Lawyer types reply within

[soonervegas]

I am sure many of you have seen this:

So some 17 yr old get s BJ in Georgia from some 15 yr old girl. Georgia has an outdated law that says oral sex on a minor is a criminal offense regardless of age of the perpetrator. (He would have been fine if he just nailed her)

Kid goes to prison for 10 years. Members of the jury (and public) don't feel right about it. The law changes shortly thereafter. Judge today decided to let the poor kid out of jail.

Attorney General immediately files an appeal to keep the young man in jail. My question is this.....what is this pricks problem? He even goes as far as to say "There are still plea deals available to this individual if he wants to take him." Is this about the public interest or the Attorney General's case record?

[frankensooner]

Uh, maybe it was his/her daughter?

[Frozen Sooner]

I am sure many of you have seen this:

So some 17 yr old get s BJ in Georgia from some 15 yr old girl. Georgia has an outdated law that says oral sex on a minor is a criminal offense regardless of age of the perpetrator. (He would have been fine if he just nailed her)

Kid goes to prison for 10 years. Members of the jury (and public) don't feel right about it. The law changes shortly thereafter. Judge today decided to let the poor kid out of jail.

Attorney General immediately files an appeal to keep the young man in jail. My question is this.....what is this pricks problem? He even goes as far as to say "There are still plea deals available to this individual if he wants to take him." Is this about the public interest or the Attorney General's case record?

This is the kid that was a pretty big football stud, right?

[Ike]

the whole thing, from what I have read is littered with BS. What the AG doesn't tell you is that all the plea deals would leave the guy marked as a child sex offender for the rest of his life.

I wouldn't take those deals either.

[KABOOKIE]

Members of the jury (and public) don't feel right about it.

The same ones that said he was guilty?

[jk the sooner fan]

put me in the camp that says its ok to have laws making it illegal to get BJ's from 15 year old girls....

[jeremy885]

even if the other person is 17?

[KABOOKIE]

Look. Little Romeo here got a 15 y/o drunk off G&J and made a R. Kelly style video to glorify his conquest. Nothing says send me to jail for a long time like video taping yourself during the act.

[yermom]

put me in the camp that says its ok to have laws making it illegal to get BJ's from 15 year old girls....

if he would have just ****ed her he wouldn't have even been in jail...

[jk the sooner fan]

even if the other person is 17?

is she somehow not a minor when performing it on a 17 year old?

[JohnnyMack]

From CNN:
In a written statement, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he filed the appeal to resolve "clearly erroneous legal issues," saying that while the judge did have the authority to grant habeas relief, he did not have the authority "to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court."

Separately, Baker noted that Douglas County recently had offered a plea deal "that would have allowed Genarlow Wilson to plead to First Offender Treatment, which would mean that he would not have a criminal record nor would he be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence had been completed."

"The plea deal, if accepted by Genarlow Wilson's lawyers, could also result in Genarlow Wilson receiving a sentence substantially shorter than the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for which he was originally sentenced, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served," Baker wrote.

[soonervegas]

The same ones that said he was guilty?

Correct. Jury members stated their concerns and were told they had to follow the letter of the law.

[JohnnyMack]

is she somehow not a minor when performing it on a 17 year old?

Yes, because he's the first 17 to be gettin' teh bee-jayz from a 15 year old.

I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

[soonervegas]

put me in the camp that says its ok to have laws making it illegal to get BJ's from 15 year old girls....

Talk about prison overcrowding......sending 17 yr olds to jail for getting hummers from sophmores.

[Frozen Sooner]

is she somehow not a minor when performing it on a 17 year old?

Should context not be a factor?

I'm all for throwing the book at a 21-year-old who gets a BJ from a 15 year old. Not so much for someone who's a child themself.

[jk the sooner fan]

so we sell out our minor females because we're worried about overcrowding?

there's a reason they're called minors, and there's a reason they are protected by the law the way they are

girls who are sexually exploited at a young age are so productive to society in later years....think outside the box fella's......its not ALL about your penis

[jk the sooner fan]

Should context not be a factor?

