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

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=catsix]
Would anyone be saying ‘victim’ if this was a 15 year old boy giving oral sex to a 17 year old girl?

I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
If the girl was still underaged, yes, I expect. Any excuse to smash a boy.

[QUOTE=catsix]
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.
[/quote]
St Augustine, “An unjust law is no law at all” ?

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
This guy was not punished unjustly.
[/quote]
The law itself was unjust, and the punishment was unjust. You seem to be confusing legal and just, when they have little connection.

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
Even if you do, ignorance of the law has never been a valid defense.
[/QUOTE]
It’s never been a legal excuse; that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid one, especially when the law is this insane.

I will say that your view of the law is one any tyrant would love.

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, because such a law is blatantly unjust, and intrudes in matters that are no one’s business, and you owe such a law no respect at all.

122

[QUOTE=mhendo]
If that’s really the case, why does it matter if he’s on the honor roll, or the football team, or is homecoming king? It shouldn’t matter if he’s an unpopular straight C- student who can’t even catch a ball, as long as he’s not a troublemaker or a recidivist criminal. Unless you’re arguing that anyone not on the honor roll automatically falls into the troublemaker or recidivist categories.
[/quote]
No, the “honor roll” aspect is primarily to help demonstrate that the kid in question is neither a recidivist nor a troublemaker. The presumption is that someone on the honor roll or an outstanding athlete wouldn’t have the time or inclination to be a troublemaker or criminal. Sure, it’s a long way from conclusive evidence, but conclusive evidence would be awfully hard to obtain. It’s just a good indication, and thereby useful.

123

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
Oh for fuck’s sake, people!

Let’s examine the facts:

A person committed a crime.

For that crime they were sentanced an appropriate and legislatively-mandated term of incarceration.

That is all.

The man in question (he’s seventeen, people - not twelve) knew having sex with a 15 year old was illegal. He did it anyway.

I see no information that he’s alleging he didn’t know her age.
[/quote]
It would help a great deal if posters actually read the thread before pontificating and moralizing so ignorantly. See, for example, this post.

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
Granted, I’m only assuming he knew having sex with a 15 year old was against the law, but if I recall correctly from my own high school days, every was precisely aware of the laws regarding statutory rape ages and could quote them accurately and at length. Hence the term “jailbait”. The whole concept of statutory rape is so firmly embedded in our popular culture that I would be absolutely amazed to discover someone who didn’t know about it.

In a most fundamental way, it doesn’t matter if you think the law in question is a good one or not. If you live in Georgia and think that this law isn’t a good one, write your fucking state legislature, don’t run around having assorted sexual acts with jailbait until you get prosecuted. If you don’t think the law is a good one, then feel free to debate the merits of the law. Standing around expressing outrage over an instance where the law was rightfully enforced does not a debate on the merits make.
[/quote]
What ignorant bullshit! As I pointed out previously, he was found innocent of statutory rape! He did NOT rape anyone, statutorily or otherwise, you stupid, sanctimonious git!

124

[QUOTE=Earthworm Jim]
Well, as you noted yourself, the girl in question wasn’t drunk.As for the other girl:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/us/19georgia.html

And from Atlanta Magazine
[/quote]
Yes, as you revealed you knew, I knew the specific girl in question wasn’t drunk in the least. It was merely a general comment, made in some measure to avoid the appearance that I thought there wasn’t even a tiny bit wrong anywhere in the whole situation. I was attempting to avoid the appearance of a whitewash.

[QUOTE=Earthworm Jim]
There are plenty of real-life situations in which guys get a girl drunk explicitly to get ‘consent’. You’re right, that’s ‘base behavior’ at best, and frequently it’s rape. But this isn’t one of those cases.
[/quote]
I agree entirely.

[QUOTE=Earthworm Jim]
Here, one drunk girl decided to go to a party with a bunch of drunk guys & have sex. She woke up the next morning & realized she’s an idiot. She’s not a victim, except possibly of her own stupidity. Sure, the boys were looking to score…but so was Michelle.

The victims in this story are the boys. Not men, boys. A bunch of high school boys that had a New Years Eve party and committed no crime. (Well, beyond some drinking & smoking.) But they’ll still pay for it with the rest of their lives because some horny bimbo decided post-hoc she didn’t much care for her own behavior. If having sex while drunk is a crime, she’s just as guilty as they are. Send her to jail too.

So I’m not blaming the victim here either. But the great state of Georgia sure is…pity that.
[/QUOTE]
I’m with you completely.

125

Yeah, that Thoreau guy sure was an evil, despicable bastard all right. As were all those criminals working on the underground railroad. And that Jesus fucker, what a wicked scofflaw he was! :smack:

You’ve got shit for brains, lady.

