Why is Genarlow Wilson in prison?

[Goofball]

Maybe there has already been a thread about this and I just missed it. I can't believe I have never seen this story before.

This poor 17 year old kid had oral sex with a consenting 15 year old girl at a New Year's Eve party.

Through a tragic combination of archaic Georgia law (actual intercourse would apparently have been only a misdemeanor; blow jobs are a no-no) and a DA who can't seem to recognize the difference between the letter and spirit of the law, this kid is now in jail for 10 years and a registered sex offender.

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158

Edit: spelling

[Samurai Waki]

Welcome to the American Legal System; a mish-mash of archaic texts, Fascist and Communist ideologies, and just plain ol' fun lovin' blended into one chaotic system of infinite loopholes, where nobody is guilty but the innocent, and the decadent walk free.

And if you think these trials can get confusing, just wait until you have to deal with Interpol.

[Kralizec]

I read it before, Lemur (I think) posted the exact same article some time back.

As you can see by the DA's actions, it's not always the lawyers who are the bad guys.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

two thoughts:

1.) Did he know she wasn't 16? If he did then to be honest he landed himself in this. It's tough but its the law and he presumably knew there was a law against it.

2.) This sucks, it should be quashed on appeal. Which probably wont stop him from getting genuinely raped in the meantime.

[GoreBag]

I thought this kind of thing happened all the time.

[KukriKhan]

So is the quarrel with the Georgia law, or the prosecutor, or the fairness of not informing the jury of the possible consequences of their verdict?

Side question: why do these sessions keep getting videotaped? If I'm 15, 16, 17, and intend to misbehave with my friends, why document it?

[Strike For The South]

Vindictive parents. "My duaghter wouldnt do that!" Yea uh-huh:wall:

[Samurai Waki]

Side question: why do these sessions keep getting videotaped? If I'm 15, 16, 17, and intend to misbehave with my friends, why document it?

It was easier to get away with a crime before people became idiots.

oh, and Cell Phones or Cam-Corders have become more easily accessible to the idiot masses.

[Papewaio]

Interesting stats:


Statistics provided by the Campaign for Juvenile Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Atlanta, suggest that Alexander’s assertions may not be far off the mark, particularly when it comes to trying teens as adults. According to the organization’s analysis of Justice Department statistics, African-American and Latino youth are 45 percent of Georgia’s youth population, but comprise 77 percent of the youth arrested under SB 440, a controversial measure that was passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 1994. SB 440 gives superior courts the power to charge children aged 13–17 as adults for committing the so called “seven deadly sins”: murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and armed robbery if committed with a firearm. Furthermore, the organization also found that 46 percent of criminal cases involving white youth were transferred back to juvenile court versus 25 percent of cases involving African-American youth.

Given no priors...

[KukriKhan]

The "Age Of Consent" for sexual activity varies from country to country, and sometimes state-to-state within countries (US, e.g.).

Canada's is:

The age of consent for heterosexual vaginal sex was 12 until 1890 when parliament raised it to 14. [1].


[edit] Current developments
The current Conservative government has introduced a bill to raise the age of consent in Canada to 16, while retaining the "close in age" exception allowing 14 and 15 year olds to have sexual relationships with individuals less than five years older than themselves.[2] This bill is still in committee as of December 2006, awaiting a third reading.[3]

That was extracted from this International Law review of the topic on this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Close_in_age_exceptions)

many jurisdictions make exceptions for "close in age" contacts. Georgia, currently, does not.

[Blodrast]

So is the quarrel with the Georgia law, or the prosecutor, or the fairness of not informing the jury of the possible consequences of their verdict?

Side question: why do these sessions keep getting videotaped? If I'm 15, 16, 17, and intend to misbehave with my friends, why document it?

Later all we can all watch it, get a kick out of it; show off to my friends how "cool" I am; happy-time material; any combination of these... These would be my guesses.

Damn, me unlucky to be too young (unborn) during the sex-crazed 60s, too old to get as much sex as most teens seem to get nowadays...

[BigTex]

Maybe there has already been a thread about this and I just missed it. I can't believe I have never seen this story before.

This poor 17 year old kid had oral sex with a consenting 15 year old girl at a New Year's Eve party.

Through a tragic combination of archaic Georgia law (actual intercourse would apparently have been only a misdemeanor; blow jobs are a no-no) and a DA who can't seem to recognize the difference between the letter and spirit of the law, this kid is now in jail for 10 years and a registered sex offender.

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158

Edit: spelling

Last I checked the crimes against nature were struck down by the Supreme court in 2004. How did this one slip past? This ruling wont stand to an appeal.

In 2004 they struck down all laws banning beastiality, sodomy, homosexual acts, and a miriad of other laws aptly named "crimes against nature". Thus the reason why states now classify beastiality as animal cruelty.

[Xiahou]

Last I checked the crimes against nature were struck down by the Supreme court in 2004. How did this one slip past? This ruling wont stand to an appeal.

In 2004 they struck down all laws banning beastiality, sodomy, homosexual acts, and a miriad of other laws aptly named "crimes against nature". Thus the reason why states now classify beastiality as animal cruelty.
Not that I'm aware of. The SCOTUS doesn't strike down 'all laws' in one case. Their decisions can be used to set precedence though. I assume the case you're thinking of is Lawrence v Texas?

[KukriKhan]

All I can think of for advice is: The next time I 'come to' and find myself in a hotel room with my fellow partiers having free-flowing booze and dope, and girls offering favors...

I should check the GPS function of my foto-taking cellphone, to see if I'm accidentally in Georgia, and hook up to the 'net to peruse the local sex laws.

And that doc_bean's irresistable urge-to-merge biologic imperative hasn't trumped something my court-apppointed defense attorney might want to try to introduce as mitigating circumstance...

Otherwise, I might be in trouble.

[BigTex]

Not that I'm aware of. The SCOTUS doesn't strike down 'all laws' in one case. Their decisions can be used to set precedence though. I assume the case you're thinking of is Lawrence v Texas?

Yes I'm talking about Lawrence V Texas. They didn't strike them all down, but they did rule the laws of "crimes against nature" to be unconstitutional. Pretty much I'll call that striking a law down. Not to mention alot of the hooha over that case was becuase the rulling was iregular, becuase they did not only call laws against homosexual acts unconstitutional. But also went as far as to rule all laws pertaining to sodomy beastiality etc to be unconstitutional.

Not to mention this is when the far zealot right started to scream about legislating from the bench....

[Strike For The South]

Interesting stats:



Given no priors...

Allot of those blacks and latins probably come from poorer neighboorhoods and probably leave juoros to there pre concived notions

[Lemur]

Yes I'm talking about Lawrence V Texas. They didn't strike them all down, but they did rule the laws of "crimes against nature" to be unconstitutional. Pretty much I'll call that striking a law down. Not to mention alot of the hooha over that case was becuase the rulling was iregular, becuase they did not only call laws against homosexual acts unconstitutional. But also went as far as to rule all laws pertaining to sodomy beastiality etc to be unconstitutional.
Hrm? I wasn't aware that the SC ruled on bestiality and every other known form of deviance when they decided Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). Considering that case was ruled four years ago, it's astonishing I'm not seeing legally sanctioned cow-sodomizing in the streets. What's taking so long? Let the cross-gendered farmyard orgies begin!

