of the state of Georgia pretty clearly do NOT believe that, and did not believe that when they were writing the laws; and what is broken here is the mechanisms that are supposed to remedy injustices of this sort.

The US system of laws and justice is not, and never has been, one in which all that matters is whether the precise letter of the law is being upheld, period, paragraph, end of story.

98

I, too, would like to hear Aangelica’s perspective on the above, as well as the below.

Honestly, Aangelica, I am incredibly confused by your Police Inspector Javert stance on all this. Our justice system has a variety of mechanisms that grant fairly broad discretion to the various officials charged with upholding the law, correct? A police officer may choose not to arrest or otherwise punish someone caught engaged in certain crimes, subject to that officer’s discretion (this doesn’t apply in all cases, but it certainly applies to some, as every couple who ever escaped with a knock on the window and a “move along now” when they could have been arrested for indecent exposure will attest). A prosecutor may choose not to press charges. Judges have a certain level of discretion.

Does this not all rather strongly suggest that our legal system has been explicitly designed such that there is the ability to choose not to punish a lawbreaker when the punishment would be: (1) inconsistent with the intent of the law; and (2) shockingly fucking stupid? That the system was actually set up so that we wouldn’t have to do what you’re doing, which is apply the same punishment across a range of unrelated situations, with no regard to the particular circumstances of each case?

What people in this thread are complaining about is that at no point along the line did anyone in a position to do so exercise his or her legally-granted power of discretion and say, “this is shockingly fucking stupid. Society is ill served by this mindless, unthinking application of the law; no good can come of this. Let him go.” Someone should have had that thought, and apparently no one did, and that’s annoying.

Because you can dress it up any way you want, but the fact is that sending a high school senior to jail with a sexual assault record for getting to third base with a sophomore is shockingly fucking stupid.

99

In my personal view, the laws that prohibit oral-genital contact between consenting adults are foolish in the extreme. However, if you’re aware of the existence of the law and engage in oral-genital contact anyway, you should be prepared to live with the potential consequences of doing so. To the best of my knowledge, it’s not illegal in my jursidiction for my husband and I to have oral sex, but if it were and we did it anyway, I’d have to be prepared to live with the possible consequences - one of which could conceivably be jail time. Personal responsibility and all that.

In this case, the guy was involved in a prohibited sex act he had every reason in the world to at least suspect was prohibited. In my view, it’s not reasonable for people to excoriate me for expecting him to live up to the consequences of his behavior. I’m sure he’s a great guy and good to his mother, but he’s a great guy who committed a crime and therefore deserves to serve his time. If, as in this case, the law changes after he starts doing so, then I hope his attorney sees about pursuing one of the avenues for redress in this situation that exist.

If you don’t like the law, then see about changing it. Don’t just go ahead and break it and then whine about how unjust it is. There’s not one scrap of evidence this guy was doing anything about changing the law until after he was forced to pay the consequences of breaking it, and every reason to believe he knew it existed at the time of his behavior.

See, if you have an inkling that fooling around with a sophomore might land you in legal hot water, maybe you should either refrain from doing so until you figure out just what the risks would be or at least stop a moment to ponder your options. Awareness of the concept of “age of consent” is a common knowledge sort of thing - so it behooves someone who’s thinking about fooling around with someone else who may or may not be above the age of consent to do a little checking. Just charging ahead with an attitude of “oh well, it’s a stupid law anyway” or totally failing to consider that there’s a law at all is a really deplorable and shameful thing. It sounds like your friend did the responsible thing - this guy did not.

100

You seem to be avoiding my question. It’s OK, I’m a big Bojangles Robinson fan.