GameBanshee Forums

I read this, and amongst the various unrepeatable expletives that emerged from my mouth, I thought, "You have *got* to be kidding me..."


[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/06/teen.sex.case.ap/index.html"]Judge ponders appeal by man in prison for teen sex[/url]

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A judge said Wednesday he'll rule by next week on the appeal of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

A lawyer for Genarlow Wilson, now 21, asked the appellate judge to throw out the aggravated child molestation sentence on the grounds it is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

Defense attorney B.J. Bernstein noted that state lawmakers passed a law to close the loophole that led to Wilson's sentence

But prosecutor Paula Smith argued that the new law cannot be applied retroactively.

"The General Assembly did not make it retroactive," Smith said. "They had the prerogative to do so; they did not." She argued that Wilson should have to serve out the widely criticized mandatory term.

Wilson, clad in a white prison uniform, watched as his legal team again tried to free him while they pursue a claim that his constitutional rights are being violated. Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson said he expects to issue a decision on the appeal by noon Monday.

Genarlow Wilson's sentence has been denounced even by members of the jury that convicted him and the author of the 1995 law that put him behind bars.

"The law was designed to protect kids against really, really bad people doing very bad things," said the sponsor, former state Rep. Matt Towery, a Republican. "It was never intended to put kids in jail for oral sex."

In 2003, Wilson was an honors student, standout athlete and homecoming king preparing for his SATs with an eye toward college. At a New Year's Eve party involving alcohol, marijuana and sex, someone videotaped the girl performing oral sex on Wilson.

The tape also shows Wilson and other male partygoers having sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl. Prosecutors sought a rape conviction against him, arguing that the 17-year-old was semiconscious and not capable of consent. But a jury that watched the tape disagreed.

Bernstein compared the case to the recent rape case involving Duke University lacrosse players, saying prosecutors in both cases overreached.

Wilson has served more than 27 months in prison. His case has become something of a cause celebre, largely because of the legal loophole that ensnared him.

If Wilson had had sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex between teens constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence.

Georgia lawmakers changed the law in 2006 to make consensual oral sex between teens a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year behind bars. Offenders do not have to register as sex offenders, as Wilson will be required to do.

But the state's top court ruled the 2006 change couldn't be applied retroactively to Wilson's case. An attempt earlier this year to pass a bill that would provide a remedy for Wilson has stalled.

Wilson's most vocal critic has been Georgia's top Republican senator, Eric Johnson, of Savannah.

"This was not two star-crossed lovers on a date," Johnson wrote in an opinion piece opposing the bill written to help Wilson.

The five other male partygoers took plea deals. Wilson's case was the only one that went to trial.

Makes you wonder if they have electricity in that town sometimes, eh?

To be honest, I'm not that surprised at this coming from Georgia. That state has all sorts of wonderfully obscure laws on the books that come straight out of The Dark Ages Handbook. I lived in Atlanta (and thus the state of Georgia) for over 10 years and while in some respects it is a metropolitan city, in others it is surprisingly backward and out of touch with modern times.

Chanak wrote:Makes you wonder if they have electricity in that town sometimes, eh?

Ehhh.. well yes I did wonder that actually, but I was making some effort to be sensitive, so I'm glad you said it and not me


In all honesty, I think it is partly stuff like this that I find so interesting about the US, it is a nation of such incredible extremes.
Sure, the Canadian provinces certainly differ from one another, and they each have a distinctive flavour, but excepting Québec , they have far more homogeneity than the US states, IMO.

I can already imagine the orange-clad inmates sitting at lunch together...

"So, why are you all here, and how long?"
"Well, I robbed a bank, gave me 7 years"
"You know, stabbed a man, 9 years"
"My girl gave me oral sex! 10 years..."
" "

If it wasn't for the fact that this stuff happens all the time, it would make for great comedy. The "land of the free" indeed, teaching all the rest of us about freedom and democracy. :laugh: Back in 1992 my then girlfriend got a $2000 fine for sunbathing topless in Florida. We were alone outside a remote beach house in the Keys, but were observed from a police craft out at sea. Wanna hear the best part? When she wanted to go back to the US for a wedding last year, she had problems getting a visa as she was on file having been fined for "indecent exposure" or some rot like that almost 20 years ago. They actually collect this stuff!

