blue69 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Genralow was convicted of a felony. The law has been changed since then. Cedar, You keep going back to the "alleged" rape. The point is that he was NOT-convicted of rape. You can take a few sentences from a news article about the girl "appearing" out if it or intoxicated. That same article also stated that her friends were with her, they testified that she was a willing participant. So let's not keep trying Genralow for a rape that the jury agreed didn't happen. If the jury had found him guilty of rape. Then they could have tacked on 100 years for all I care. The point is that he wasn't convicted of rape. The evidence didn't support a rape. It supported a consensual act among minors. The only "charge" left is for the oral sex with a 15 year old. That is what he is doing time for. The law was poorly written and poorly applied in this case. It may have been a technicality for them in order to secure a conviction of any type. This is where I have a problem with the application of the law. They couldn't secure a conviction for a rape of the 17 year old female. They charge the 17 year old as an adult to get a technical conviction of Child Molestation charge. I ask you again to look past the "events" of the evening. You may not agree, may not like, or even be morally outraged at the sexual activity of teenagers. This doesn't equate to a teenager being sent away for 10 years. Think about it. The lawmakers changed the law after this conviction. They realized the law was being misapplied. If you take the other events out of this situation what do you end up with? If a teenage girl (15 years old) had performed felatio on her 17 year old boyfriend and someone had witnessed it and reported it to police. That 17 year old could have been sent to prison for 10 years. Or he could have succomed to an overzealous prosecutor and become a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Is that right? Get past the other sexual activity. Get past the alleged rape. Focus on the single charge and conviction. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Get past the other sexual activity. Get past the alleged rape. Focus on the single charge and conviction. thanks I am not 'morally outraged' at sexual activity of teenagers. I am outraged by group victimizations of someone who was too drunk to keep herself off the bathroom floor. I am outraged by victimizations of teens via film/pictures/etc. This isnt a case of two people in a hotel who had a romance going before the events of this evening. This was a gang bang of a girl on a / nearing an alcohol induced blackout. This was the filming of minors in sex acts. Reducing the seriousness of this incident to a simple blow job diminshes the actual events of that night and is the only way you can attempt to justify what occured. I wont ignore the whole of the case, and all the factors that lead to this becoming news (including all the laws that were applicable) so you can try to reduce it down something more palettable to the whole. This wasnt a case of two love birds getting caught in an overzelous law enforcement sweep. If nothing else, let the Genarlow Wilson case act as a warning to those involved in future events such as these. Not sure if its legal, dont whip it out. Not sure how old the girl/boy passing around freebies is? Ask before getting involved. Will you be embarrassed if the cops raid the room and views your pics? Dont pose for the cameras. Someone had too much too drink? Dont have sex with her/him or you may find yourself with a rape charge hanging over you. And definitely dont count on Jury Nullification to bail you out for breaking the laws of whatever particular state you reside in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue69 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I am not 'morally outraged' at sexual activity of teenagers. I am outraged by group victimizations of someone who was too drunk to keep herself off the bathroom floor. You make my point exactly. You keep stating the 17 year old was a victim. How do you know she was too drunk? The jury saw the film. They saw the activities and said "no rape". No taken advantage of little missy. You keep going back to the alleged rape of the 17 year old. Keep in mind the 15 year old who participated in the oral activity with Genralow testified the act was consensual and that she was a willing participant. She refused to testify for the prosecution. Why must you keep going back to a punishment for the activites with the 17 year old girl when the jury dismissed that? It was the activity with the consenting 15 year old that got him in prison. Not the activities involving a camera and sexual intercourse with the 17 year old. Reducing the seriousness of this incident to a simple blow job diminshes the actual events of that night and is the only way you can attempt to justify what occured. But yet that is what the charge and conviction was. There was not more to it than that. The charges attempted up for the "other" activities you focus on did not result in convictions. Only the blowjob. I guess we are at a crossroads if I dismiss the other activities as relevant and you cannot. I do agree with your last paragraph. Hopefully there can be some eduction taken by other teenagers. (I am a pessimist on that tho). I do always pray that a positive can somehow be taken from negative situations. Your last sentence is true as well. Juries are certainly fickle. You can't expect them to bail you out on anything. Cedars 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 If nothing else, let the Genarlow Wilson case act as a warning to those involved in future events such as these. Not sure if its legal, dont whip it out. Not sure how old the girl/boy passing around freebies is? Ask before getting involved. I find it difficult to believe that such a prefrontal suppression would override the amydalal motivations if such a situation were to present. For the non-specialist, passion overrides intelligence, regardless of the perceived morality of that passion. To use an extreme and off topic example [/Qualifier], when someone murders another, do you really think they're contemplating the death penalty at the time of the act? [/Rhetorical] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 If nothing else, let the Genarlow Wilson case act as a warning to those involved in future events such as these. Not sure if its legal, dont whip it out. Not sure how old the girl/boy passing around freebies is? Ask before getting involved. Will you be embarrassed if the cops raid the room and views your pics? Dont pose for the cameras. Someone had too much too drink? Dont have sex with her/him or you may find yourself with a rape charge hanging over you. There's a reason we don't charge the young and stupid as adults. It's because they're young and stupid, and they don't have adult judgement. Your admonition is to not be young and stupid, which is a conflict of definition. The young are ALWAYS stupid. It's part of the equation. