Teen gets 10 years for consensual sex with 15 yr old Options

[Mommy]

There is no way this kid should serve 10 fucking years for having consensual oral sex with someone 2 years younger than him....They lightened his sentence, but he still has to stay in prison while prosecuters appeals. Even President Jimmy Carter sides with the boy. Crazy



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_...s/teen_sex_case

[Spectatrix]

Yeah, I've read some news on this case off and on. They changed the law so that such a grossly disproportionate sentence doesn't happen again, but they said the law couldn't be applied retroactively.

[James]

If they decriminalize something, they can't review past cases to let someone out? That makes no sense. I saw something about this case last week. Poor kid. He should've just done it like normal so he could get no time.

[schwab]

um yeah, the laws are stupid, if you are within a couple of years of each other and its consentual, then there should be no crime commited

[impala454]

did you guys read the article??

The judge in his ruling Monday (TODAY) threw out Genarlow Wilson's 10-year sentence and amended it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served.

...

Wilson's original sentence, for aggravated child molestation, was widely criticized on the grounds it was grossly disproportionate to the crime. State lawmakers later passed a law to close the loophole that led to the 10-year term.


"I just feel like a miracle happened," said Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett.

[schwab]

yeah but hes already served 2 years for it

[pysex]

did you guys read the article??

That still doesn't fix the fact that he was 17 and she was 15 and it was consensual.

[James]

No, I didn't read the article. I try to not click many links that yall put up on these forums. I did just hear this reported on the news though, so yay.

[impala454]

That still doesn't fix the fact that he was 17 and she was 15 and it was consensual.

which was still illegal at the time... not sure what your point is

yeah but hes already served 2 years for it

right and the judge said he will be credited for time served and released pending the attorney general's appeal (which sounds like it will get rejected easily)

[impala454]

here's maybe a little more clear cut article:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4878000.html

[pysex]

which was still illegal at the time... not sure what your point is

everything has to be laid out for you doesn't it?


the point that he was 17 and she was 15....two year difference and he wasn't technically an adult yet

so the molestation charges shouldn't apply

and that it was consensual so the whole case seems rather pointless


the point is that Georgia's law should be changed

[impala454]

everything has to be laid out for you doesn't it?
the point that he was 17 and she was 15....two year difference and he wasn't technically an adult yet

so the molestation charges shouldn't apply

I love how you guys try to come back at me and put me down, when you can't read what's right in front of you. apparently reading comprehension is a lost art.

Although the sex act was consensual, it was illegal under Georgia law.

and that it was consensual so the whole case seems rather pointless
the point is that Georgia's law should be changed

it WAS changed geezus that's the whole point of the article. READ. look at the title of the article for Christ's sake

state lawmakers voted to close the loophole that led to his 10-year term.

[pysex]

the loophole that allowed the prosecution to pursue a maximum penalty of 10 years....

it's still a crime

[James]

the loophole that allowed the prosecution to pursue a maximum penalty of 10 years....

it's still a crime

No it's not.

[knucklehead]

wasn't this guy on 60 minutes or something like that? a couple months back?

[psidancer]

From what I've read about this, a large part of the argument against his sentence is the fact that it was only so long becuase it was oral sex, which falls under sodomy laws. had they just had vaginal sex, this would have fallen under the "Romeo and Juliet" laws and he would have gotten a much lighter sentence, had he even been charged with any crime.


There was a similar issue in Kansas where two male teens engaged in consensual sex. The older teen violated age of consent laws, but becuase the Kansas Romeo and Juliet law specifically excluded gay sex, the older teen was scheduled to 17 years when he otherwise would have only been sentenced to 5. That was one of the laws that had to be revised after Lawrence v. Texas

[pysex]

No it's not.

Really? Then why was he still charged with a crime? I'm not interested enough in this case to research Georgia law.

[James]

Yet you're interested enough to post in a thread about it? You read Impala's posts at all?

[chook]

No it's not.

I agree, but wouldn't call it moral.

[pysex]

Yet you're interested enough to post in a thread about it? You read Impala's posts at all?

He's been ignored.

[pysex]

Georgia law states that a sexual act involving the mouth is considered sodomy. Georgia law also states that if the act of child molestation was committed on a victim older than 14 and younger than 16 by a person 18 or younger they would be convicted of a misdemeanor. However, if it involved sodomy the punishment is harsher (no more than 20 years in prison). But then they passed a revision...I'm guessing after his sentencing that reduces that punishment to a misdemeanor for acts of sodomy in their specific age ranges.

So...

It's still a crime under Georgia law whether you want to believe it or not. It's only a misdemeanor and he won't register as a sex offender but it's still a crime.