I'm all for throwing the book at a 21-year-old who gets a BJ from a 15 year old. Not so much for someone who's a child themself.

well the voters of florida (thru their representatives) determine what age is the age of consent

i'm assuming its 17, they can drive, they can join the military - they should probably have sexual relationships with their legal peers, and not their younger friends who havent reached the age of majority

[Frozen Sooner]

I beg to differ. EVERYTHING is about my penis.

[JohnnyMack]

so we sell out our minor females because we're worried about overcrowding?

there's a reason they're called minors, and there's a reason they are protected by the law the way they are

girls who are sexually exploited at a young age are so productive to society in later years....think outside the box fella's......its not ALL about your penis

Sexually "active" is different than sexually "exploited".

I know lots of girls who were sexually active at a young age that are hella productive.

[soonervegas]

Jk.....if you have a differing opinion I can respect that.

But at least you can see the idiocy in the fact that if he had SEX with her.....he would be scott free.

[Frozen Sooner]

well the voters of florida (thru their representatives) determine what age is the age of consent

i'm assuming its 17, they can drive, they can join the military - they should probably have sexual relationships with their legal peers, and not their younger friends who havent reached the age of majority

In this case, she was over the age of consent in the context of relations with a 17-year-old. However, for this one particular act, she was not. Would you rather your 15-year-old daughter be giving BJs to 17-year-olds or having sex? 'Cause the sex would have been legal.

[jk the sooner fan]

and just how to young minor age girls become sexually active?

yes, there are girls who are sexually active who later become productive in life, just as the vice versa holds true

my point is that they are protected by the law for a reason

[jk the sooner fan]

In this case, she was over the age of consent in the context of relations with a 17-year-old. However, for this one particular act, she was not. Would you rather your 15-year-old daughter be giving BJs to 17-year-olds or having sex? 'Cause the sex would have been legal.

can i say that i'd rather her do neither?

you guys are somehow taking her victim status away from her because of the act itself......and giving the bj receiver the victim status because the state has screwed up laws

if you want to talk about stupid laws thats fine

if you want to talk about protecting minor children, thats fine too

[Frozen Sooner]

jk, nobody's arguing that children shouldn't be sexually exploited. However, most of us are on board with the notion that there's a qualitative distinction between a 30-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old.

[jk the sooner fan]

right, but i asked does the 15 year old somehow lose her minority status because she's blowing a 17 year old?

thats a slippery slope there.....

[jeremy885]

Should the 17 lose his?

[Ike]

actually, the way I understand it, had they "just" boinked one another, it would have been a misdemeanor. Still not legal, but not that harsh of a crime. Personally, I'm fine with that.

The problem I do have is convicting a guy for a felony for getting a BJ that was consentual (albiet with a minor...however, in the circumstances here, I would also call that minor one of his peers). Not only that, but this particular felony will label him as a sex offender for the rest of his life, meaning that lots of people will simply look at that label and assume he is a pedophile. The evidence in my opinion cannot support the claim of him being a pedophile, but thats what his neighbors will think when they look at the sex offender registry.


Young people do stupid things all the time. Many times involving their genetailia. does one stupid act by one (or more) hormone crazed teen(s) really warrant the destruction of the rest of their life? I claim it does not.

Again, I have no problem with this guy being charged with a misdemeanor, or some other lesser charge. In this case I feel that the punishment has far exceeded the crime.

[jk the sooner fan]

Should the 17 lose his?

is 17 not the age of consent in florida? i dont think he had it to lose

[Frozen Sooner]

can i say that i'd rather her do neither?

you guys are somehow taking her victim status away from her because of the act itself......and giving the bj receiver the victim status because the state has screwed up laws

if you want to talk about stupid laws thats fine

if you want to talk about protecting minor children, thats fine too

As would I. But the reality of the situation is that this kid got the book thrown at him for what amounted to consensual sex with a peer.

[jk the sooner fan]

according to the law, she cant consent - erego the problem

[JohnnyMack]

More important than any of this, has Bowden offered this kid yet?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Hey, what has two thumbs and likes blow jobs?

[jeremy885]

but isn't he a minor until he's 18? Also, the case is in GA not FL.

[Sooner_Bob]

Would this even be a case if the dude was 15 and the girl 17?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/060904/060825_MoviesBorat_hsmall.widec.jpg

This guy. *rimshot*

[Frozen Sooner]

according to the law, she cant consent - erego the problem

See, I understand this. However, the law in this case doesn't reflect reality, nor is it consistent with the overall body of the law in the state.

