Genarlow Wilson get 10 year for BJ

[Cedars]

Quite understandable:)

Turn it around. If your girl child were 17 and received oral sex from a 15 year old boy, who would you want incarcerated?

 

edit: if this strikes too close to home please feel free to not respond, just pm me and I will remove this question.

 

For most situations, No Parent wants to see their kid incarcerated and it doesnt matter what kind of crime it is. For the most part. Parents (and loved ones of anyone charged with a serious crime) tend to want some other kind of justice for their own. It is an emotional issue when someone you love is sitting in a situation such as this.

 

If I were to place my kid exactly where G. Wilson was, with all the things I taught her, and had her pull exactly the same stunt of having sex with a boy who couldnt get up off the bathroom floor, filming the actions, and getting oral sex from a 15 year old boy when she was 17 (pretending that the laws in MN were equal to GE), I would have advised her to take the plea deal.

 

I would ask her "How can I defend your behavior when it is exactly what I told you not to do, for exactly these reasons?"

[CraigD]

On the other hand, it stands to reason that the parents/grandparents of boy children will favor laws – and legislators – who do not sentence their minor boys to lengthy prison terms for sex acts with minor girls.

I would disagree with this. I would guess most parents would be deeply ashamed regarding the behaviors that occured that night in that hotel room with these young people.

I’m a father of three – two boys, one girl, the youngest 23 – and a grandfather of two, so it can be taken as testified fact that at least one parent/grandparent favors laws that do not sentence minor boys or girls to prison for consensual sex. YMMV, but based on my experience as a parent (which, as many parents will attest, often involves experience with many more children than your own), I reject the argument that any sex act involving a person under 16, 17 or 18 (the ages of consent in various US states) is by legal definition not consensual.

 

:doh: I believe the Wilson case has more to do with his refusal to bow to authority, in the form of AG Ed Baker, than the righting of any wrong he has committed against the girl he has been convicted of molesting.

 

I find the idea that the state has the power to deem one person a perpetrator, and another a victim when neither person nor their parents uncoercedly deem them so to smack of feudalism, in the sense of state ownership of the people within its borders. Though common in the legal codes of many US states and nations, I find this idea repugnant, and counter to the principles on which the Union is built. Those who support and perpetuate laws embodying this idea are, IMHO, profoundly un-American, unpatriotic, and just plain not nice people.

 

As most states, including Georgia, have legislative histories of removing, however slowly, this idea from their legal codes, my faith in the American people and their governments is reaffirmed. :D

[Cedars]

I reject the argument that any sex act involving a person under 16, 17 or 18 (the ages of consent in various US states) is by legal definition not consensual.

(snipped soapbox)

 

Do you have any evidence that a 15 year old girl is qualified to consent to passing out blow jobs to a group of people and do you believe a 15 year old should be allowed to consent to filming sex acts? How about a 14 year old? 13 year old? Or is it ok to have some boundries based on age?

 

I would love to see a psychological profile of both this 15 year old and her mother. Bring on the MMPI.

[Zythryn]

Cedars, your reaction is laudable and I salute you for it. I don't know that I could be as objective although I would hope I would.

I believe that the single act of recieving oral sex from a minor, by a minor, should not result in a 10 sentance. 10 probation, 30 days in a work house perhaps.

As for sex with a person not capable of refusing, well that is more serious, but it is a seperate issue (different victim). And why keep mentioning the filming, did Wilson do it?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Criminitly trigger! We get it. You think the sentence is appropriate - no one else really does.

 

Let's move on. I doubt we anybodies opinion changes on the matter. I'd say that there is a broad consensus here that displaying teenage level poor judgement does not warrant a 10 year prison sentence. You can take exception to that if you like, but let's state it as a theoretically accepted parameter, okay? What are the chances that we see the DA in Genarlow Wilson's case have to argue against his disbarment? I'd say zero.

 

I'm speaking of course of the Duke Lacrosse players - who it turned out didn't do it. (I believe I stand corrected, but don't know if there's an extant discussion on that anywhere.)

 

Anyway, before anyone starts griping about this being 'totally different' I have to say that I see a very strong parallel.

 

1) Mike Nifong totally overstepped the bounds of decency by pushing for a trial on flimsy evidence. Obviously, he thought (erroneously) that the the lacrosse players were guilty.

