That's correct, they amended it but did not make it retroactive so the only way Wilson can be freed is if the courts overturn the decision.
That is exactly my point. I've seen it happen where this was a potential problem with two different guys got their girlfriends preganant. One girl got an abortion and they quit seeing each other and the other had the baby and her parents ended up deciding not to file charges, but they had used it as a threat to keep him from seeing her or potentially the baby. I think race played a part for the parents.
I doubt they would have been any happier if the guy had been the same race. Not many parents I know are cool with guys who get their teenage daughter pregnant. My sister used to think that my parents didnt like her bf cuz he was black, but the relaity was that she had dated black guys before, and my parents had no real problem with it other than the non-communication thing. The issue with this guy was that he hadn't had a job in 4 years, but she refused to see it that way because it was easier to play the race card instead of admitting that he was a slacker.
Let's forget race for a minute because that is not even what I am thinking about. Let's say theoretically that a 16 year old 9th grader receives oral sex from a 14 year old 8th grader. Let's say one of these kid's parents doesn't like the other for whatever reason. Then the parents could potentially use this law to get the other kid in trouble. That's the problem I have with it. You have 2 consenting people, around the same age but if the parents don't like it guess what they can do. That's what I don't like about it. Forget about race, this could happen to anybody whether it be race or a money dispute. It's wrong.
Well for starters, did she get drunk on her own, or was it induced by them? When did she give consent - before or after she was drunk (or did she at all)? Were the guys drunk? Does any of that matter (I have no idea)? If two people get drunk and have consensual sex and one decides later that they didn't want to, is that rape? Does it change with minors? Does it change if more people are involved? Honestly, I have no idea how any of that works as far as the law is concerned.
Oh yeah. Since the attorney general appealed the judge's decision here, how long will it take to hear and judge the appeal?
Holy ****, The AG actually had the nerve to appeal this? Man that Georgia justice system keeps screwing with that kid's life.
I'm pretty sure some parents would use the law on the guy regardless of whether they liked him or not. And even if they did like the guy, I'm not too sure they'd feel the same way after they found out about the relationship. If you want to take the position that they'll just have to deal with it instead of trying their best to protect their daughter from all the emotional baggage that comes with teenage sexuality, then ok I don't think we got much to talk about on that issue. BTW so what if they did call the cops on the guy, they're the parents, they're doing what aprents are supposed to do. I'm not gonna feel sorry for the guy, is he goin to take the responsibility and take care of the girl and provide for her? Maybe he wil, but what are the chances of that and what would her quality of life be? Who do you think has the girl's best interests at heart? the 16 year old looking to get some or the parents?
I dont think it should matter how she got drunk, just that she was drunk already. but you're right, there isn't much I can say about that other than it just seems like the girl got a raw deal.
So, to have sexual relations with a girl means that guys have to provide for her? And it's wrong either way, whether they like the other party or not.
What I'm saying is that trying to protect their daughter from the emotional (and sometimes physical) baggage of teenage sex is one of their responsibilities as parents as much as is providing for the kid. Your position is that they have no right to involve themselves in their 14 year old daughter's life like that. Obviously, I disagree.
No, no, no. I'm saying that they should not be able to bring the law in and assist them unless it is absolutely necessary (ie. rape, molestation, etc.). If they want to be involved, that is fine but they should deal with the children themselves or with the assistance from the other parents.
Well I was going on the assumption that the parents would try to deal with it directly first before resorting to calling the cops, otherwise it's an avoidance of parental responsibility IMO. However, if they have tried to address the situation directly, and it's still not working, then I think they would be absolutely justified in bringing in the law.
It's my understanding that the 17 yr old girl who got "raped" was seen in a video supporting herself with one arm while the guy was going at her from behind. Now, to me, this rape claim sounds like she had lots to drink and couldn't remember most of what happened the previous night. Then again, who says she drank more than he did? If you're going to say she was too drunk to think, can't we similarly make a case that he/they was/were too drunk to think?
Georgia Supreme Court Orders Wilson's Release http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3080331 ATLANTA -- Georgia's Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a young man who has been imprisoned for more than two years for having consensual oral sex with another teenager. The court ruled 4-3 that Genarlow Wilson's 10-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson, 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation following a 2003 New Year's Eve party at a Douglas County hotel room where he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was 17 at the time. Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party. The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower court's ruling which said that the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively. Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants." Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment" and that Wilson's crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children." State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he accepts Friday's ruling. Baker said he hopes the ruling will "put an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case." The state Supreme Court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state's appeal of a Monroe County judge's decision to reduce Wilson's sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice." Dissenting justices wrote that the state Legislature expressly stated that the 2006 change in the law was not intended to affect any crime prior to that date. They said Wilson's sentence could not be cruel and unusual because the state Legislature decided that Wilson could not benefit from subsequent laws reducing the severity of the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. They called the decision an "unprecedented disregard for the General Assembly's constitutional authority." A spokeswoman for Wilson's lawyer said his legal team received no advance notice of the decision.