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 There's a reason we don't charge the young and stupid as adults. It's because they're young and stupid, and they don't have adult judgement. Your admonition is to not be young and stupid, which is a conflict of definition. The young are ALWAYS stupid. It's part of the equation. TFS Aint no laws against being stupid. But there are laws against what you do while being stupid. Of course, one has to dismiss the charge of stoopid once one comes to grips with the fact this character was going to sit for his SATs. I have little doubt this particular individual was warned, time and again by his mother not to get into exactly this kind of trouble. I would also point out the only people behind bars are the ones who were stupid. And around in circles we go... And I repeat "The leeway exists for a minor to be charged as an adult based on the type of crime committed." So your claim of not charging a minor as an adult simply based on age (or being young and stupid) is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I find it difficult to believe that such a prefrontal suppression would override the amydalal motivations if such a situation were to present. For the non-specialist, passion overrides intelligence, regardless of the perceived morality of that passion. To use an extreme and off topic example [/Qualifier], when someone murders another, do you really think they're contemplating the death penalty at the time of the act? [/Rhetorical] And I would counter with, if the animal cant control his urges that extremely, then maybe sex offender is exactly the definition to be applied. As far as your rhetorical, I posted examples in the DP thread where criminals made choices based exactly on whether they were committing crimes in a dp state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I guess we are at a crossroads if I dismiss the other activities as relevant and you cannot. I have enjoyed this parley greatly. But I am going to drop out now, not because I have changed my opinion, rather, the conversation is going around in circles. I have met my personal goals in this debate, being a spoiler for the threads apparent direction, posting a hardline position that would make you cringe to think I could be on your jury. But someone had to step up and represent the other side of the issue. I think I have been honest in my review of the past case, for I admit I dont know what I would have voted as a member of this jury. I dont know that anyone who is horrified by the idea of 10 years would have voted not guilty, based on the law and how it was presented in this case. Chances are pretty good that were you to be sitting, without knowing the penalty, you would have also voted to convict. 12 people did. I hope that none of you are faced with an experience like this in your own lives, whether it is family or friend you watch go thru the system, in either position, as accused, or accuser. There are truely no 'winners' in this kind of experience. If your a youth reading this, take heed from what you have read and position yourself as the untouchable should something like this unfold in an episode of "lets PARTY", sometime in your future. TheBigDog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I have met my personal goals in this debate, being a spoiler for the BHLs, posting a hardline position that would make you cringe to think I could be on your jury. But someone had to step up and represent the other side of the issue. I think I have been honest in my review of the past case, for I admit I dont know what I would have voted as a member of this jury. Honest, perhaps. But you have come forth as the most ardent hardliner in this debate, Cedars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue69 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I did enjoy the discussion. I try to approach any debate or discussion with an opportunity to learn. I have learned a bit with this discussion. Always good. Interesting if you think of me as a BHL...LOL... if you only knew. Enjoy and hope to cross paths (discussions) again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedars Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Interesting if you think of me as a BHL...LOL... if you only knew. Enjoy and hope to cross paths (discussions) again. Aw rats!! I shouldnt have included that in my post and I apologise. It sure wasnt about the thread itself and I allowed what I was reading in other spots/blogs on the web about this case to cross-over and appear in my post. It was not about you, or anyone else in this thread, and was a generalisation and was wrong. Again, I apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue69 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Again, I apologize. Thanks. I didn't take it personally (not much). Interesting article written by Sherry Colb at CNN.com/LAW. (Opinions & Analysis) It provides some better insight to this discussion. Not sure I am convinced this is racially motivated but there some interesting opinions. It is nice to see this case garnering so much attention. Obviously not everyone is convinced it is a simple matter. I wonder how many people agree / disagree with this conviction. I wish I had a vote that mattered in GA. But that would require living there. Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Judge rules in Genarlow Wilson teen sex caseBy The Associated Press ATLANTA - A Georgia judge voided a 10-year sentence today for Genarlow Wilson for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.More.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Cedars, please feel free to completely ignore this question. I must ask it though;)You and others have gone around and around regarding the age issue. I need to try this one more time, as your own stance seems inconsistant with itself.You mention a number of examples where the law states a person is a minor or an adult and appear to support the idea of absolutes (i.e. at 21 you can legally drink, under that you cant).Yet, the issue of a minor being tried as an adult is fluid and decided on a case by case issue. And while you SAY it is based on the type of crime, it is not.Two juveniles may both commit murder yet one will be tried as an adult while the other tried as a minor. This can vary on the judgement of the particular judge assigned to the case.So you appear to be ok with both a fluid definition of minor when it comes to crimes, yet a hard set definition for everything else?Could you elaborate more (if you revisit the thread:))? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 So you appear to be ok with both a fluid definition of minor when it comes to crimes, yet a hard set definition for everything else?Could you elaborate more (if you revisit the thread:))?Yes. There is no reason to go case-by-case for the right to drink or to drive or any other age based legalization of some act. What would be the purpose of such a thing? Juveniles are often charged as adults because there is no other alternative to keep them out of society the way that juvenile laws are written. In some areas a kid could commit multiple violent rapes, and if he does so while still a minor when tried as a minor he would serve limited time in juvenile detention, and then have his record sealed, with no registration as a violent sexual predator. The only recourse in such a situation is to try as an adult so that he is not released back into a naive society to seek more victims. Not all juvenile cases are sealed by default anymore, and in sexual cases registration mandates in terms of time are often the same for juveniles and adults both. Wilson was pleading innocent instead of taking any type of deal to avoid registering as a sex offender. Now he might get out early, but he will still be a registered sex offender, what he was trying to avoid to begin with. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 but he will still be a registered sex offender, what he was trying to avoid to begin with. False The judge's ruling Monday threw out Wilson's 10-year sentence and amended it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served, and he would not be required to register as a sex offender.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 False D'oh! My bad. I totally missed that even when I went looking for it. Don't be surprised if that is put back on the table before he is released. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.