All The Facts, Eugene

Eugene Volokh posts on a denied appeal for a Georgia teenager sentenced to ten years under the State sodomy laws.

The sentence strikes me as unduly harsh even on its own terms, but it seems especially unjustifiable given that:

More at link above. But let's put all the facts in evidence, instead of simply portraying it as an innocent 17 year old engaging in oral sex with a fifteen year old. This wasn't some love affair. The fifteen year old performed sex on a number of boys, all at least two years older than she and, surprise, they filmed it. Assuming it ever wound up on YouTube, I guess these six guys are just another example of Time's people of the year.

The other boys had the sense to take a deal, Wilson declined. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to stand on principle when underneath that principle lies the using of a young girl by six guys all at least two years older than she? He deserves the ten years for stupidity, if not the original crime.

The six Douglasville teenagers –- all aged 17- and 18-years-old -– said they had consensual sex with a 15-year-old female classmate. The girl testified in court the sex was consensual. A video taped at a party shows the teens receiving oral sex from the girl.

Five of the teens pleaded guilty to sexual assault and are serving sentences of five years in prison.

One of the teens, Genarlow Wilson, pleaded not guilty, but was later found guilty of aggravated child molestation and was sentenced to a mandatory 10 years in prison.

Before his sentencing was handed, the prosecution offered Wilson another opportunity for a plea bargain. Wilson rejected the offer, saying that he did so based on principle and as a statement that the Georgia law is unfair. He added that he did not want to be labeled a child molester for the rest of his life.

Comments

[richard]

I'm really curious: Do you really, deep in your heart, believe this is acceptable? That in some way this boy, this kid, got what was coming to him? Assume that he really was being totally stupid, inexcusably stupid: you can still justify his being locked in a dungeon for a decade, the best years of his life lost forever? His hopes and dreams shattered, his future gone? I'm sorry, no matter how much "perspective" you attempt to drudge up to justify this perversion of justice, there is no way a compassionate human being could say this was an okay thing. Teens have blow jobs. Sometimes they use poor judgment and need to be reprimanded and punished. But ten years?? And what of the other elements Volokh brings up - don't you feel they, too, are necessary if you really want perspective. Like this:

Quote (from here: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/georgian_justic.html)

1. The age of consent in Georgia is 16.
2. In 2006, the Georgia Legislature amended the statute to provide that oral sex between an under-18-year-old and a 13-to-15-year-old is only a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of a year in jail. This revised statute would have thus made the defendant's conduct a misdemeanor had he committed his crime after the statute's enactment, but the statute expressly provided that it wasn't retroactive.
3. Even at the time the act occurred, genital sex between an under-18-year-old and a 14-or-15-year-old was also a misdemeanor.

End Quote

Mr. Riehl, I ask you again, can you honestly say this was a fair example of justice served? It doesn't make you want to cry? Please, please say it isn't so. Something here is obscenely, terribly wrong, and if you can't see that... Sometimes you've shown a glimmer of humanity under the crusty neo-con exterior. Does this story not touch something in your soul, telling you it is plainly and clearly wrong?

[Dan Riehl]

Mr. Riehl, I ask you again, can you honestly say this was a fair example of justice served?

Justice for whom? What I think is that, if he had any sense, he would have taken the deal and walked in 2. But he wanted to stand on principle after videotaping a two years younger than him 15 year old girl blowing him and five friends. What I think is that he should have been prosecuted for producing child pornography.

We're we talking about a relationship-based act here I would feel very differently. This was an act of predation, as far as I am concerned. And while the age difference may be only two years, it is a critical two years and the odds were 6 older boys to one younger girl. To me, this reeks of predatory behavior.

[richard]

Through a technicality, a boy is going to jail for ten years, for a crime that would have carried a maximum sentence of 1 year had he done it at a different time. And I saw no evidence this so-called crime was predatory - foolish, perhaps, and dumb. (I might agree about the "predatory" label if the "victim" hadn't said was purely voluntary. But even so - ten years??) They were kids doing what kids do. Think of yourself at 17. My nephew told me about girls giving boys blow jobs in the bus driving them to his Bar Mitzvah two years ago. Shouldn't we save space in our prisons for the true dangers to society? Can't you demonstrate even a bit of compassion for a teenager who did something dumb but hurt no one? And as the old saying goes, "What would Jesus do?" I'd be surprised were I to learn he was delighted with this sentence.