I don't like it any more than you do. I think he should be able to have his sentence reduced and released for time served. But this douche of a district attorney won't let it go.

[Mommy]

Impala, my reason for posting this was that he had already served 2 years, and now he has to sit and jail and await the appeal by the prosecuter. If youll see in my original post, I even mentioned the sentencing being lightened.

[THECHICKEN]

Yeah this was a fucked up case. This kid was an all A student with scholarships to a few schools. If only he would have just had sex he'd of been fine. Oh and i think its so stupid that when the legislature enacted the law they didn't make it retroactive (as was possible if im not mistaken).

[impala454]

Impala, my reason for posting this was that he had already served 2 years, and now he has to sit and jail and await the appeal by the prosecuter. If youll see in my original post, I even mentioned the sentencing being lightened.

well I was talking to the people who were saying "omg how come it can't apply retroactively". when the article says it does.

[Spectatrix]

well I was talking to the people who were saying "omg how come it can't apply retroactively". when the article says it does.

I think maybe you misread?

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole. But the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson, now 21.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 12 2007, 02:24 PM

[impala454]

the judge ordered the guy to be released based on it, so it did apply retroactively.

was ordered released from prison Monday by a judge who called his mandatory 10-year sentence for consensual teen sex "a grave miscarriage of justice."

[Mommy]

I think it was more that the judge felt his punishment was unfair and reduced his sentencing... not based on the change of law. Technicalities

[impala454]

yeah but court judgements get used as law (which is why the attorney general thinks it could "open a floodgate" for lots of other similiar cases)

[pysex]

the judge ordered the guy to be released based on it, so it did apply retroactively.

i'm really not sure what's happened to the kid

there are contradicting reports saying he's been released and others that say he's still in prison awaiting further litigation....

just one big clusterfuck of crap

[THECHICKEN]

yeah but court judgements get used as law (which is why the attorney general thinks it could "open a floodgate" for lots of other similiar cases)

Sentencing is by its nature personal to the person punished. It couldn't be applied retroactively by a judge to others.

So just because this judge reduced sentencing, the law was NOT applied retroactively. As in, if there was 2 of these kids, on kid would still be fucked unless specifically given a reduction.

So unless declared unconstitutional, a judge can't CHANGE the law, he must only apply it or interpret it. And interpreting it doesn't apply to previous cases.

[impala454]

I didn't say the judge could or did change the law. Judgements are essentially treated as law though. Yes, the change in the law was not technically applied retroactively, but based on the change the judgement was to release the kid, which effectively makes it retroactive in this case, and opens the door for the same type of judgements in other cases.

and as far as the conufsion on what happened... the way I understand it is the judge ordered the kid's release based on the changes in the law, then the state attorney general filed an appeal. so they're waiting for the appeal process to happen before they actually release the kid (which it sounds like the appeal probably won't make it).

[Testm0nkey]

seth (chicken) this is your 2nd or 3rd year in law school?
im willing to bet seth has more of an informed opinion than any of us dumb country fucks

[pysex]

I didn't say the judge could or did change the law. Judgements are essentially treated as law though. Yes, the change in the law was not technically applied retroactively, but based on the change the judgement was to release the kid, which effectively makes it retroactive in this case, and opens the door for the same type of judgements in other cases.

and as far as the conufsion on what happened... the way I understand it is the judge ordered the kid's release based on the changes in the law, then the state attorney general filed an appeal. so they're waiting for the appeal process to happen before they actually release the kid (which it sounds like the appeal probably won't make it).

judges can make mistakes

[THECHICKEN]

I didn't say the judge could or did change the law. Judgements are essentially treated as law though. Yes, the change in the law was not technically applied retroactively, but based on the change the judgement was to release the kid, which effectively makes it retroactive in this case, and opens the door for the same type of judgements in other cases.

Well no actually the new law made by the legislatures is what future judges will use (since its new, the old interpretations won't be followed b/c they were based off an older law). And him reducing sentencing lets the kid go free after the new law was made, but its not because of the new law (the judge did it looking at the new law, but he didn't have to do it), and his individual case being reduced will not effect other people already imprisoned (the retroactive part).

Sadly this kid will still have this on his record for his life (since in georgia the Governor can't pardon people).

[Spectatrix]

Breaking news on CNN.com:

The Supreme Court of Georgia has ordered the release of Genarlow Wilson, imprisoned as a teen-ager in a consensual-sex case.

[woody]

good...

now that she's probably legal, he can go finish taggin' that

This post has been edited by woody: Oct 26 2007, 08:41 AM