Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIts not that we are immature, its that you don't understand that a double standard, even thought it might "protect the innocent" is still a double standard.
Are you guys twins 🙂
Listen, if you still can't see how having a law that protects the incapacitated is a good thing, I don't know that there's anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise right now. You just don't seem to have the maturity to understand it.
How about this, being intoxicated does not excuse you from your actions? This way a drunken rapist still gets punished and nobody is guilty of moral double bookkeeping.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHe was charged with rape but aquitted. Here are some more interesting quotes from Atlanta magazine, including one from the jury forewoman: “Because we were ignorant we sent this child to jail.”
You keep missing a key point here: The girl was clearly intoxicated. This should make it a rape charge regardless of her age.
Anyone who takes advantage of an underage or intoxicated person should be removed from society. In this case it was both.
Perhaps when you've gained some maturity, you'll be able to have something other than an adolescent viewpoint.
"...as jury forewoman Marie Manigault stood up in the jury stand and read, “We, the jury, find the defendant, Genarlow Raevion Wilson, not guilty of rape. . . . We, the jury, find the defendant, Genarlow Raevion Wilson, guilty of aggravated child molestation this 25th day of February 2005.”
The room erupted into a collective gasp and Genarlow, dressed in a plaid button-down and khakis, sunk his face into his hands and began sobbing uncontrollably. ...
The jury filed into the back room where they had deliberated for about five hours earlier that day. It was not until then, says Manigault, that attorney Michael Mann told them that their verdict meant a mandatory 10-year sentence for Genarlow. The room exploded. “People were screaming, crying, beating against the walls,” she recalls. “I just went limp. They had to help me to a chair.”
Manigault says she feels that prosecutors gave the jury instructions that left them no choice but to convict Genarlow on the aggravated child molestation charge. She says that she and her fellow jurors believed that their verdict had to be unanimous. She says that other options—such as a hung jury—were not thoroughly explained to them.
“It all boils down to the fact that there’s the letter of the law and there’s the spirit of the law,” says Manigault, who claims that she still struggles to make peace with her role in the case and that she could not sleep for months after the verdict. “Under the letter of the law these young men were guilty, but under the spirit of the law they were not guilty,” she says. “Because we were ignorant we sent this child to jail.”
Observers said no moments were more dramatic than when the young defendant pleaded in his own defense:
Genarlow: . . . Aggravated child molestation is when like a 60-year—some old man like messing with 10-year-old girls. I’m 17, the girl was 15, sir. You call that child molestation, two years apart?
Barker: I didn’t write the law.
Genarlow: I didn’t write the law, either.
Barker: That’s what the law states is aggravated child molestation, Mr. Wilson, not me.
Genarlow: Well, sir, I understand you’re just doing your job. I don’t blame you. . . . But do you think it’s fair? . . . Would you want your son on trial for something like this?
Much of the argument seems to centre over intoxication and consent. What no-one can say is how sexually active this girl was/or wasn't. Its impossible to say why her reaction to her mum was 'I've been raped'. Was it concern for her reputation as a possible remorse set in as the thought of what would happen when the video made became public? Was she concerned that some of her male harem may not have been careful enough about their use of birth control and that she could conceivably be pregnant?
Its impossible to not question the morals or motives of a woman who claims rape. We also live in a society that finds it hard to consider that women could also equally be sexual predators and yet they have the added benefit of the weight of the law to help punish those that fall foul of their anger. A video may have convicted a 17 year old but the crime committed was not an affront to some helpless intoxicated innocent, incapable of making an informed decision.
We'd like to think so. We'd like to affirm a world of decency and proper affection when we invert the power play that was on display at the centre of this tragedy. When your world is populated by idols who are famous for their online porn celebrity and when in 2005 when this happened your mouseketeer role models have taken their Baby Hit Me One More Time squeeky cuteness and turned it into a Toxic slease show, what hope have you got. My girlfriend gives the best milkshake at the back of the yard, I can teach you but I have to charge.
And they want to say it was intoxication or lack of consent that is being punished. The culture this girl is part of screams at her from every quarter to not only give consent by to be Diirty about it.
One of those not so rare occasions where society really is to blame for this one!!
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneplease make a point. It is not clear that this was rape as defined on the link you posted. by all accounts the participants were all eager to participate and did so with lustful carnal creativity.
A number of you really need to read and understand this:
http://www.uga.edu/ovp/sexvio.html
Originally posted by kmax87Read my earlier posts for my points.
please make a point. It is not clear that this was rape as defined on the link you posted. by all accounts the participants were all eager to participate and did so with lustful carnal creativity.
