17 year old sentenced to ten years, due to sex offender laws

[Zinkovich]

Genarlow Wilson and a group of friends had the kind of bash no parent would want their teenager to attend. Crime scene investigators combing the room in a Days Inn in the small town of Douglasville, Ga., found evidence of drinking, as well as condoms and wrappers littered all over. Plus, there was a video camera. In a portion of a tape obtained by "Primetime," Wilson, then 17 and an honor student and star athlete who was homecoming king, is seen having intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, who was seen earlier on the bathroom floor. During the sex act, she appears to be sleepy or intoxicated but never asks Wilson to stop. Later on in the tape, she is seen being pulled off the bed. Other portions of the tape show a second girl, who was 15 and later said she did not drink that night. She was recorded having oral sex with several boys in succession, including Wilson. The following morning, Wilson got a phone call that would change his life. He learned from a friend that the 17-year-old had gone to the police to report that she'd been raped. "I was, like, 'What? When was this happening? Did this happen at the same party I was at?'" Wilson said. "It was shocking to me." A Decade in Prison Authorities believed the 17-year-old alleged rape victim and said she was too intoxicated to consent to any sexual acts, which is what Georgia law requires, otherwise these acts can be considered rape. Six boys, including Wilson, were arrested on various charges, including rape. District Attorney David McDade said the videotape was critical to his case. "There is no doubt that without the videotape we would have to be relying on the statements of these young people, and that would have been a more difficult prosecution," he said. Wilson maintained his innocence. "I know that it was consensual," he told "Primetime." "I wouldn't went on with the acts if it wasn't consensual. I'm not that kind of person. No means no." Five of the boys accepted plea deals, but Wilson, the only one without a police record, held out. "I knew Genarlow's state of mind," said his attorney, Michael Mann. "He wasn't going to prison willingly. He wasn't going to plea to something in his mind he didn't do." He stood trial in February 2005 for five days. And at first, the jury's deliberations moved swiftly. Jurors voted to acquit Wilson of raping the 17-year-old. "I mean it wasn't even an hour," said jury forewoman Marie Manigault. "We immediately saw the tape for what it was. We went back and saw it again and saw what actually happened and everybody immediately said not guilty." But there was one other charge the jury had to decide on. The second girl in the videotape was 15, and the age of consent in Georgia is 16. And under state law, prosecutors charged Wilson with aggravated child molestation. To those close to the young man, it was an outrage. "Nobody could believe that this is the law," Mann said. Even jurors frowned on the charge. "A bad law, absolutely," Manigault said. And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and, willing or not, could not consent legally that night. Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

ABC News: Outrage After Teen Gets 10 Years for Oral Sex With Girl

Edit: Sorry for wasting your time with a previous semi-biased/slanted article, yet again(See the "snuggle in plane" thread). The media really needs to pick up the slack here, because I'm tired of withdrawing my opinions due to me (rather idiotically, it now appears)blindly trusting news authorities.

So, a new direction for this thread: do you buy into the victim's cries of rape, and do you feel that the young men involved should be sentenced for taking advantage of her in an intoxicated state? Do you feel this "sex offender" charge is warranted and/or just?

[another day]

Sick and evil. Disturbing. I hate girls like that. That is one of the worst things a whore can do is go to police because they got too damn drunk and regret having sex with a guy. She should be the one in prison for 10 years. DISGUSTING.

As for them taking advantage of her in an intoxicated state? Bull...they were probably just as drunk as she was, so you can't pin the responsibility on the guy. It's like having a car crash where both drivers are drunk and you only send one of them to jail for dui and make him pay for all the costs.

especially when it comes to oral sex which takes a good degree of consciousness.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Zink Edit: Sorry for wasting your time with a previous semi-biased/slanted article, yet again(See the "snuggle in plane" thread). The media really needs to pick up the slack here, because I'm tired of withdrawing my opinions due to me (rather idiotically, it now appears)blindly trusting news authorities.