[doc_bean]

And that doc_bean's irresistable urge-to-merge biologic imperative hasn't trumped something my court-apppointed defense attorney might want to try to introduce as mitigating circumstance...


Hey now, my theory doesn't apply to cheating or doing minors (well, it does, but less so), it's more of a long term thing, than a spur of the moment thing.

But heck, whatever keeps you out of jail :2thumbsup:

[Fisherking]

Hrm? I wasn't aware that the SC ruled on bestiality and every other known form of deviance when they decided Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). Considering that case was ruled four years ago, it's astonishing I'm not seeing legally sanctioned cow-sodomizing in the streets. What's taking so long? Let the cross-gendered farmyard orgies begin!


As a tragic, (but also funny) side light, the first juvenile executed in Massituchets was because he had a barnyard fetish. Cows, sheep, ducks, chickens……..it was because he was deemed an incorrigible offender.

Ah! Man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The make-or-break: was she hot? :wink3:

[Fisherking]

Was that question just so that someone had to say he was hung?:oops:

[BDC]

Poor guy.

I hope whoever decided to report it feels really really bad.

[Fragony]

Well that's just great on your new-years eve party, oral sex

[Rameusb5]

I know someone personally who did jail time because he had sex with his girlfriend that was a few months younger than himself. It just happened to straddle that magical line between minor and adult.

Frankly, his life went pretty quickly downhill after that.

All because her parents didn't like him.

[Don Corleone]

I'm sorry Goof, only one of the two girls was consenting. Whether he should be in jail for 2 years for sexual assault on a minor ('Michelle' from the article was 15, inebriated and therefore couldn't give consent) or what he actually got, his actions were criminal and he deserved some jailtime (as did the other 5). I don't think he deserves 10 years, but if you ply a girl with alcohol, get her drunk beyond the point where she can discern her own actions and then have sex with her, you've raped her. Plain and simple. Just because "Tracy" doesn't have a problem with her role in the affair doesn't mean this is a victimless crime, either.

I agree that the law should recognize that two (or more) teenagers engaging in activity is not the same thing as an adult and a teenager. But I also don't think we should give 17 year olds carte blanche to lure young girls to parties, ply them with drugs and alcohol, and then proceed to gang rape them. All of these guys deserved to do time. 10 years, no, but 18 months to 2 years? Sure.

[English assassin]

McDade says that he agrees that consensual teenage sex, including oral sex, does not necessarily warrant a decade-long prison sentence,

Goddamm long haired hippie liberal...

Like DC (man, will you change back already :dizzy2: ) I was slightly worried about how the alleged rape victim vanished from the story. There was a reference to her friend not hearing her say no, but that isn't conclusive surely.

Still, that's not what he was sentenced for.

[Sir Moody]

Don you may have missed the point - he didnt rape - he recieved a blow job from Tracy - thats it. Other boys were charged with the rape of Michelle but not him.

10 years in jail for a Blow Job - oh and his appeal was denied a month ago im not sure what the family are doing now.

[Don Corleone]

Oh. Well, if he limited his involvement to the voluntary, consensual exchange to Tracy (I missed that detail) then yes, he is being railroaded. But if he did actually engage in relations with the Michelle character, then he is guilty of sexual assault. By the way, who has sex with girls in front of their friends? Call me homophobic, but as somebody who started early (and that's all I'll say on the matter), engaging in activity with my friends anywhere near me would have freaked me out. And videotaping it!?!

I will say, every one of you should take this a lesson on wisdom you need to impart on your own sons. Whether you think it's fair or not, it's the way the law is set up.... Better safe than sorry... limit your contact to women that your age, older than you, or at least age 18. And never with somebody who is too intoxicated to make a rational decision.

EA, soon as Cappo is over, I promise.

[Xiahou]

Don you may have missed the point - he didnt rape - he recieved a blow job from Tracy - thats it. Other boys were charged with the rape of Michelle but not him.
Where are you getting that from? From the article:

Surely, they and their families believed, jurors would see that this was just a case of teenagers being teenagers. There was no ill will, no malice, no intent to commit a crime. After all, Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys. Seems like the argument being made there is that she was drunk and never actually said "no", so it was all good.:dizzy2:

[Sir Moody]

my fault I misread the part about charges - he was charged with rape but was found not guilty - it was the blow job with tracy that landed him 10 years however so my point stands...

[Don Corleone]

Look, it's pretty straightforward. They said Tracy was sober. So, age concerns aside, she would theoretically be abe to give consent. But Michelle was drunk, to the point that even the article, which is an editorial in long form to free Genarlow Wilson, admits that the girl awoke terrified, unaware and immediately started claiming she hadn't consented. That's rape, regardless of how old she or her partners are.

Now, I personally would argue that the delta in age should be taken into account, but the law itself doesn't recognize it, and from the sounds of it, deliberately so. So in the eyes of the law (Georgia law, that is), being less than 16 precludes Tracy from giving informed consent either.

I think the following makes sense:

-Female less than 12: Is automatically sexual assault.
-Female between 12 and 18: If male is within 3 years, not assualt, otherwise, it is.
-Female >18: Can give informed consent, regardless of age.

However, informed consent in either the middle or the last statement assumes the person is in control of their faculties. Inebriation, duress, limited mental faculty for other reasons... all of these remove the consent question and move the act into the realm of sexual assault. Coma patients don't say no either, but do we want to give people the right to have sex with them?

As for the question of being a registered child molester or what have you, first of all, I think you should be registered for life for any sexual offense. But if we're going to limit it to attacks on minors, both the first and the second should apply. A 17 year old boy having sex with a 12 year old girl SHOULD be treated like a child molester.... There's a world of difference between the 2.

[Xiahou]

my fault I misread the part about charges - he was charged with rape but was found not guilty - it was the blow job with tracy that landed him 10 years however so my point stands...
Right, and I can see where the punishment for that might seem extreme. Without knowing the details of how the case unfolded, I can't see how he managed to get off of a rape/sexual assault charge. If a girl is completely inebriated she doesn't have to say "no" in order for it to be considered rape based on my understanding.

I would guess that the jury thought they were cutting him a break by finding him guilty of the seemingly lesser charge instead of rape. But I could be completely wrong on that- we dont know all the details. :shrug:

[Xiahou]

I think the following makes sense:

-Female less than 12: Is automatically sexual assault.
-Female between 12 and 18: If male is within 3 years, not assualt, otherwise, it is.
-Female >18: Can give informed consent, regardless of age.
You know, I think I understand the sentiment there- but logically it doesn't make sense. If a girl between 12-18 can't responsibly give consent for sex, what does the age difference between her and the partner matter?

I certainly agree that a 40yr old having sex with a 13yr old is utterly disgusting and deplorable, but if she can't give informed consent to the 40yr old, how can she give it to a 16yr old?

[doc_bean]

This is BS, the parents didn't want to or couldn't control their daughter and now they've found someone else to blame instead of calling her on her ****.