[mojo]

Can't repeat this enough, folks:

Do NOT videotape your criminal activities.

[Dan Riehl]

"What would Jesus do?"

Don't play that card, Richard. I haven't been to church in 15 years. Sorry, I happen to expect a little something from young men - and these were young "men," much more so than she was a young "woman." The irony here is that apparently some of the boys were 18 and received the lighter sentence. I have no problem with that. This guy decided to gamble "knowing" the stakes and he lost. Boo freaking hoo.

[richard]

Compassionate conservatism. Nothing quite like it.

"Boo freaking hoo." Yeah, it IS worth crying over. I repeat: Ten years. And I don't blame him for gambling. I wouldn't want my record to label me as a child molester, would you? And maybe he assumed it was so obvious he hadn't actually molested a child that he had to win. Now, that may be stupid on his part, but again, was it worth a lost life, ten years in prison? Yes, boo freaking hoo. A lot of tears will be shed. And it won't just be his life that's ruined. Imagine what his family is going through. His grandparents. His friends and others who love him. Yes, boo freaking hoo. Can you look at it with even a pretence of some humanity?

Luckily, looking at Andrew Sullivan's and Volokh's and others' posts on this horror story, you are clearly in the minority on this one, Dan, and for good reason.

[richard]

Last word: Over at this blog that deals specifically with sentencing, lawyers and prosecutors are discussing the case:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/12/a_georgia_case_.html

[Nilk]

I have to agree with Dan here. I'm not sure about the sentencing, but if your system is anything like we have here in Oz, the lad will be out way early on good behaviour.

My concerns regard the idea that since kids do it, it's okay.

No, that doesn't make it okay. It demonstrates to me that the kids have no respect for themselves, and definitely not for the others with whom they interract.

A 15 year old girl says it was all okay and above board? When she's got a group of 17 year old boys suggesting she do something, and there appears to be alcohol involved, what else is she going to say?

I see this as a sign of the larger malaise in our society today - the one that increasingly objectifies both men and women and accelerates the decay around us.

(Sorry if I seem a bit melodramatic, but this sort of fits into something I'm pulling together at the moment and I feel strongly about it.)

[tk]

This is all about our society and it's lack of values. The Clintons lowered standards beyond all reason. Now our children are paying the price. Because Americans want some standards back we have gone overboard.

I was 17 years of age when I entered the U.S.Navy but I was not a man. I was treated like one and expected to act like one, but it wasn't me. Four years later after my tour of duty I was a man.

These boys made one small mistake and one large one. The large one was the videotaping. But 5 or 10 years in prison? Are we crazy? Some counseling on morals would be in order but no record of any kind is fair. Dear God they made mistakes, they didn't kill anyone. They need guidance not abandoment.

[richard]

Thanks for that, TK. I won't disagree with any of your points. I'll only say the corruption of the current administration is just as damaging to the morality of today's youth as anything Clinton ever did. Lying, cheating, stealing - it's all okay in the age of Abramoff, where everyone's for sale and nice guys finish dead last.

[Purple Avenger]

"He added that he did not want to be labeled a child molester for the rest of his life."

Then he shouldn't have stuck his dick in the girl's mouth while the camera was rolling. Some choices we make in life have actual consequences. That's a hard lesson for some morons, but its the truth.

[Robert Stacy McCain]

I am a Georgia native and grew up in Douglas County, Ga. What some people don't seem to understand is this: A 15-year-old cannot legally consent to sex under Georgia law, and anyone having sex with a 15-year-old in Georgia is therefore subject to prosecution. All discussion of the girl's "consent" is therefore irrelevant.

The proper focus of criticism is the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. If the perpetrator is guilty of the crime, he must do 10 years -- that is the law.

Much of the discussion of this case, as Dan points out, fails to take into account that this girl was degraded and treated like a commodity by a group of older teenagers who recorded the incident.

Also generally missing from the discussion is the parental perspective. What if this was YOUR daughter, a high-school freshman, enticed or pressured into a gang-bang by a bunch of older boys? Would you then be so insistent that the criminal participants were victims of injustice?