126

In the process of strongly defending the people in question against the cranky, sanctimonious old folks here who expressed satisfaction at this travesty of justice, I had excerpted the following passage from an article on the case:

…, I had written, in a minor caveat intended merely to avoid the appearance that I was whitewashing everything related to the case, and in an attempt to forestall hostile criticism for my defense:

catsix then criticized me as follows:
[QUOTE=catsix]
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.
[/quote]
May I suggest, catsix, that you take more time and effort in reading and interpreting my actual words in full context before taking a portion out of context and then critiquing me for views I manifestly do not hold?

I do not believe that the girls (or the boys) were victims, automatically or otherwise. That was my very point! Sheesh! The word “victim” only came up in reference to a popular cliché I casually employed to try to fend off vitriolic attacks by the old farts against my defense. I did not argue that the girls were victims, I merely said that the holier-than-thou crowd should not imagine that I was employing anything even approaching a “blame the victim” strategy. You might want to give me the benefit of the doubt.

It was I who first emphasized that an overnight bag was packed, which I brought up to argue against the hateful old fogies’ claims that the boys engaged in some kind of sneaky, nefarious behavior to trick the girls into doing something they didn’t want to do!

Okay? I think we’re actually in pretty strong agreement.

127

[QUOTE=Shoshana]
.I’ll add: Until quite recently there were states in the US where homosexual sex acts were illegal. Should all gay people in those states have refrained from having sex while fighting the unjust law?
[/QUOTE]
It’s much worse than even that, in fact. I understand it was illegal for most of our history just about everywhere in the U.S. to engage in “sodomy”, which included oral sex even between married couples. That’s the “good old days” Aangelica obviously wants to return us to, or at least must adamantly defend and admire in those times. To her, if it’s in a law book and you violated it, you deserve the full penalty of the law.

Her repeatedly stated (and highly idiotic) position requires her to applaud the arrest, conviction, and incarceration for violations of currently mandated laws in various states against such things as having an ice cream cone in your back pocket, wearing a fake mustache to church, a five year sentence for having sex with a virgin regardless of age and even if she’s your wife, five years in jail for failing to register a raffle with the sheriff, using sex toys (still illegal in Georgia), swearing in front of a dead body, keeping a donkey in a bathtub, not owning a rake, and the death penalty for putting salt on a railroad track.

Aangelica, you’re a contemptible, evil asshole.

128

[QUOTE=ambushed]
…
Her repeatedly stated (and highly idiotic) position requires her to applaud the arrest, conviction, and incarceration for violations of currently mandated laws in various states against such things as having an ice cream cone in your back pocket, wearing a fake mustache to church, a five year sentence for having sex with a virgin regardless of age and even if she’s your wife, five years in jail for failing to register a raffle with the sheriff, using sex toys (still illegal in Georgia), swearing in front of a dead body, keeping a donkey in a bathtub, not owning a rake, and the death penalty for putting salt on a railroad track…
[/QUOTE]

Errrr…ambushed, did you forget a smiley in there, or sumtin’? If not, man, now’s a time I needs me a cite, Pit or no Pit.

Not owning a rake? Yowza.

129

[QUOTE=Random]
I disagree with much of what Aangelica has said here.

For example, I think that the system, in this case, led to an overly-harsh sentence.

Despite that, I’ve been able to restrain myself from comparing her to Nazis and slaveowners.

I’ll repeat what I’ve asked twice before:

For those of you who condemn the result, who is to blame? Most reponses have been pretty vague on that. To the extent anything can be gleaned from some of the more vitriolic attacks, the animosity seems mostly directed at the recent appellate ruling. Is that right? In your view, who dropped the ball here?

In other words, posts that boil down to “I disagree with the result! It’s too harsh! And I think blowjobs between (among?) consenting 15 year-olds should be legal! If you disagree, that means you’d support Nazi prosecutions!” fail to impress. Instead, try suggesting a change in the system that shows that you’ve given 15 seconds of thought to possible neagtive consequences of what you are advocating.
[/QUOTE]
What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, Random. Don’t you have a backwoods Georgia community college class to pontificate at or anything?

No one “compared” her to Nazis or slave owners, fuckwit. What they did was to point out that for her to be consistent in her idiotic, blind obeisance to the unquestioning adherence to the law, she would have had to condemn the criminals working the underground railroad and those who hid Jews during the Nazi regime, while applauding the Soviet children who turned in their parents for “anti-social behavior” and those who persecuted Jesus and Socrates. Would you mind terribly getting a fucking clue?

As for “who is to blame”, I don’t recall any particular blaming of the appellate court. What I recall is that many of us blame the district attorney for pursuing the child abuse charges in this instance and/or the sloppily-written statute and/or the Georgia constitutional provision that forbids grandfathering in revisions to the law and/or the Governor for failing to commute the sentence. I can try that again in littler words if you like.