Yeah, what the guy did was wrong but who hasn't gotten a girl drunk so he could sleep with her ? She was drinking, she was partying, don't expect me to believe she didn't expect sex. Why did her parents allow her to stay away all night ? Why was she able to start drinking in the afternoon ? If the guy is charged with 'rape' then surely they should be charged with criminal neglect.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, what the guy did was wrong but who hasn't gotten a girl drunk so he could sleep with her ? She was drinking, she was partying, don't expect me to believe she didn't expect sex. Why did her parents allow her to stay away all night ? Why was she able to start drinking in the afternoon ? If the guy is charged with 'rape' then surely they should be charged with criminal neglect.

ME! It was 1986 when I was Genarlow Wilson's age, the law was no where near as clear on this matter as it is now, and even then I knew this was rape. I purposely only dated girls my own age or older in high school for this very reason, and I purposely did not engage in any activity when one of my girlfriends had had too much to drink.

Plying somebody with alcohol to break down their ability to discern and make decisions is rape. Plain and simple.

[Fragony]

Plying somebody with alcohol to break down their ability to discern and make decisions is rape. Plain and simple.

I would agree if the difference in age was larger, but a 17 year old and a 15 year old I dunno. Where did they get the alcohol in the first place, I heard USA laws are pretty strict on that, that would be the real offender. A 17 year old is just a kid.

[doc_bean]

Plying somebody with alcohol to break down their ability to discern and make decisions is rape. Plain and simple.

Meh, you're responsible for your actions, even if you're drunk, you shouldn't have gotten drunk in the first place. What's next ? Drunk drivers are just victims ?

It's entirely different when you're lacing drinks or sleeping with someone on the verge of passing out, of course.

EDIT: and I also agree with Fragony, age and age difference matter, getting minors drunk is a no-no, but then the guy was a minor himself.

[Dutch_guy]

.
EDIT: and I also agree with Fragony, age and age difference matter, getting minors drunk is a no-no, but then the guy was a minor himself.

Plus, she did go to the party drunk and brought a sleeping bag...

I daresay she was able to add one and one together, her sober friend was, it seems.

:balloon2:

[Xiahou]

Plus, she did go to the party drunk and brought a sleeping bag...

I daresay she was able to add one and one together, her sober friend was, it seems.

:balloon2:Because if you bring a sleeping bag to a party, you're obviously looking to get gang banged. :no:

Not to say she wasn't terribly irresponsible- she was. But, taking advantage of someone sexually because they are inebriated is pretty low imo. And you're certainly putting yourself at risk of a rape charge once she sobers up. She may have behaved badly, she may have bad parents, but that still doesn't change the fact that what he did was inappropriate.

[Kralizec]

Meh, you're responsible for your actions, even if you're drunk, you shouldn't have gotten drunk in the first place. What's next ? Drunk drivers are just victims ?

Slight difference. Drunk drivers cause misschief to others. Drunk girls are taken advantage of. This sort of stuff should be looked at case by case, since the supposed "rapists" in this case were intoxicated themselves I wouldn't put all the blame on them.

Cases like this also prove why mandatory prison sentences suck.

[Dutch_guy]

Because if you bring a sleeping bag to a party, you're obviously looking to get gang banged. :no:


Not at all, I'm simply quite surprised she had the intention of staying the night and drinking heavily before leaving to said night. She put herself, and the other guys for that matter, in quite a tough and vulnerable position. She acted irresponsibly, yes the guys all the same, but she's not doing time for it.

:balloon2:

[Don Corleone]

Not at all, I'm simply quite surprised she had the intention of staying the night and drinking heavily before leaving to said night. She put herself, and the other guys for that matter, in quite a tough and vulnerable position. She acted irresponsibly, yes the guys all the same, but she's not doing time for it.

:balloon2:

She was 15 years old. If you want to talk about judgement, let's talk about 6 guys, five of whom with rapsheets, renting 2 hotel rooms, putting up a video camera, then proceeding to supply alchohol and pot to a girl younger than they, getting her drunk/high beyond the point of recall, then engaging in group sex acts with her, video-taping the entire affair.

Look, at the end of the day, I think we all know these guys knew what they were doing was scummy. They just thought they could get away with it. Turns out, the local DA has a spine and decided to actually believe the victim for once.

Should the girl have showed up to a party having drank some cognac already? Should she have packed an overnight bag? No. But I did attend several parties in my youth where somebody's parents were out of town, we all spent the night and had some drinks. Nobody got raped in the process. It's not just boys being boys. These guys planned this out, the video camera is proof of that.

[doc_bean]

Because if you bring a sleeping bag to a party, you're obviously looking to get gang banged. :no:

Err...I thought this was about a blowjob ?

As long as she was 'willing' (not forced or virtually unconscious) this is 'date rape' at most (if even that, since that still usually involves an element of pressure), let's save the word rape for where it actually applies.

[doc_bean]

She was 15 years old. If you want to talk about judgement, let's talk about 6 guys, five of whom with rapsheets, renting 2 hotel rooms, putting up a video camera, then proceeding to supply alchohol and pot to a girl younger than they, getting her drunk/high beyond the point of recall, then engaging in group sex acts with her, video-taping the entire affair.

Look, at the end of the day, I think we all know these guys knew what they were doing was scummy. They just thought they could get away with it. Turns out, the local DA has a spine and decided to actually believe the victim for once.

Should the girl have showed up to a party having drank some cognac already? Should she have packed an overnight bag? No. But I did attend several parties in my youth where somebody's parents were out of town, we all spent the night and had some drinks. Nobody got raped in the process. It's not just boys being boys. These guys planned this out, the video camera is proof of that.

Hmm perhaps I should read the article....

UPDATE:


As for Tracy, she did not drink or smoke that night, but willingly performed oral sex on several of the guys, practically one after the other, as the telltale videotape showed. Tracy had not wanted to press charges and was as surprised as the boys that police showed up at the hotel that New Year’s morning.

Right, so this guy is in prison (te sentence was about the blow job, NOT about what he did with the other girl) because a sober, consenting girl gave him a BJ. Justice for all !

As for the other girl: The entire thing sounded like a preplanned sex party (they do happen), I think she just had regrets after the facts. The guys probably didn't even realize they were pressuring her. Was it wrong to have a 15y old at their sex party? Sure. Was it child molestation ? **** no.

[Dutch_guy]

Should the girl have showed up to a party having drank some cognac already? Should she have packed an overnight bag? No.

Aye, couldn't agree more.

Look, I'm not saying the boys should be applauded for their actions, heck 5 of the 6 had criminal records already. I;m merely stating that I just can't comprehend why this girl did this, going to that party drunk, knowing tons of teens, booz and yes, even drugs, would be there. Did she deserve this, not at all. But did this girl show any sign of intelligence, even before getting drunk ? Well, in my book that would be a no, she went to that party after all. The boys should be punished, all the more severely for already having a record. However, 10 years for a record-less boy who'll be a marked man for the rest of his still long life just doesn't feel right in my book.

:balloon2:

[Don Corleone]

Aye, couldn't agree more.