 

2) David McDade totally overstepped the bounds of decency by pushing for a harsh sentence on a trumped up charge to make up for a conviction he couldn't get. Obviously, he thought that Genarlow was guilty of something that deserved jail time.

 

The facts are that Nifong sought an indictment for a crime that didn't happen (because he thought something did, but couldn't prove it) and McDade threw the book at an offense that normally gets a finger-shaking (because he thought something else did, but couldn't prove it.)

 

In both cases I'd say the prosecutors got a little bit overzealous. They tried to abuse the law to accomplish something they thought was "good" which was to punish people they thought were guilty of SOMETHING at least.

 

One of these guys went after rich white college students.

 

The other went after a poor(er) black high school kid.

 

Which one has to answer to the state bar association?

 

Since I consider these offenses to be roughly equivalent in intent if not in scope, I'm left with a profoundly uncomfortable difference. Which is that if you're black and you get screwed by the judicial system, then hopefully we'll correct our mistake with a "See, the system does work!" and if you're white and you get screwed by the judicial system, then you get a DA disbarred.

 

TFS

[aside: Please don't argue with the problem. Like if I ask you what 2+2 is and you say "Why shouldn't we add 2+3?" Assume for a moment, that the consensus position is correct, and that Wilson's sentence was a miscarriage of justice.]

[Cedars]

And why keep mentioning the filming, did Wilson do it?

 

It was the film that got Genarlow Wilson convicted. It is the indisputable evidence of what occured. It is the single factor that allowed/forced the prosecution to go forth with these charges.

 

It is the one factor (in the imagined example of my own facing the same thing) that would hinder my ability to stand up and defend my own kid. How could I defend such an action when its right there in living color. I would not be allowed the opportunity of reasonable doubt as a parent or a juror.

 

As I said in earlier posts, I do not understand why child porn charges were not filed in addition to the charges that were brought.

[Cedars]

 

2) David McDade totally overstepped the bounds of decency by pushing for a harsh sentence on a trumped up charge to make up for a conviction he couldn't get. Obviously, he thought that Genarlow was guilty of something that deserved jail time.

 

The facts are that Nifong sought an indictment for a crime that didn't happen (because he thought something did, but couldn't prove it) and McDade threw the book at an offense that normally gets a finger-shaking (because he thought something else did, but couldn't prove it.)

 

In both cases I'd say the prosecutors got a little bit overzealous. They tried to abuse the law to accomplish something they thought was "good" which was to punish people they thought were guilty of SOMETHING at least.

 

One of these guys went after rich white college students.

 

The other went after a poor(er) black high school kid.

 

Which one has to answer to the state bar association?

 

Since I consider these offenses to be roughly equivalent in intent if not in scope, I'm left with a profoundly uncomfortable difference. Which is that if you're black and you get screwed by the judicial system, then hopefully we'll correct our mistake with a "See, the system does work!" and if you're white and you get screwed by the judicial system, then you get a DA disbarred.

 

TFS

 

These two cases are apples and oranges.

 

The Lacrosse incident and what that prosecutor did is about a prosecutor having evidence that the parties accused were INNOCENT and withholding that. That is illegal.

 

The Wilson case does not have that advantage. Genarlow Wilson DID what he was convicted of. There would be a greater chance of McDade being prosecuted if he IGNORED the case with all the evidence he had (the film). It most certainly would have opened up one hell of a lawsuit against that county by the 17 year old, and the 15 year old, should McDade have opted to ignore this case with that film on file.

[C1ay]

I do not understand why child porn charges were not filed in addition to the charges that were brought.

 

Maybe they were. They would have been filed against whomever was making the film, not the people caught on it. As far as I know that person has not been identified publicly, probably because of being a minor...

[Zythryn]

Exactly as Clay said, Wilson was not the one filming. Yes, the film is great for undeniably showing that he received oral sex from the 15 year old. But the film is not in and of itself a crime perpetrated by Wilson.

He should not be punished for something he didn't do. Nail the guy or girl that did film the event, fine, but don't punish him for something someone else did.

[CraigD]

Do you have any evidence that a 15 year old girl is qualified to consent to passing out blow jobs to a group of people and do you believe a 15 year old should be allowed to consent to filming sex acts? How about a 14 year old? 13 year old? Or is it ok to have some boundries based on age?

