digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Not Fair - Ten Years In Prison For Consensual Oral Sex

msnbc.msn.com — Ten years in prison for receiving oral sex. That is Genarlow Wilson ’s sentence. When he was 17 years old and a high school senior, he received consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old, 10th-grade girl. Everyone agreed, including the prosecutor and the girl herself, that she initiated the act. And yet....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Emilio8605, on 10/11/2007, -16/+103/goes into hiding...
    • coolian, on 10/11/2007, -6/+402How sad.

      This kid is still in jail for a ***** law that was repealed! I wonder how the ***** those prosecutors/jurors sleep at night knowing that they willingly destroyed this guy's life.
    • xniL, on 10/11/2007, -2/+857Yet Paris is out of jail in just a few days for endangering lives on the road.

      The system works.
    • RoroCo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+102Watch the video from the article. Apparently most the people that were responsible for the sentence are the ones fighting for this kid's freedom now. Althought they all knew it was wrong to send this kid to jail for 10 years, they also knew that the law was specific in regards to what they can do. It is sad when prevailing logic gives way to the letter of the law.

      I would like to know who brought this case up to the courts? Was it someone in specific or did the tape make its way to the wrong hands?
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14@ roroco

      The parents perhaps?
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 10/11/2007, -58/+10Statutory rape laws are necessary and good. However, there needs to be some common sense when handing out sentences. 10 years is a long time.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14@roroco: "It is sad when prevailing logic gives way to the letter of the law."

      I agree, but a lot of a good justice system is having a careful set of rules for when you can bend the rules.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54"/goes into hiding..."

      Oh come on now, no need to pretend. This *is* Digg.
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+176More jurors should be aware of Jury Nullification.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    • keyboardcowboy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+301anyone else find it ironic that his lawyers name is BJ?

      "Wilson’s attorney, B.J. Bernstein,"
    • dclowd9901, on 10/11/2007, -6/+90Let he without sin cast the first stone.

      I'm no Bible thumper, but I love this quote, and idea of the hypocricy of prosecuting people on judgments of morality. The kid was 17, and this chick was 15. They are peers for crying out loud! I'd like to know exactly how many of the people who prosecuted him would open up their high school years to scrutiny
    • Eivo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+47I can't remember what it is called, but the jury doesn't have to convict him, even if he is guilty of the crime. There was a marijuana case recently in which the jury believe the law was wrong and didn't convict the defendant. Jury Nullification, that's it! Here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

      edit: damn, mcduckov beat me to it.
    • Elranzer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+98They aren't putting him in prison because the lawmakers in Georgia really believe in this law. They're putting him in prison as punishment for premarital sex. They also want this story to be widely covered. Not to outrage the rest of the country, but to scare the rest of Georgia's teenagers into not having premarital sex. They actually believe in George W Bush's abstinence-only program.
    • waxoff, on 10/11/2007, -16/+41How is this even a crime to begin with? They should put the prosecutor in jail instead. Oh, and 10 to 1 odds the girl was white.
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37Regarding Jury Nullification...

      You'd have to lie during the screening process to get on a jury. A standard question now is whether you'll apply the law as given by the judge. I would never lie so the last time I had to answer this question I answered "not if I don't agree with it". I'm guessing they don't hear that very often because I had to say it three times in three different ways. In any case it is an absolutely surefire way out of jury duty.

      Also, according to the wiki article your fellow jurors can rat you out if they suspect you are implementing Jury Nullification. In short, if you plan to use JN you do so at your own risk and you'll probably need to lie/obfuscate along the way.
    • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+34"they also knew that the law was specific in regards to what they can do."

      What they Jury didn't know, is that the jury can ALWAYS acquit the defendant, no matter what the evidence is. That's why we have juries: they're supposed to be the ultimate limit on the power of the state against an individual.

      -jcr

    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -26/+14waxoff,
      Your comment is an excellent example of a disturbing trend I've seen lately (particularly on digg). I'm referring to the, "If I don't agree with you, you should be put in prison" mindset. Never mind that the Prosecutor did absolutely nothing against the law (and, in fact, followed the law to the letter). No, he did something far worse. He did something you don't agree with.
    • nInn, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Im not sure this has anything to do with racism seeing that the girl was black too. However the prosecutors are overzealous. The kid understandably wants to avoid being labeled a sex offender. We are used to sex offenders being rapists, including child molesters and such. It has to involve some sort of coercion, mental or physical.
      The kid was with a bunch of high school friends! I'm not confident about the prosecutors' integrities and sense of justice.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12The jurors didn't have to convict him in the first place. They still could have said not guilty, we can not find this man guilty.
    • Suzilla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+43@mcduckov

      "Regarding Jury Nullification..."

      I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago and when asked if I would apply the law as explained to me by the judge, I asked what the law was. I was told that this would be explained to me when it came time to deliberate. I said that since they were asking me to agree to something about which would know nothing until after I'd agreed, I told them that I could not honestly answer "yes". The judge called the attorneys to the bench for a conference ... and then he excused me.

    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7xnil,
      For some reason you've received a positive response for stating something completely and totally untrue. She was originally given probation (just like everyone else with the same charges) for DUI and reckless driving. She violated her probation by being pulled over for driving without headlights and driving while her license was suspended and went before a judge for the probation violation. The judge revoked her probation and she was sentenced to serve time in jail.

