Do they have any worthwhile universities there?
Grave Injustice, Ten years for consentual sex.
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Do they have any worthwhile universities there?
I've discussed this before.
The age difference is also important.
A 16 year old dating a 17-20 year old is very different from one dating a 40 year old.
A 25 year old dating a 20-50 year old is also different from the above.
Its a question of emotional maturity as much as physical maturity.
OK, but you've indicated that you think it's OK to send a 17 year old to prison for ten years for getting a BJ from a 15 year old. How does that fit the above statement?
Are 17 year old boys arrested on a regular basis for bjs from 15 year olds?
Anyway, its silly that in the US people still don't know what sex is.
Is Icelandic hard to learn?
It's happened at least once.
No they're not, but that is what this thread is about.
Yes, of course I do.
It's virtually impossible to write a law that, if applied to the letter, will result in a just outcome in every case. That's why all good laws are drafted with enough lattitude to allow some flexibility in their application.
Incidentally, it is also why "three strikes" laws and mandatory sentencing laws which take away judicial discretion are invariably a bad idea.
We're talking about different things, obviously. You're asking whether I approve of corruption. The answer is: no, I don't.
Don't mix that up with the question of whether I approve of granting lawmakers and law enforcers discretion in their legal application of the law.
You kiind of smashed my hopes right there.
Bells
Staff member
That is the issue. This law is necessary but was warped in its original design. These laws are generally meant to apply to victims who are, well, victims, of sexual predators. However this case is a bit different.I can see why these laws are necessary.
Had they just had sex, he would have only been charged with a misdemeanor, due to the fact that there was only a two year gap between them. But the act of oral sex is apparently a felony regardless.
The girl in this case, or "the victim", instigated the act with not just Wilson, but the other boys who were there as well. She admits it, her mother also agrees that her daughter instigated the sexual acts with the accused and others there, so do the prosecutors, judge, jury. This is why the rape charge did not stick. However because they had oral sex, well that is apparently a bigger evil and so he was given 10 years. Even the jury, who found him guilty because he did have oral sex, find that 10 years ridiculous, hence why the prosecution never let on that finding him guilty of the felony would result in a 10 year jail sentence. So did the legislature, who quickly moved to change the laws so that oral sex was no longer a felony when one participant is under 16 and has a 3 year age gap or less with the other participant.
This case is about how stupid a law can get and about how zealous and egotistical some prosecutors are in trying cases. They have the ability to drop his sentence and charge him with a lesser sentence but refuse to, because he did not "take his medicine".
Wilson is not a sexual predator. He did not actively seek out his "victim" to prey on her. The article is quite clear on this. Even the prosecution agrees. The judge had no choice but to give him 10 years as that is the minimum sentence to this law, so in this instance, his hands were tied. Why the legislature did not make the new laws retroactive, one can't really say, but I guess if there are actual sexual predators in jail under the old system, the new retroactive laws might ensure their release. So now it seems that new laws are being looked at so that Wilson can be set free, because there was no justice at all in this case. Had the prosecutor done its job, then he would be out of jail by now and possibly going to college and making something of his life, without being branded a sexual predator. The fact that a school teacher who was found to have been having sex with one of her students, soon after Wilson was jailed, and only given 90 days, tells you that the law was not applied fairly to Wilson.
If they want to consider any form of penetration as sex, thats fine, the least they can do is put them all at the same level legally.
Don't do that in Georgia, or that dozen highschool boys will end up in jail!
After reading that, I got to thinking ...which is unusual for me!
But ...what if we changed some of those conditions a bit? At what point would it suddenly change from good ol' fashion oral sex into horrible, terrible peadophilia? What's the magic numbers or conditions where it suddenly changes from innocent, consenting oral sex to the horrors of society?
A. A 17 year old boy, a consenting 14 year old girl?
B. An 18 year old boy, a consenting 15 year old girl?
C. A 22 year old boy, a consenting 16 year old girl?
D. A 40 year old boy, a consenting 17 year old girl?
Just curious. And you can change the numbers to suit your ideas.
Baron Max
Max amazingly does have a point, which is probably just subjective to each of us. At what age does someone become too young or old? Girls mature at different ages, as is evident by the different ages of consent in different countries. I think anyone under 14 is really too young to be sexually active, both physically and mentally. After that it becomes dependant on the person, a lot of people I knew at ages 14-16 started dating guys at least 7 years older because it was 'cool'.
However Max, why is this relevant? He was within 2 years of her age and I think not backdating the law shows how backwards some places are, it would only have released people in the same situation as him!
Still think the whole system of justice in most parts of the world is disgraceful and wrong though because it's inconsistent.
However Max, why is this relevant? He was within 2 years of her age and I think not backdating the law shows how backwards some places are, it would only have released people in the same situation as him!
Still think the whole system of justice in most parts of the world is disgraceful and wrong though because it's inconsistent.