[jeremy885]

Would this even be a case if the dude was 15 and the girl 27?

fixed

[jk the sooner fan]

but isn't he a minor until he's 18? Also, the case is in GA not FL.

ga, fl, whatever

17 is the age of consent in many states, my guess is that its the age of consent in georgia

look, here's my point......some of you have said "its not like she was giving a bj to some 30 year old"

as if the age of the recipient somehow changes the actual act itself.....she's still a 15 year old giving a bj

keep it in that context....of course i'm looking at this from a much different angle than the rest of you, hence my opinion being what it is

[Ike]

according to the law, she cant consent - erego the problem


And this, IMO, is where the law has problems. It has a disconnect with the real world in that the law assumes that once you hit a certain age, you suddenly have the ability to do XYZ, but before then you don't. The real world hardly works that way at all. Where that line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary...usually the line is somewhat close to where people develop the ability to make responsible decisions regarding xyz, but each person is different. It could be 15 for someone and 22 for someone else.



This is why I think judges and juries should be granted more freedom in deciding individual cases. Circumstances are never black and white, but the law treats them as such.

[jk the sooner fan]

See, I understand this. However, the law in this case doesn't reflect reality, nor is it consistent with the overall body of the law in the state.

maybe not, but its still the law

[Frozen Sooner]

jk, the point you're arguing there is that the actions of the 15-year-old confer criminal liability on the 17-year-old. Which seems a little, well, unjust.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of his acceptance of the act as the crime, not her performance of the act. And yes, if acceptance of the act is what confers criminal liability, then the ability to determine that the act was wrong should certainly be weighed.

[jk the sooner fan]

And this, IMO, is where the law has problems. It has a disconnect with the real world in that the law assumes that once you hit a certain age, you suddenly have the ability to do XYZ, but before then you don't. The real world hardly works that way at all. Where that line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary...usually the line is somewhat close to where people develop the ability to make responsible decisions regarding xyz, but each person is different. It could be 15 for someone and 22 for someone else.



This is why I think judges and juries should be granted more freedom in deciding individual cases. Circumstances are never black and white, but the law treats them as such.

it has more to do with the law in tort cases where you reach a certain age that you can make legal decisions....

same as the age of culpability - you cant charge an 8 year old for some crimes (as an example) because they havent reached the age where they understand that what they are doing is criminal - even though they probably know its wrong

[jk the sooner fan]

jk, the point you're arguing there is that the actions of the 15-year-old confer criminal liability on the 17-year-old. Which seems a little, well, unjust.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of his acceptance of the act as the crime, not her performance of the act. And yes, if acceptance of the act is what confers criminal liability, then the ability to determine that the act was wrong should certainly be weighed.

lol, do you think she held him at gun point and forced him to be the receiver?

the law defines her as the active participant and him as the passive participant, and since she's underage.....there's your problem

[Sooner_Bob]

And this, IMO, is where the law has problems. It has a disconnect with the real world in that the law assumes that once you hit a certain age, you suddenly have the ability to do XYZ, but before then you don't. The real world hardly works that way at all. Where that line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary...usually the line is somewhat close to where people develop the ability to make responsible decisions regarding xyz, but each person is different. It could be 15 for someone and 22 for someone else.



This is why I think judges and juries should be granted more freedom in deciding individual cases. Circumstances are never black and white, but the law treats them as such.


I'd venture to guess that most 15 year old girls are more mature than 17 year old boys anyway :D

Both you and jk make valid points. The law is the law, but the judge should have some leniency.

[Sooner_Bob]

jk, the point you're arguing there is that the actions of the 15-year-old confer criminal liability on the 17-year-old. Which seems a little, well, unjust.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of his acceptance of the act as the crime, not her performance of the act. And yes, if acceptance of the act is what confers criminal liability, then the ability to determine that the act was wrong should certainly be weighed.

I think it comes down to him being older and probably knowing (or that he should know) that any sexual act with a 15 year-old isn't quite right. No matter how great it feels.