      She was not put in jail for "endangering lives on the road" and if you think that everyone goes to jail for the same thing you need to go down to your local courthouse and watch the proceedings for awhile. Virtually everyone has their probation continued if their only violation is driving under suspension. They simply have their license suspension extended and sometimes their probation is even extended (extended beyond the original date of terimination). So I agree with those that say she was treated differently. She was put in jail for something virtually no one ever goes to jail for. But this is part of the disturbing trend I spoke about in an earlier post: "If I don't like you or I don't agree with you, you should go to jail."
    • rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7Paris only got 3 day. WTF!!!
    • kittybit83, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5i dont know the whole story, but how did he get turned in in the first place? did the girl cry to her parents? did someone find the video? did he turn himself in??? please enlighten me.
    • Nemphtis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23You know there's a problem when the girl even admits she was the one who initiated it, yet the guy still gets the blame. It makes me feel sorry for all the countless people who don't get this kind of attention but were also put in prison for false charges or given a much higher sentence than they deserved. I would never be able to sleep at night knowing I destroyed people's lives just because of my personal opinion, rather than true justice.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1"The jurors didn't have to convict him in the first place. They still could have said not guilty, we can not find this man guilty."

      You're obviously naive to the way the legal system is supposed to work.
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5@RicolaWarrior

      Do you have any idea how many times you directly contradicted yourself in that moronic reply?


      Not saying I agree with it, i think the sentence is *****, but then again so is your statement.
    • RoroCo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Some of you have mentioned that the jury could have acquitted the defendant. The problem is that Wilson was guilty beyond reasonable doubt according to the way the law was written. The jury is there to determine whether or not a law was broken... not to rewrite the laws for specific cases. In this case the law was written clearly, and the proof of guilt was solid, they had no choice but to convict this kid.

      All that said, he did not deserve this - or ANY - sentence. There needs to be amnesty for this kid so his life is not ruined by a lack of vision from a law maker.
    • j4200, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2We have similar minor sex laws in Canada, though the sentancing is not nearly as harsh. I think it makes sence though that teens more than 3 years apart should not be taking care of each other's business. There's a place for all that and it's called college or whatever other pertinant outlet you find to explore your adulthood. The law was made for this exact type of scenario, so it applys completely. The guy is guilty completely. 10 years though, thats brutal
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -8/+11RicolaWarrior,
      The prosecutor did no such thing. Here's how it works for those of you that don't understand this process. We live in a representative democracy. Legislators are chosen by the people by way of popular vote. The legislators do write laws but they cannot simply enact anything they wish. In most areas there are two competitive parties and there is MUCH debate on almost every law that is presented. This law was obviously presented to the legislature and was debated and enacted into law by a majority of the legislature that was elected by a majority of the citizens. But that doesn't make it law. Still the law has to be signed by the head of the executive branch (in this case a governor most likely). If he does not agree with the law he can veto it and send it back to congress for a possible override vote. If a super majority of the legislature disagrees with the veto it becomes law without the governor's signature. But it doesn't end there.

      Then law enforcement is expected to enforce the laws. If law enforcement finds that there is probable cause that a law was broken they submit the violation to an impartial magistrate. The magistrate makes a determination if there is legal probable cause and, if so, the magistrate signs the warrant and it is served. Once the warrant is served, in most states, a defendant is entitled to anther hearing called a preliminary hearing to, once again, determine if probable cause exists. If so, the case is bound over to the court for prosecution. However, that doesn't end the checks in the system either.

      Once the case is bound over it still must be presented to a grand jury to, one last time, determine if there is probable cause to go forward. If they return an True Bill Indictment then the case may be set for trial. A prosecutor is assigned by the elected DA or Solicitor (it varies from state to state) and they only can prosecute within the confines of the law as written by the legislature. Throughout the process a Defense attorney can motions for relief if he/she believes that the state is not following some aspect of the law. In this case, a trial was held, the judge obviously didn't grant a directed verdict on the basis that the state had not presented a case recognized by the law and, after testimony was taken, the case was submitted to a jury.

      Once submitted to a jury, all 12 of them have to agree there is a violation of the law beyond any reasonable doubt before convicting. They decided there was and convicted the Defendant. Once the trial is over a sentencing hearing is held. Neither the prosecutor or the jury has any direct authority to determine a sentence. The sentence is handed down by a Judge although the prosecution and defense may present aggravating or mitigating information that may have a bearing on a just sentence. After hearing all aggravating and mitigating information, this just sentenced this Defendant to 10 years.

      To say that the prosecutor is evil and to single him out in a system with checks and balances all over it and with the public ultimately determining what should be or should not be illegal is just juvenile in my opinion.
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Left out one important part: The Defense may challenge the constitutionality of this law. Many of you think it is cruel and unusual punishment probably but these statutes have always been upheld in the past when reviewed by the Supreme Court of the US. So i guess there is a lot of evil to go around and a lot of blame for taking 10 years of this man's life (but be sure not to leave the defendant off of the blame column since he's the one that broke the law to begin with).
    • workharderscum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18FTA:

      "...a felony for teens less than three years apart to have oral sex. It carried with it a 10-year sentence, even though it was only a misdemeanor for those same teens to have sexual intercourse"

      I think that says it all about the sense these laws make.

      In other news, punching someone is now punishable by death by firing squad, while murdering them results in immediate cessation of chocolate rations.
    • aaronm67, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4@waxoff

      This has been on digg about a dozen times, and every time someone plays the race card.

      Who gives a ***** if the boy was black and the girl was white. And it really doesn't have anything to do with the ***** prosecutor, the prosecutors job is to convict people of breaking laws, not decide whether he thinks the law is fair.

      This was an outdated and unfair law, and it's complete ***** it even existed. But, the law, the jury, and the prosecutor don't really give two ***** what race the kid was. He broke a law, there was plenty of evidence to show he did, and he was given the minimum sentence allowed by that law. Where the ***** does race play into this?
    • shadus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3That is wrong on so many levels.
    • carlosglz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@stephant
      I challenge you to recite the exact details of every single city, county, state and federal law where you live. I seriously doubt you (or anyone for that matter) can do it.