Look, I'm not saying the boys should be applauded for their actions, heck 5 of the 6 had criminal records already. I;m merely stating that I just can't comprehend why this girl did this, going to that party drunk, knowing tons of teens, booz and yes, even drugs, would be there. Did she deserve this, not at all. But did this girl show any sign of intelligence, even before getting drunk ? Well, in my book that would be a no, she went to that party after all. The boys should be punished, all the more severely for already having a record. However, 10 years for a record-less boy who'll be a marked man for the rest of his still long life just doesn't feel right in my book.

:balloon2:

I agree with you, ten years is excessive, for this one guy only (the other 5, with records, it's a shame they didn't get it). The good news is that with the way the American criminal incarceration system works, that means he'll do about 2 1/2 years, then be released on parole.

I agree the girl made some poor decisions. I also agree with Doc that the girl's mother ought to be up on charges (I think it was Doc Bean that suggested that).

But I disagree that somehow, there's an excuse for the boys' behavior, based on the fact that the girl had already had a glass of cognac (the article didn't say she showed up drunk, it said she had had something to drink before going to the party). What's more, we're not getting the whole story. It sounds like there was a party with a lot of people (including Michelle's friend Natasha). At some point, the regular party was whittled down to the six defendants and the two girls, one of whom doesn't have any recollection of the events that were videotaped. Also, Tracy was supposedly sober. Why didn't the article state she was claiming that Michelle had consented (in some form)? Because either Michelle didn't consent and Tracy knew that, or she wasn't present (she was in the other hotel room). For all we know, Michelle passed out. Based on her recollection of events, she was at least in a blackout. That's rape.

[doc_bean]

But I disagree that somehow, there's an excuse for the boys' behavior,based on the fact that the girl had already had a glass of cognac (the article didn't say she showed up drunk, it said she had had something to drink before going to the party). What's more, we're not getting the whole story. It sounds like there was a party with a lot of people (including Michelle's friend Natasha). At some point, the regular party was whittled down to the six defendants and the two girls, one of whom doesn't have any recollection of the events that were videotaped. For all we know, she passed out. Based on her recollection of events, she was at least in a blackout. That's rape.


Well, I agree with you here, at least I think so. The article doesn't have the whole story: what was on the tape ? the blowjobs: yes, but they were voluntary. Unless I missed something important (I'm getting drunk here) there was nothing in the article about the state of Michelle (conscious ? 'Actively' having sex or just lying there ?).

The fact that she has had a few drinks beforehand proves nothing of course, but there are a lot of things that can be concluded based on the behaviour of her and her friend, if I was a juror I'd definately want to hear more about those. then again, their only job was to say he'd gotten a blowjob, you can't blame them for the verdict.

[Don Corleone]

It's in the first paragraph. They have a narrative of Michelle waking up naked, not knowing where she is, calling her mother to come get her, getting half dressed and noticing the video camera.

[doc_bean]

It's in the first paragraph. They have a narrative of Michelle waking up naked, not knowing where she is, calling her mother to come get her, getting half dressed and noticing the video camera.

Yeah, but so what, I've had black outs before and it's not like I was unconscious (well, I did sleep in my bed) the night before, or could simply say no if i didn't want something.

If she was unconscious or anything close to that (unable to speak, unable to determine what was happening, etc) then it was rape, plain and simple, if she had wild sex and didn't remember, then that's just too bad.

EDIT: also don I don't think 12 year olds should be having sex, if you want to hang on to that age of consent thing, make it 14, with increasing age brackets, so 14+15, 15+17,16+19,17+21,18+none of your business
EDIT 2: and why are you only interested in protecting women ???

[rory_20_uk]

The specific case there appears to have been premeditated action on the part of the men. Whilst the females have to take some responsibility (either them or their parents) it was set up to prey on the idiots.

But in the generalities, I find it's "funny" that whilst a female can get drunk to the point of not bieng able to consent, why is this not possible with the male? Can't he be so drunk he is not aware of his actions either?

If either gender goes to a party and wants to remain in control then don't drink too much! It's not rocket science - and how young do you have to be before you don't know what alcohol does?

One can say that there is nore responsibility on the part of females. Only if one assumes that they are more concerned about who they sleep with. Else it can be said that those that are concerned be careful, and those who really don't care who or what they wake up next to can do as they wish.

Age differences... meet a girl at a nightclub. Over 18s only Do you still need to check her driver's license just to make sure - and ensure that you remain sober enough through the entire night to do this? So IMO it is more the place where the meeting happens that exact ages. Outside a school gate the onus is on the older party to prove innocence. At an over 18 event the young "innocent" can first explain what the hell s/he was doing there.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, but so what, I've had black outs before and it's not like I was unconscious (well, I did sleep in my bed) the night before, or could simply say no if i didn't want something.

If she was unconscious or anything close to that (unable to speak, unable to determine what was happening, etc) then it was rape, plain and simple, if she had wild sex and didn't remember, then that's just too bad.

She's 15 years old. 6 guys who are older than her get her drunk enough that she goes into a blackout and proceed to film themselves having sex with her and you say it's just too bad? If that attitude is prevalent over there, my daughter isn't visiting Europe until she's 30, and then with an armed escort.

[Don Corleone]

As for Rory's point, it's actually a very good one. There is a bias in the legal system (at least the American one) against men in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Yes, men can get to be so drunk that they can no longer consent either. But there's a difference between consenting and initiating, the active partner and the passive partner if you will. If two adults get sufficiently drunk that neither is aware of their surroundings any longer, if sex occurs, I would look to the inititater first, not necessarily the male. The law pretty much assumes this is always the man, though we all know that's clearly not the case.

[doc_bean]

She's 15 years old. 6 guys who are older than her get her drunk enough that she goes into a blackout and proceed to film themselves having sex with her and you say it's just too bad?

Now you assume the blackout preceded the sex, sometimes you can know perfectly well what you're doing (well, within limits) but your memory just fails you. I'd like to see the tape before passing judgement, if she was just lying there then it might be rape, if she was 'actively' having sex then I think calling it rape is a bit extreme. Again, blanket statements based on the limited information we have are hard to make.



If that attitude is prevalent over there, my daughter isn't visiting Europe until she's 30, and then with an armed escort.

Yeah, women are responsible for their actions here. Most of them don't get totally wasted, or keep friends around when they do. Of course, I've known a few women who knew they got horny as hell when drunk and didn't care either way.

Honestly we're not that bad, but are laws aren't as biased towards women, so they've got to be a little more careful.

EDIT;: and I never said what the guys did wasn't wrong...

[Don Corleone]

Now you assume the blackout preceded the sex, sometimes you can know perfectly well what you're doing (well, within limits) but your memory just fails you. I'd like to see the tape before passing judgement, if she was just lying there then it might be rape, if she was 'actively' having sex then I think calling it rape is a bit extreme. Again, blanket statements based on the limited information we have are hard to make.

If that attitude is prevalent over there, my daughter isn't visiting Europe until she's 30, and then with an armed escort

Yeah, women are responsible for their actions here. Most of them don't get totally wasted, or keep friends around when they do. Of course, I've known a few women who knew they got horny as hell when drunk and didn't care either way.

Honestly we're not that bad, but are laws aren't as biased towards women, so they've got to be a little more careful.