 

I would love to see a psychological profile of both this 15 year old and her mother. Bring on the MMPI.

Qualified?!

;)

The first image that sprang to my mind upon reading this was of teens standing in line at a government office to test for and receive “blow job” licenses. Perhaps “learner permits” that would allow the act to be performed only to short of completion, and only on fully licensed family member of specially licensed instructor, “provisionals” that would permit it to be performed with only 2 people in the room, and “commercial” licenses that would allow it to be performed in unlimited circumstances, for to charge a fee. The threat of unqualified people passing out blow jobs contained by proper state bureaucracy!

 

Low, mirthful humor aside, yes, I do believe that normally developed 15-year-old Americans of either gender are, in an objective sense unrelated to the laws of the land, qualified to consent to sexual acts, and to the filming of these acts. Some people, I believe, are capable of consenting to sexual and other “adult” act at a younger age, but, based on personal experience, I believe that most Americans attain the cognitive and emotional skill necessary for such consent at about the age of 14.

 

My evidence for this consists of personal, anecdotal data, and data from surveys of people’s self-reported sexual histories. Based on my own experiences and many intimate conversations which I judged credible, I’ve concluded that sexual contact with people of similar age as young as 13 is common, and rarely causes physical of psychological damage. Various surveys, such as the ones cited in this article, conclude that most UK males have their first sexual experience at 13, most females at 14, and for both genders, their first sexual intercourse at 16. Although early sexual activity is a symptom of many mental illnesses, there exists essentially no well-controlled statistical evidence that it is a cause.

 

In short, there appears to be no scientifically sound evidence that self-reported consensual sexual activity between 15-17 year-olds, such as that which Wilson and his co-defendants engaged in, is likely to be damaging to any of the people involved.

 

I remain of the opinion that where the parties involved and affected by an event feel that no injuries have been done, the state should not impose its opinion that they have.

[Cedars]

Exactly as Clay said, Wilson was not the one filming. Yes, the film is great for undeniably showing that he received oral sex from the 15 year old. But the film is not in and of itself a crime perpetrated by Wilson.

He should not be punished for something he didn't do. Nail the guy or girl that did film the event, fine, but don't punish him for something someone else did.

 

I did not say Genarlow Wilson should be charged with producing child porn. I should have made that clear, because at the time I posted it, I wasnt sure if he could be, as an actor.

 

In looking up a few things, in Canada (just for a reference) you can be charged with both producing child porn being an actor and with the actual assault on the child.

 

And here is snippets of a related case in Florida:

 

"On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

 

Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

 

In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.

 

As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

 

Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

 

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos. "

 

Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos | CNET News.com

 

So it seems it is very possible that this over zealous prosecuting DA in Georgia could have charged the whole bunch of them with producing child pornography.

[Cedars]

 

In short, there appears to be no scientifically sound evidence that self-reported consensual sexual activity between 15-17 year-olds, such as that which Wilson and his co-defendants engaged in, is likely to be damaging to any of the people involved.

 

I remain of the opinion that where the parties involved and affected by an event feel that no injuries have been done, the state should not impose its opinion that they have.

 

Wow. Well I guess were just gonna have to strongly disagree with each other. I dont know of a single 15 year old who is capable of making a sound or rational decision on group blow jobs, deciding whether a train should be run on them, deciding whether or not they should participate in running a train on a drunk girl, and I most certainly disagree with the filming/photographing of ANY sexual experiences of minors.

[TheFaithfulStone]

In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

 

Destroy the village in order to save it?

 

That's a pretty egregious example of double think. Sure, sure, if the pictures got out that would be bad for the participants - but a kiddie porn charge? That ain't no thang.

 

As for the Duke parallel - my understanding was not that Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence, but that he pursued the case despite there not being any DECENT evidence and what evidence there was being doubtful. I got that understanding from reading this story. Is that incorrect?

 

Now, I agree that the two cases have a LOT of differences - but it seems like both prosecutors acted out of the same intent - they believed the suspect was guilty of something that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove. In the Duke case, there wasn't any evidence to prove anything - but in the Wilson case, they did have the evidence to prove "aggravated child molestation" or whatever - so they threw the book at him on that charge in order to punish him for the rape of the 17 year old that they couldn't prove.

 

I'm not aware that Mike Nifong either manufactured evidence or with held from defense attorneys exculpatory evidence. (In fact, he could not have, as the case never made it to discovery, as far as I am aware.)