      Who in their right mind would think that having sexual relations with a girl that is two years younger would get you 10 YEARS IN JAIL!!! On top of that who was the genius that decided to distinguish between oral, anal, and vaginal sex???
    • Fhwqhgads, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2This kid is still in jail for a ***** law that was repealed! I wonder how the ***** those prosecutors/jurors sleep at night knowing that they willingly destroyed this guy's life.
      ------------------------

      They are the religious right. They have no compassion or care for anyone who doesn't follow them.
    • carlosglz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Sign the petition
      http://www.wilsonappeal.com/petition.php
    • diggingaround, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2
      For the same "crime" Paris would probably get 10 day probation... if even that..

    • SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0My only issue:

      FTA: "Prosecutors have discretion, and they have to use it fairly and wisely."

      You don't fix unfair laws by giving servants of the law more discretion. You fix the law.
    • TheUnashamed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I wish this jury had known about jury nullification...

      These poor kid would probably be free today.
    • AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30I have a friend, now dead, who was sent to jail for having sex at the age of 16 with his 15yo girlfriend. He was a registered rapist until he died, and convicted despite the girl herself being in court on the stand talking about being in love with him. Her mother was the one pushing for the charges.

      I have another friend required to register as a sex-offender for rape. He serves five years. His friend confessed to him that he raped the girl, Pete went to the cops, his friend's RICH parents had an attorney nail it on Pete. The girl went to court saying she's never even met Pete, that the other guy did it. Pete went to jail, his friend got off. Five years later, DNA cleared him of all charges. Yet he's still registered, by name and address, as a rapist.

      Paris Hilton disregards the law and admits what she did. Her actions could have resulted in death. She's out after three days.

      Notice a theme? The rich get off, the poor ones pay dearly.
    • AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4Listen, judges have the legal authority to overturn any verdict for any reason. Those jurors could have called him not guilty, and the judge would have had the legal authority to say the law was misapplied, guilty anyway, he's going to jail.

      A jury is like voting for president. A farce that the court can overturn.
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11"Listen, judges have the legal authority to overturn any verdict for any reason. Those jurors could have called him not guilty, and the judge would have had the legal authority to say the law was misapplied, guilty anyway, he's going to jail.

      A jury is like voting for president. A farce that the court can overturn."

      That comment is utterly and demonstrably false. You have a constitutional right to a jury trial and a judge has no authority whatsoever to overturn the decision of a jury to acquit a defendant because of the rules of double jeopardy and the division between the fact finding role of a jury and the law finding role of a judge.

      If a defendant is found not guilty it is over. This is well settled law. The state cannot even appeal a not guilty verdict because jeopardy has attached once a jury has rendered a verdict and they couldn't retry him anyway (even if they court of appeals finds an error). If the State believes that a legal error has occurred and a guilty man may be acquitted because of the mistake they must move for a continuance or move for an interlocutory appeal. The state cannot, as is popularly believed, ask the judge for a mistrial. Well, I should qualify that statement: They can ask for a mistrial but jeopardy attaches in many instances when a jury is sworn in and so they could not retry the defendant. Only a really inexperienced prosecutor would ask for a mistrial because it guarantees they lose.

      So, to sum it up, the State can only file an interlocutory appeal if they believe there is a legal error that makes it impossible for them to prosecute or move for a continuance of the case. They cannot appeal a jury verdict of not guilty and a judge cannot vacate a jury verdict of not guilty. Please, please don't post things that are so completely untrue because you mix up people that don't know any better.
    • AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@ stephant:

      Look up "color of law." It protects officials who act in violation of law as long as they purport to act in the name of the law.
    • bdmbdm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Nice to know that tax dollars will go to waste towards his 10 year sentence!
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You have completely and totally misunderstood "color of law" and everything else you posted about. Color of law is a concept where someone misuses their authority but claims to have authority to act in that way. It is a crime and you can go to prison for it:

      http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

      You seem to also be mixing this up with the "Good faith exception" to unreasonable searches and seizures. The good faith exception does actually allow officers to engage in what would otherwise be an unreasonable search and seizure if they have good faith that it is a legal search or seizure. The text book example is when an officer checks a drivers license, is told that the person has a warrant for their arrest, arrests the subject but we find out later that there was no warrant and it was an error. The officer is not liable for the illegal seizure and, in fact, can use any evidence that he obtained during the seizure (like drugs he found in the car during an "inventory" search incident to arrest) in a court of law.

      Seriously, give it up. You honestly don't understand these concepts so don't try to teach them to anyone.
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5yea that kid better stay in jail. We need to build more prisons, and continue to fund schools poorly. So we can be TOUGH on crime.


      See were Reagan's policies get us?
    • stregone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@ariastar

      A judge can only overturn a conviction. A jury can acquit someone who is obviously guilty if they feel the law does not apply to the case, or if is unjust in the particular case, or if it is unjust in general. A judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict unless there is some sort of foul play.
    • KiLLB0T, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@ariastar
      Personal stories in here are good, but if you have more than one friend convicted of rape then there's a good chance one of them is actually guilty, or you're full of *****.

      More on topic the real problem here is having state laws controlled by religious nutcases.
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6stregone,

      No, a judge CANNOT overturn a jury verdict of not guilty even if he does believe there is "foul play." If there is a problem with the jury deliberations he must stop them from deliberating and either continue the case to another term of court, issue an instruction to correct whatever the problem is or dismiss the problem jurors and replace them with alternates (and he would likely provide a curative instruction and individually question the remaining jurors as to any contamination that may have occurred).

      An appellate court would overturn any judges decision to vacate an acquittal and reinstate the original jury verdict. When a jury renders a verdict the case IS OVER!!!! You cannot fix anything at that point because double jeopardy attaches and the defendant can't be retried anyway. Even if double jeopardy didn't attach, the judge has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OVERTURN A DETERMINATION OF FACT MADE BY A JURY!!!!! A Judge is only a judge of the law during a trial, not a judge of the facts.