My apologies, that crack was out of line. I do agree that the girl made some terrible decisions, and her parents are criminally negligent (if I was the judge, I would have ordered foster care in this whole process). But I just don't think any of that in any way mitigates the behavior of the defendants. If she was incapacitated, and I would say memory-loss level inebriation qualifies, they raped her.... unless of course she initiated the activity with them, in which case she didn't. Somehow, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

[doc_bean]

If she was incapacitated, and I would say memory-loss level inebriation qualifies,


I don't know, I once had a black out when i hadn't even ahd that much to drink, and I had acted pretty normally the night before. Friends of mine have also had blackouts when they really didn't appear that drunk the night before. You're expecting to guys to be able to see the future ?



they raped her.... unless of course she initiated the activity with them, in which case she didn't. Somehow, I seriously, seriously doubt it.

yes, but you're obviously a sexist ~D

I've known more women get freaky when drunk than men.

[Fragony]

I don't know, I once had a black out when i hadn't even ahd that much to drink, and I had acted pretty normally the night before.

Tell me about it, still don't know how I ended up in that ditch with that sour feeling, barely able to make it back home.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know, I once had a black out when i hadn't even ahd that much to drink, and I had acted pretty normally the night before. Friends of mine have also had blackouts when they really didn't appear that drunk the night before. You're expecting to guys to be able to see the future ? No. I'm expecting them to not act like beasts of the field and demonstrate some compassion and empathy for somebody that is helpless. If they don't know that the woman wants to have sex with them, and would when sober, then they shouldn't be having sex with them.


yes, but you're obviously a sexist ~D Heehee, that's me... keep 'em all barefoot and pregnant....


I've known more women get freaky when drunk than men.
As have I. And if we were already in a relationship, I thanked my lucky stars. However, I would state that the critical 'first' encounter, where desire and consent may already be on somewhat shaky grounds, clouding the issue with large quantities of alchohol is a BAD idea. How about waiting until the woman sobers up, then see if she really wanted you?

[doc_bean]

No. I'm expecting them to not act like beasts of the field and demonstrate some compassion and empathy for somebody that is helpless. If they don't know that the woman wants to have sex with them, and would when sober, then they shouldn't be having sex with them.

I think that's where we differ in opinion about what happened. I think the guys assumed she wanted it. Especially the guy convicted. He was a popular guy according to the source, why would he try to sleep with someone who didn't want it ? he could have gotten others. I think he honestly assumed she wanted it. Like i said before, until we see the actual video it's hard to judge her condition.
I tend to get anything but passive when I'm drunk, I don't think anyone would assume I was helpless , yet I could have a blackout just the same.





As have I. And if we were already in a relationship, I thanked my lucky stars. However, I would state that the critical 'first' encounter, where desire and consent may already be on somewhat shaky grounds, clouding the issue with large quantities of alchohol is a BAD idea. How about waiting until the woman sobers up, then see if she really wanted you?

Hmm, depends on the situation really. I know some guys who've had a more than a few one night stands and usually there's no damage done, even if they were usually the result of both parties being drunk as hell.

Hey often alcohol solves things, you don't overthink things anymore and you just follow your heart/desires. That's how I finally hooked up with my girlfriend :2thumbsup:

[yesdachi]

Do you think white kids would have been treated differently?

[doc_bean]

Do you think white kids would have been treated differently?

errr....who is this question directed to ?

The race issue was hardly brought up. Perhaps the case wouldn't have made it to court if he had been white (although frankly, this would be pure speculation) but the debate has mostly centered around whether what he did was rape and if it waranted the sentence (everyone says no to that).

IMO the jury wouldn't have acted differently, their hands were tied.

[KukriKhan]

But you guys are talking about women and actual consent and intent.

The people of the State of Georgia have decided that a 15 year old female is NOT a woman, but a child - a person who, by definition, is unable to ever give consent to any sexual act, however Lolita-ish her behavior or words.

[doc_bean]

The people of the State of Georgia have decided that a 15 year old female is NOT a woman, but a child - a person who, by definition, is unable to ever give consent to any sexual act, however Lolita-ish her behavior or words.

What do you mean with 'the people of the state of georgia' ? The Jury or the law makers ?

disclaimer: i'm really getting drunk here, my 1337 English skillz are suffering, also, I know it's not cool to announce you're drunk :shame:

[KukriKhan]

What do you mean with 'the people of the state of georgia' ? The Jury or the law makers ?

The lawmakers first, then the prosecutor & jury, who carried out the law, however distasteful in this case.


disclaimer: i'm really getting drunk here, my 1337 English skillz are suffering, also, I know it's not cool to announce you're drunk :shame:

Working on a sympathetic blackout? :laugh4: (Just kidding, ol' Buddy). I'm 8-9 hours behind you, but I'll try to catch up, starting in about 4 hours. ~:cheers:

[yesdachi]

errr....who is this question directed to ?
Anyone.


The race issue was hardly brought up. Perhaps the case wouldn't have made it to court if he had been white (although frankly, this would be pure speculation) but the debate has mostly centered around whether what he did was rape and if it waranted the sentence (everyone says no to that).

IMO the jury wouldn't have acted differently, their hands were tied.
Atlanta is a pretty racial place, do you think if the cops had opened the hotel room doors and found a bunch of white teenagers, would they have been more dismissive and just wrote it off as kids being kids or because they were black kids (most of which had rap sheets an arm long) they were more willing to pursue an arrest?

The whole thing seems to have a racial angle to it that is being sidestepped. I could be wrong.

[doc_bean]

The lawmakers first, then the prosecutor & jury, who carried out the law, however distasteful in this case.

Honestly i don't think you can blame the jury and the prosecution onyl barely (they can't discard cases can they ?), it's almost purely a mistake of the lawmakers. Unfortuantely one that is made by a lot of lawmakers throughout the world.



[
Working on a sympathetic blackout? :laugh4: (Just kidding, ol' Buddy). I'm 8-9 hours behind you, but I'll try to catch up, starting in about 4 hours. ~:cheers:

Nah, I was questioning my use of prepositions, and my typing skills decline rapidly when I drink. But join me all you want :medievalcheers:

[Vuk]

two thoughts:

1.) Did he know she wasn't 16? If he did then to be honest he landed himself in this. It's tough but its the law and he presumably knew there was a law against it.

2.) This sucks, it should be quashed on appeal. Which probably wont stop him from getting genuinely raped in the meantime.

I thought you said that never happened...

[Kralizec]

Honestly i don't think you can blame the jury and the prosecution onyl barely (they can't discard cases can they ?), it's almost purely a mistake of the lawmakers. Unfortuantely one that is made by a lot of lawmakers throughout the world.

I'm not sure how much freedom DA's have in America when it comes to prosecuting people, but it seems to me that if they have the authority to make a deal with the perpetrators, they also can just forget about it.
AFAIK the jury is only supposed to determine wether they think the suspect is guilty, in the sense that he committed the forbidden act. Since the legislator put a mandatory 10 years prison sentence on this offence, the judges hands are tied.