The girl was fifteen and clearly intoxicated. Anyone who would take advantage of that situation deserves to be put in jail. She was too young and too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn't matter if she was eager to participate or not. This "she got what she deserved" position that many of you have taken is appalling. A fifteen year old is a CHILD. To be able to stop reasoning at the level of children yourselves, you're going to have to come to understand this.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSomeone who is found guilty of taking advantage of her should be punished.
Read my earlier posts for my points.
The girl was fifteen and clearly intoxicated. Anyone who would take advantage of that situation deserves to be put in jail. She was too young and too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn't matter if she was eager to participate or not. This "she got what she deserved" position that many of you have taken is appalling.
She should not put herself in a position to be unable to take care of herself.
Originally posted by lepomisThe reason that children are afforded extra protection is precisely because they ARE unable to take care of themselves.
Someone who is found guilty of taking advantage of her should be punished.
She should not put herself in a position to be unable to take care of herself.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneShe was too young to drink -- but she did.
Read my earlier posts for my points.
The girl was fifteen and clearly intoxicated. Anyone who would take advantage of that situation deserves to be put in jail. She was too young and too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn't matter if she was eager to participate or not. This "she got what she deserved" position that many of you have taken is appall ...[text shortened]... soning at the level of children yourselves, you're going to have to come to understand this.
She was too young to give consent -- but she did.
I grant that her consent was illegal and should not have been accepted -- but she definitely consented. So which is worse -- consenting illegally or accepting that consent?
The answer is: both are wrong. Which is the basic injustice in this case because only one party has been punished. The boy should have received 30 days in jail, and the girl some sort of juvenile detention appropriate to her age.
In the boy's case, I am convinced that the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusal punishment (i.e. punishment out of proportion to any damage he inflicted) has been violated.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour drumbeat on this is getting tiresome -- 15 years is a CHILD according to the state of Georgia. That's the basis for your argument that justice was served in this case.
Read my earlier posts for my points.
The girl was fifteen and clearly intoxicated. Anyone who would take advantage of that situation deserves to be put in jail. She was too young and too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn't matter if she was eager to participate or not. This "she got what she deserved" position that many of you have taken is appall ...[text shortened]... soning at the level of children yourselves, you're going to have to come to understand this.
But imagine that tomorrow, Georgia passes a law that lowers the age of consent to 15 (and BTW OKs sex between consenting, conscious adults regardless of level of intoxication -- also not at all unreasonable).
Now what do you do?
Either you completely reverse your position and argue that the sentence is totally UNJUST and the boy must be released immediately -- which means you were just following the crowd around and shouting whatever you heard others shouting.
OR, you continue to defend that 15 years old is "too young for sex" which is a totally arbitrary standard and not even univserally accepted in the US.
And you dare to call others immature.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy oh my. Disregarding your incredibly condescending attitude and your almost dogged resistance to realization of the double standard at hand, i don't think that this 17 year old kid "took advantage" of her at all.
Read my earlier posts for my points.
The girl was fifteen and clearly intoxicated. Anyone who would take advantage of that situation deserves to be put in jail. She was too young and too intoxicated to give consent. It doesn't matter if she was eager to participate or not. This "she got what she deserved" position that many of you have taken is appall ...[text shortened]... soning at the level of children yourselves, you're going to have to come to understand this.
Think about this. If you are at a bar, and someone offers you their wallet, in some sort of drunken generosity and you take it, while you are also drunk, are you taking advantage of him?
Of course not, you are DRUNK, and you are accepting what is offered to you because you want it. Later on if that person wants their money back, or gets mad at you for taking, most people would agree that person doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Thats exactly what happened here. The only difference is that he couldnt give back "the money" even if he wanted to.
Do i think he should have been letting an underage girl drink at his party?
No.
Do i think he should have been drinking underage?
No.
Do i like the fact that the 15 year old girl gave him a blow job as a result of her drunkeness?
No.
Do i think he took advantage of her?
Not by a long shot.
And honestly, the next one of you self-righteous idiots who says that because someone disagrees with you they must be "young" and "immature" i'm going to get pissed. Its called a strawman attack in debating and it does nothing for your argument but makes you look like a tool. I am a 24 year old married man with 2 young children. I may be "young" but i am hardly immature or inexperienced.
Originally posted by hematicThis is so true, and so logical to boot.. If you are so drunk as to be legless, how on earth could your cause have any legal standing?
Of course not, you are DRUNK, and you are accepting what is offered to you because you want it. Later on if that person wants their money back, or gets mad at you for taking, most people would agree that person doesn't have a leg to stand on.
This kids main crime is being poor and subject to the American legal system.
We've got one for the rich and one for the rest of us.
If his name were R Kelly he could stand up and piss all over her when he finished his business. Tape the whole thing .. no problem.
Money doesn't talk .. it screams!