      You guys are killing me. Where do you get this information? Please stop posting things that are not true and further confusing everyone on the subject of criminal (constitutional) law.
    • pifko87, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3lol, he's black.
    • AriaStar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ stephant:

      I learned what I know by being an advocate in court rooms during actual court cases for four years. You're a damned fool if you think the law is always followed, if you think that judges are stopped from doing what they want. Who's gonna throw a judge in jail? Another judge? Thing again. They watch out for each other.

      Color of law is misapplied far too often.


      @ killb0t:

      I've gone through the court documents for both cases. I didn't buy the stories on their say-so. In Aaron's case, since he's dead now, there's no reason to overturn it. In Pete's case, he's got an attorney suing the state right now to get him the ***** off and to sue for damages. What damages, you ask? CPS took his newborn son away based on his registration. A judge ordered the baby returned immediately at the first hearing, but still. That child spent his first week of life in a foster home. Pete's older son, a 9yo, is harassed constantly because his dad's picture is online. The children suffer more, and Pete's livid.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Moral of the story? If it's consensual AND illigal, keep your goddam mouths shut.
    • dopplerdog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This case hits home because many years ago, that was me, at 17,and my g/f at the time, 15y/o. Now it seems to me that the only reason why I didn't spend 10 years in jail is because:

      a. I live in Australia where the law is a lot more relaxed

      and

      b. I'm not black

      Now her parents weren't stupid and knew we were active. Even so, they were very nice to me, and saw our relationship as a healthy thing. But we were both white, middle class and "respectable", so I guess that made it ok to people.. Boggles the mind.
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4ariastar,
      When you said "advocate" I laughed a little. Let me guess, you were a guardian ad litem? Oh wait, you were a probation officer? Or even better, you were a police officer? One thing is for certain, you were not an attorney and you've never had to actually deal with any of these issues yourself. Witnessing a court case and understanding what is actually happening are two completely different things. I truly cringe every time I read the media's account of court proceedings (and a little piece of me dies whenever I catch a glimpse Law and Order). I know you think you've seen these things occur many times but I feel rather certain you simply don't understand what you are witnessing. I don't mean to insult you but you really shouldn't be posting utter nonsense here or anywhere else.

      Oh, and I realize that the law is not always followed to the letter in a court room. But the idea that a Judge can overturn a not guilty verdict isn't one of the gray areas in the law. I mean, seriously, how can you even defend that statement?

      If you have, in fact, seen an attorney allow a judge to reverse a not guilty verdict then give me his or her name and I will, myself, report that attorney to the bar association of whatever state you live in. That is absolute, undeniable malpractice as well as ineffective assistance of counsel. That attorney has no business whatsoever practicing criminal law.
    • barrimon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Did anyone notice that a lot of these digg'd up articles on these HORRIFIC sentences go against African Americans?

      The girl who pushed her hall monitor - 7 years
      Consensual blow job guy - 10 years
      There was that kid that in Florida who did the wrestling move - Life?

      These heartless prosecutors pursuing these horrible sentences as if they fit the crime.

    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Re: Jury Nullification

      FIJA! FIJA!

      http://fija.org/
    • badassfuse, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0B.J. Bernstein lmao
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1[sarcasm /on]
      Teenagers having S-E-X? Whoever heard of such behavior!
      [sarcasm /off]

      Teenagers have been having sex since there have BEEN teenagers.This just goes to show how out of touch our politicians and legal system really are. It is one thing to be neurotic and uptight about sex. It is quite another to codify that neurosis into law.

      This is the sort of thing that happens when politicians and prosecutors get so much political capital from grandstanding sex crimes and cases. Every year politicians write the laws for sex crimes tougher and tougher. Every year, prosecutors and judges try to bag their limit of "perverts".

      In a few years when the judges and prosecutors run for reelection, they will say "I put away XX number of sex offenders". The voters will clap and buy the ***** but out of those XX sex offenders, how many of them really deserve it?
    • rnknowles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"I'd like to know exactly how many of the people who prosecuted him would open up their high school years to scrutiny"

      Or how many of the male judges or prosecutors WOULD NOT open their fly for the same girl if no one were looking???
    • kuzotz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1children should stay in jail!!!!
    • n00utkast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well if he just had intercourse he would only have to serve one year. System is great. I wonder if he claimed he had intercourse with her too, would it be eleven years in jail or just one?
  • Rhaman2003, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I wish I lived in GA so then I could call the senate and complain... to bad it is a state law..
    • blondeheroine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19You can, but you are pretty much ignored when you do. For that matter, when I write my state lawmakers, etc, I usually just receive a dismissive form letter. I've always meant to frame my response from Tanner about how Net Neutrality was actually looking out for my interests by saving me on my cable bill. Actually, I did frame that one. In the trash can.
    • sysdeath, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Many states have a similar law like GA.
    • bovester, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Wait I don't get it.

      "Under Georgia law at the time, this was considered aggravated child molestation, a felony for teens less than three years apart to have oral sex."

      So if the teens are MORE than three years apart it is OK? So if I was 17 and she was 13 it would be all good?

      That's ***** weird. WTF Georgia?
    • flygirl62, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@bovester

      I imagine it's a WORSE crime if you're more than three years apart... it gets classified as something else, perhaps a greater felony.

      I doubt they're *that* screwed up that it's a lesser crime for a greater age difference.
    • derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@rhaman2003

      "I wish I lived in GA so then I could call the senate and complain... to bad it is a state law.."