[Watchman]

I think that's where we differ in opinion about what happened. I think the guys assumed she wanted it. Especially the guy convicted. He was a popular guy according to the source, why would he try to sleep with someone who didn't want it ? he could have gotten others. I think he honestly assumed she wanted it....just wondering, but do you quite realize how dodgy all this sounds...? :inquisitive:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Interestingly, it appears we have a different attitude to drunken consent in the UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm) At least the precedent in the linked case seems to suggest that. I was certainly always under the impression that as long as the girl wasn't unconscious, it's not rape, per se, in the eyes of the law.


High Court judge Justice Roderick Evans directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict, on the basis that drunken consent is still consent.

I mean, even if drink drivers are utterly tanked, we hold them responsible for their actions, don't we?

[Watchman]

I mean, even if drink drivers are utterly tanked, we hold them responsible for their actions, don't we?But you don't hold them responsible for the actions of other drunk drivers, now do you...?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

But you don't hold them responsible for the actions of other drunk drivers, now do you...?

Well, my earlier statement was assuming the girl had actually consented, but was just really drunk when she did it. If she was too drunk to really do anything, then I agree the analogy wouldn't make sense.

[KukriKhan]

At 15, in Georgia, she could be stone-cold sober, utterly naked, and begging, pleading, screaming for sex - and it still wouldn't constitute consent. She is legally incapable of giving it.

And anyone acceeding to her spoken wishes, would be guilty of a crime.

[Kralizec]

A drunk drivers isn't fully capable of averting accidents, but he is responsible because he willingly put himself in a position that could cause damage to others. Culpa in causa.

Drunk girls however put themselves at risk, as they might agree to do stuff they wouldn't do when sober. However their consent is meaningless, and if you realize this (i.e. you're not drunk/drugged yourself) and go for it anyway, you're taking advantage of anothers unstable state of mind.

The problem I have with this case is that the DA acknowledges that the law wasn't meant to prosecute cases like this, but gratefully uses the opportunity anyway.

[Hosakawa Tito]

BKS, the law states in this case that those under 16 cannot give consent, full stop, no exceptions/mitigating circumstances. That is statutory rape.

The article also says that the boy refused a plea deal, which would have lead to a lesser sentence.
We don't know the specifics of this plea deal, but why would he turn it down? I presume he had legal counsel and knew the evidence against him, and the consequences of losing in court. Sounds like he either got bad legal advice or seriously miscalculated his chances of beating the charges.

[Strike For The South]

Don you have been outta high school for to long. Stuff like this happens much more than you would like to believe. I would send your duaghter to any public high school with an armed escort. This guy just bit the big one. Good thing Im young for my grade

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

BKS, the law states in this case that those under 16 cannot give consent, full stop, no exceptions/mitigating circumstances. That is statutory rape.



Oh, I'm well aware of that. It's just that Don was saying that drunken girl=rape, and I was trying to show that apparently that's not the case in the UK.

[Don Corleone]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. It's just that Don was saying that drunken girl=rape, and I was trying to show that apparently that's not the case in the UK.

Not drunken girl, drunken passive participant. Drunken active participant, well, simply active participant is the guilty one. If a woman gets a guy piss drunk, then proceeds to stimulate him to arousal, then takes advantage of him, that's rape in my book.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Watching this develop has been interseting. So here are my mature thoughts on the matter, after musing.

1. She willingly put herself in that position, she got drunk, she went to the hotel room.

2. Her friend was quite clearly sober and seems to be a pretty big slut, from my point of view. What kind of company is she keeping? How does that reflect on her?

3. You are responsible for your actions, you get yourself in a situation where you are not compus mentus and it's your fault. She didn't have to drink, it's an unfortunate incident but had she not been drinking she would have been able to say no. Just like the boy who got the blowjob from the 15 year-old she's responsible for her actions.

4. I find this idea of a sliding scale to be a repulsive concept. If a woman is 16 here it's legal. If she isn't it's no-go. Why? Because if she isn't competant to give consent to an 80 year old she's not competant to give consent to an 18 year old. You can't have a double standard.

[Watchman]

Wigs, do I actually have to point out that girls should be able to get drunk like everyone else without getting gangbanged for it...?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wigs, do I actually have to point out that girls should be able to get drunk like everyone else without getting gangbanged for it...?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you can't lay all the blame on the guys, who were also drunk. To say that if a woman is drunk and not in her normal state of mind it's rape is flawed because she usually chose to enter that state of mind. She is responsible for her state of mind, or did they clamp her mouth open and pour it down her throat.

The issue for me is whether she gave consent, not whether she was drunk. That doesn't mean I think it's right to take advantage of drunk women but if they willingly entered that state I don't think you can prosecute the man for rape.

[KukriKhan]

She isn't a woman, she is a girl.

The alcohol is irrelevant.

It would work equally with the genders switched.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I gave you my opinion on the legal issue, which is the same as yours. My opinion on the moral issue is different.

[Papewaio]

1. She willingly put herself in that position, she got drunk, she went to the hotel room.

Consent is not given based on ones location.



2. Her friend was quite clearly sober and seems to be a pretty big slut, from my point of view. What kind of company is she keeping? How does that reflect on her?


Consent is not based on the company one keeps.



3. You are responsible for your actions, you get yourself in a situation where you are not compus mentus and it's your fault. She didn't have to drink, it's an unfortunate incident but had she not been drinking she would have been able to say no. Just like the boy who got the blowjob from the 15 year-old she's responsible for her actions

A minor cannot give consent.

So no matter her location, choice of friends or sobriety the child is not able to give consent. Therefore any adult having sex with her is raping her.

Even if she was an adult her choice of friends, blood alcohol percentage or physical locality is not an act of consent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Consent is not given based on ones location.

No, but it looks like she willingly went to what she might well have known was a sex party.


Consent is not based on the company one keeps.

No, but the company she keeps makes me less inclined to believe her story.


A minor cannot give consent.

So no matter her location, choice of friends or sobriety the child is not able to give consent. Therefore any adult having sex with her is raping her.

Even if she was an adult her choice of friends, blood alcohol percentage or physical locality is not an act of consent.

I agree with everything you are saying, in principle. In this instance however it looks to me like the girl willingly went with them and probably freaked when she realised it had been filmed. As to the legal issues, I said I'm very clear on that but there is the moral issue.

For me this case is as clear as mud.

EDIT: You're also absolving her of all responsibility.

[doc_bean]

A minor cannot give consent.

So no matter her location, choice of friends or sobriety the child is not able to give consent. Therefore any adult having sex with her is raping her.

Even if she was an adult her choice of friends, blood alcohol percentage or physical locality is not an act of consent.

That's legally speaking Pape (and Kukri before you), we all agree that he broke the law and was sentenced according to the letter of the law.

However, do you think his sentence was deserved ? Because that's what this is about.


Also, what's the age of consent where it happened ? If it was 18 then surely it was mutual rape and no one could be blamed ?


Wigs, do I actually have to point out that girls should be able to get drunk like everyone else without getting gangbanged for it...?

The point is that if I guy asks her if she's interested in a gang bang and she says yes then she's responisble no matter if she's drunk or not (as long as she still has the ability to formulate her opinion).


...just wondering, but do you quite realize how dodgy all this sounds...?