Moonbiter wrote:If it wasn't for the fact that this stuff happens all the time, it would make for great comedy. The "land of the free" indeed, teaching all the rest of us about freedom and democracy. :laugh:

Oh, come on, now. We could demonstrably find similar instances of horrible punishments meted out in democratic municipalities throughout Europe and elsewhere, in many nations that trumpet that condition proudly. The actual degree of democracy enjoyed by that government is irrelevant. What is relevant is the way a well-intentioned but poorly drafted law gets interpreted by a local political appointee on the bench, or a small jury that's given a choice of very unpleasant options.

Besides, the only Americans screaming about the joys of democracy these days are members of the federal government, its small circus of trained DC pundits, and a very small group of farm communities that would roll in crap all day if Dubya announced on tv they had been magically turned into pigs.

Crudely put, but sadly accurate.

What this should really bring up is the issue of sex education in schools. There was talk a little while ago, I'm not sure by whom or in which country -might even have been here-, about lowering the age for sex ed quite a bit. Young children are much better at absorbing information de facto than teenagers. That is to say, teenagers might not have much more trouble, but they certainly would be more distracted by it. And if it helps young children identify abuse or inappropriate behaviour, they're the better off for it.

fable wrote:Oh, come on, now. We could demonstrably find similar instances of horrible punishments meted out in democratic municipalities throughout Europe and elsewhere, in many nations that trumpet that condition proudly.

I agree that there are funny laws some places in Europe, but nothing like the "decency" laws in the US, and the fact that what you do as a teenager can destroy your entire life is unique to the US alone. There is no way in hell a 17 year old boy will get 10 years in the slammer for getting a ******* in any other country in the civilized world. Come to think of it, that ain't on in the un-civilized world either. The fact that a judge and a jury can mete out such a sentence without seeing the revolting insanity of it, is what makes it unique to the US alone. The kid's future is probably completely destroyed, no matter how this ends.

This whole story gives "Taking the midnight train to Georgia" a whole new meaning, don't you think? :laugh:
No, seriously, I think it is nothing short of barbaric.

The first thing I'd like to say is that this guy must have a sense of humor about things, look at the name of the guy defending him.

I agree that there are funny laws some places in Europe, but nothing like the "decency" laws in the US, and the fact that what you do as a teenager can destroy your entire life is unique to the US alone.

What about the fact that you can serve jail time for calling someone a name in some places? Albeit a rascist and highly offensive name, but you can print the same name on banners and march through downtown armed to the teeth in the US.

I agree with fable, this is a case of a law that should certainly be in place being poorly written to apply to situations that it shouldn't. This is what pardons are for and I certainly think that one should be used for this. The kid doesn't stand a chance at appeal. He has no grounds for one. The law says that if you commit crime a, punishment b will be administered. He certainly committed the crime and the judge thankfully imposed the minimum sentance. What other choice did he have?

The real question involved is should this be a crime? You try writing a law so that there's no way it could ever be used for anything you didn't intend.

I do want to make the point though that this kid shouldn't be construed as any sort of hero here. He was clearly participating in some improper behavior including underage drinking, drug use, promiscuous sex(let's remember that this isn't his girlfriend, it was a probably intoxicated underclassman that he convinced to do him a favor and she probably didn't realize she was being taped), and videotaping a minor on private property without the consent of her parents. Who knows if they had her consent. That would make it a felony in some places. If the court really wanted to, they could have sent this kid away for 30 years probably.

I think the court was as lenient as it is allowed to be. It should be allowed to be more lenient in some cases, but that's not how it works. I hope that when his appeal fails he looks to the Governor for some understanding. Not that I think he'll get any in Georgia, and the Shrub isn't likely to pardon him for this.

Moonbiter wrote:The fact that a judge and a jury can mete out such a sentence without seeing the revolting insanity of it, is what makes it unique to the US alone.

Really? How about Italian Justice Gennaro Tridico, who famously ruled (along with 4 colleagues) a few years ago that a woman could not have been raped because the removal of jeans requires the consent of the victm? Her rapist was set free as a result of Tridico's decision, and remains free, today. At least in the US case linked above, this was about a badly framed law gone wrong. Tridico and his judicial pals actually interpret the law. They made a conscious decision to act stupidly.

This sort of thing happens all over the place, and I can provide credible links, if you'd like. Stop trying to demonize the US based on a bizarre incident like this. It does you no credit, and it certainly is far, far from the norm even in those US states that are known for their draconian laws. That this is a case of a badly formed law doing what it should not have done is clear from the linked article: Genarlow Wilson's sentence has been denounced even by members of the jury that convicted him and the author of the 1995 law that put him behind bars. The problem isn't the evil bogeyman US, but finding a culturally acceptable standard of laws for social behavior fit to each nation's needs, and able to deal with the extremely complex problems of human interaction.

