12 Jun 07
Originally posted by SeitseWhose fault is it if a 15 year-old woman (woman not girl; girls don't go on the prowl) throws herself in the way of a gang bang?
Or so it seems in some parts of the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6743303.stm
Mr Wilson, a former high school honours student and star athlete, was found guilty by a jury of aggravated child molestation for having [b]oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party in 2003.
Under Georgia law, if Mr Wilson had engag ...[text shortened]... have only been charged with a misdemeanour and would have received a much lighter sentence.[/b]
What's right in a case like this? Lock 'em all up? Beat 'em all within an inch of their lives? Fuhgettaboutit?
Excerpts from:
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.
Just as they were wrapping up their search, detective Ed Reece, a crime scene technician, noticed something in the corner of the room: the video camera.
Over the next few days, investigators interviewed about 14 teens who had been at the party. Eventually five young men admitted to detectives that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with Michelle and that Tracy had performed oral sex on them. Officers continued tracking down evidence. "
"As lawyers and detectives met with the boys and their families, the impact of the charges began to sink in. Clearly, rape is illegal in all American states, but in Georgia, sex, including oral sex, with anyone under the age of 16 can be classified as aggravated child molestation—even if it occurs between two teens less than three years apart in age, as in the instance of 17-year-old Genarlow and 15-year-old Tracy.
In fact, under Georgia law, the penalty is actually more severe for a person found guilty of engaging in oral sex with a minor than for having intercourse (which is classified as misdemeanor statutory rape), even if the perpetrator is just a few years older than the minor. "
"There was no ill will, no malice, no intent to commit a crime. After all, Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys."
12 Jun 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIndeed. Silly of them to even try to make laws against 15 year olds having sex.
Religion making it's mark on politics...I wish religious people would stop trying to legislate their silly religious rules.
And they've only been a state for a little over 200 years. How absolutely stupid of them that statutes from each and every legislative body not be 100% consistent in philosophy.
12 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358I was under the impression that in most states one cannot obtain legal consent from someone who is intoxicated. Is Georgia an exception? If not, this should be charged as statutory rape. If so, someone needs to bring Georgia into the 21st century.
Whose fault is it if a 15 year-old woman ([b]woman not girl; girls don't go on the prowl) throws herself in the way of a gang bang?
What's right in a case like this? Lock 'em all up? Beat 'em all within an inch of their lives? Fuhgettaboutit?
Excerpts from:
http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158
"Around 3 a.m., Michelle awoke old investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys."[/b]
A fifteen year old is a GIRL. Period.
12 Jun 07
Originally posted by jammerIsn't that joke a little old by now?
Whadaya talking about? She passed the final exam. It's a great career move. Go straight into politics, move to DC .. go for the big bucks .. Monica style.
Imagine the proud parents.
And I agree with Starrman, this conversation in general is disgusting.
12 Jun 07
Originally posted by techsouthSilly of them to make oral sex with a minor a worse crime than intercourse. I think you miss the point.
Indeed. Silly of them to even try to make laws against 15 year olds having sex.
And they've only been a state for a little over 200 years. How absolutely stupid of them that statutes from each and every legislative body not be 100% consistent in philosophy.
12 Jun 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually the only discernable point that I was responding to was a bashing of religious people.
Silly of them to make oral sex with a minor a worse crime than intercourse. I think you miss the point.
As far as the point of the thread goes, unless the same legislative body in the same legislative session passed both laws, then I would counter that this is not at all silly, but rather a normal phenomenom of different politics at different times. This anomaly alone is not evidence that a single person at any time in history championed both causes. More likely, one law was put on the books, and then 50 or 100 years later a new law was put on the books that affected or altered the first, and this second law consisted of content important at that later time that could be agreed upon by a majority at that time. Perhaps even at the time someone noticed the apparent inconsistency, but no time was available to revamp other statutes.
I don't think I am missing any points, I am countering them.