Yes, it's the classical; 'I thought she wanted it' defense used by abusing and raping arseholes all over the world. Doesn't mean it isn't true sometimes. Why would a populat guy who probably had no problem getting laid rape a girl ? It wasn't violent rape, if it was it could be argued that he was just a perv getting off on dominating helpless women.

[Sir Moody]

... this has really gone out of control hasnt it?

one last time - he was found NOT guilty of the rape of Michelle - ie the majority of the debate here is not on topic - he was convicted on the Blow job from tracy - in fact heres the kicker statutory rape is a misdemeanor and he wouldnt have landed anywhere near 10 years - the blowjob is classed as aggravated child molestation and that has a mandatory 10 years

as to why he was found not guilty of rape?


After all, Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys.

this doesnt excuse the boys actions but it certainly throws light on the girls behavior - the jurors plainly concluded she had some of the responsibility

so lets get back on topic shall we - is it right to throw a boy with no criminal record in jail for 10 years for a willing Blow job?

[English assassin]

Well it wouldn't happen here. According to s.13 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:


(1) A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 9 to 12 if he were aged 18.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

Cutting the jargon, if you are under 18, and you commit a consensual sexual offence with a minor, you get a much reduced sentence. It looks as if there are a few bells and whistles to it, but that's basically it. He would still have committed an offence in the UK, mind you, and IIRC he would still go on the sex offenders register. But he wouldn't get sentenced at the adult tariff.


High Court judge Justice Roderick Evans directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict, on the basis that drunken consent is still consent

At the risk of going back OT, I couldn't understand why this direction, which is perfectly correct, got the judge branded as some sort of woman hating caveman. I really don't think ordinary people, as opposed to lesbian columnists in the Guardian, find this difficult to understand. Willingly doing something you wouldn't normally do because you were drunk is just bad luck. Being so drunk you have no idea what is going on, that's a different issue. Have sex with someone in that state and you are going to be charged and rightly so.

[Redleg]

...
so lets get back on topic shall we - is it right to throw a boy with no criminal record in jail for 10 years for a willing Blow job?

Simple question to answer - was the girl under the age of legal consent?

If the answer is yes - she was not able to give consent in the eyes of the law. Which in turn means that the jury had no recourse but to convict.

Wether you agree with the law is a different matter, if the prosecution can show that he violated the law the jury has no other choice but to convict.

Depending how sentencing is done in Georgia - I don't know the answer - there is usually a sentence hearing that follows the conviction where items of mitigation are introduced into the trail record.

Now one can state that they disagree with the sentence imposed, but one should ask was the judge just imposing a mandatory sentence or did he just decide to go with the maximum punishment.

[Don Corleone]

At the risk of going back OT, I couldn't understand why this direction, which is perfectly correct, got the judge branded as some sort of woman hating caveman. I really don't think ordinary people, as opposed to lesbian columnists in the Guardian, find this difficult to understand. Willingly doing something you wouldn't normally do because you were drunk is just bad luck. Being so drunk you have no idea what is going on, that's a different issue. Have sex with someone in that state and you are going to be charged and rightly so.

Well, I do prefer women, but as I'm a man, that disqualifies me as being a lesbian. I've never actually had the honor of getting a column with a tagline, though I have written one or two heated editorial emails into the Guardian....

But I happen to think the judge was wrong to level this direction. There is a difference between being an active participant and a passive participant, no? If I punch you in the nose , we were both involved in a fight but only one of us actually did something, correct? Now granted, you didn't consent to being punched in the nose. But in this case, the passive participant cannot give cosnent, as their judgement is impaired. It's not a question of drunk girl. It's a question of drunk person who initiates versus drunk person who has it happen to them.

And Sir Moody, the jury even said the only reason they came back with Not Guilty on the statuatory rape charge was because they thought they were convicting him of the lesser offense (sounds like piss-poor jury instructions were the rule of the day).

I don't think the guy deserved 10 years. But I don't think he deserved to walk way scott free, either.

[Sir Moody]

I don't think the guy deserved 10 years. But I don't think he deserved to walk way scott free, either.

then we agree with each other - he should not get away with it but 10 years is just plain wrong

i would have given him 6 months with part of that suspended - i dont agree with registering sex offenders for such minor crimes either - maybe if there was a set time limit a name would remain on the list but not permanently

[Slyspy]

The good news is that this spreads the word that if you are a teenager in Georgia and a 15 year old girl offers you a BJ behind the bike sheds you better say no....

And then you can proceed to get her drunk and incapable and then gangbang her with your mates infront of a video camera for the lesser penalty.

Nice.

[Sir Moody]

The good news is that this spreads the word that if you are a teenager in Georgia and a 15 year old girl offers you a BJ behind the bike sheds you better say no....

And then you can proceed to get her drunk and incapable and then gangbang her with your mates infront of a video camera for the lesser penalty.

Nice.

They didnt get her drunk - she got herself drunk hell she had been drinking before she even arrived at the party

[Redleg]

They didnt get her drunk - she got herself drunk hell she had been drinking before she even arrived at the party
That has no bearing on the law. She was under the age of consent - whatever her actions were - it had no bearing on the innocence or guilt of the accused. It can only be used in mitigation of the sentence.

If your under 16 you can not give consent under the law.

If your over 16 and engage in sex with someone under the consent stated age - you run the risk of exactly what happened in this case.

[Sir Moody]

i know that redleg i was replying to slypsy who was implying they INTENTIONALLY got her drunk to gang bang her - they did no such thing

One is predatory and is far worse than the other

they still broke the law and we all agree there

[KukriKhan]

Meanwhile, in neighboring Florida, a 21-year old woman is raped, reports it, and is then jailed on a 4-year old juvenile warrant, and denied standard rape medical treatment.
Link (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml).

More lousy prioritizing by police, IMO.

[Slyspy]

i know that redleg i was replying to slypsy who was implying they INTENTIONALLY got her drunk to gang bang her - they did no such thing

One is predatory and is far worse than the other

they still broke the law and we all agree there

Maybe you missed the sarcastic nature of the post?

The fact is that those who had non-consensual (either in law or in fact) presumably penetrative group sex with a drunk girl for the camera got off lighter than the guy who got a consensual (in fact if not in law) knee-trembler from a sober girl who knew full well what she was doing. I understand that that in the eyes of the law of Georgia that sex with a minor is never consensual and so a penalty must be given, and I understand why. I do, however, have trouble with the sentencing in these particular cases.

[Geoffrey S]

The priorities in this case are rather dubious; still, I guess (hope) those involved did learn from all this, and that this case is a lesson to others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But I happen to think the judge was wrong to level this direction. There is a difference between being an active participant and a passive participant, no? If I punch you in the nose , we were both involved in a fight but only one of us actually did something, correct? Now granted, you didn't consent to being punched in the nose. But in this case, the passive participant cannot give cosnent, as their judgement is impaired. It's not a question of drunk girl. It's a question of drunk person who initiates versus drunk person who has it happen to them.

Ah, no if you punch me in the nose without me doing anything then you are guilty of Assault and Battery. If I take a swing it you and miss I get Assault and you probably get nothing. If I go "Come on then! Hit me you [censored]" then we might be described as having a fight.