[Ike]

it has more to do with the law in tort cases where you reach a certain age that you can make legal decisions....

same as the age of culpability - you cant charge an 8 year old for some crimes (as an example) because they havent reached the age where they understand that what they are doing is criminal - even though they probably know its wrong


Yeah, but the problem is that the law says you can make these decisions at age X (depending on the state), however for any given human being the law may or may not be accurately describing that human being. My argument is that in cases where the individuals involved are sufficiently close to the age of xyz (whatever is in question +/- 3 years?), that maybe it's a better idea to have the court make some determination of each individuals "mental age" (for lack of a better term) to determine how to proceede and which laws to apply.

[Vaevictis]

That leads to inconsistent application of the law, which is itself a form of injustice.

What seems unjust to me about the situation is that from what I remember when I was 15 and 17, there really wasn't a hell of a lot of a maturity difference between the two ages (if any at all, really), so if the 17 year old deserves jail time for the act, then the 15 year old probably does too.

[Viking Kitten]

Who is the a**hole that prosecuted this in the first case? Does this doofus go around prosecuting people for failing to tie up their horse or not spitting in a spittoon or whatever other silly old laws might remain on the books in Georgia?

Please. I have a daughter and a son. As much as I am hoping to teach my children not to make decisions like this in the first place, the reality is that many teenagers are going to do these things, and I'd prefer to never have to worry my son might go to jail for 10 years over something that ridiculous.

[achiro]

I was 15 until several weeks into my junior year of high school. I had friends ALSO JUNIORS who turned 17 just a couple weeks later.(and no they weren't held back a grade) I knew 17-18 yo seniors who dated 15-16 sophomores, it isn't a big deal.
I have an aunt and uncle who were married when she wqas 15 and he was older, 18 or 19 I think. They are still happily married and its been like a hunnert years ago.
Unless he forced her, this whole case is just stupidity.

[yermom]

well VK, it was on video...

JK, the other thing is that the law has since changed, it's no longer a felony in GA for a 17 year old to get fellated by a 15 year old

[soonerboomer93]

ga, fl, whatever

17 is the age of consent in many states, my guess is that its the age of consent in georgia

look, here's my point......some of you have said "its not like she was giving a bj to some 30 year old"

as if the age of the recipient somehow changes the actual act itself.....she's still a 15 year old giving a bj

keep it in that context....of course i'm looking at this from a much different angle than the rest of you, hence my opinion being what it is


It's 16 or 17 in most states (16 in Ga.). However, many states also have varying ordinances, and if they're within a certain age range, or their age difference is normally under 3-4 years difference, then it's an affirmative defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

[jk the sooner fan]

yeah i'm familiar with the age difference laws, i used to investigate them and present them for prosecution

look, i wasnt disputing that the law has some problems,

i was merely arguing the point that a bj given by a 15 year old is still that same bj, no matter what the age of the recipient

[47straight]

well VK, it was on video...

JK, the other thing is that the law has since changed, it's no longer a felony in GA for a 17 year old to get fellated by a 15 year old

That doesn't automatically reverse convictions for said crimes. Often steps will be taken to undo it, but not always.

[yermom]

but damn, what is with the AG? why does he have such a hardon for this kid?

i'm not saying that the law changing should automatically get him out of jail, but damn, someone could show the guy some leniency, he's already been in prison for a while now...

JK is making it sound like we are just saying he shouldn't be prosecuted because we are just thinking about our dicks, part of it is that if he did it today it would be a lot different

[TUSooner]

so we sell out our minor females because we're worried about overcrowding?

there's a reason they're called minors, and there's a reason they are protected by the law the way they are

girls who are sexually exploited at a young age are so productive to society in later years....think outside the box fella's......its not ALL about your penis
Helyah !! - Believe it or not, you eternal SO sophomores, the whole world does not revolve around your plonker. Yours might, but everybiody else's doesn't. OK -10 years might be a bit steep, depending on the circumstances (I get your point, yermom) ; but this kid should be as eager to accept a generous plea bargain as he was to get his jollies.

As you can tell, this is not really a "legal" question as asked, it's a social-moral-political one.

[AlbqSooner]

That doesn't automatically reverse convictions for said crimes. Often steps will be taken to undo it, but not always.
Those steps were taken by the Judge today. The AG is hell-bent on leaving the sentence based on the now non-existent statute in place. This kid has served something like 2 years already. The AG could very easily have chosen NOT to appeal the judge's decision. It would not be establishing any stare decisis since we are talking about a trial court judge making the ruling.