If the outraged parents of this girl cannot obtain justice through the legal system -- if the teenagers who "turned out" their daughter and made her an underage amateur porn performer are given a pass -- what is the message? I'm thinking about the opening scene of "The Godfather":

"Suspended sentence! They went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And those two bastards, they smiled at me. Then I said to my wife, for justice, we must go to Don Corleone. "

[Steven Taylor]

Robert:

I suppose that if were my daughter, I'd want to strangle the boys in question. However, there are very good reasons why we don't let victims' families act as judge and jury in criminal trials.

There are also reasons why we don't use movies as the basis of life-altering decisions...

At any rate, a decade of a young man's life is utterly ridiculous in this case, especially given the recent changes to the law.

There are people who kill other humans beings who don't serve a decade. He will also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Indeed, in many ways this sentence is for far more than even ten years.

[richard]

"He added that he did not want to be labeled a child molester for the rest of his life."

Then he shouldn't have stuck his dick in the girl's mouth while the camera was rolling. Some choices we make in life have actual consequences. That's a hard lesson for some morons, but its the truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think the 10 year sentence is A-okay? We all screw up. This wasn't that serious a screw-up, but he is paying as if he committed 2nd-degree murder. Something's wrong.

[Robert Stacy McCain]

Steve writes: "At any rate, a decade of a young man's life is utterly ridiculous in this case, especially given the recent changes to the law. ... He will also have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life."

The law requiring a mandatory 10-year sentence is, in my opinion, a mistake. Judges ought to have some discretion in sentencing.

On the other hand, as Purple Avenger notes, the perp made choices and has learned the hard way that choices can have serious consequences.

Anyone thinking about producing an amateur gang-bang video featuring a 15-year-old "star" is now on notice not to choose Douglas County, Ga., as a production location.

[billofwrites]

oh, boo-freaking-hoo because he "knew" the consequences?

no,boo-fuck-you, dan riehl. a decade for "fooling around" with those very close to his own age?

when did you first get laid, dan? (maybe i should ask: have you EVER gotten laid, dan?)did you fool around maybe a little awkwardly or even inappropriately, first?

a decade? and you're a so-called moderate? god help us...

[Robert Stacy McCain]

Bill of Writes writes: "'fooling around' with those very close to his own age? when did you first get laid, dan?"

Great. The personal is the political, eh? We're back to SDS circa 1969?

What happened in this case was not "fooling around." It was not two young lovers getting carried away on prom night. It was a videotaped gang-bang involving a drunk 15-year-old girl.

At what point did American liberalism take its stand on the principle that criminals are actually victims?

[Purple Avenger]

"So you think the 10 year sentence is A-okay? We all screw up."

Yep, I'm fine with it. Oh, and speak for yourself as to the child molestation aspects. I never stuck my dick in an underage girls mouth, and don't think I ever will. That's not the way my parents raised me to be.

[Dan Riehl]

when did you first get laid, dan?

LOL I wish I could remember back that far. But what it wasn't was a gang blow job from a gal two years my junior. I suppose if she were an adult Black stripper hired for a white boys party at Duke and the above happened, the guys would be hanged in NC.

[Robert Stacy McCain]

RICHARD: "I'll only say the corruption of the current administration is just as damaging to the morality of today's youth as anything Clinton ever did. Lying, cheating, stealing - it's all okay in the age of Abramoff, where everyone's for sale and nice guys finish dead last."

No lying, cheating or stealing in the age of Clinton -- no siree!

Except for that Lewinsky incident (which was, as any Clintonista will tell you, an act of civil disobedience against American puritanism) the Clinton administration represented a Golden Age of selfless, altruistic devotion to public service.

[richard]

There may have been lying and cheating under Clinton, as there are in every administration - but surely nothing even coming close to the Age of Abramoff - no similar examples of lobbyists literally writing our legislation, the citizens of America be damned. No, not even close. If you argue otherwise, I request some serious evidence, i.e., convictions, such as Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham. I'm waiting.

Back to the topic at hand. Since Dan wants to be certain we have perspective, why not let the judge presiding over the case offer us a healthy dose:

"...while I am very sympathetic to Wilson's argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to ten years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior, this Court is bound by the Legislature's determination that young persons in Wilson's situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment now accorded to identical behavior..."

Yes, even the judge himself said it was an unjust sentence. Yet for some reason that I have trouble fathoming, some of you, led by Dan, want to defend it, a sentence the judge himself all but stated could not be defended. The only reason it occurred was mandatory sentences, perhaps the greatest blight in the history of the US legal system.