If I get drunk, meet a drunk woman and end up having sex with her that's rape in your book?

What about me? My judgement is also impaired. If I was sober I wouldn't come on to a drunk girl.

[KukriKhan]

If I get drunk, meet a drunk woman and end up having sex with her that's rape in your book?


If, at any stage in the "transaction" she said "no", or "stop", then yes. If not, then not.

Since the woman bears the brunt of the possible consequences of the liaison, she gets the right of refusal at any point, and the man must comply.

I know you asked Don, not me. Sorry. :bow:

[doc_bean]

If, at any stage in the "transaction" she said "no", or "stop", then yes. If not, then not.

Since the woman bears the brunt of the possible consequences of the liaison, she gets the right of refusal at any point, and the man must comply.

I know you asked Don, not me. Sorry. :bow:

As a side note: Apparently, in Belgium once she says yes it isn't rape anymore, no matter how many tiimes she says no after or before having said yes.

Personally I'd say the guy was at least a **** if he continued after hearing her protest, see another difference between what's legal and what's moral.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If, at any stage in the "transaction" she said "no", or "stop", then yes. If not, then not.

Since the woman bears the brunt of the possible consequences of the liaison, she gets the right of refusal at any point, and the man must comply.

I know you asked Don, not me. Sorry. :bow:

Well I'm assuming that at no point did she say "no" I agree with you in any case.

[JimBob]

Why was the girl not charged with possession and consumption? If she were drinking before she came to the party then she obtained and consumed alcohol on her on initiative. At least in Illinois you get your day ruined for doing that underaged.


Anyway, I'd like to thank the fine law makers in Illinois for the Romeo Clause, which allows for two years in age difference if both are under the age of consent or six months of dating if one is above the age of consent.

[Don Corleone]

Why was the girl not charged with possession and consumption? If she were drinking before she came to the party then she obtained and consumed alcohol on her on initiative. At least in Illinois you get your day ruined for doing that underaged.


Anyway, I'd like to thank the fine law makers in Illinois for the Romeo Clause, which allows for two years in age difference if both are under the age of consent or six months of dating if one is above the age of consent.

Girl wakes up, with her clothes in a pile on the floor, a video camera pointed at her, and two naked guys laying next to her. She has no recollection how she came to be there, and your answer is "charge her with possession?".

Damn, I'm glad I don't play poker with you chief.

[JimBob]

Girl wakes up, with her clothes in a pile on the floor, a video camera pointed at her, and two naked guys laying next to her. She has no recollection how she came to be there, and your answer is "charge her with possession?".

Damn, I'm glad I don't play poker with you chief.
Based on the article, yes.

She had come to the party drunk:

Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began.
And Michelle was 17-years old, the same age as Genarlow, she was above the age of consent. What he did was sleazy, but maybe its because I'm a teen and I know people who go to parties, get drunk and have sex that I am not as fazed by it.
But let me ask you something, if she had not blacked out and forgotten the night and called home saying she thought she had been raped. If she had just left the party and been caught with alcohol in her system should she not be charged with possession? She broke the law and drank when she was underage. Charge her for her crime.

But that is the charge he was acquitted of.

The one he was found guilty for is now legal in Georgia, thanks to this case.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

JimBob. I think the age of consent in Georgia is still 18.:thumbsdown:

[doc_bean]

JimBob. I think the age of consent in Georgia is still 18.:thumbsdown:

Then why isn't Michelle charged with raping those poor underage boys ?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Why was the girl not charged with possession and consumption? If she were drinking before she came to the party then she obtained and consumed alcohol on her on initiative. At least in Illinois you get your day ruined for doing that underaged.

People actually get charged for underage drinking in the US? Over here if the police caught you on the street with alcohol underage they'd just confiscate it, maybe give you a caution if you were unlucky.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Then why isn't Michelle charged with raping those poor underage boys ?

Well I think the answer to that in this case is fairly obvious. However, in Britain it's very diificult, if not impossible, to convict a woman of Rape because Rape = penetration. With little bows you can just get them on child molestation.

As to being charged with underage drinking, well, why? I mean really, why bother?

[Watchman]

Such a pleasure to see the fine tradition of blaming rape victims is still alive and well.

The lions were getting hungry, after all. :rtwno:

[JimBob]

JimBob. I think the age of consent in Georgia is still 18.
It's sixteen, Map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png)


People actually get charged for underage drinking in the US? Over here if the police caught you on the street with alcohol underage they'd just confiscate it, maybe give you a caution if you were unlucky.
Here they kick you out of school, fail you in all your classes, banish you from society, and fine you like its going out of style.


Such a pleasure to see the fine tradition of blaming rape victims is still alive and well.

The lions were getting hungry, after all.
What do you mean? I'm not blaming her for getting raped, I'm saying that she broke the law. She broke the law before she got raped. Its no excuse.
Did Genarlow Wilson break the law? Yes. The charge that was a legitimate charge, rape, was dropped by a jury. The charge that was illogical and generally ridiculous, aggravated child molestation, is the one he is serving ten years in prison for.
Is Michelle X a victim? Yes. She was taken advantage of, she wasn't the wisest or most careful person, but that doesn't excuse what happened to her. But did Michelle X break the law? Yes. She drank as a minor. And no crime committed against her should be able to shield her from that fact.

[Watchman]

The general relevance of that, however, is more than slightly questionable.

'Sides, I wasn't referring to you specifically.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We're not blaming her, we're disputing whether she was raped. At the end of the day rape is basically one person's word against another's. In this case without seeing the tape we can't know for sure, however given the fact that the book wasn't thrown at the other guys I somehoe doubt she was actually passed out.

[doc_bean]

Such a pleasure to see the fine tradition of blaming rape victims is still alive and well.



Hey, I pretty cleary said before what I'd consider rape, this could have very well been rape, but without the video (or a more clear explanation) I can't judge. The jury didn't consider it rape in any case, I assume there was a reason for that.

[drone]

Update: Superior Court Judge threw out the sentence, but the state AG is still being a :daisy: about it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html

Appeal blocks release in teen sex case

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A judge on Monday threw out the 10-year sentence against a 21-year-old for a consensual sex encounter he had as a teenager. But the state attorney general quickly filed a notice of appeal, keeping Genarlow Wilson in prison for the time being.

The prosecutor's move brought an abrupt halt to the jubilation Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett, and his attorney, B.J. Bernstein, were feeling, and the plans they were making for Bennett to be reunited with her son.

"It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now," Bernstein said, adding that she did not know what message "he's trying to send" or "who he's representing."

Wilson has drawn support from throughout the country, including the editorial board of the New York Times and former President Jimmy Carter.

When he was 17 years old, he had a consensual sexual encounter with a 15-year-old girl, which was consensually videotaped.

Georgia law at the time made such an action a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and listing on the sex offender registry.

The state legislature later changed the law, partly in response to Wilson's case. But the change was not made retroactive, leaving Wilson in jail. He has already served more than two years.

Superior Court Judge Thomas H. Wilson of Monroe County, Georgia, voided the sentence Monday, agreeing with Bernstein that the punishment was cruel and unusual, and therefore unconstitutional, Bernstein said.