      I do live in Georgia, and that wouldn't be necessary, since the legislature has _already changed the law_. But apparently they did not make it applicable retroactively.
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3bovester,

      Which is why you should never read an article and assume the writer understands the issues (especially if the issues are legal issues). Here is the opinion upholding the sentence in light of the change in the law to a less harsh sentence:

      http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06c1689.pdf

      "Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation based upon an act of oral sodomy performed on him by victim T.C., which was documented on videotape and seems to show that the victim's participation in the act was voluntary. Wilson was 17 years old at the time of the act; the victim was 15 years old. Pursuant to the version of the aggravated child molestation statute then in effect, Wilson was sentenced to ten years imprisonment without possibility of parole. See former OCGA § 16-6-4 (d) (1).

      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. OCGA § 16-6-4 (d) (2). Although the situation in this case would fall within the ambit of the current statute, which became effective July 1, 2006, while Wilson's appeal from the affirmance of his conviction by the Court of Appeals was pending before this Court, see Ga. L. 2006, p. 379, § 11/HB 1059, the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute. See id. at § 30 (c). Accordingly, while I am very sympathetic to Wilson's argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to ten 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, this Court is bound by the Legislature's determination that young persons in Wilson's situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment now accorded to identical behavior under OCGA § 16-6-4 (d) (2)."
      ________________________________________________________________________________________________
      Here is a copy of the old law:
      http://www.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/16/6/4
      ________________________________________________________________________________________________
      The new law:
      O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4

      GEORGIA CODE
      Copyright 2006 by The State of Georgia
      All rights reserved.

      *** Current through the 2006 Regular Session ***

      TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
      CHAPTER 6. SEXUAL OFFENSES

      O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4 (2006)

      § 16-6-4. Child molestation; aggravated child molestation


      (a) A person commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.

      (b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person convicted of a first offense of child molestation shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.2 and 17-10-7. Upon a defendant being incarcerated on a conviction for a first offense, the Department of Corrections shall provide counseling to such defendant. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, upon a second or subsequent conviction of an offense of child molestation, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten years nor more than 30 years or by imprisonment for life and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.2 and 17-10-7; provided, however, that prior to trial, a defendant shall be given notice, in writing, that the state intends to seek a punishment of life imprisonment.

      (2) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.

      (c) A person commits the offense of aggravated child molestation when such person commits an offense of child molestation which act physically injures the child or involves an act of sodomy.

      (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation shall be punished by imprisonment for life or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life, and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7.

      (2) A person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation when:

      (A) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age;

      (B) The person convicted of aggravated child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim; and

      (C) The basis of the charge of aggravated child molestation involves an act of sodomy

      shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.1.
    • vinividivici, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@stephant

      So if the girl was 17 and the boy was 15, would that be against the law? And who would be the one to get arrested?
    • stephant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2ViniVidiVici,
      It would violate the equal protection if it only applied to males so the answer is a female can be arrested for molesting a male (if that is what you are asking). I'm sure you've seen all those female teachers arrested in the last few years for having sex with their male students.

      Additionally, the boy in that situation is a minor under the law. The female is the adult. The age of consent is 16 in GA so she would be arrested. The tricky ones are when both are under aged. Both should be arrested but usually only the male is.
  • break99, on 10/11/2007, -13/+96It's Georgia RUSSIA or Georgia USA.?

    It takes A LOT OF GUTS to call that the LAND OF THE FREE.
    • mehan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Georgia was never a part of Russia.
      btw, go visit Russia, especially Moscow, and see what the real freedom is.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Even during communism, age of consent was always between 15-16 in European countries.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@ mehan:

      I beg to differ. Georgia was part of the Russian Empire until the Bolshevik Revolution. That's where Joseph "Stalin" Dzhugashvilli came from. A good semenary student turned an atheist bolshevik revolutionary and later a mad despot.
    • CarzorStelatis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Georgia the country isn't part of Russia you ignorant twit.
  • helinism, on 10/11/2007, -2/+75What a waste, he shouldn't be in prison at all let alone for ten years.
    • imolaavant, on 10/11/2007, -20/+2Talking about a blow job that'll make your head spin!
    • Lukesed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16That.... didn't make sense.
  • blondeheroine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+78I saw a bit about this on MSNBC about a month ago and the excuses they used for sentencing this guy were outrageous. Worse yet, some lawmakers still stood by the law. In the broadcast I watched, the lawmaker who had continually denied Genarlow a pardon tried to pull the "Well, if it was your daughter" bit on the investigative reporter. It was infuriating to watch.
    • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -3/+102Well, if it was my daughter, I'd have taught her not to suck dick in front of a camera. :-(
    • 2k3john, on 10/11/2007, -3/+50Yeah.... If it was my daughter running around on her knees blowing multiple guys at a party in front of a video cam, I think I'd be the one that belongs in jail...
    • NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3That reporter should have gone and ***** genarlow's daughter and gotten it on film.

      -jcr

    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@2k3john
      Why? Can't she have a little fun?
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Exactly. If your daughter:

      * Gives BJs on camera
      * Invites men she met on Myspace to the house
      * Does drugs you have told her you have a problem with

      than YOU have failed as a parent. Stop forcing taxpayers to parent your kid when you've got no idea how to.
    • cheekymonkey63, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I believe they should let this kid out. He is wrongly sentenced . How many of any of us never when we were that age let our hormones take over. Honestly does not matter that I have raised my children right and they are gonna do what they want regardless . At any rate this kid's life is messed up now for some trumped up charges. He should be let out and the prosecutors should pay him for his inconveniences and suffering .
  • taerin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+49If the facts presented in this article are accurate and we're not being misled this is a great injustice. 10 years at the very beginning of his adult life for this? People his age go to college, start their career, get married and start a family. Oh yeah, and most of those people probably got a blow job when they were a teenager. The people responsible for his sentence are either hypocrites or still angry they weren't "getting any" at his age. Let's digg this and try to get this kid his life back.
    • bwilstyle, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Diggs are not charity. The only Digg ever did for the world was the PriceRitePhoto thing.