[Purple Avenger]

"no similar examples of lobbyists literally writing our legislation"

Ummm...the Brady Bill as originally filed, came pretty much verbatim from gun control lobbyists. The bill as eventually passed was modified per NRA input to make it actually worth something (ex. actually mandating background checks, which was absent from the original Brady)

Read some actual legislation sometime Richard. It'll be an eyeopener.

[Max]

This jail sentence demonstrates everything that is wrong with America today. I've read the posts in this thread and some of you seem to believe that Clinton brought underage sexuality to the world. Some others seem to think that a 17 year old fooling around with a 15 year old is 'child molestation'. These are both ridicuous assertions. Remember, being "underage" is a concept invented by men and varies not only from culture to culture, but state to state in the US. Others seem to forget that this 17 year was also a "child" under federal law and should likewise be protected. Saying this guy got a "10 year sentence" is also a huge understatement. This guy got a life sentence. For the rest of his life he'll never have the same opportunities as others, and even be humiliated by being followed by a "child molester" status. How can just lump this in with a group of people who, at age 45, molest 7 year old kids for example?
I don't know anyone who wasn't playing around like this when they were teenagers. I think that all teens should be protected equally under the law, whether fifTEEN or sevenTEEN. The American society's gradual drift toward handing kids adult sentences is not only fair to this nation's children, but unfair to us as a whole. The same can be said for minimum sentencing. By willingly supporting ANY law that's passed, whether ridiclous or just, the people this country are betraying the liberties enshrined for us by our founding fathers and don't deserve ANY liberty. Welcome to Amerika!

[richard]

Gee, purple, last time I looked, Brady was, um, a Republican. He and his wife fought like mad for this law. And do you blame him?

[richard]

Max, thanks for the sanity. Prepare to be crucified by those who love mandatory sentences and puritan values.

By the way, I just heard a rumor that the boy was black and the girl was white. Is this true? Just curious. (Seriously.)

[richard]

Ah yes, black he is: http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html#9122161806467376908

[richard]

Ah yes, black he is: http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html#9122161806467376908

[Kathy]

"...I just heard a rumor that the boy was black and the girl was white."

If that's true, it certainly helps explain why the boy got 10 years for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old. Even if it's not true, the very fact that it's circulating as a rumor says to me that people are trying to find a way to explain this incredibly harsh sentence for a minor offense, and they know that this scenario would explain it.

[Dan Riehl]

Thanks for the link. I rest my case.

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

Around 3 a.m., Michelle awoke from a drunken daze. She was lying on the floor between two double beds and wearing nothing but socks. In a panic, she called her mother from a cell phone, asking—no, pleading—for her to come now. Michelle managed to find her overnight bag and scrounged up a shirt and underwear to wear outside. Her mother picked her up in front of the hotel.

Once they got in the car, Michelle’s mother told her daughter that she reeked of liquor and marijuana and as soon as they got home she needed to take a bath. Michelle got into the tub, but then broke down and told her upset mom, “I think they raped me.” She dressed, and mother and daughter headed to the Douglasville Police Department. After they filed a report, investigators ordered Michelle to go to a hospital for an examination.

Later that morning, loud knocks at the doors of rooms 135 and 136 awakened the stragglers still there. Officers announced that they were there to investigate a gang rape that had been reported by Michelle. The youngsters sat around bleary-eyed as detectives questioned them; meantime, after securing a search warrant, officers scoured the rooms for evidence, carefully collecting almost a dozen used condoms and wrappers that were found strewn about the floor and in wastebaskets.

According to Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, most of the six young men charged in the Douglasville case had been in trouble with the law before, including one now facing similar charges nearly two years after this case.

[Seekeronos]

As I see it, all six of those boys should have been sentenced to hang from the traffic lights in different parts of Georgia with signs around thier necks saying "This is what happens to child rapists".

Or have them torn limb from limb by chaining them to cars accelerating in opposite directions.

Fortunately, we do have this thing called a constitution that limits our options for punishments, and we do not wish to stoop to the level of the Mohammedans.

Therefore, my judgment is that they should have been executed with a .22 round to the back of the skull. Charge the parents for the bullet and the cost of disposing of the carcasses of those animals. And it matters not what skin color these animals had.