 

TFS

[Cedars]

Destroy the village in order to save it?

 

That's a pretty egregious example of double think. Sure, sure, if the pictures got out that would be bad for the participants - but a kiddie porn charge? That ain't no thang.

What it says is You Dont Take Pictures Of Minors Engaged In Sexual Activities. No one. Ever. Period.

As for the Duke parallel - my understanding was not that Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence, but that he pursued the case despite there not being any DECENT evidence and what evidence there was being doubtful. I got that understanding from reading this story. Is that incorrect?

I am going from my memory of the interview KQRS did with Duke players who were involved with this case yesterday morning. I cannot remember exactly what that information was that the prosecutor had but from the bottom of your link:

"In January, after Nifong turned the case over to state prosecutors, the bar added allegations that Nifong withheld evidence from defense attorneys and lied both to the court and bar investigators."

 

I remember Tom Bannard (the show host) ranting about the evidence that cleared these guys.

 

 

Now, I agree that the two cases have a LOT of differences - but it seems like both prosecutors acted out of the same intent - they believed the suspect was guilty of something that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove. In the Duke case, there wasn't any evidence to prove anything - but in the Wilson case, they did have the evidence to prove "aggravated child molestation" or whatever - so they threw the book at him on that charge in order to punish him for the rape of the 17 year old that they couldn't prove.

 

I'm not aware that Mike Nifong either manufactured evidence or with held from defense attorneys exculpatory evidence. (In fact, he could not have, as the case never made it to discovery, as far as I am aware.)

 

TFS

 

I dont disagree with you on the Duke case and that the prosecutor in that case violated the office by his handling of that situation and broke the law. But I do disagree with you in the Georgia case. The conduct of McDade is within the legal parameters of what a prosecuting attorney does.

 

The basic argument here is Genarlow Wilsons punishment is too harsh for the crime. Genarlow Wilson turned down offers that would have guarenteed 1/2 the time as a max, allowed him eligiblity for parole long before the five year max was served and he made a bad decision by thinking a jury would see it his way. He was told what he faced and made the choice himself. He was made the same offer again after the trial resulted in his guilty conviction. He turned it down. He turned it down again after the supreme court in Georgia said No. Every single thing that has gone wrong in Genarlow Wilsons life is a direct result of Genarlow Wilsons actions. He did it to himself.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Every single thing that has gone wrong in Genarlow Wilsons life is a direct result of Genarlow Wilsons actions. He did it to himself.

 

No kiddin'. Kinda uppity for standing on principle when the prosecutor was kind enough to allow him to merely register as sex offender for life and serve two to five.

 

"Oh you don't want to confess eh? Well then you must have done something EVEN WORSE!"

 

. I dont know of a single 15 year old who is capable of making a sound or rational decision on group blow jobs,

 

I don't know a single 15 year old who is capable of making a sound and rational decision, PERIOD. I know about a half a dozen ADULTS who are capable of making a sound and rational decision, period. And I suspect less than half of them are capable of making sound or rational decisions about group blow jobs - should the opportunity arise.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Why is sex such a hot button? Both individuals were old enough to biologically reproduce without a problem, so why would one consider it odd they acted on their natural drives of libido coupled with inherent desires for attention and connection?

 

The social factors involved in the mind of a teenager are complex. There's a lot more going on here than just a some law being broken.

 

 

If I were still 17, and a girl did that at MY party, you're damn skippy she'd be getting invited to the next one.

[Zythryn]

Bottom line for me is there was no force, aparently of any type. The girl came to the party with an overnight bag for heavens sake. If that doesn't show some intent on her part I am not sure what does.

Afterwards, both the girl and the guy indicated it was consentual, no one was forced and they didn't want any charges filed.

When you didn't do anything wrong, it is really tough to take a plea which will result in:

Not being able to make any legal appeals.

Being labeled as a sexual predator for the rest of your life.

I just dont see the severity of this.

Yes, I think it is quite reasonable for the parents of both children to discipline their children. But the case is almost as silly as the judge suing the drycleaner for 54 Million dollars because he lost his pants.

Now, if this had been a rape case, or child porn, that would be entirely different. But it wasn't. Weather you think that it should have been or not is a different matter as in our legal system, you don't punish someone for something you can't prove.