This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Sometimes, Justice is Done

edited October 2007 in Politics
Sweet Justice.

See, this is why habeas corpus is so important. That's how he was released. Read the GA Supreme Court Order linked to in the article.
«13

Comments

  • The kid who got a bj? Hooray!
  • Good thing.
  • Huzzah! The justice system does work!

    ... eventually
  • edited October 2007
    Was I the only one who saw the irony and giggled when they read that the name of Wilson's attorney is B.J. ?
    Post edited by Rochelle on
  • Was I the only one who saw the irony and giggled when they read the name of Wilson's attorney is B.J. ?
    Irony ftw!
  • Was I the only one who saw the irony and giggled when they read that the name of Wilson's attorney is B.J. ?
    I can't believe I missed that. I do wish this situation was handled more timely but better than never. It just screwed up that guys life forever for a time.
  • So what I take from this article is that Georgia views consensual sex as a crime?

    Awesome.
  • So what I take from this article is that Georgia views consensual sex as a crime?

    Awesome.
    Problems with getting water and keeping the native population from dieing out. Wow.
  • Georgia - Where sticking a penis in a willing female will get you put in jail and result in you getting penises stuck in you (willing or not)!
  • So I'm curious. They admitted that it was consensual. They were both minors. Did the 15 year old girl also get put in prison then?
  • So I'm curious. They admitted that it was consensual. They were both minors. Did the 15 year old girl also get put in prison then?
    Not that I know of. Equal protection under the law my ass.
  • edited October 2007
    Not that I condone their sexual activity, but WHAT A JOKE!
    Post edited by bodtchboy on
  • So I'm curious. They admitted that it was consensual. They were both minors. Did the 15 year old girl also get put in prison then?Not that I know of. Equal protection under the law my ass.The problem was that the law was meant to deal especially hard penalties against those who would prey on girls of a specific age, and the girl was just at that line. The weird thing is that the original charge that brought this whole thing to light was that there was a super drunk girl at the party with whom many of the boys had sex, and she had contended that what they did to her was rape as she could not have consented. Those charges were dropped but led into the current case.
  • Yeah, if you look at the facts of this case, this guy was no prince.
  • Yeah, if you look at the facts of this case, this guy was no prince.Nonetheless, in regards to the 15 year old, they were both minors and both consenting. Just because he's a creep doesn't mean he should spend 10 years in jail.
  • edited October 2007
    Just because he's a creep doesn't mean he should spend 10 years in jail.
    I didn't weigh in on the jail part. I was just pointing out that this wasn't exactly your typical high-school relationship. I don't consider participating in the filming a 15 year old engaging in a sex act to be appropriate - no matter how old the actors are.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Just because he's a creep doesn't mean he should spend 10 years in jail.I didn't weigh in on the jail part. I was just pointing out that this wasn't exactly your typical high-school relationship. I don't consider participating in the filming a 15 year old engaging in a sex to be appropriate - no matter how old the actors are.Yeah, it is pretty messed up, no matter how you cut it.
  • Wasn't there a story in the news recently about underage kids taking nude pics of themselves and then getting arrested for child pornography?
  • Wasn't there a story in the news recently about underage kids taking nude pics of themselves and then getting arrested for child pornography?
    image
  • So I'm curious. They admitted that it was consensual. They were both minors. Did the 15 year old girl also get put in prison then?
    Consent is not an issue. She was a minor. By law, she cannot consent. She lacks the capacity.

    The thing that makes this case unjust is that he was a minor too.
  • The thing that makes this case unjust is that he was a minor too.
    So a minor can murder another minor and it would be an outrage if he was punished? The question is whether or not this should be a crime. His being a minor in and of itself shouldn't shield him from some sort of response if it should have been a crime.
  • The thing that makes this case unjust is that he was a minor too.
    So a minor can murder another minor and it would be an outrage if he was punished? The question is whether or not this should be a crime. His being a minor in and of itself shouldn't shield him from some sort of responseifit should have been a crime.
    Your murder analogy does not fit.

    What happened here is that a law designed to protect minors from adults was used to punish a minor. Because both people were minors neither one of them should have been prosecuted under this law.

  • Your murder analogy does not fit.

    What happened here is that a law designed to protect minors from adults was used to punish a minor. Because both people were minors neither one of them should have been prosecuted underthislaw.
    That's completely correct. Kudos.
  • edited October 2007
    Holy cow. I just got HMTKSteve and HungryJoe to agree. Can we preserve this thread forever?

    The legislature made a determination that they wanted to protect children from sex - presumably because it is harmful to them. The age of consent was established to be 16 years of age. Wilson was 17. The victim was 15. Thus, what he did was against the law. Period.
    While you may not agree with this particular law, don't portray this kid being innocent because he was a minor. The statute merely prohibited people over the age of 16 from having sex with those under the age of 16. The statute didn't care about minors. It drew the line at a different age. You stated that "neither one of them should have been prosecuted under this law." That's not true. He should have been prosecuted under that law. You just disagree with the law in the first place.

    To take your argument further, you guys appear to be comfortable with a 16 year old having sex with a 3 year old. Both are minors, no?

    I do, however, applaud Georgia for changing the law.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • To take your argument further, you guys appear to be comfortable with a 16 year old having sex with a 3 year old. Both are minors, no?Wow. That looks like an ad hominem and straw man wrapped up in one little trollish package.
  • Considering my wife is a good deal older than me I am not one to call people out for dating outside of their age range. What I will say is that 30 yr old and a 40yr old having sex is a lot different than a 13 yrd old and a 3 yr old.

    No, I did not read the law. To me a minor is anyone under the age of 18. Age of consent in CT is 16 but you will not see me chasing 16 year old girls for sex (or anything else).
  • The statute merely prohibited people over the age of 16 from having sex with those under the age of 16.
    No. The statute under which he was convicted required a physical injury or sodomy. A seventeen year old male who had regular intercourse with a fifteen year old female would have been guilty of a misdemeanor. See the GA Supreme Court opinion.

    When I say he shouldn't have been prosecuted, I mean that the prosecutor should have used his discretion instead of going forward with such a concrete reading of the statute.
    To take your argument further, you guys appear to be comfortable with a 16 year old having sex with a 3 year old. Both are minors, no?
    Add to Steve's analysis the similarity of ages (15 as opposed to 17), and it'll be golden.
  • Also, how close were each of them to 16? Did he just turn 17? Was she about to turn 16?

    What if they were both 16 and having sex and then one of them turns 17, is it now illegal?
  • In Ohio, this problem is circumvented by saying that a minor may have consensual sex with someone within X years of their own age, regardless of whether that second person is a minor. For instance, a 15-year-old could have sex with a 19-year-old and it would not be considered statutory rape -- as long as it was consensual.

    Interestingly enough, Boston Legal's episode last night dealt with this very issue. A man who was 17 had sex with a 16-year-old girl. She accused him of rape and he served six years in prison. She later recanted and the conviction was expunged from his record.
  • edited October 2007
    What I will say is that 30 yr old and a 40yr old having sex is a lot different than a 13 yrd old and a 3 yr old.
    image
    Post edited by Starfox on
Sign In or Register to comment.