Seriously, it would be have been better for them that way. But no, thanks to our liberal criminal-coddling system, we will hole them up in some convict storage facility (prison) for some flexible length of time. Of course, being younger and probably quite a bit leaner than the typical inmate, they will quickly be made someone's "ride" (read: receptive homosexual prison rape-bait) and/or recruited into a gang where after a few years, they will return to society as hardened criminals AND sex offenders.

And while the one foolish boy will likely appeal and counter appeal (between suffering at the hands of rapists more powerful than he) as well as play the race card in order to obfuscate the fact that he was stupid enough to record his crime, and then try to stand on some self-righteous "principle". If as the liberals like to say, this is caused by genetics, then his genes need to be removed from the pool; they are stinking up genome like a foul turd.

The death penalty is just for this kind of event, in order to remove evil from our land.

Much less for some of ya'll to whinge and complain that these scum are even being put away for child rape, than to wish them back into society to prey upon other unwitting or ignorant children and plying them with alcohol.

[jim]

-> Thanks for the link. I rest my case.

That is disingenuous. Michelle wasn't the girl involved in this case.

This is the girl in question:

"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."

Also, the fact the some of you are blaming this sort of thing on Clinton and "liberalism" is truly comical. (God knows teenagers didn't give blowjobs before 1992! Just pathetic.)

[larry]

kills me to agree with the limp-wristed 'not-tough-on-crime' liberal weenies, but i'm gonna have to go with the "it's a freakin' travesty" crowd here. maybe it's my libertarian genes, but when we have SO MANY laws that a high-school senior gets tossed in jail for getting blown by a high-school sophomore - just like they did way when; just like in colonial times - we have us a serious problem.

there's a guy in florida, a man in chronic pain from MS, who just got a 25-year sentence for using too much painkiller. all of which was prescribed to him; and no one disputes he's in horrible pain.

but we have this LAW, see, and the law says we HAVE to incarcerate him, so....common sense goes out the window. because, well, "ve're only chust followink orders". (man's name is richard paey. look it up.) naturally, despite the **hideous** travesty being done here, law-n-order types all huffed that "it served him right. it's his own damn fault, really."

just like they're doing in this case.

a screwed-up girl gave out blowjobs, and a 17-year-old boy let her. just like pretty much every 17-year-old boy in the world would have. this being america, that's naturally against a (new) law, so it's....off to prison with him! they say that in russia, back in the bad ol' ussr days, they say you couldn't cross the street withour breaking at least 4 laws. this justified the police-state actions of the commies: when they came for you in the dead of night, to throw you in prison, it was all aboveboard & legal. you'd "broken the law", you see.

just like in georgia, huh?

[Purple Avenger]

"last time I looked, Brady was, um, a Republican."

Oh yea, HCI and the Brady campaign are a real staunch republicans. [snort] I can't be believe you write that crap with a straight face.

[Purple Avenger]

"This jail sentence demonstrates everything that is wrong with America today."

Agree. Iran or Saudi Arabia they'd have executed him and Singapore would have given him 20 years. 150 years ago in this country, the issue would have been resolved with a rope and a tree.

As a nation, we've become soft on crime and the abuse of women. Teens think its OK to abuse women and then expect to get away with it being cheered on by a bunch of mush brained liberals unwilling to take any responsibility for the very same social decay they're aiding and abetting.

Lines must be drawn somewhere.

[Tom A]

Seekeronos and Purple Avenger

Sounds like you'd be happier in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[RPK]

This case reminds me of how political correctness has run amock in this country. First off, the assumption is that a 15 year old girl is completely innocent and in no way intimated or knowingly placed herself in the situation. Having raised two boys who are now adults, I know that girls can and often are sexually aggressive at that age. Calls at all hours, hanging all over guys, dressing suggestively, initiating physical contact; seen all of these thing done to guys whose main concern was soccer or football. There is no way a boy with as little as 13 months age difference should be treated as a sex predator whether or not the girl was aggressive.. This does not make sense nor is it just. I have no problem with the ten year sentence is the man was 20 years old, in that case he is too old for having a normal relationship with a 15 year old, but this law sucks, no pun intended.

[Seekeronos]

@ Tom:

Nah, I don't care for either of those two countries as holiday destinations, much less thier ideological disposition. But I do approve of meeting heinous crimes with swift and certain punishments intended to dissuade would-be criminals from acting.