It seems to me that you and Aangelica are the ones who desperately need to dedicate more than 15 seconds of thought to the issues.

130

[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
Errrr…ambushed, did you forget a smiley in there, or sumtin’? If not, man, now’s a time I needs me a cite, Pit or no Pit.

Not owning a rake? Yowza.
[/QUOTE]
See: Dumb Laws in Georgia

But, of course, a smiley isn’t out of line, either. :smiley:

131

[QUOTE=42Geek]
I wasn’t talking about the actual rape. More like the sociological background that caused the rape to happen. I mean this whole story just sounds like typical " I am a big Pimp Daddy Jock , who needs to “score points” off of these girls. Exactly the same socilogical mentality that allowed the Glen Ridge rape to happen…
[/QUOTE]
Then you obviously haven’t read the links provided and excerpted, or your reading comprehension is rather poor.

132

[QUOTE=ambushed]
See: Dumb Laws in Georgia

[/QUOTE]

Okay, that’s just…totally weird. Thanks for the cite.

::wanders off to check his bathtub for hoofprints::

133

[QUOTE=ambushed]
It’s much worse than even that, in fact. I understand it was illegal for most of our history just about everywhere in the U.S. to engage in “sodomy”, which included oral sex even between married couples.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not worse if you’re gay, though.

134

[QUOTE=Aangelica]

But those aren’t the facts here. From all indications he went forth willingly and did something he knew was illegal and is only now, after the consequences of his action are manifest, crying about the validity of the law.

[/QUOTE]

I would argue that it is reasonable to believe that he did not know his actions would be covered by the law given that the Georgia legislature did not know, and did not intend for his actions to be covered by that law.

In general, you are treating “the Law” as if it were a perfect and static thing when it’s obviously not.

Here, the legislature passed a law that had unintended consequences. When the legislature discovered them, they re-wrote the law, but were Constitutionally bound from making it retro-active. (which is a good thing in many many cases.)

The courts can’t always prevent the legislature from making stupid laws, and they are bound by the state constitution.

Fortunately the executive branch was given the power to fix just such snafus.

The question, thus, is whether it should.

To argue that it shouldn’t fix what all involved agree was an unintended outcome of a bad law on the basis that “all laws should be followed, damnit!” stikes me as circuitous.

135

“Girls Gone Wild” isn’t so entertaining when your daughter is the one doling out the complimentary blow jobs…

I thought that these rigid sentencing guidelines (e.g. mandatory 10 years for drug trafficking) were struck down as violating the constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial branches? Maybe that was only in Ohio…

Anywho, mandatory jail sentences, while well meaning in most cases, can have unintended and unfair consequences. This is one example, IMO. The sentence simply does not fit the crime. This is where the governor’s ability to commute sentences comes in handy.

136

[quote]
ambushed said:
I do not believe that the girls (or the boys) were victims, automatically or otherwise. That was my very point!

[quote]

Then why even bother to use the phrase ‘blaming the victim’. It could very easily be interpreted as your concession that these girls were victims.

The only reason I can think to attempt a pre-emptive defense on such grounds is if you are stipulating that these girls were victims. I don’t see why you said it, otherwise. It does nothing to bolster your argument at all. I could tell from the rest of your post which side you’re on, I just think that section of it hurts your cause.

Again I think it’s a case of the words you used hurting your argument. It’s ‘base behavior’ to have sex with drunk girls except in this case? Why bring up ‘base behavior’ at all if what you’re trying to say (and it’s clear that you are trying to say) is that these girls were there as willing and knowing participants in the events of that particular New Year’s Eve.

What rape? No rape has been discussed here in this thread. What has been discussed is the lifetime ruination of a 17 year-old boy and his friends for getting a blow job from the 17 year old boy’s girlfriend, which she did knowingly and willingly and the overzealous prosecutor, the unthinking judge, and the poorly written law that caused this mess.

The only person who views any of this as the right outcome is Aangelica, who must be an amazing character actor because she hasn’t stepped out of her role as Javert once.

Isn’t that what Javert did?

Aangavert will likely never see a problem with it.

It’s really no worse than when your son is the one receiving them.

137

[QUOTE=Random]
Certainly, I agree that the legislature did a poor job in drafting the original law. And, assuming it had the power, in failing to make the amendment to the law retroactive. (Theres been some suggestion that the state constitution barred it from doing so, which strikes me as unlikely where the amendment works in favor of potential defendants, but I cant rule that out without research.)
[/quote]
I don’t think I had heard that. I would be suprised if that were the case myself because one of the quotes I saw from the appelate court justice was that because the legislature hadn’t made it retroactive, Genarlow would have to stay in jail. Nothing about how they couldn’t, just how they hadn’t.