Here here fable!

There really are better things to say about the US if you want to criticize us, this is just an unfortunate case of legislation screwing up a law.

fable wrote:Oh, come on, now. We could demonstrably find similar instances of horrible punishments meted out in democratic municipalities throughout Europe and elsewhere, in many nations that trumpet that condition proudly.

What exactly are you referring to? In my opinion punishments are much too lenient in the EU at large. Some countries have a good balance, IMO, such as France, where you actually get life if you kill someone. In my country, Sweden, about twelve years is the maximum effective sentence for any crime. Now I think Sweden needs to change that, if we are to meet new challanges; but if we were to do so to the level of some states in the U.S., I would be absolutely horrified.

Edit: Seeing your most recent post I assume that perhaps you mean not meeting out a punishment can be as barbaric. In which case I agree with you. I do not mean to demonize the U.S., which I find good in many ways.

@ Fable: First of all, is it your privilege alone on SYM to criticise the US and US legislation? I'm just curious, because it seems that each time you're not the creator of a thread being vaguely negative to US law or politics, you jump all over anyone taking active part in it.

Secondly, if you can point me to any other country in the western hemisphere where records of misdemeanours committed during your teens will haunt you for the rest of your life, please do so. I would be interested in knowing where that can happen apart from the US. If the jury now denounce the sentence, why did they sentence him in the first place?

Third, I'm not trying to demonize anything any more than you habitually do on this site, so get off you high horse and stop picking on me! If you want to, I can also present a couple of hundred, if not thousand credible links. This is SYM, and people are entitled to their opinions.

Paris Hilton was released today after serving a grand total of 3 days out of 45 behind bars. Did we see that one coming? Hell yeah! Another gallopping victory for US "justice."

Moonbiter wrote: Secondly, if you can point me to any other country in the western hemisphere where records of misdemeanours committed during your teens will haunt you for the rest of your life, please do so. I would be interested in knowing where that can happen apart from the US.

I can't point you to any other country, but would like to make one small point. Most of the time when a "minor child" (under age 18) is convicted of crimes, their records are sealed and thus confidential. No haunting of past deeds. In some instances the decision is made to either charge a minor child as an adult, or for some crimes 16 and over is considered to be "adult". I am not agreeing or disagreeing with policies, but simply making the point that not every teenager who is convicted of a crime/misdemeanor/and so on pays the price for the rest of his or her life.

jopperm2 wrote: I do want to make the point though that this kid shouldn't be construed as any sort of hero here. He was clearly participating in some improper behavior including underage drinking, drug use, promiscuous sex(let's remember that this isn't his girlfriend, it was a probably intoxicated underclassman that he convinced to do him a favor and she probably didn't realize she was being taped), and videotaping a minor on private property without the consent of her parents. Who knows if they had her consent. That would make it a felony in some places. If the court really wanted to, they could have sent this kid away for 30 years probably.

Well, yes...those points struck me as well. I think consensual sex between peers should certainly not be punished by a sentence of 10 years...that is far too extreme and I think it is fair to say that law was interpreted rather unjustly in this kid's case.

The other facts of the case are not perhaps relevant to his conviction, but I found it extremely creepy and disturbing that people were videotaping the activity. A 15 year old girl and apparently a 17 year old girl were videotaped in sexually explicit ways....was it with their consent? Were any of the participants (male or female) asked if they wanted to be videotaped? I think it would do a great deal of harm to a young person if such tapes are made available to the public...say over the internet for example.

Moonbiter wrote:@ Fable: First of all, is it your privilege alone on SYM to criticise the US and US legislation? I'm just curious, because it seems that each time you're not the creator of a thread being vaguely negative to US law or politics, you jump all over anyone taking active part in it.

You know better than that. There are literally over a hundred threads in SYM that I've taken part in, started by others, in which I've agreed with others who have ragged on the US. (And if you have a personal problem with my behavior, take it to PMs.) Your accusation about this law in the US ("If it wasn't for the fact that this stuff happens all the time, it would make for great comedy") isn't accurate in the first part, and attacking me doesn't make it so.

Secondly, if you can point me to any other country in the western hemisphere where records of misdemeanours committed during your teens will haunt you for the rest of your life, please do so. I would be interested in knowing where that can happen apart from the US. If the jury now denounce the sentence, why did they sentence him in the first place?