      We are all powerless.
    • budoudoh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I live in Georgia and I have followed this case from the start. I can assure you that the facts of this article are true. The defendant even went as far as to ask the prosecutor how much of an age difference is there between him and his wife and how old was his girlfriend in high school.
  • Endemoniada, on 10/11/2007, -20/+2Haven't I read this before...?
  • PjsPjs, on 10/11/2007, -19/+3He was an uppity black man in Georgia.?
    What is with the video?
    Anyone know the actual details of why they decided to arraign these guys?
    A drunk or stoned 15 year old cannot consent?
    Nonetheless 10 years is outrageous.
  • Duggan360, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Oooo that sucks :(

    Rule number 1 : Dooooo Not Film :)
  • Duggan360, on 10/11/2007, -12/+0If you cover the lower half of his face under his nose, he looks like a girl
  • designpunk, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4Kind of ironic that Wilson’s attorneys name was B.J. Bernstein.

  • hrhs556x, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3ummm yea this was all over the news 3 years, then ESPN did a bit about it about 6 months.

    I really need to stop going to Digg for the news.
    • ben_nushmut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I knew this story seemed awfully familiar! Here's the link to the original ESPN story, much more in depth than the MSNBC piece:

      http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=Wilson

      Why is this kid still in prison? Clearly our lawmakers' priorities are totally frakked up.
    • deltronik, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2This story has been posted on digg before too. Probably not even six months ago.
      I can't believe how many supposed "news" stories can make it to the front page every six months or sooner. (ah holes on mars ahem)

      Everyone needs to stop digging up all that how to improve your memory ***** if they aren't going to read it.
    • budoudoh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Its back in the news because, as we type, a judge is deliberating on whether to free the kid or not. If this ***** happened to you, wouldn't you want it back in the news?
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 10/11/2007, -3/+37The fact of the matter is it was consensual. Sure, we have the statutory rapes laws to "protect" kids, but that's whn it's a 10 year old with a 30 year old. I think it's wrong for them to sentence someone to jail time for having consensual sex of any kind with someone within their age bracket(IE High school).
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -45/+4how about an 11 year old and a 29 year old? Still bad? OK. 12 and 28? 13 and 27? 14 and 26?

      You'll see where I'm headed I think. At some point you have to draw an arbitrary line and say "this is what it is--don't ***** with it" (pun intended).

      I would not want to see him acquitted or anything like that. I think he should be a registered sex offender. The only thing that I think is a little "off" is the length of the sentence. 5 years seems about right and he was already offered that but turned it down. Moral of the story here isn't really the "poor kid" it is that you should know the laws about age of consent and be damn careful not to break them.
    • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2I think greater than three years seperation and an minimum age of consent is appropriate.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17@mcduckov -- The "law is the law" argument is absolute ***** in this case. You can't regulate teenage sexual behavior any more than you can limit the number of ***** a person takes a day, because in both cases you're fighting against biology. Teenagers have performed oral sex on each other since the beginning of time, and they will do so until the end of time, and that's the way it should be. When the majority of citizens are regularly violating a law -- and most high school students have had oral sex -- the problem is the law, not the citizens. This case is more than a mockery of statutory rape law, it's an outrage.
    • r3z0nate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14A friend had the same situation happen to him, except he had consensual sex with a 16 year old and her dad found out and wanted to prosecute. The messed up part about that is she was a plain freak. He sat in jail for a year while she continued having sex with older people. He how registers as a sex offered for the rest of his life.
    • Veritate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8mcdukov,

      The point of the law is not to enforce obeisance. The purpose of the law is to serve society's needs.

      An age of consent serves society's needs. Putting a 17 yo in jail for getting a bj from a 15 yo does not. Society does not condemn bj's. Nor does it condemn premarital sex. The argument that it was nonconsensual, even due to age of consent, is quite weak. Keep in mind you're looking at a 2 year difference in ages, but under the law as phrased a 2 day difference could lead to the same result.

      5 years does not seem in any sense appropriate. It does not seem appropriate that this would be a felony. Even the one who drafted the law is against this result.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@r3z0nate
      BS
      How did they have evidence?
    • dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@thelonewolf071

      You make an interesting point, but do you "think it's wrong for them to sentence someone to jail time for having consensual sex of any kind with someone within their age bracket" even if he's BLACK?
    • mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1For every person thinking this crime isn't so bad there is someone else who thinks it is awful. Age of consent laws are tricky business because when you sit down to write them you realize that the black and white quickly turns to gray.

      Almost no one would argue that a 40 year old in sexual relations with a 7 year old should be illegal. But when you start to get into where the cutoff should be then it gets hard. If he had been 18, still OK? If he had been 19, still OK? Suppose he was 17 but a HS dropout and working a FT job? The permutations are endless. In the end lawmakers must pick an essentially arbitrary number and then make it stick. One way to make it stick is to actually prosecute people where there is drug use and videotape involved.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What is legal has almost nothing to do with what is right. It's people like you, mcduckov, that encourage blind obedience to idiots because "it's the law", who will destroy this country.
  • Makubex, on 10/11/2007, -6/+56"Wilson’s attorney, B.J. Bernstein"

    Best name for an attorney in a case involving oral sex... EVER!
    • designpunk, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4look just 4 posts above yours...as if by magic.

    • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7and B.J. was a woman lawyer... You could not write that into a cheap novel any better.
  • AlphaEta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+38Apparently the prosecutors of Georgia have a history of trying to lock up young black men for consensual sex:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1073944821942

    Tell everyone you know about this injustice. It needs to stop!
  • buff01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24This us utterly retarded. Proof that the system is broken.
  • RealmDown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4010 Years? Geez, it use to just be 20 bucks....
  • getrealnow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3How ***** up
  • WalkerBurgin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20And there goes everybody's faith in the system... again.
    • tenrec, on 10/11/2007, -29/+1Did you read the article? The "system" has been bending over backwards for this kid and the others involved.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20@tenrec
      THEN WHY IS HE IN JAIL
    • tenrec, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1@idonthack

      He is in jail because he turned down all the deals that he has been offered. From the article "The other students at the party took that deal and some of them are out of prison by now." He will be out of jail soon because a special bill is being passed just for him.
    • mbdesigns, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ WalkerBurgin

      The system has been ***** for quite a while.
      Everyone's faith has been beaten down because of things like this..can you blame them?

      I for one think that BJ's shouldn't be illegal...and how come the girl doesn't get charged with anything?
  • Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12And of course Paris is under the terrible house arrest in her giant mansion.

    Is the Rosetta Stone Swedish language software any good?
    • jon419, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Yes, the Rosetta Stone Language Learning program is good. We use at my place of employment and I can now speak and write Spanish fluently.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Wait... what?
    • hwbehrens, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@idonthack
      I think he's implying he wants to move to Sweden, so he's going to learn Swedish.
  • z3rgRush, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20America.
  • Ratking, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9How many "party goers" was that girl doing this to? Maybe one is a crime, but it sounds like there were at least 3 involved... but by the time a line forms, that's just what a high schooler calls "An Awesome Party".
  • LucasKane, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28That girl is a ho, she blew another guy right before him!
  • jerryn, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Maybe former President Bill Clinton should help get him aquited. gee... the girl offered. And at that age.. actually any age.. hmm a pretty girl offers
    what can you do? I think something else is going on here. Maybe they should put the judge on trial. 10 years is harsh. And.. she was willing...
    there shouldn't be any time here. Maybe a he you two should cool it down.. but that's about it.
  • rocky1138, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14What happened to her? Is she in jail too? Probably not. How fair is that?
  • carcass350, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I remember seeing this on ESPN some time ago. There is more to the story that what is mentioned in the article. He was also tried for rape, and not the statutory kind. Some of the jury wanted to find him guilty of the rape charge, but the jury compromised and convicted on the lesser charge. Also, Georgia has since changed the whole oral sex law and today what he was convicted of is perfectly legal.
  • adobeartist, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6I hope everyone dies.
  • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25When is she going to be charged for having sex with a minor?
  • thewebguy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13that is pretty mangled. if the video shows her initiating it, and presumably committing the act without any help, maybe he should try to file rape charges against HER?

    also, that girl is a whore and a half, she blew someone else right before him!
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26No, she is a slut. No money was exchanged so she is not a whore.
    • algo, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7but if a guy was to get oral sex from more than one woman that'd be fine by you.

      tards.
    • Veritate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@algo,

      No, I resent the guys who get more than one. I mean, how's it fair when I don't get any?
    • dcer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@algo:

      they'd be sluts obviously... unless they'd take money... Now if the guy would take money, that would make him a pimp taking the whores hard earned money and enjoying his women on the side - just for fun.
    • catbeller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1a slut is a girl who won't do you, but does other guys. classic definition: someone who has more sex than you do.
  • illadelphia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The ESPN story by Wright Thompson from a few months ago goes into much greater detail:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

  • wolvyne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Poor kid...
  • monkeyrun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17"a felony for teens less than three years apart to have oral sex"

    am I the only one who's confused ?
    • mtaylor314, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6the law is harsher if they are more than 3 years
    • faskippy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I see what you're saying, she was 15, he was 17, and the law states "three years apart"... and given the circumstances, I don't think he should have been convicted. He still did better than having to register as a sex offender the rest of his life.
    • BearinG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yeah.. counted two.. but maybe numbers are different in Georgia..

      faskippy: sex offender AND 5 years..
    • scottix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0It is supposed to be kids under the age of 15.
  • DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18So consensual acts between two consenting 15 year olds is against the law? Umm, wtf....what the hell is wrong with these people? Mandating their morality? Ten ***** years in prison for a BJ....god damn absurd.
  • GilGigamesh, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Who wants to bet that the victim was a white girl and the jury was all white as well?

    The "New South". Indeed.
    • manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14She was actually black. This wasn't racial. It had to do with the illogical mandatory sentencing. The senator who introduced the bill even said that he didn't intend for it to apply to teenage sex.
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I will bet anything you want. Name your stakes.
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5
      Who wants to bet that GilGigamesh is a stupid f*cking race-baiting *****?!

    • chrismgtis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6What clueless racist moron you prove yourself to be. Thanks for that enlightenment.
  • longhorntd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25This story is so disheartening. A drunken slut like Paris Hilton gets out of "jail" after 3 days, but a promising young man who might have gone to college on scholarship continues to serve time after several years in the slammer. What is perhaps even more sickening to see is how most Georgia lawmakers and politicians have allowed the injustice to continue. I was shocked to see the Georgia Senate adjourn this past spring before voting on the resolution that could have freed him, even after all the bad press from ESPN.

    I've put up some contact info on www.FreeGenarlow.org for those who wouldn't mind trying to make a difference in this somehow. What would be really great is to see UGA/GTech students (or any other potentially powerful groups of people in Georgia for that matter) put some muscle behind this appeal effort. Help this kid get out of prison and get his life back on track.
    • manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Why are people burying this post? I don't know who the Paris Hilton lover is, but cut it out.
    • splatterboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Agreed.
      From TFA "there can be injustice in the system", and I thought the law was infallible... Again from TFA "Too little, too late for Wilson, as the law does not apply retroactively... because no one believes Wilson should be in prison for 10 years — not the prosecutors, Supreme Court, legislature, 15-year-old schoolmate, jury forewoman, or even the prison officials — but no one has done anything to get him out."