I’m not interested enough in this case to sit through watching minors having sex on videotape, but I see your point. I think this is one of the oddest parts about the case and I am considering looking up some of the documents from the case on Lexis/Nexis and seeing if I can figure out why the prosecutor pursued the case against Genarlow, but my understanding is that prosecutors have the authority to drop charges, especially when there are no citizens wanting to press charges(such as the girl’s parents). The prosecutor’s behavior is the real weird thing here to me.

All I can tell you is that I’ve read a LOT of court decisions and a finding by the appellate court stating the Romeo and Juilet exemption was not applied when its clear intent was to cover situations like this wouldn’t even make the top 1,000 of appellate decisions which reach beyond the plain text of the statutes in question.

The reason for a trial by jury is so the layman, someone who is divorced from the altered reality of the legal system, will have input in the matter. For the past 100 years the courts have been trying to force juries into the narrow role of finders of fact only, but that was not the intent behind the jury system. Some of the earliest cases of trial by jury in American history were defined by the jurors deciding not to abide by the laws of the court(citizens refusing to convict people engaged in revolutionary activities against Britian even though the laws were clear on the topic). These cases were the rationale for including juries in the US Justice system. Any oath which neuters the jury into mere finders of fact deserves no respect. If a law has the broad based community support it should have in order to pass a legislature and be considered a legitimate enforcement of the will of the electorate(as the system is designed to work) then you won’t be able to find twelve citizens willing to throw it out. If twelve people, peers of the accused, decide the law is stupid and should not be enforced, they should stirke down attempts to enforce it on their fellows. Just as the revolutionaries refused to convict their peers under British laws. I think the only excuse for the jury rendering a guilty verdict was ignorance of their power to nullify.

Enjoy,
Steven

138

[QUOTE=ambushed]
No, the “honor roll” aspect is primarily to help demonstrate that the kid in question is neither a recidivist nor a troublemaker. The presumption is that someone on the honor roll or an outstanding athlete wouldn’t have the time or inclination to be a troublemaker or criminal. Sure, it’s a long way from conclusive evidence, but conclusive evidence would be awfully hard to obtain. It’s just a good indication, and thereby useful.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s really not a “good indication,” as your post clearly demonstrates.

It’s completely circular. I assumes the very thing that it then tries to demonstrate. It assumes that a troublemaker or criminal is unlikely to be an honor student, and then argues from that position that an honor student is unlikely to be a troublemaker or criminal.

The number of times we see, in the media, people arguing that someone should be cut a break because he’s an honor student (or athlete, or whatever) suggests that being an honor student is no guarantee against criminal behaviour.

139

[QUOTE=ambushed]
See: Dumb Laws in Georgia

But, of course, a smiley isn’t out of line, either. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

That site is no cite.

Less homonymously, dumblaws.com is not remarkable for their careful research. Most of their claims do not provide any citation to the actual law in question and cannot be verified by a review of the actual penal code involved.

Sorry. You want to claim that dumb laws exist, go right ahead. But don’t point to dumblaws.com. That’s just dumb.

140

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That site is no cite.

Less homonymously, dumblaws.com is not remarkable for their careful research. Most of their claims do not provide any citation to the actual law in question and cannot be verified by a review of the actual penal code involved.

Sorry. You want to claim that dumb laws exist, go right ahead. But don’t point to dumblaws.com. That’s just dumb.
[/QUOTE]
Dumblaws.com has cites under the “Full Text” or “Explanation” links located to the bottom-right of each “dumb law” snippet. From the nine instances of “dumb laws” which they cite as applicable statewide in Georgia, four of them have these links. In the section on city-specific dumb laws there are approximately forty examples of dumb laws, approximately twenty-nine of them have said links. For instance, in the general Georgia dumb laws cateogry they state

The text under the “Full Text” link says

This gives a citation to Georgia Criminal Code Title 16 Chapter 12 Section 100.1 where it does say exactly what dumblaws.com says it does.

As another example, under the city-specific statutes it says in the area of Athens-Clarke “Goldfish may not be given away to entice someone to enter a game of bingo.” The link for the “Full Text” shows the following excerpt

Both of these examples of “dumb laws” are very much cited and backed up on the dumblaws.com site. The overall number, by my rough count, is forty-nine “dumb laws” of which approximately sixteen(~33%) are not cited with a “Full Text” or “Explanation” link.

Both dumblaws.com and stupidlaws.com mislead people into thinking the laws are dumber than they are, and they take them out of context and often apply them to rediculous situations, like the clown suit thing, to make them seem dumber, but they do cite most of them these days. I remember when they didn’t, but I have seen them change that behavior over the past couple years.

Enjoy,
Steven