17-year-old recievies a 10 years sentence for a blowjob by a 15-year-old

The thing that's weirdest about it is that it's "aggravated" child molestation. wtf?

goddamn judicial restraint.

-- The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar2...) (webmail), January 18th, 2007 9:08 PM. (lokar) (later) (link)"

otm

And who the fuck grassed on him? Or do they have specialist police forces to bust underage sex, a camera in every bedroom, a ladder under every window? WTF????????

A TEN-YEAR SENTENCE, WTF???????? Armed rapist-murderers barely get that long in the UK!!!

Try reading the first sentence of that article again. Or can you lodge more than one appeal?

Milo, STFU, this isn't the time nor the place. Petty personal insults (especially ones as lame and as clodhoppingly telegraphed as yours) shouldn't be allowed to cloud the issue at hand.

The Georgia Supreme Court is the highest state-level court, but the case can be appealed to federal court (which I imagine it will be)

That's not to say that it won't be appealed further -- I'm sure they'll make every effort -- or that I know the first thing about Georgia state or constitutional law. Just that if the statute is clear enough, I can't think of any good legal approach here beyond the not particularly powerful "in most sane communities this is considered normal behavior and more a moral/parenting issue than a criminal matter" defense.

Haha cruel and unusual punishment will cover the sentence's relation to the crime, right, not the particular jurisdiction's ability to define at what age it constitutes a crime.

-- nabisco (--...), January 18th, 2007. (nabisco)

Ok, but could he at least appeal the sentence?

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

"aggravated child molestation" IS weird - that's what the prosecutors sought, and got. The sentencing is weird enough for a huge appeal.
So many laws are being written, right now, to protect children. But many of these laws/ordinances go beyond protection.
This kid, if he serves the whole sentence (which he won't) will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
In many towns, and cities, that means he will not be able to live, walk or work within any school district.
I'm all for protecting children, but this is getting way out of hand.
Statistics show that sex offenders are: usually someone known to the victim, and most often a relative.
Stranger Danger should be taught - but most victims are being raped in their homes!
it just boggles my mind. i know there are predators - i was a victim of one - and I know that horrible things can happen. A good friend of mine was raped and murdered. I understand that bad things can happen for no good reason.
BUT. There is a line where civil rights need to be in play. or some sort of right to not be labeled as a sex offender, forever, because of a consensual act.
believe me, i do not know how to draw the line, nor do i want to determine age of consent.
I'm confused. But i know this young person will be more likely to rob and rape after even a few years in our criminal justice system. That's a fact.
The imprisinmont part makes me question this idea of democracy. I have worked with some level three sex offendors. and I believe in rehabilitation. one guy is level three because of consensual sex with a minor.he was 22 and she was almost 16. She refused to testify, except if she could support him. he's not the nicest person in the world, but his issues are made worse through his status.
I just don't want them to procreate! Which is common. So i shove a lot of condoms his way as i give him his daily dose of state ordered medicine.
he knows if he refuses too many times i am mandated to report everything.
it's all a slippery slope, innit?

That's just the thing -- HE WAS A TEENAGER TOO, and age of consent laws are especially arbitrary in cases like this. It's not like the dude was 40 and predatory. He was a Senior getting blown by a Sophomore. BFD.

lmbo

I would point out that this case isn't wholly different from the Orange County rape case that ILX was (rightly) up in arms about a year or two ago.

Honestly? No.

...

did i miss the link to the article or something?

But no one was raped here!

Michelle was raped. Five young men don't have intercourse with one woman, normally. Unless they are raping her.
Sorry, Charlie.

But why does the article only mention the fact that he's black, like, 4 screens down? Why has this thread not brought it up at all? Why was I under the impression that he was white all this time? Maybe because if I knew this was a black kid, it would have all made so much more sense, given the climate of our fine country?

Not telling us that he's black is not being responsible, not being "color blind", it's obfuscating a central fact in this case. It is not in any way irrelevant that he's black. It's central.

Either way, I'm sure the sordidness of the situation has not helped him with arguing the age-of-consent matter.

"We, the jury, find the defendant, Genarlow Raevion Wilson, not guilty of rape"

He was acquitted w/r/t Michelle, convicted due to age w/r/t Tracy.

uh wait I'm not sure after the xposts?

most? i mean, you have this case, you still have death penalty,...

Rest assured, I'm not horribly racist. Just the regular, workaday racist. Salt of the earth.

Kenan, it's reasonable to suppose that normally, the police wouldn't put a ton of energy into prosecuting a 17-year-old and 15-year-old. But I'd guess -- just speculating -- that what makes this different isn't race, but the fact that they'd already put a bunch of energy into putting up rape charges against this get-together.

We could speculate about what role race had in the decisions to prosecute this, but c'mon, we could do that with nearly everything, and probably shouldn't unless something suggests it's an issue. And either way, the aquittal on the rape charge suggests that the jury was sympathetic to him and his story, so it's not like he was railroaded by anyone's animosity. He got screwed by a badly conceived law.

most? i mean, you have this case, you still have death penalty,...

dude, that's some 19 year old -- not worth raising that or any other issue.. err ... infant mortality higher than cuba (no socialized health care), worse cell phones than europe or japan (CMDA??????!?!?!?!), ETC ETC

They did? I thought it was mostly about this Dixon dude, and then the 10 years dude got the sentence that they wanted to give to the first dude. Because he was easy and present and black.