      “Bernstein wants to see Wilson get out of jail soon, without the sex offender label, and go to college...” they ruined his life, at best he'll have to go the JC route because he's been on ice for 2 years - no college coach will touch him, minimum wage labor is more like it.

      This is no more than institutionalized racism – they don’t care because of who he is- a black man – if you doubt just look at what the “system” did for Paris.

      I wonder if the girl was white?

  • jakdracula, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I have video on my computer of Paris Hilton doing the same thing... Should I show it to those prosecutors?

  • nwoantibody, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Now THAT sucks... (ironic...)

    Ten years laters.

    Wow I just got out of prison where I had 10 years of non-consensual oral sex.
    I also happened to have HIV, HCV, etc... etc...

    Human justice is gold...
    • break99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Human justice is gold"

      Whooa... Retarded US laws are gold.
      Don't count us Canadian in.
  • gkulshrestha, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1A case of oral send Wilson’s attorney, *B.J. Bernstein*, a former prosecutor herself, is anxiously working with legislators to change the law to apply to Wilson.
    Am I the only one who find that funny.
  • akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Something like this happened in Michigan where an 18 year old guy met a girl who was 15. She told him she was 17 years old. He even went as far as asking her for her license/ID, which she had conveniently lost the prior week. They go on two dates, then on the third date she gives him head in his car while parked in a subdivision. A cop catches them and he's under the gun for statutory.

    She has admitted under oath that she lied about her age and she initiated the "act". The interesting part is that his defense is... she raped him.

    This guy should have taken the plea deal. That's why they exist. The prosecutors have some flexibility in sentencing and they offered him the deal before everything started AND after he was found guilty (prior to sentencing). He was very lucky to have it offered after being found guilty and he still turned it down.
    • gearsofwar05, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If he would have took the plea deal he would have had to register as a sex offender. If you didn't rape her would you say yes ill take the plea now im a convicted child molester? I know I wouldn't. This kid had everything going for him. Good at football, why throw it away, atleast he had the nuts to fight. He did get the law repealed but he had to take the fall. The law should be the rule of 3 three years younger or older. If its agreed upon no one should get screwed. The prosecutor is an ass, we have the right to help him out but he broke a law before it was repealed. The law was from back in the 60's time to move on. I could see him being in jail if he drugged her or something but come on she was into it.
    • BearinG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7What the hell kind of deal is 5 years and registered on sex offenders list.. would YOU take it?
    • akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I would not take the deal HAPPILY. He was found guilty and facing 10 years at sentencing. They offered him the 5 year deal AGAIN! Now he ended up with 10 years and he's still on the sex offenders list.

      Personally I don't think he should be in jail at all under the circumstances. If the DA cuts you a deal and you turn it down, you're going to get the full sentence.
    • catbeller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the DA cuts deals so that the innocent plead guilty rather than face massive retaliation. there should be NO deals. it's extortion by public officials who have the power to railroad.
  • necbone, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6Hillbilly ass laws....if you're in highschool, you should be able to hook up with any of the chicks from freshman to senior...it's part of growing up... Shame on the White Old Boys club down in GA..... so sad..
  • MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -26/+2The laws the law guys. ***** him.
    • BearinG, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Hopefully you'll get 10years for something similar..
    • break99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3What's your IP address again stupid moron?
    • MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1I wont get caught
    • enginbeering, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Man, people like you are exactly what's wrong with this country.
  • chrgrose, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9If this is true. I'll see you all in jail!

    Talk about a step back a couple centuries. Fundamentalist stupidity at its best.
  • Audiophile27, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6***** jury
  • rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Same thing happened to a friend of mine in Boston, virtually the same scenario, except he was a part of a group that had intercourse with a girl.

    His lesson? Do your ***** by yourself and DON'T VIDEOTAPE AN ILLEGAL STATUTORY RAPE!
  • heavensblade23, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Just out curiousity, was the girl white? He's black, and it IS the south...
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2@HeavensBlade23

      Just out of curiousity, are you a retarted idiot? You definitely have the racist thing covered, but, seriously, are you also retarted? Would you know
      if you were?
  • FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4OK FOR STARTERS !!

    This STORY has been on the FRONT PAGE !! At least 4 ***** TIMES !!! In the last 6 MONTHS !!!

    IT has been DUGG TO DEATH !!! ................ANYONE NOTICE THIS ABOUT DIGG ?

    And NO KEVIN AND ALEX HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT READ THIS ON DIGGNATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ENOUGH ALREADY !!!!!!
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8He's still in jail, no it's not enough.

      It's been covered on MSNBC before and this is an update to the story, hence the "Update:"
      As long as he is in jail, this should get press.
  • knuvue, on 12/05/2007, -5/+11***** Georgia.
  • vigorously, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Justice and injustice reveals itself..... I'm probably sure that if the same guy was to be in the shoes of paris hilton.. he would have gone a long way to serving jail time ... It isn't fair.. ... People talk about race, religion, color.. and the talk about equal rights, but that's just the "good" front side of a unlawful and painful truth hidden inside.
  • diggan8, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"It was all captured on video — the evidence used to convict him at trial. On the tape, police saw a 15-year-old perform oral sex on one partygoer, and after finishing with him, she turned and did the same to Wilson."

    This girl was just handing out the BJs!
    • catbeller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you haven't been to the real good parties, have you?
  • thefaithful, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3What I don't get is why was just the boy charged with aggravated child molestation?
    It was the girl who moved over to him and "molested" him.
    It was the girl to performed the sexual "assault" on the boy's genitalia.
    The boy was still a minor so why does the female, who committed the act, get a pass?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 182 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.