The jury didn't sentence him. The judge did. The jury simply decided whether based on the evidence he was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, whether they thought the "crimes" in question were deserving of punishment, or not. Once his guilt or lack of guilt was established under law, the judge had to provide the sentence, and he or she, too, is limited about what response they can provide by the law. The law operates outside of like or dislike (well, unless you're a member of King Bush's Special Regime, but that applies to most governments), as you know. If you have a beef with the legal system--and I suspect, like me, you have many--the proper course is to criticize those who designed and voted in the law in the first place, and the interminably slow bureaucratic system that goes through legal challenges to convictions. A terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred, but simply replying that of course this kind of thing happens all the time in the US is to surrender all logic and intelligent discrimination.

As to your girlfriend, I have no knowledge about the situation, so what kind of comment do you expect concerning "tecords of misdemeanours committed during your teens will haunt you for the rest of your life"? Except that if anecdotal evidence can be used to tar entire nations forever, then we could say that Canada is an Orwellian/Hitlerian nightmare, since I've heard the recorded testimony of several victims of the Alberta Sterilization Act: nearly 3000 people considered "unfit" by the government to have children. Or consider Sweden, which had a similar program in place for two decades, and sterilized more than 20,000 people.

None of this proves that Canada and Sweden are terrible places to live. Ditto, the US, where a woman was arrested for indecent exposure, only to find this still on her record years later.

Third, I'm not trying to demonize anything any more than you habitually do on this site, so get off you high horse and stop picking on me! If you want to, I can also present a couple of hundred, if not thousand credible links. This is SYM, and people are entitled to their opinions.

And in SYM, people are asked to back those opinions up or stop the attacks, especially when they tar an entire nationality with a broad sweep of the brush. If you can't handle it, don't post it.

Paris Hilton was released today after serving a grand total of 3 days out of 45 behind bars. Did we see that one coming? Hell yeah! Another gallopping victory for US "justice."

Earth-shaking evidence, indeed, and it only happens in the US. But wait: I guess it's just as serious when the UK government shut down a criminal investigation of BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms supplier, which supposedly provided Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia more than $1 billion in bribes over a 10 year period. So the UK legal system is just as corrupt as the US--or perhaps more so, given the seriousness of the situation and crime--you think? Do you complain about the UK in this fashion? Why not state that justice is eased for the wealthy and well-connected throughout the world, rather than focusing on your girlfriend and Paris Hilton?

(That last sentence admittedly sounds a bit more interesting than it probably it is.)

I've disagreed with Fable in the past Moonbiter, but I think you were a bit over the top on this one.

For one thing you're wrong about the US being the only country that stigmatises people in their teens in perpetua regarding sexual offences. Had the offence occured in the UK the guy would have received a maximum 5 year sentence (had he been a year older it would be 14 years max), and would have been placed on the sexual offenders register. This would automatically de-barred him from many career paths, and all careers involving children. He would also be obliged in law to inform the police if he changed places of residence. I'm sure many other countries have laws that heavily penalise those that engage in sexual activities with minors as well.

kathycf wrote: The other facts of the case are not perhaps relevant to his conviction, but I found it extremely creepy and disturbing that people were videotaping the activity. A 15 year old girl and apparently a 17 year old girl were videotaped in sexually explicit ways....was it with their consent? Were any of the participants (male or female) asked if they wanted to be videotaped? I think it would do a great deal of harm to a young person if such tapes are made available to the public...say over the internet for example.

Yes indeed, that is one of the major things that struck me...
IMO, if anyone at all should have been charged in this case, it should have been the individuals(s) doing the videotaping.

dragon wench wrote:Yes indeed, that is one of the major things that struck me...
IMO, if anyone at all should have been charged in this case, it should have been the individuals(s) doing the videotaping.

Ah, Id' forgotten about the video taping, that would have brought additional charges under UK law, both for the guy who got 10 years and any other adults involved. By the time all the charges were taken inot consideration, he (and the others) would have ended up serving prison sentences in all probability (and gone on the SO register). Maybe not for aslong as 10 years, but I get the impression the sentence was a result of badly drafted legislation.

@Galraen,
Good to hear penalties for the videotaping would have been handed out in the UK, same thing would have happened under Canadian Law as well.

What I really don't understand here is why there was a problem in the first place.. It was oral sex between two consenting teens, and there was only a two year age difference between them. Er.... this is pretty standard teen behaviour.
I honestly do not see the issue; we're hardly talking about pedophilia, and even the label "statutory rape," would be highly debatable...