Yeah, I think I'm going to have to add Atlanta Magazine to my list of worst news sources ever.

Quote by: Zink So, a new direction for this thread: do you buy into the victim's cries of rape, and do you feel that the young men involved should be sentenced for taking advantage of her in an intoxicated state?

If her drinks weren't spiked and she didn't tell the "rapists" to stop at the time, I have absolutely no sympathy for her. The fact that she was taken advantage of was entirely her own fault for allowing herself to get into a state in which she could be taken advantage of.

The argument that she was too intoxicated to consent is bullshit. Since when were drunk people suddenly not responsible for their actions? If I kill someone in a drunken state, can I claim that I wasn't responsible for it because I was drunk at the time? Hell no.

Quote by: Zink Do you feel this "sex offender" charge is warranted and/or just?

No. The girl consented to it; therefore it is unjust to class it as a sex offence.

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting article. The original charge was not substantiated.

The second charge is where the convicition lies. The 15 year old girl giving head. The teen being prosecuted was poorly represented if these charges and their penalties were a surprise as the article notes. I hope the lawyer was cheap, because he was lousy. Ten years of prison is too much for a BJ by a cute teen honey.

Maybe there is grounds for appeal.

[Captain Chaos]

If I was on the Jury, I would not have been willing to convict him. I am not willing to obey unjust laws.

10 years for a bj by a 15-year-old girl who is only 2 years younger is ludicrous.

[Chancellor]

This is clearly a consequence of a jury not being informed of the right to jury nullification. Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links

[Captain Chaos]

Good article.

I believe jurors should be told about their power to nullify. Citizen power is the most important check on abuses by government. This is clearly an abuse by government.

[samsara15]

Lat time I was on jury day they tried to prevent potential jurors who might opt for jury nullification from serving. I think jury nullification is a good idea, but the presiding judge in the case for which I was a potential juror acted like jury nullification was leprosy or worse. I was not picked for the jury on that trial. There are unfortunately a lot of unjust sentences.

Perhaps the prosecutor also is at fault for being overly-zealous in this case, which prosecutors often are.

[Praxius]

There's your screwed up laws for ya, lol. It'd make much more sense if they separated teens... ie: 13-19 into a catagory on their own.... being teens anyways, and separate them from 20 and up-year olds. How are teenagers suppose to know what a relationship is if they can't date people near their ages without being tossed in jail?

And especially in situations where guys tend to get either blackmailed or just plain charged and sent to jail for something that was agreed on by both parties and freely willing, this kind of crap is crap..... by the girl wanting the power to do so..... that's a piss off.

And in Georgia, that they'd had oral sex made matters worse. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In Wilson's case, even though he is only two years older than the girl, she was 15 and, willing or not, could not consent legally that night. Whatever their feelings about the law, jurors felt they had no choice but to find Wilson guilty of aggravated child molestation. Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Like seriously..... what lunatic is in charge down there?

[Mia]

The 15 year old did not charge them with rape - they did that to themselves by videotaping sex with a minor.

[Jack]

The girl consented to it; therefore it is unjust to class it as a sex offence.

In cases where rape is the accusation, the courts don't have to consider whether or not the victim consented. You cannot consent to be a victim of rape. And the victim isn't the one pressing charges, either. The state is the complainant, and they'd press charges regardless of consent.

[Mia]

i think everyone needs to separate the 17 year old drunk girl who accused one guy of rape, and the 15 year old sober girl who didn't accuse anyone, but they are being prosecuted due to her age.

We don't know whether the 17 year old consented to sex, but from the information given it looks like the 15 year old did.

[Jack]

The 3 Strikes law has caused similar nonsensical situations, as has the Patriot Act. Absolute and extreme laws are often too vague and too broad to stand for long. Eventually the exceptions (in the form of reversals, over-turned verdicts, etc.) show the weakness of the law.

Life is not so predictable that you can write a single rule to cover all the possibilities.