Org Mobile Site
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
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
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.
And if you think these trials can get confusing, just wait until you have to deal with Interpol.
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.
As you can see by the DA's actions, it's not always the lawyers who are the bad guys.
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.
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 this kind of thing happened all the time.
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?
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?
Vindictive parents. "My duaghter wouldnt do that!" Yea uh-huh
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
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.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?
oh, and Cell Phones or Cam-Corders have become more easily accessible to the idiot masses.
Interesting stats:
Originally Posted by :
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...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.
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:
many jurisdictions make exceptions for "close in age" contacts. Georgia, currently, does not.
Canada's is:
Originally Posted by :
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 articleThe 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]
many jurisdictions make exceptions for "close in age" contacts. Georgia, currently, does not.
Originally Posted by 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?
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.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?
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...
Originally Posted by 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
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.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
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.
Originally Posted by BigTex:
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?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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
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 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?
Not to mention this is when the far zealot right started to scream about legislating from the bench....
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Interesting stats:
Given no priors...
Allot of those blacks and latins probably come from poorer neighboorhoods and probably leave juoros to there pre concived notionsInteresting stats:
Given no priors...
Originally Posted by BigTex:
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. 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!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.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
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.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...
But heck, whatever keeps you out of jail
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Hrm? I wasn't aware that the SC ruled on bestiality and every other known form of deviance when they decided 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!
Hrm? I wasn't aware that the SC ruled on bestiality and every other known form of deviance when they decided 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.
The make-or-break: was she hot? 
Was that question just so that someone had to say he was hung?
Poor guy.
I hope whoever decided to report it feels really really bad.
I hope whoever decided to report it feels really really bad.
Well that's just great on your new-years eve party, oral sex
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.
Frankly, his life went pretty quickly downhill after that.
All because her parents didn't like him.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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...McDade says that he agrees that consensual teenage sex, including oral sex, does not necessarily warrant a decade-long prison sentence,
Like DC (man, will you change back already
) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
Where are you getting that from? From the article: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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO