digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Teen Given 10 Years For Having Sex With Girl Two Years Younger

gwinnettdailypost.com — The Georgia Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a teen who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old. In a ruling released Friday, the court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by lawyers for Genarlow Wilson, who was 17 when he and the 15-year-old engaged in consensual oral sex.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yonnermark, on 10/12/2007, -337/+9this story sucks
    • PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -25/+678No, it was the 15-year-old girl that sucked.
    • sabster, on 10/12/2007, -17/+249well it sucks for the kid. i feel for him.. really unfortunate. laws need to be changed.. especially if both are in highschool. if it was a college guy to a highschool girl i would understand. but everyone can look any age in highschool.
    • TekeeTakShak, on 10/12/2007, -24/+264Wow what a stupid judge. I would have understood SOME punishment, but 10 years? That sorta thing is for a parent to decide on, not the law.
    • h4x0r1ng, on 10/12/2007, -126/+15Who can say where to draw the line?
    • Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -12/+382The judge was just jealous.
    • dsendecki, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25010 years of his life for 15 seconds of joy.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+70This sucks for the kid especially if his original trial was a Trial by Jury because his "peers" are too young to hear the case....
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+333someone should sentance the judge to some prison time..
      this kid's life is completely ruined for no reason
    • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -11/+60Tekee,

      how can you even understand any punishment?
    • bushawa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+289Wow, they didn't even have intercourse! Just oral sex, that is third base in metaphor land!
      10 years of jail for a BJ, come on. He is also being tried as an adult in this case instead of a juvenile. That is some bull ***** if you ask me.
      They need to give this kid a break, it is not like he raped or killed someone.

      I say we use the power of Digg to free him!

      or

      Find the girl's parents and make their life hell! In these situations it is the parents that start the whole thing!
    • SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+135Oh god, this is so flawed. They were the same age, they were in on it, it's completely natural. Nothing wrong here at all. Just as stupid as banning underaged kids to have sex with other underaged kids. Young kids do explore sexuality and if laws like that would be enforceable every one of us would be in jail.
    • Innagadadavida, on 10/12/2007, -6/+166I know of a family who's baby was shaken to death by a baby-sitter. She got sent to jail for 5 years for some reason or another. What a flawed court system we have.
    • revmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -43/+16thank god i'm in canada. or else i woulda been *****. in the arse by some big hairy guy in the shower. eek.
    • eddiexplorer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+145I think everyone should contact the court @ http://www.gasupreme.us/contact_court.php and state their opinion.
    • hehe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+207This is a massive flaw in our legal system. A 15 year old and a 17 year old are capable of engaging in consentual sex, which is what this was. The 17 year old guy did absolutely nothing wrong. And yet he gets 10 years in jail and has to register as a sex offender for life--which will essentially ruin his life. He was a good student, could have gone to college and done something for our country, but no. What a waste of a jail bed! And he could get beaten up or raped in jail--whatever happens, it's going to be a long and horrible 10 years for him.

      I hope this guy appeals up to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins. He does not deserve 10 years in prison and sex offender status for consentual oral sex with someone only two years younger than him. I'll bet if the girl was 17 and he was 15, they wouldn't send her to jail. This is just beyond unfair.
    • Etryginn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+74"He was sentenced for aggravated child molestation. Wilson’s case was one of two cases that were cited earlier this year when lawmakers passed a law that otherwise strengthened penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy."

      So you get 10 years for your girlfriend willingly giving you head but you pretty much get off scott free for screwing her in the ass? how does that make sense
    • coldstatue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28@sabster

      I don't even think it matters how old people *look* at that age. 17 and 15 are probably just far enough apart to get a little hassling from friends, but I really don't see anything wrong with it at all. I mention it because your comment makes it sound like, you know, maybe he thought she was older... I just don't see the problem with a 2-year difference at that age. 15 and 13 would be different.
    • CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+76I hate this. It's a prime example of cultural centrism gone awry. It used to be that 13 year old girls were married to 30+ year old dudes, which is no longer considered OK. I guess that means our ancestors were perverts. Too bad they had the "wrong" culture. Talk about a lack of perspective. And now it's morally reprehensible for two kids to mess around because of a two-year age gap? How about 17 and 19, 20 and 22 or 31 and 33? It's ridiculous any way you slice it.
    • aOenEz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+114Why is no one asking the most obvious question?

      How the hell did they find out she gave him head anyway?

      Either the girl's parents had to have walked in while their pearly-fresh Caucasian daughter was performing fellatio on a black guy or the girl must have complained. This is so ***** retarded. Ten years for engaging in...you know what, ***** that. They didn't even engage in anything! Head don't count! I would even settle for his 10 years in prison... well, not really, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if he didn't have to be branded as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

      God they ***** this kid's life up. I'm emailing the governor of Georgia.
    • glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -34/+5That penalty would be a lot easier to swallow, no pun intended :), if the dude was like a 32 year old truck driver.
    • drathosX3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+71dude, the judge was just jealous...

      but really, was the guy black or something?
    • provost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+69the retarded part about being tried as an adult.. someone as young as a 15 year old can be tried as an adult, but they cant bend the same rules and say, 'well they were both over 15, so we can let it go by saying they were acting as adults'
      They get to selectively choose who was acting like an adult and who wasnt regardless of who actually was.

      its a bunch of *****
    • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40This is whats completely wrong with the laws regarding sex and age... -_-

      Teenagers can't be stopped from having sex... and its just normal they'll be couples a few years older or younger than eachother... its not wrong...

      The only thing these laws SHOULD apply to, is those creepy pedophiles that rape young teens... thats definantly not mistakeable for a 2 year difference, teenage sex... -_-

      I hope the prosecutor gets raped in the ass, shot, and left naked in the street... then they'll know what a REAL crime is... -_-
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -32/+10There's really no need to blame the judge. They merely interpret the law. Blame the legislature.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5410 years for oral sex? What do you get for anal?
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -31/+24I guess Bill Clinton was the wrong mentor for that lad.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -33/+11"10 years of his life for 15 seconds of joy."

      You can last that long?!
    • jtek99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30@Etryginn

      In legal terms, "sodomy" is just any sexual act besides regular old vaginal intercourse. Anal, oral, hand jobs, etc, all fit the legal definition of sodomy.
    • robdavy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+77This is scary, because I bet many Digg readers were that age not too long ago, and all geek jokes aside, this could have happened to any of us (if we were unfortunate enough to live in the wrong place).

      I think we owe it all to ourselves to try and help this kid, and contact the Governor of Georgia and let him know your opinion on this.

      Now, conveniently enough, the contact page on the Governor of Georgia's website is lacking in any way to contact him electronically (expecting this?). however, you can contact him electronically via http://www.capwiz.com/politicsol/mail/?id=2582&type=GV&state=GA

      Feel free to either select Email or Printed Letter

      Really think about doing this...
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36"but really, was the guy black or something?"

      Yep.

      The more I think about this case, two people of almost the same age engaging in some consensual sex, the more disgusting it gets... He'll be out at 27 years of age with current laws and I'll be damned if he hasn't *then* become a worse person. :-( I know I would have. 10 years is an awfully long time. They just can't let this happen... :-/ I hope the 15 year old will assist doing everything in her power to turn this case around in the coming few years or whatever it takes -- maybe the absurdity of that situation would help open their eyes. I would have a hard time living with having placed a member of the opposite sex in jail for 10 years after willingly having had sex.
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18The case file is here: http://www.gasupreme.us/op_summaries/Dec_15_ops.pdf

      from the file:
      “in 2006, the Legislature amended OCGA § 16-6-4 to provide, inter alia, that
      aggravated child molestation involving an act of sodomy is only a misdemeanor
      when the victim is between 13 and 16 years of age and the convicted person is 18
      years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim.”
      However, “the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new
      amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.”
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -7/+93USA is insane... it's seriously up there with North Korea for "most ***** crazy backward country of the year" award.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -37/+2Are you guys ***** serious? Digg up bushawa who is suggesting that the digg community as a whole breaks the law and harasses the girl's family?

      Wow! I didn't think that Digg could sink to a new low, but it not has. That comment and its +90 rating right now is the kind of thing that could REALLY destroy digg if a mainstream media outlet decided to run the story about the lowlifes that inhabit Digg.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50Wow This instantly reminded me of an article I saw on digg this morning. Apparently you get the same punishment if you hold down your 9 year old daughter and let a pedo rape her for 20 dollars over 200 times.




      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Court_Child_renting_sentence_too_short
    • EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4Dear Georgia Supreme Court,

      I believe having oral sex with a 15 year old is perfectly fine.

      Signed,
      Digg user in my mother basement.
    • KillaGoat, on 10/12/2007, -24/+6Bury me!
    • ArcCoyote, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42"dude, the judge was just jealous.. but really, was the guy black or something?"

      Yes. And the girl was white. And this is Georgia.

      The judge was bound by an insane mandatory sentence, but if you want to blame someone for this, blame the 12 people sitting over there in the jury box. They are the racist assholes who wanted to see this poor kid lynched.
    • najdorf, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@broomett: Yeah you should really worry about that, what a low for digg!

      I think prison years should be a continous function of the years of the two people: if you're over 18 and have sex with a (18-epsilon) year old girl, you go to jail only one day or something, if she's 17 one year, if she's 16 two years... For a 17 year old with a 15 year old I'd say maximum 1 year
    • EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+67Georgia + Racist Parents + Racist Jury = Ruined life.

      Gotta love the south, about 40 years behind the rest of the country.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@rastorbator

      Hemorrhoids ;)
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22"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."
      http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=2
      ***** hell, it used to be even much worse. BTW, the jury had the power to overcome the retarded law.
    • mrkmrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Sorry to abuse the comment system, but more people need to sign his petition for appeal:

      http://www.wilsonappeal.com/index.php

      Help the poor kid out...
    • florin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Well, sign the petition then, so the outcome may suck less:

      http://www.wilsonappeal.com/petition.php
    • rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The problem started when the girl Tracy woke up, contacted her mother, and they proceeded to the hospital and the police got involved. Even Tracy agrees there was no gang rape, she was just having a wild time. However, the situation could have been far worse which is what the laws were there for. Once again alcohol and sex just don't mix, because you can't remember what happened.

      The whole story is here, still tragic http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158

      Kids will be kids, but where were the adults during a party where 15 year old girls were drinking heavy alcohol? The whole thing about the BJ would have "blown" over (excuse that one) if she was not drunk. She would just have went home and never told her mom. I also wonder who was brilliant enough to use a video camera, because that sunk all of them.

      I think there is a lot of blame and forgiveness to go around here.
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22As a resident of Gwinnett County (this is a suburb of Atlanta) all I can say is you NEVER admit to comitting sodomy in any law enforcement/judicial setting here. There was a (white) guy named James Mosley who admitted to performing oral sex on his wife during (divorce) court proceedings. He got jail time for sodomy. His WIFE. She was never charged with the "crime."

      Georgia can seem like an actual civilized place to live sometimes, but that whole swirling diliverance banjo music is waiting to swallow you up if you cross the wrong bureaucrat or cop.
    • rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sorry, it was actually Michelle who contacted the police, but it was Tracy who did the BJ's. Crazy story none-the-less. The guy in the story got the sentence for the BJ from Tracy. Tracy wasn't even drunk that night, so she fully understood what was going on and was just being a teenager. It doesn't make everything right, its just one of those stupid law .vs. word games.
    • dhulser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm sorry, i really shouldn't, but did anyone else find it ironic that his lawyers name is BJ Bernstein?
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4holy *****, that is some ***** up ruleing. It blows my mind that a judge could even sentance that. A 15 and 17 year old? WTF? This ***** blows my mind. The kid's life is gone for ***** no reason. This is some totally ***** up *****.
    • BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I e-mailed this message to to gs supreme court scinfo@gasupreme.us and I think you should all do the same

      I found this story on digg.com and I "along with many other digg users" were outraged that you would destroy this persons life for engaging in, not even intercourse but, oral sex with a fellow high school student. A student who (according to the article) was a "promising young man with good grades and no criminal history" Ive herd of a baby sitter who got only 5 years for shaking a baby and killing it yet this young man gets 10 years for having oral sex with a classmate. I could understand some punishment (seems more like the parents responsibility to me) but 10 YEARS! The system is flawed and I seriously think you should reconsider this persons punishment.

      You can see many people agree with me on the comments section on digg http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Teen_Given_10_Years_For_Having_Sex_With_Girl_Two_Years_Younger
    • sbrickner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One really fundamental problem with this ruling is that it doesn't recognize the really arbitrary nature of legislated "age of majority".

      The "logic" behind statutory rape laws is that minors aren't competent to judge whether they're ready for the consequences of sex, while adults are presumed to be competent.

      It's pretty obvious that prepubescent teens are that incompetent, while twenty-somethings should have "grown up" enough to judge competently. For the vast majority, the point at which you change from "incompetent" to "competent" happens somewhere in the middle. There's no magic about your eighteenth birthday (or whatever the number is in a particular jurisdiction). The point is that the law draws a pretty much arbitrary line and says, "before this you are presumed incompetent and after this you are presumed competent".

      What's "supposed" to happen is that when the issue gets to court, the court decides based on the circumstances whether the individuals are *actually* competent. But this means that the line needs to be drawn on the "safe" side - it needs to assume more people are incompetent than really are, to ensure that the incompetent can enjoy its protection.

      Where the "logic" falls down is that too many people interpret the line as black and white. We say "you're not twenty-one until next Tuesday? you shouldn't even be *thinking* about alchohol", and "you're only seventeen? you aren't allowed to know anything about sex". The age of majority is often seen as a "starting line" - the point at which you "start" learning about the adult world.

      The age of majority should really be viewed by parents as a *deadline*. You have until their 18th birthday (or again, whatever the number in your jurisdiction) to prepare your child to make competent decisions about sex. We offer statutory rape laws (and other "age of majority" laws) as protection from bad decisions until then - but you can't prepare them overnight. You need to be talking to them *before* the deadline. One conversation about "the birds and the bees" the night before her 18th birthday borders on child abuse.
    • aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5If it pleases the court, please refer to the case The People V. William Clinton, where it was ruled as precedent, that in the eyes of the law, BJs don't count.
    • bongchitis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Dang, I just plowed 44 15-year-olds yesterday from myspace, lol.

      Seen in The Onion: thought police convict man of 1,254 counts of statutory rape.
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3aywwts4: That's DC. This is Georgia.
    • quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Guys -- it's not the judge, he even said that it wasn't fair -- but the legislature writes laws that they have to follow. Blame those idiots and this idiotic witch hunt of "sex offenders" -- no matter how minor their crime.
    • bogmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I would have understood SOME punishment, but 10 years?"

      Um, how about NO punishment? He did nothing wrong...
    • DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This has to be the biggest crap I have ever heard. The guy was ONLY 2 years older. Who the hell put this crap in the law books. Those bastards need a reality check that all kids screw while in their teenage years. I wouldn't doubt that the girl was the one who initiated the sex. Her parents are pure assholes for ruining that boy's life because of a little fling. I mean its one thing if he raped her BUT this was not rape. This is like living in the dark ages seeing crap like this. Well boys don't go sticking it anywhere under 18. You never know you will poke a girl that has psychotic parents. The judge needs to be fired.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@hehe:

      Don't worry, they'll just free up a jail bed by releasing a child rapist that will go and promptly rape the girl with her new-found fame (infamy?).

      I, for one, am glad that we keep these sickos and the drug-users behind bars. I wouldn't want my children to be influence by them. I'd take the murderers and molesters on the streets any day. It's great to live in a country that has their priorities straight, that's for sure!
    • birdwatcher3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Where is the world going to?

      They ruin kids' lifes for having sex -yes even at 15-

      Poor kid would probably get less jail time if he did drugs.

      Bloody self righteous bastards.
    • buryme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To clear up a few misconceptions and play Devil's Advocate (I find it humorous that many people who claim to live right there are blatantly wrong on key facts in the case):

      -The victim was a black girl, not white as most of you assumed. Read the case before you say something stupid.

      -The victim called her mom claiming she was raped and/or sexually molested on the night of the incident after awaking from a drunken or drug-induced state. She and her mom went to the police that night and you can likely imagine what the police report said. This was not a case of her reporting wild exploits at a party to her mom and then trying to blow it out of proportion later. My thought is that her mom sincerely believed she had been raped, likely by several men, and reacted like most parents should react. That being said, it was a very unfortunate way for the case to get started.

      -Yes, this case looks awful. However, it is an extreme example of how things can be pushed way too far in one direction. People that believe the U.S. legal system is absurd because of this case need to educate themselves first. I agree that it's a horrible verdict, but this is one case out of thousands! It doesn't make it excusable, but at least try to put it in perspective (the law isn't perfect, government isn't perfect, people aren't perfect).

      -He was "only" 2 years older than her...but think back to high school. When I was 17-year-old senior, a sophomore girl would have seemed MUCH younger to me. Okay, it's not a major age difference, but 2 years means a heck of a lot more then than it does after high school. Again, it doesn't excuse the verdict, but it's much different than a 29 year old with a 27 year old.

      -The fact that it's being reported as consensual is something I have only read as an interpretation of the media and observers. The victim believes that it was not consensual and that the six guys forced her into doing what she did. In the moment of something like that, who knows what gets said so she has likely convinced herself (through the encouragement of law enforcement individuals as well) that she was 100% the victim here. We may disagree but that is how it was presented in court.

      Just to be clear though, I totally disagree with this verdict and feel awful for Genarlow Wilson. My only advice to him a couple years ago would have been to be more careful in refusing a plea bargain.
    • buryme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oops, one correction...the second point should read:

      -The OTHER victim called her mom claiming she was raped and/or sexually molested on the night of the incident after awaking from a drunken or drug-induced state. She and her mom went to the police that night and you can likely imagine what the police report said. This was not a case of her reporting wild exploits at a party to her mom and then trying to blow it out of proportion later. My thought is that her mom sincerely believed she had been raped, likely by several men, and reacted like most parents should react. That being said, it was a very unfortunate way for the case to get started.
    • KayIslandDrunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF you can be a junior in high school at 17 and a sophmore at 15, that's pretty weak.
  • foshaug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+163This is just horrible, his life is now ruined.
    How did this case come before the judge anyways?
    • sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+102rampant puritanism.
    • kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61parents probably... so sad that they are ruining a young man's life when I'm sure she is the one that offered to do it. I mean, if they have been dating for a while, and both agreed to it, then it's just as much her fault as it is his.

      While pre-marital sex is something I don't believe in, it should still be their choice, even if no one else wants it, as long as they use protection, and their senses, they should be able to make the adult decision to have sex or not. it should be their right, as long as they aren't hurting anyone or forcing anyone to do it.
    • themarq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+56Wow, I did the same thing when I was 16.

      Good thing I live in Canada (and it was 17 years ago)
    • dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+141You're not joking. This is a terrible, terrible sentence to hand a young man.

      1) He will now spend what should be his college years in prison. He may never go to college once he gets out.
      2) He will forever be branded as a sex offender, to be ostracized and even discriminated against, even after he has paid his debt to society.
      3) Prison is a wonderful place to pick up criminal habits, to be used once one is released.

      I believe this sentence not only is an injustice to this boy, but an injustice and endangerment to the society he will be reintroduced to after our f-ed up prison system warps him.

      /soapbox
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+564) as a 17 year old in prison... omg you know he is going to be violated hundreds and hundreds of times by many many men, far worse than the concensual oral he got sent there for.. this is if he even lives, i mean hes 17 years old.... this is just a crime to send him to prison for this...
      i mean i dont know the guy but if its consenual, and there is only 2 year age gap, both in highschool.. how is it that rapists get less time than this

    • dissident, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31this is complete insanity by jealous christian old school judges who wish they could bang a 15 year old girl. There is absolutely nothing wrong that was done by either party in this case. I don't know what else to say except I'm glad I don't live in Georgia.
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Good question,.. I'd be curious how the judge rationalized this life-destroying sentence given it was 2 kids involved (not just one),.. In Canada we make an important distinction,..it's clearly a crime when a perv adult takes advantage of a kid under 16, but if both parties are under 18 there's some common sense that needs to be applied.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39Hell, I dateda 16 yr old when I was 18. (yes, we were in high school) I would have gotten life...
    • Futurepower, on 10/12/2007, -1/+79The fact that it is okay for Congressmen to be sexual with teenagers, but not okay for teenagers to be sexual with each other, indicates the U.S. government has become VERY corrupt.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/20/opinion/main2284155.shtml

      My short summary of U.S. government corruption:
      http://futurepower.org/Bush_Comedy_and_Tragedy.html
      That is just a summary of some of the big issues. The corruption is FAR more extensive.

    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Meanwhile Mr. Foley is doing how much time after violating his power over underage pages? How much older was he? What about catholic preist-boy rape, how much jail time has come out of that abuse of power? For Christ's sake he wasn't even 18. Is there any reason she isn't going to jail for defiling him? I'da given the kid a high five, not 10 years in the slammer. Something is rotten in the state of Georgia.
    • hbkashmir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46Just in case anyone was wondering. The article mentions that the Judges name was Carol Hunstein. A simple WhitePages.com search yields:

      Hunstein, Carol
      705 W Ponce De Leon Ave
      Decatur, GA 30030-2955
      (404) 373-6213

      as the only result for a Carol Hunstein in Georgia. The article provides a link to

      http://www.gasupreme.us/

      Which has a Contact Us section with the following hard information.

      244 Washington Street
      Atlanta, Georgia 30334

      Phone: (404) 656-3470
      FAX: (404) 656-2253

      Notice the area code is the same. So further research through the magic of maps.google.com reveals that the Carol Hunstein we found with the simple search on WhitePages.com lives only 5.7 miles away from the courthouse... Coincidence? I will leave you make your own decisions and possibly phone calls.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature."

      The appeals judge's hands were tied in this case as she stated. Apparently, Georgia limits the ability of appeals judges to overturn prior judgments, unless the prosecution (formerly the defense) could bring evidence showing that the prejudicial judgment did not follow protocol. This case seems pretty straightforward. About the only thing this kid can hope for is constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment, which is pretty vague.

      The legislature or the governor might be able to grant him a pardon, though, if you contact them.

      Governor's office:
      404-656-1776

      Governor Sonny Perdue
      203 State Capitol
      Atlanta, Georgia 30334
      404-657-7332 (Fax)



    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wild..there is no penalty for begging.
    • KillaGoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Somebody fax judge so and so some of the information off of this page.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape
    • qingshuo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://faxzero.com/

      Should make it easier =)
    • mikeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I know 3 guys and this happened to them. They were 17, girl was 15. There was one other guy and she gave head to 3 guys in the boys bathroom while the 4th stayed outside to make sure no one came in. Girl does her deed goes out, and other girls in her class see's her, she gets embarrassed and runs away. Rumors spread, police get involved, all 4 guys arrested over Christmas. Dad of girl goes all crazy asking that they all be tried as adults and when trial over upset that they only got a few years in jail and become sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

      The guy who was the lookout was the star of our school with good grades and star of the basketball team, guess his life is ruined forever now.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Most likely the parents of the minor had him arrested.

      I just want to be clear: was she a practice girl?
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Foley wasn't a gay molester in Georgia. He was a gay molester in DC. US law isn't uniform. Sometimes it's really unfair. Sometimes it serves well. Fortunately ,by federal law, you are free to move to any state at any time. Seems like DC is the place to go if you want to molest boys. Georgia is the place to go if you want to own a gun. Nevada is the place to go if you want to play craps. California is the place to go if you want to smoke pot. etc.....
  • SQUIDwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -5/+231WTF? This is just stupid. Nice job US justice system. You've now destroyed someone's life because two horny teenagers decided to do what 90% of all horny teenagers do. Hell, why don't you just "preemptively strike" against any "child molesters" and assume that since most teenagers are horny, they must have had sex with other teenagers and throw them all in prison. I mean they're all "children" right? So anyone under 18 that has sex with someone else under 18 is therefore a child molester.

    Damn, there was a lot of child molesters at my high school.
    • clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+83The other digg story claimed 95% of people do before sex
      And yes, this is probably the worst thing a court can do
      If anyone actually thinks people are going to stop having sex because of this ruling, they've living under a rock.
    • kob0724, on 10/12/2007, -75/+2"Everybody is doing it, so it's ok." Where have I heard that argument before...
    • ajwinder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28we're talking consensual sex, not extermination of the jews or slavery. Wise up you ***** lunatic.

      The things thats really disgusting is, how many priests do you see sitting in jail for (actually) molesting little boys? This country needs to get its priorities straight, right now, and no, thats not a pun on the actions of these disgusting priests who are supposedly representing the only way to God. If the only way to God is through my anus, I'm sorry, but I really don't want to meet your God.
    • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Read the story carefully. It's not the judges, it's the legislation that failed here:

      Hunstein added she was ‘‘very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior,’’ but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature.

      Judges are supposed to serve to disambiguate the law, not change it.
    • HFrankenstein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Can't judges strike down unjust laws, though?
    • Grym11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I don't care what anyone says. A judge's (and any officer of the court's) number one responsibility is to JUSTICE--not the law. If the law is so horribly wrong that this boy's life will be unjustifiably ruined, the judge should take matters into his own hands and refuse to sentence the "minimum sentence" or simply throw out the case entirely.

      What we're seeing here is finger pointing from a spineless judge unable to live up to the consequences of his own actions. "It's not MY fault, you see: it's the legislature!" He would have fit right in in WWII Germany. And yeah, I said it--Godwin's law be damned; it's the truth.
    • glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@clubmasta2:

      "If anyone actually thinks people are going to stop having sex because of this ruling, they've living under a rock."

      .... Or Georgia...
    • LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@HFrankenstein: No. they can't. Juries can though, although they're rarely told they can, and often discouraged from doing so if they manage to find out that they can.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    • anaesthetica, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@HFrankenstein

      No, judges can't strike down unjust laws. The court can rule a law unconstitutional, but not simply unjust.

      However, juries *can* rule a law unjust. It's called jury nullification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

      Most juries aren't instructed by the judge that jury nullification is even an option, but it's a long-standing feature of the common law system. This law is clearly unjust in this case, and the jury ought to have refused to convict on the basis of the law.
    • shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@HFrankenstein
      They can also use the laws that have been amended or made before the trial, instead of useing the prior versions of it like this judge did.
    • Sic133, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4pics or it didn't happen.
    • kob0724, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ajwinder
      Yea, that's totally what i was referring to. You hit the nail on the head (NOT)
      Way to use it though to just go an rant on something else.
      This makes me a lunatic how?
  • bradym80, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27This is horrible!
  • kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Yet more evidence that our view of morality is straying from the antiquated laws of this country. All I can say is ***** all those who think they should be allowed to force their views on right and wrong onto people that havent in any way done any harm to anyone. 10 years... I'd like to see the ones guilty of handing out that sentence serve that time instead. They have no right to take away his freedom when he has harmed no one.
    • LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually, these laws *are* modern. If they were antiquated, then they'd be allowing arranged marriages between middle-aged men and thirteen year-old girls, as this is what happened in antiquity (and recent history too).
  • stcymrk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41people should be able to overrule lame ass judgements like that ... and the judge should be fired
    • xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Judges in general seem to have too much power.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21They can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12the article states that the judge claimed that because of legislators, she didn't have the authority. this is truly screwed up. something must be done.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16can the governor pardon him?
      http://www.gov.state.ga.us/contact_dom.shtml
    • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10the governor can pardon him as well
    • Eclipce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Except judges tend to keep the jury in the dark about jury nullification.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@xelloss

      The problem here is that judges do not have enough power. Fools like you have stripped judges of discretionary power they used to have with regard to sentencing.

      Read the Supreme Court's majority opinion here: http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06c1689.pdf

      The Supreme Court, as represented by Presiding Justice Hunstein, is *not happy* about this, but notes that their hands are tied by the legislature. The legislature wrote the sentencing guidelines into law, and even when they revised the law so that Wilson's "crime" is now a misdemeanor, they "expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute".
    • griffindj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Aren't judges are elected by the people. How bout not voting for him next election?
    • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why should the judge be fired? The legislature is responsible for the laws, not the judges who rule on them. Like it or not, the law was within the bounds of the constitution, and there was absolutely nothing the judge could do about it. What would you rather have? Judges who uphold the constitution, or judges who can randomly decide that they don't like a law and just toss it out? Sounds awfully democratic, eh?
    • missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is *****. In most states, the age of consent is 16, and in most states there are provisions for one or both persons being below the age of consent as long as they're within a few years in age. In most states, it's a four year difference. Their laws are ridiculous. Thank you, Puritans.
    • jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is if they find out you know about jury nullification they will tend not to select you for the jury. Or screw it up some other way.
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8what the hell do you mean 'fools like us' this government stopped being 'by the people, for the people' a long time ago
      fools like us mostly didnt even realize what was going on (till it was too late?)
      fools like us dont realize that the united states has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country in the world
      fools like us dont realize that the private prisons are a multi billion dollar a year industry and that the greed machine is feeding our on freedom, the longer people are locked up, the more money big companies make, big companies that lobby our government to make sure that average prison terms continues to increase, and more and more things are criminalized, like recreational drug use, or protesting, or burning rectagular pieces of fabric
      fools like us dont realize that WE are next
    • missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You guys, if enough people write to the governor with reasoned letters, he might pardon this kid. Otherwise, he's going to federal PMITA prison for ten years, where I doubt he'll learn to be a productive member of society, and then he's going to have to register as a pedophile sex offender for the rest of his life. This isn't right, and everyone knows it.

      Come on. Use the power of Digg for good, instead of everyone sitting on their asses and talking about how ***** up this is.
    • manova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@caketank

      You are 100% correct. This is exactly the problem with legislative mandates for sentencing.

      Since the legislators failed him (by not retroactively changing the law), and the judiciary failed him (by having its hands tied by the legislators), it is now time for the check over the judiciary to be used by the executive. This kind of case is a great example of what pardons are meant for.

      Now the only problem is that I think the republican governor of Georgia is in his first term, so if he does pardon the kid, then his opponent will run ads next election saying don't vote for this guy because he pardons sex offenders and no one will bother check the facts.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@intangir:

      By "fools like [xellos]", I mean the fools who are so bent on scapegoating the judiciary that they've packed the code with mandatory sentences and generally restrained judicial discretion wherever possible. They tend to be the same fools who write "tough-on-crime" legislation like the statute this kid was convicted and sentenced under.

      @manova:

      Gov. Sonny Purdue was just reelected, actually. I doubt that makes a difference, though.
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Vote or didn't happen.
    • fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know it's funny, I have a case where I have been charged with "noisy assembly" as a sober driver at a party, and when I called the city council (the creators of the law) they told me that it was not in their power to change it, and that I would need to go to the courts!

      how convenient!

      A pardon would be great, but that doesn't change the law, and it is clear that people have been affected by this law before, and that it NEEDS to be changed.
  • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -27/+22Pics or it didn't happen.
  • zapa, on 10/12/2007, -43/+24You Americans surprise me every day.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16that's because you read our news.
    • ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Yes, because as everyone knows the U.S. has a complete monopoly on stupid judicial decisions.
    • dcbebop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Enough of the damn anti-american canadian pride *****. I live in the US, it's not my fault I'm goverened by right-wing conservative assholes. I vote every time to try and rid it and this is as far as we can get.

      Oh, and this is ONE instance here being blown out of proportion. What about the 10,000 of these cases that get thrown out of court that fly under everyones radar? Should we dig those too?

    • member57, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1I suppose what ever ***** hole in the wall you come from must be so boring, or the "state" is censoring, you must read OUR news??
      Go comment on your OWN news, most of here could care less how you feel....
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@bebop,. "BLOWN out of proportion",.. perfect title for the kids autobiography.
    • alive1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@member57
      Tech news arent *YOUR* news. Tech news do not belong to the US. In fact, the internet does not belong to anybody, and especially not the US!
      And here comes the blast: Digg is a tech news site, of some sorts. And many people come here to read tech news. Some occasionally trip on stories like this one in particular.
      So, if you mind, please keep your eyes to *YOUR* news, and leave the rest of us techies with *OUR* news.
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would think you'd also be pleasantly "surprised" by the fact that the actions of the judge (acting of course within the constraints of the legislature) are so widely and rationally condemned by so many people here, most of which are likely from the U.S.
    • aerofan897, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@alive1,

      In case you haven't noticed, digg hasn't been tech news specific for a long time. Take a look at the categories.
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@member57

      Then unless you're from Georgia, don't comment on this article.
    • alive1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@aerofan897
      I meant to edit my comment so that it would be more clear that digg is not reserved for news originating from specific geographical locations, but got lazy.
      I stand corrected, yet my point still stands.
  • dave1021, on 10/12/2007, -3/+74I'm sure the fact that the kid was black and his girlfriend was white had absolutely nothing to do with the sentence...
    • OMGWTFROFLMAO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28It more than likely did, but it also probably weighed less than the parents of the boy not being able to afford a GOOD lawyer. Race matters, socioeconomics matter more.
    • acumenprobitas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The Chief Justice in Georgia is black too... she must be one of those self hating types

      *EDIT* She was the only dissenter... nevermind what I said
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is that true (kid was black/girl was white)?? That's the first thing I thought after I read the headline and found out this happened in Georgia (sorry for the sterotype). Couldn't find any information in the article though...
  • garyc83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43"I believe in a good future for my children... But not my children's children, because I don't believe in children having sex."
    -Jack Handy

    P.S. Everybody knows that BJ's don't count.
  • fourzerofour, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Judges should have to spend at least 1 year confined in a jail cell in a federal prison to become a judge.
    • ajwinder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1that may be the single most retarded statement i've ever heard. Let's unduly imprison every judge in the country!

      I'm failing to see how a future judge being someone's prison bitch is going to grant them the ability to rule in a fair and just matter. I'm also failing to see how it's going to affect cases such as these, when the state legislature set minimum prison terms for the crime, and his "peers" who convicted him were racist ***** southern hicks.

      I don't know how you cure a social ill. You cant educate these people, and they're self-breeding hate. If there is a God, I would almost guarentee this kind of ***** really pisses him off, the whole, lets commit atrocities in his name thing.

      Seriously, we're digging him up now? Stop and think for a damn second, that really is a pretty retarded thing to even suggest.
    • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd agree except from what I've seen prison terms only make people less likely to follow the law.
    • Anamith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12EARLY: You ever been shot?
      SIMON: No.
      EARLY: You oughta be shot. Or stabbed. Lose a leg. To be a surgeon, you know? Know what kind of pain you're dealing with. They make psychiatrists get psychoanalyzed before they can get certified, but they don't make a surgeon get cut on. That seem right to you?
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not completely idiotic. Cops have to mace and taser each other during training so they know just how painful it is to do it to someone else.

      At the very least judges should have to go to prison for making rediculious sentances like this.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Judges should have to spend at least 1 year confined in a jail cell in a federal prison to become a judge."

      WTF? It wasn't the judge who put this law into effect, and it wasn't this judge that reduced her own rights to overrule the law. Actually, anyone with half a brain can smell sympathy in her response, and I wouldn't be surprised if she feels pretty awful for having had to take this action in her private life. While she could have raged against the machine or something like that, that solution would likely only have resulted in her losing her job and him getting his 10 years anyway.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As an earlier commenter said, this ruling is criminal...

      It's not an just injustice with regards to this kid's future, but it is itself a gross abuse of power and a criminal act in itself IMHO
      Any judge willing to pass this kind of ruling shouldn't be allowed to be a judge in our society...
  • MaxSteele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"...but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature. "

    Come on! You're a NEWSPAPER. Fire your current editor and get someone that can do the job.
    • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When I first read that I didn't see the problem...then I read it a couple of times more and then I saw it.

      Of course, I'm not a newspaper editor : /
    • fitchmicah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you are very keen to pick that up, YOU should be an editor!

      I can't easily see those mistakes cause my mind corrects them subconsciously, and I have to read the stuff very deliberately to pick that stuff out. It makes proofreading my papers very difficult...
  • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Was that deep-voiced one-handed guy from Arrested Development at the sentencing to make a further impression on this 'sex offender' or was the 10 years enough?

    "And that's why you never sleep with someone two years younger than you even if its consensual."
    • colin7151, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4j walter weatherman
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The show is over.. let it go. Seriously. Do you just go and look for any opening, no matter how unrelated it may be...to insert Arrested Development references? Don't give the show's fans a bad name.
  • fromonesource, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4this is terrible, i think that most people in the world are guilty of this crime. what a stupid, conservative and naive country we live in.
  • Highborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28if the girl was 11 or 12 or even 13 I could see it, but 17 and 15? wow. If anything give the guy some community service and a few appointments with a shrink, but 10years??

    But hey I guess it is fine if a 35 year old porn king gets and 18 year old to take it in the ass on camera and get gangbanged by 3 guys. But a 17 and 15 year old doing things in private, now that is horrible. What the hell?
    • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37what would sending him to a shrink even accomplish?

      "So I see you like oral...."
    • Highborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I am not sure it would accomplish anything, I am just saying it would be better than 10 years of "pound me in the ass prision"
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If the girl had been 16 it would have been legal I'd bet. Most states in the country say 16 is the age of consent. There must be a huge maturity jump made in a few months time.
    • kingleroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ummm.... it wasn't in private :: it was video taped (the girl gave head to successive guys)

      http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1693362&page=1

      Totally unjust, of course, even if it was a sleazy party.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bah, if 17 year olds needs to see a shrink for having sex with 15 year olds, a large part of the population is insane. :-p
  • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And don't think it's not going onto my resume.

    Awards:
    "Time 2006 Person of the Year"
  • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7and he didn't even get to have sex with her!

    to reiterate what garyc83 said, BJs don't count!
  • drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I didn't even know that was against the law..... I mean, if he was 18, sure, but 17? WTF?
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yep, in Georgia the age of consent is 16, you are legally inable to make decisions about your body until the exact second you turn 16. Having been in the same situation, I think I'll be writing the legislators on this one. I was three years younger than the girl I was with and she left me for a guy who was 23, she's got a kid now.

      Funny thing was her parents hated me but loved him :D
  • ohhhL3ThaL, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5pics or it didn't happen.
    • Jrehpo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You're a little late there, nub
    • uranium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4you wanna see pics of 15 year old girl having sex? Looks like you're on your way to the prison!
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Pics or it didn't happen" is one of the stupidest trends I've seen on digg... really it just makes people who only post that as their comment look like idiots.
    • osfn8, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3There is actually a video of this. It was on Dateline or 20/20 about a year ago.
    • sethdfowler, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2but does it blend?
  • nickbender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13it's just has a friend of mine once said:

    "4000 years of history have tought us that it's ok for nasty old men to lay women in their teens... only in the last 100 years have we dubbed it 'EVIL' and even then, only in very select regions... i.e. America"
  • Tainek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Absolutly appauling, if i lived in the US i'd be forming a mob to go protest outside the court rooms, but alas, i live the other side of the pond

    if you really care about injustices like this , dont post how horrible it is on Digg, go do somthing about it, this could be YOUR kids!
  • RedNeckerson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Blame the feminists.
    They want all men dead or in jail, and they encourage these bizarre applications of the law. He's 17...a minor!!!! How can a child be a child molester?

    Ahh. Look who the chief justice is:
    http://www.gasupreme.us/
    • Danjak, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Wow. You're a retard.
    • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There is a huge difference between feminism that seeks equality and feminism that seeks revenge or to flip the injusticies, and you in one sweeping phrase lumped both parties into the same guilty box. Sorry, but either that was a terrible thing to say or you truly are ignorant to the differences between the two. Either way you probably shouldn't have said it.
    • RedNeckerson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Ruckgesicht

      The only acceptable type of feminism appreciates females and female traits.
      What we call "Feminists" are misnamed because they do not practice feminism. They are lesbians who ironically encourage women to act like men. They hold the belief that female traits are inferior to male traits and attack women who are comfortable with their gender. They also believe that men are redundant and are of no use other than being available to have our resources stolen.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7feminism is gay. Equality is equality, any feminist that wants to be equal needs to shut up and learn to deal with life's ***** just as every male has. Every feminist who wants equality but still have preferential treatment, needs to go kill themselves. They waste air and only poison society. There are only two possible outlooks for women that are not devastating to society as a whole. The woman that works hard and does what she wants with what she earned (and playing games with a guy who has money is not earning it) or a woman who just wants to make her man (or alternate significant other) happy and in return expects that he (or possibly she) takes care of her. The problem is, the majority of the feminist movements in this country are from women who want to be seen as equal but also have preferential treatment. Screw that. You have every opportunity I have, if you want to be equal then I will treat you like I treat everyone else. If you don't like it? Tough. Go show me why I should treat you different... I have a basketball and a garden hose waiting.
    • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"They are lesbians who ironically encourage women to act like men."

      Your flag icon tipped me off, but statements like this remove all doubt of your ignorance regarding these subjects. I don't know what else to say; if you really think that every feminist is some sort of Lesbian/Russian Revolutionist then there is nothing anyone can say to get through to you. It really is pretty sad, though.

      "They hold the belief that female traits are inferior to male traits and attack women who are comfortable with their gender"

      Your language exposes your position; "female traits" are really classical archetypes. You call them traits so that your own ideas about women are made synonymous with natural and thus any change to them is a change to nature itself. This is of course a misconception. Likewise the phrase "women who are comfortable with their gender" is used to explain those who fit into traditional archetypal positions without a problem. Again, your own mindset makes it out to be equal to nature and thus any deviation thereof is a deviation from the way nature intended it. What a narrow-minded 15th century mindset.
  • brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11My country is disgusting me more by the day.
    • member57, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Then move...
    • JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I disagree with this ruling in the extreme, but do not slam the U.S. for it!

      To quote Homer(Simpson), "If you don't like it, go to Russia!"
    • Jeveran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you don't like it, do something about it. Moving is just running away. And, by the way, if you do move someplace else, you'll probably find other things wrong there. Then what will you do?

      There are mechanisms in place to change the system. Take advantage of those mechanisms and do something to change things.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Then move..."

      Right because that is always what america was about, if you dont agree with us on serious issues then you better move the ***** to canada, because in america we dont change and dont set examples for the rest of the world to follow, we are ignorant and arrogant and damn proud of it. so get the ***** out!........... right???

      By this logic we would still haev slavery, no womens rights, no social security or other social programs, and children would still be working in factorys like they do in china now.
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@brickbat

      It ain't your country, it's Georgia. The racist, puritanical ***** have sandbagged foxholes dug for the defence of their beliefs. If you want to beat them you better bring more than indiggnationTM.

      .
  • hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Hunstein added she was 'very sympathetic to Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to 10 years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior,' but said the court was bound the by limits set by the Legislature."

    Our legal system isn't one-size-fits-all. You're a judge, you're supposed to judge each case individually and make an appropriate ruling!
    • gazelem67, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Actually, the judge can't. We have a system of checks and balances. When the legislature makes a "no parole" sentencing guideline, the judge has no choice. All that can be done is to change the law. While I think the sentence itself is a bit harsh, he was indeed convicted and he should serve time for it. However, I think the "no parole" restriction is a bit much.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5But that would be "judicial activism"!

      We explicitly write our laws with no room for judicial discretion, and then bitch when judges don't exercise the discretion we've taken away from them.

      Smooth.
  • amishbpatel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3terrible....he probably wont serve that long, but hell always be labeled as a sex offender and have to publish his whereabouts...Poor kid
    • sethdfowler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No parole. How could he not serve it all?
  • raiderj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is ridiculous... how many of us could have been convicted of that as well? As much as I wouldn't want my daughter to do anything sexual at 15, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to go to jail for something she consented to with someone 2 years older than her.
    • gazelem67, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The problem is that she can't legally give consent to sex. She's too young, under the law. So no, it wasn't consensual.
    • Kypt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's the problem here, she should have the "legal right" if you want to put it that way, to give consent if the age difference is so small. I mean..if both were 15, should both go to jail?
  • munit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I bet he will be a cheery person when he gets out of prison.
  • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Damn, this could have happened to me. I lost my virginity to a girl that was 15 when I was 17. She was due to turn 16 in 2 months but that's not relevant in court.

    Sucks to be him.
    • member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Same here, or can I admit that... oops...
      I later married the girl though when she was 17 and I was 19. BIG MISTAKE....
  • gazelem67, on 10/12/2007, -32/+5Quit blaming it on the judge. It was the Georgia legislature that made the law and every state (and most countries) have statutory rape laws (that's what it's called). Go to www.ageofconsent.com for more information on that. But, there's a saying that "15 will get you 20" and legally, a 15 year old having sex is statutory rape, and that's in MOST states. As a parent (daughters ranging from 14 to 21, with a daughter to be born in 3 months) I can tell you that you're darn right I'd prosecute a 17 year old having sex (of any kind) with my 15 year old daughter. I also make it clear that they know this, too.
    • Jeveran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"...I can tell you that you're darn right I'd prosecute a 17 year old having sex (of any kind) with my 15 year old daughter."

      Oh, and your daughter is just an innocent bystander, unable to say "no"? If it happens, and I hope it doesn't, maybe someone will bring up your faulty parenting in allowing it to happen.
    • sdub74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I hope you have a son so when he's 17 and has sex with a 15 year old girl, her parents prosecute him and he has to do 10 years in jail.
    • member57, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@Jeveran
      You have a good point, takes 2 to tango... I agree with you, and I even have 2 daughters.. I hope I give my daughters enough self esteem to wait until marriage, but if they don't, I'm not just going to blame the boy....
      Also, the judge does have latitude in handing out sentencing, and can give suspended sentences, time already served, etc. So yes MOST of the blame lies here with the judge for letter of the law, not intent. The INTENT is to prevent adults from having sex with minors.
    • JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Chances are that your daughters probably did. I understand that it is a parent's duty to protect one's children, but it is that puritanical attitude that causes children to have to be deceptive in their behavior.
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You're kidding yourself if you think that your kids aren't going to have sex just because you 'don't want them to'. Wake up.

      And nobody cares that your vasectomy didn't work.
    • rapiddemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't you think your daughter would be just as much at fault when she's almost the exact same age? Aren't you essentially saying that because your daughter chose to make a decision you disapprove of you think it's right to ruin somebody else's life for her own choice?
    • krellor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You would try to ruin some high school kids life because they had sex with another high school kid? What if it was one of your girls at 17 and the boy at 15? Would you try to prosecute? Should the boys family prosecute her? Try to not be so ***** intolerant and maybe you'll be a better, more compassionate human being for the trouble. Do you even remember high school? All the freshman ans sophomore girls giggling about the juniors and seniors? Stick a bunch of hormone driven teens into a building together and what happens? Sex, you nut job. Get over it and get over your own myopic view of the world.
    • afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If the boy was 15 as well as your daughter, and both consented, would you wish for both of them to be prosecuted? What about if your daughter was 17 and the boy was 15? Somehow I doubt it. I fail to see how there's a perpetrator or a victim when people that close in age engage in a consensual sexual activity.
    • DntSngItBrngIt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So essentially you would try to direct all of your anger at the teenage boy for your failure as a parent because you can't raise daughters that don't suck dick when they are 15? Yeah. Please die.
    • goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Gazelam67, let's hope for your kid's sake and the sake of more loving folk that you die soon.
    • berfmurret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I can tell you that you're darn right I'd prosecute a 17 year old having sex (of any kind) with my 15 year old daughter. I also make it clear that they know this, too."

      i double dare you. and your daughter will disown you. imagine. never speaking to your daughter again just because of your ***** ego.
    • goettel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sick ***** bastards. Someone hates and/or fears sex, and this boy's life gets destroyed? It's people who think up puritan ***** which should be locked away until they die, so they can't hurt other people - least of all their own kids.

      Sickening.
    • mre5765, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How would it be his fault parenting in allowing it to happen?
  • Jeveran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It annoys the hell out of me to have to bring this up, but might there be a racial element to this story?
    • terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I was thinking the same thing, I hope this kid wasn't black and the girl white.
    • Kypt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From reading the comments it appears that was the case...
    • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As another poster said earlier, it was more likely to be the socio-economical issue than race that decided this kid's fate. If you can't buy justice in this country, you're officially *****. See O.J. Simpson and other high profile cases for more evidence of this phenomenon.
  • glucoseboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wait, so this 15-year-old girl who was also a willing participant gets..... nothing???

    I'm sorry.... now this story makes even less sense.

    If I had a son, I would clip out this article and give it to him.
    • colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6and to top that, she's the one that actually did something
  • TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Laws should be less strict if your under 18 (for both ages), I can understand if this was a 20+ year old doing this, but this is going too far. Feel sorry for the guy :(
    • gazelem67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In many states they actually are less strict. Remember, each state is different. For instance, 16 is the age of consent in Michigan while 18 is the age of consent in California.
  • pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Haha! They threw the book at him. She had better swallowed.
  • karnautrahl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thats a very very deeply disgusting and disturbing sentence. The judge should go to prison for it and anyone who supports it also. Two young people have consensual sex-no crime there. Ok she was underage, but there's latitude in law for dealing with such a minor and ONLY technical misdemeanor. I hope his family, friends and other supporters fight for both him and sue the judge for gross misconduct and prejudice. Judge obviously doesn't get enough.
    • anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FTA: ... legislature not judge...
      It used to be criminal and new misdemeanor law explicitly forbids it's application to the ones convicted before it came into effect. Judge was doing his/her job. If you don't want this to happen, go vote accordingly. (Seems pretty obvious which way)
  • mrq8472, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i am sorry for that guy.
    my only luck is that i live in czech republic :)
  • qiemem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That blows.
  • Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The U.S should invade this barbarous country and show them what REAL democracy, fairness, justice and human rights are......wait...
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. Georgia (and most of the states in the deep south) need their laws changed so ***** like this doesn't happen!
    • anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Second round? :D
      (Civil War)
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Way to turn a legitimate person to a criminal, because prisons certainly aren't for rehabilitation.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Two years younger could be a lot you know. Picture a 3 year old with a 1 year old. That is sick paedophilia, that 3 year old should be locked up for life.
    • hattrick35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really, really hope you're being sarcastic.
    • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My sarcasm detector just exploded. Too bad the Digg monkeys didn't have theirs turned on.

      I think the OP was trying to say that in the grand scheme of childhood, 2 years doesn't make a whole lot of difference (if both people are either pre or post-pubescent). 3 years, maybe. 4 years, definitely. 5 is out of the question. But 2 years? GMAFB.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you're picturing that, we'd better trade this guy for you asap.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course he's being sarcastic. Sorry I dugg you down, didn't finish your comment.
  • xxiao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this judge and law are simply awful! this goes too far.
  • gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Too young to consent, unlucky for that pedophile.
    • postal21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12wait, how is he a pedophile? hes not even a legal adult...

      hes 17 years old, and shes 15, how many times do you think this happens everyday? thousands?
    • djSyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Today's episode of Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters R, T, F, and A.
  • terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jeez, if that was me, I would have got life.
  • zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4our country is full of ***** idiots
    • 1town, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Hell, all countries got idiots, but the US seems to put all their idiots in the three power branches -.-
    • member57, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3One less if you leave...
  • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8What the hell? 10 years for CONSENSUAL oral sex? And they were both minors? And the girl was only 2 years younger in the first place? They're both in high school! What the hell is going on in this country! Ahhhhhhh! At least in the future it sounds like this will be more likely to be prevented.
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This judge doesn't understand "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law"
  • trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Rule #1, don't trust women under the age of 18.
  • 1town, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jesus Christ, this is beyond ludicrous.
  • goerg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i remember the son of miams police chief which was sentenced to 15 month for buying 400 pounds of weed...strange days
  • bobyoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WOW....My whole school would be in jail. Some older people are so clueless to what high school kids do. AND he got good grades...Hmm, who do you think hes going to pay a visit to after his time. His whole life is ruined. Good job America!
  • cam815, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Legislature, law, precedent... it all super cedes Common Sense now, didn't you hear? Evidently half the country would be locked away if this legislature had it's way, poor kid. And hell, it's not like anyone LOOKS their age anymore. You turn your head at a hot girl in the mall, thinking she's 19, and it turns out she's 16. Yet I'm sure initial recognition of attraction would probably also be illegal to that pathetic court, when only an act on that attraction with the knowledge of wrong doing is all that should be illegal.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 254 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.