Is a 17 year old boy getting a BJ from a 15 year old girl really that bad? By itself, assuming that it was an act of sexual experimentation and that there was no coercion involved, I'd shrug it off as a case of "things kids do". I'd hope that some folks would do better by thier teen daughters than to let them go about servicing older boys, at least until they are able to make an informed choice of consent.

Some folks here have suggested that that is all this was: just a few honor-roll students/jocks getting together for a few laughs, some hijinks and a little nookie. Somebody here is *seriously* not paying attention.

Let's roll this back for consistency's sake:

a) Some guy and his five friends decide to have a new years eve party. On the surface, perfectly normal.

b) Drugs (specifically, marijuana) and alcohol are present at this event, and are consumed by numeous minors who are at attendance at this event. On the surface, normal, with a splash of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and distribution of alcohol to minors, with a possible contributing to the delinquency of (a) minor for the of-age person who supplied the drugs and alcohol. Again, not worth getting too upset over, perhaps a grounding by the parents of the attendees, restriction of driving privileges, or at worst, some fines and community service time if this was the only thing that had made it to the courts.

c) a very young girl (age 15 - and let's be realistic here: how many 15-y.o. people are *really* capable of making informed decisions regarding sexual consent, especially when said 15-y.o. is heavily under the influence? Hmmm. Big red flashing warning lights here: the age of the girl alone is trouble.

d) said inebriated 15-y.o. girl gets passed around like a sex toy to fellate and also sexually service (at least the boys had the decency not to bareback her - police found several used condoms in the motel room the party was held in).

BIG reality check: college-age kids - presumably no longer minors if not in the drinking sense - are routinely submitted to much indoctrination in the freshman year concerning the facts of date rape and unrestrained alcohol-fueled sexual lust. Compound that with a group of drunk horny guys and a (likely physically weaker and drunk) female - that is a recipe for a gang rape, which at ANY age, is a crime.

e) said girl wakes up early in the morning, stark naked but for a pair of socks *on the floor between the beds in a motel room* ... (somehow, this does not look like the picture of mere one night stand, much less a loving relationship) She calls her mother to take her home, where she realizes that she may have been subjected to gang rape. Girl and mother contact the police, who start the investigation which immediately turned up corroborating evidence.

If the girl had been making up the story (in the sense of crying "wolf"), she would have been discredited over the course of a trial or more directly by a lack of evidence, and the boys would have been acquitted. This was not the case.

Now personally, I'd let the BJ go, if only for the fact that if our presidents can get away with them, then it is not so much of a big deal for teenagers. IF in fact, it was only a mere BJ.

The thing is, the preponderance of evidence of drugs, booze, used condoms, and the girl's testimony (not to mention any results gained from the rape kit she was likely submitted to at the local police station) all seem to point at something more than typical teenage sexual experimentation was going on.

No, it was a drunken gang rape... and no amount of twisting the facts is going to make it otherwise.

The young men who accepted plea bargains are going to go to jail, and they will in their turns, become rape-bait for hardened thugs stronger than them. Rape on any account is a heinous crime, and nobody should be forcibly penetrated against thier will. These boys are about to learn the dreadful reality of our wretched prison system.

Mr. Genarlow Wilson, the fool who did not accept the plea bargain, was found guilty by a jury of his peers of crimes which mandate his imprisonment for 10 years.

What these young men did went far beyond mere sexual play. It is a crime of one of the most heinous sorts, one that *should* earn the guilty a short quick drop at the end of a coarse rope from a tree or traffic signal... but alas, Gerogia law does permit application the death penalty for greivous sex crimes.

The girl was foolish for putting herself into a situation where she could be so abused, but her attackers - some of whom were reputed to be very pillars of excellent youths with bright futures - were more foolish than she, for they threw away thier futures for a lack of ability to keep thier penises in thier pants, and a lack of willingness to discern that she, a giddy teenager plied with alcohol, would be less than resistant to this sort of rape.

As for the girl, she is indicative of a general trend for our society not to value the flower of a young woman's youth, and for training our sons and daughters to discard it like an inconvenient chain, as opposed to guarding it with honour and dignity. It is largely due to the seeds sown during the degenerate and libertine values of the "hippie" generation, the "sexual revolution" that have finally reaped a whirlwind of sexual irresponsiblity in our youngest generation.

I can almost gaurantee that had all parties been reasonably sober, that it never would have gone this far.