A prosecutor has an ethical duty to seek justice. One who seeks convictions without regard to justice is acting unethically.

[TUSooner]

Those steps were taken by the Judge today. The AG is hell-bent on leaving the sentence based on the now non-existent statute in place. This kid has served something like 2 years already. The AG could very easily have chosen NOT to appeal the judge's decision. It would not be establishing any stare decisis since we are talking about a trial court judge making the ruling.

A prosecutor has an ethical duty to seek justice. One who seeks convictions without regard to justice is acting unethically.

How does this legislative alteration compare with the effect of the USSCTS's Bailey ruling of a few years ago, which (IIRC) voided some convictions for "using" a fiream when the proof was only that the defendant possessed one? Wasn't the theory tat the defendant had been convicted of a nonexistent crime? (We rarely see Bailey raised anymore, since it's so old.) I guess the diff is that under Bailey, the crime never existed, while in these revocations of statutes, the crime did exist at one time, though it doesn't now.
And what is the crim defense lawyer's approach where a statute has been changed to make the conduct non-criminal or less criminal (assuming it's not declared retroactive)?
I guess I shoulda PEEMed you, but I'm thinking you know more about this law than anybody on the board , so show your stuff! :D

[goingoneight]

Look. Little Romeo here got a 15 y/o drunk off G&J and made a R. Kelly style video to glorify his conquest. Nothing says send me to jail for a long time like video taping yourself during the act.

Little Romeo peed on his gf??? :confused:

[LoyalFan]

I find it difficult to believe that none among us has mentioned the one truly bright tidbit, a genuine groin...uhhh...grin maker, in all of this.
The kid's lawyer's name is (drum roll, please,) B.J.Bernstein (rim shot, please.)

LF

[AlbqSooner]

And what is the crim defense lawyer's approach where a statute has been changed to make the conduct non-criminal or less criminal (assuming it's not declared retroactive)?
I guess I shoulda PEEMed you, but I'm thinking you know more about this law than anybody on the board , so show your stuff! :D
Bailey is old enough that a lot of lazy judges dismiss it out of hand. It also doesn't really fit these facts since, as you pointed out, in Bailey the Defendant's actions were never illegal. I suggest that the most effective approach would be a simple plea to justice with Bailey and its progeny as presuasive authority.

While I appreciate your compliment, I have no intention of showing my stuff on this site. I didn't even realize you could cam here.:D

[jk the sooner fan]

something omitted from this story - this 17 year old kid was also charged with raping another girl at the same party - as she was too intoxicated to consent - however he was acquitted on that charge by the jury

and if he videotaped a 15 year old minor female performing a sexual act, would that not constitute child porn?

[usmc-sooner]

what kinda POS do you have to be to be getting sophmore girls drunk to sleep with you. I was raised that you don't treat women (girls) that way. As a father, I think this is wrong.
It's called kharma folks what goes around comes around. Hopefully the boy learns a huge lesson about life and turns it around.

[yermom]

something omitted from this story - this 17 year old kid was also charged with raping another girl at the same party - as she was too intoxicated to consent - however he was acquitted on that charge by the jury

and if he videotaped a 15 year old minor female performing a sexual act, would that not constitute child porn?

i don't think he was filming...

[jk the sooner fan]

maybe not, if he knew he was being filmed, then he's complicit just as if he held the camera

[Frozen Sooner]

something omitted from this story - this 17 year old kid was also charged with raping another girl at the same party - as she was too intoxicated to consent - however he was acquitted on that charge by the jury

and if he videotaped a 15 year old minor female performing a sexual act, would that not constitute child porn?


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."

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/Story?id=1693362&page=2


And a state legislator who helped pass the molestation law said it was never meant to police teen sex.

"The legislative intent was to protect women and children from sexual predators," said Rep. Tyrone Brooks, a Democrat in the Georgia State Assembly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/Story?id=1693362&page=3

[achiro]

something omitted from this story - this 17 year old kid was also charged with raping another girl at the same party - as she was too intoxicated to consent - however he was acquitted on that charge by the jury
Anyone can be charged with anything.

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21488038/

Genarlow Wilson getting out.