Why is Genarlow Wilson in prison?

[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

[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

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

[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? (Just kidding, ol' Buddy). I'm 8-9 hours behind you, but I'll try to catch up, starting in about 4 hours.

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

[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...?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Interestingly, it appears we have a different attitude to drunken consent in the UK. 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