Note that my legal terminology reflects my grasp of the intricacies of this story.

referring to infant love-spawn?

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. At no point did anyone at the party discuss their ages. They were all peers."

i love this supposedly well written article.
This is such absolute blame -the - victim bullshit! I understand that the case, and conviction, are based on a bullshit law, BUT....

"Eventually five young men admitted to detectives that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with Michelle and that Tracy had performed oral sex on them. Officers continued tracking down evidence."

So...being tipsy, drinking hennessy (nice detail, asshole!), smoking and drinking with the guys is an invitation to rape. She packed a bag! She was asking for it!
This is SUCH bullshit.
"After all...Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy." ( We all know where that leads!)
How can you all not see that this poor girl is being victimized in this awful article just as much as when five guys raped her?!

I get the point - the one guy who raped her (or maybe didn't) is being prosecuted for something entirely different.

I just can't stand anyone saying this is a well written article when there is such a blindingly clear bias!
You think race is an issue? Get a clue. One. Right now.

Who Is The Fucking Victim?

Now i am really going to drink that whiskey.

"Although the tape, made part of the record and played for the jury, is disturbing (as any incident of group sexual acts by teens would be), a jury viewed the entire tape and those jurors, the finders of fact in this case, determined that no rape took place and acquitted Petitioner of rape. This entire tape was played multiple times in open court for the jury. The segment containing the sex act with the seventeen year old (not at issue in this appeal) was played for the Court of Appeals at oral argument. Petitioner wants to be clear that the only conclusion as to what happened with the 17 year old was for the jury to make and was in fact made by the jury and that the opinion of the police or District Attorney that prosecuted the case cannot be substituted for the determination made by that jury. Petitioner is therefore only before this court for the sex act with the 15 year old which is clear from the tape, police reports and evidence to be the voluntary act by the 15 year old of placing her mouth on his private part. No force or any proof of any action against her will was established. "

I should explain this better. The reason I assume that this is a racially motivated decision is because I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT IS...

Ok, let me calm down and back up. I lived in the South all my life before four years ago. These are some racist motherfuckers. The likes of which I'm sure you can imagine, but then again, might shock you. Powerful people are even worse than even the regular white population, which is pretty terrifying as it is. The greatest white proponent of civil rights that the south has to boast is LBJ. That's not an encouraging state of affairs, especially not in 2007.

I personally know many, MANY people in Houston that still use the n-word. Granted, they are all a little older, but that's the core voting population, isn't it? I would say, "But not in mixed company," but the company is mixed enough. The Koreans and Vietnamese accept the word graciously, and use it themselves, liberally. Such is Houston. Racially mixed, insanely racist. I don't know that anyone in a Northern city (save maybe NY) encounters anything this ignorant and vitriolic on a daily basis.

So would local lawyers, judges, and politicians condemn someone just because they're black? In Georgia? You bet your sweet brown ass they would. Race matters here.

None of us will ever see the video, thank god, but theoretically the source of the acquittal = the jury watched it and concluded that she consented, and was sober enough to do so. How anyone establishes that second point is a big problem/question.

"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. "

haha! what?

you know what i want to say here.

Aimurchie, before you drown your sorrows in whiskey, I also noticed that the article was seriously fucked - citing flirtation as evidence against rape etc. Total WTF. I also don't even think it's that well written -- in fact it was very difficult for me to find the essential facts of the case and I still don't feel like I have them.

But I'd also keep the article separate from the court, in which those stupid rationales may or may not have had anything to do with the dropping of the rape charges.

This is a big clue that dude is black! Admittedly I am coming at this from the perspective of someone who knows or has heard of people named:

- Sirkaleb
- Jermajesty
- Malaya
- Latrina
- Siphyllis
- Tyzaire
- Tyreta
- Diretia

... so my perspective may be skewed.

-- A-ron Hubbard (Hurtingchie...) (webmail), January 19th, 2007 2:48 PM. (Hurting) (later) (link)

The rape charges weren't dropped. He was tried for rape and found not guilty.

I mean, I think there's a decent rule you can draw on these things. When you suggest that someone's pattern of behavior suggested she'd probably consent, and therefore it doesn't really matter whether she actually consented in the moment, that's absolutely blaming the victim. But if you suggest that someone's pattern of behavior doesn't fit with the accusations she's making, or the way she's characterizing the situation, that seems like a legitimate way of defending yourself. (Yes, it means implying that your accuser is a liar, but anyone who pleads "not guilty" to anything is implying that his accuser is lying or mistaken.)

Manigault says she feels that prosecutors gave the jury instructions that left them no choice but to convict Genarlow on the aggravated child molestation charge. She says that she and her fellow jurors believed that their verdict had to be unanimous. She says that other options—such as a hung jury—were not thoroughly explained to them.

“It all boils down to the fact that there’s the letter of the law and there’s the spirit of the law,” says Manigault, who claims that she still struggles to make peace with her role in the case and that she could not sleep for months after the verdict. “Under the letter of the law these young men were guilty, but under the spirit of the law they were not guilty,” she says. “Because we were ignorant we sent this child to jail.”

http://home.zonnet.nl/jhibels/rees/57a5afa0.jpg

yes... THANK GOD.