[Yohan]

"This jail sentence demonstrates everything that is wrong with America today."
Agree. Iran or Saudi Arabia they'd have executed him and Singapore would have given him 20 years. 150 years ago in this country, the issue would have been resolved with a rope and a tree.
As a nation, we've become soft on crime and the abuse of women. Teens think its OK to abuse women and then expect to get away with it being cheered on by a bunch of mush brained liberals unwilling to take any responsibility for the very same social decay they're aiding and abetting.
Lines must be drawn somewhere.
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 05:29 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Purple Avenger,
You are posting nonsense. You have no idea about Iran or Saudi-Arabia.
USA is the most ridiculous Sex Prison of this world, a feminazi paradise, where women are overprotected and men are misused and belittled.

In these 2 countries the girl would receive 80 whippings (Iran) or 100 whippings (SaudiArabia) with a lash, as she is not supposed to be with boys offering sex-services.
BTW, in Singapore the age of consent would be 14 for girls in this case. What brings you in jail in USA for 10 years is not even considered to be a crime in Singapore.

[richard]

Yohan, looking through this thread you can see Purple Avenger loves tough talk. (His moniker tells a lot about how he perceives himself.) As though this obscenity is a sign of any kind of laudable "toughness" and not sheer lunacy. Thanks for exposing him. I live in Asia, and it's clear Avenger has virtually no idea of how things work here, though he likes to give the impression he's omniscient. It fools no one.

[-asx-]

So is THIS where the disgraced racist Robert Stacey McCain hangs out these days?

[jim]

->Iran or Saudi Arabia they'd have executed him and Singapore would have given him 20 years

So let me get this straight: The US should use IRAN, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore as models??? Didn't you forget the USSR and North Korea? We should emulate the countries that are "evil" that we should also be firebombing? Should we emulate them before or after we firebomb them? And of course we should firebomb them precisely because of their lack of human rights and the ways in which they treat their own populations.

And of course, if a girl gives a group blowjob of her own freewill, it isn't her own PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (I thought "conservatives" were big on that?), but it is the fault of "liberals."

And you wonder why the majority of the country thinks people like you are INSANE?

[Dan Riehl]

So let me get this straight: The US should use IRAN, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore as models???

Hey! I thought you Libs liked the idea of paying attention to International law - works for your Supremes. And if you are going to do it, you can't cherry pick! ha!

[richard]

Brilliant comment, Dan. Do you really see the Supremes as liberals? Do you think only liberal judges look to international law for guidance, to see if they might learn something? If so, is this a bad thing, expanding our perspective and horizons? Is it unique to this Supreme Counrt or is it something that's been standard practice for a long time, among liberal and conservative judges alike? All your prejudices seep up to the top, Dan - the notion that this kind of travesty of justice indicates toughness, the notion that for the US to look anywhere else but at the US is somehow anti-American and a sign of weakness, the notion that a 17 year old kid going to jail for basically no reason is cause for snark as opposed to outrage and compassion...

Show me one example, ever, that liberals believe we should turn to Iran or Saudi Arabia as models for our courts. Just one. Dish out the slogans, hollow though they may be and run from serious debate. Way to go. I like your blog and read it daily, but sometimes I wonder if you can really hear yourself.

[jim]

Dan,

->Hey! I thought you Libs liked the idea of paying attention to International law

Really, try harder. And you meant "libertarian" by "Libs," right? Because I'm a libertarian. Or is this just the knee-jerk "anyone who says something I don't agree with is a liberal" reaction that we are all so familiar with?

[Mr. X]

Following up on what jim said about your selective quoting, Riehl, I noticed that you left out the title and subtitle of the linked article: "Why is Genarlow Wilson in Prison?: After a wild New Year's Eve party, six Douglasville teens found themselves charged with child molestation under a legal technicality. The boy who refused to take a plea now faces a decade behind bars" gives a bit of a different idea of the focus of the article.

And I find it staggering that you seem to believe, as a sort of self-evident fact, that "while the age difference may be only two years, it is a critical two years" and that "these were young 'men', much more so than she was a young 'woman'." Sez who? Do you not understand why they were prosecuted for having oral sex with her (which is a crime under the statute, regardless of consent) rather than rape?

Oh, well. At least they're not prosecuting these young men because they're black and their partners were white. I mean, this is 2006 and we don't do that anymore, right? Right?

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, sorry, a Libertarian. I should have baked a cake!

Okay, seriously - I think this is a bad test case. Now, you want to bring me a 17 yr old guy facing ten years for getting consentual head from a 15 yr old girlfriend, or good friend, whatever ... I would say yes, the ten years is silly. Prosecuting him would be silly. But you don't have a case like that because prosecutorial disgression would likely prevent one from ever coming up. You want to wring your hands over these losers, go ahead. I read this below and I say, keep them in prison and out of the gene pool. And if this is your choir boy defendant's idea of friends, as I said initially, he deserves ten years for stupidity, if nothing else.

According to McDade, prior to this incident Frankie Henry had 29 arrests in Douglas County on charges including aggravated assault, criminal trespassing and shoplifting. In fact, as recently as October 2005, he was charged with child molestation and statutory rape for allegedly impregnating a 12-year-old Douglas County girl he was accused of having sex with while the Douglasville Six cases were pending. McDade says DNA testing conducted on the baby and the victim confirmed that Frankie is the father. He reportedly told investigators he had sex with the girl but did not know her age at the time.

Narada Williams, who brought the video camera to the party, had at least four prior arrests—three as a juvenile and one as an adult. Cortez Robinson, who rented one of the hotel rooms, had 12 priors, including simple battery, burglary, criminal trespassing and possession of alcohol as a minor. Ryan Barnwell, who rented the other room, had a 1998 arrest for battery in Bibb County. Adrien had at least one previous arrest in Cobb County.

McDade says he further supported the judge’s decision to treat Genarlow—the only one who had not had any run-ins with the law prior to this case—the same as the other boys because he does not believe in offering First Offender status in sex crime cases.

[jim]

Dan,

So guilt by association is your argument? Last time I checked that was classed a logical fallacy. There is only one issue: did the girl willing give this guy oral sex? THIS guy. If Hitler was his friend or if his friends raped 50 women, believe it or not, it still wouldn't be relevant -- logically or legally.

->Now, you want to bring me a 17 yr old guy facing ten years for getting consentual head from a 15 yr old girlfriend, or good friend, whatever

So if a girl you barely know gives you a bj, you should get 10 years in prison. But if you are "good friends," you shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Sounds like decent law.

[some guy]

Dan's argument is typical of right-wing rhetoric. Guilt-by-association is a logical fallacy, but it's emblematic of the right-wing (NOT conservative) world-view: groups of good people vs. groups of bad people in a struggle of mythic proportions where the outcome of every conflict, no matter how minute, is a matter of survival for the good guys.

Note that all of Dan's arguments are about individuals *other* than the boy (Genarlow Wilson) and girl (Tracy) involved here. Note that there is no argument that the sex was not consentual *between these two individuals*. Note that the judge denied First Offender status to the boys, as a group (though Wilson had no priors, was an excellent student). Wilson's apparent "real crime" here, in the eyes of Dan, the prosecutor and the judge, was that he was hanging out with the "bad guys" (though I'm sure they wouldn't have cut a studious white offender any slack either, right?).

It's also interesting to note that the jury didn't understand that they didn't have to come to verdict if they didn't all agree; that they didn't understand that there was a mandatory 10-year sentence, etc.

[Carl]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/index.htm

click on the case histories.

Methinks Riehl doesn't want the boy to be punished, he wants him to suffer the way only a young black lad in an American prison can suffer. Relentlessly. That's not 10 years in prison, that's the destruction of a human being.

[yyy]

What I find most perverse is the girl who believes she was raped, Michele, got no justice, I believe her case was either not prosecuted or the guy(s) got acquittal for what was most probably an actual rape not a statutory rape.

And the only person who paid a legal penalty was the guy who got an admittedly consensual blow job from the 15 year old.

Seems to me the guys who got the consensual bj's from the 15, assuming she does say she did it willingly and wasn't afraid of them, should have gotten some counseling and probabtion and the guy(s) who did the actually raping of the other, older girl, Michelle are the one's who deserve the jail time.

I, personally, am not a big believer in staturory rape prosecutions when the minor clearly says the sex was consensual since we have a pretty terrible track record of letting actual forcible rapists go because we don't believe women and girls when they say they are raped.

Statuory rape is a no brainer, it's just a math test, has little to do with the real crime of forcible rape.