Court: Teen-sex sentence 'cruel and unusual' punishment

[Tim]

Read the whole law...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Georgia, you can go to jail for having sex! The law states:[/FONT]​

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you have sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years, you will have committed statutory rape.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A person 21 years of age or older convicted of statutory rape shall be imprisoned for a minimum of ten and up to 20 years.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A person age 17-20 convicted of statutory rape shall be imprisoned for one to 20 years.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If the victim is 14 or 15 years of age and the person convicted is no more than three years older than the victim, the person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It does not matter if you are male or female.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It does not matter if you are unaware of the victim's age.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It does not matter if the sex is consensual.[/FONT]​

The girl was 15 and he was 17... that's a two year difference and he would have been found guilty of a misdemeanor.
How can you say that two kids under the age of 18 engaging in oral sex is worthy of 10 years in prison (without possibility of parole)

Where the hell is the crime in that? There was a two year difference. This wasn't some adult taking advantage of a kid. It was just two kids doing what some kids do.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Well we can't be certain if thats what the law stated two years ago. It could have been part of what was just ammended.

 

[Peter Parka]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you have sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years, you will have committed statutory rape.

I think this part is fundementally the problem. People under the age of 16 can willingly have sex.
[/FONT]

 

[TheOriginalJames]

That law is actually there to help, believe it or not. It was loosely written that way because it was meant to catch sexual predators of any age. But I have a feeling it was meant to protect teens and put away rapists who are bigger and stronger than their victims of such a young age.

The problem is when the law follows it down to the letter, a teenager of 17 is put away.

 

[dt3]

That law is actually there to help, believe it or not. It was loosely written that way because it was meant to catch sexual predators of any age. But I have a feeling it was meant to protect teens and put away rapists who are bigger and stronger than their victims of such a young age.

The problem is when the law follows it down to the letter, a teenager of 17 is put away.

For 1-20 years. As the court decided, the Judge's decision to put him away for 10 years for consensual oral sex is ridiculous.

 

[Tim]

Well the time that this kid did this, the law was written that it was a mandatory 10 year sentence with no chance of parole. That's why they changed this law, because of his conviction. But when they changed the law, they refused to make it retroactive so that boy can get out.

They knew it wasn't fair, changed the law then refused to apply it to the boy for which the law was changed.

Does it matter that he was never in trouble before, an honor student and an all-star football player??? All of that should have been taken into account, he was not some pedophile.

 

[Homer]

and in Vermont he would have won a paid vacation.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Ok lets repeal that law. Make there no such thing as statutory rape. Would that make ya'll happy?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Well the time that this kid did this, the law was written that it was a mandatory 10 year sentence with no chance of parole. That's why they changed this law, because of his conviction. But when they changed the law, they refused to make it retroactive so that boy can get out.

They knew it wasn't fair, changed the law then refused to apply it to the boy for which the law was changed.

Does it matter that he was never in trouble before, an honor student and an all-star football player??? All of that should have been taken into account, he was not some pedophile.

How many new laws are actually made retroactive?

 

[dt3]

Ok lets repeal that law. Make there no such thing as statutory rape. Would that make ya'll happy?

Who the hell is saying get rid of statutory rape? We're saying two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be considered rape. If one was 18 and one was 15, then fine put him away for a long time. But two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be a ten year crime.

 

[Peter Parka]

Who the hell is saying get rid of statutory rape? We're saying two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be considered rape. If one was 18 and one was 15, then fine put him away for a long time. But two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be a ten year crime.

I still don't really see an 18 and 15 year old having consensual sex as that bad. Its a touchy subject.

 

[Tim]

I still don't really see an 18 and 15 year old having consensual sex as that bad. Its a touchy subject.

He was 17 and she was 15


Hell, when I was a senior at 17 years old, I had a girlfriend that was a Junior who was 15, and I was having sex with her... should I get 10 years in prison for that? How can you even equate that to hard time?

 

[Homer]

Ok lets repeal that law. Make there no such thing as statutory rape. Would that make ya'll happy?

if you were talking to me i was being sarcastic James, and the reason i talk about Vermont is because of some very bad cases i've herd about there where some real assholes have gotten off scott free..

 

[dt3]

I still don't really see an 18 and 15 year old having consensual sex as that bad. Its a touchy subject.

I chose 18 as an example because at that age you're no longer considered a minor. It would still be touchy, but I can see why that would be illlegal.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Who the hell is saying get rid of statutory rape? We're saying two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be considered rape. If one was 18 and one was 15, then fine put him away for a long time. But two minors having consensual oral sex shouldn't be a ten year crime.

Right, meaning what you're saying is it shouldn't be statutory rape.

 

[Peter Parka]

I chose 18 as an example because at that age you're no longer considered a minor. It would still be touchy, but I can see why that would be illlegal.

I agree it should be illegal but the punishment should fit the crime. Unfortunately in these matters common sense goes right out of the window because some smart arse nonce could easily get off on a technicality.

 

[dt3]

Right, meaning what you're saying is it shouldn't be statutory rape.

Yes, but I'm not saying get rid of statutory rape. Statutory rape applies to an adult raping a child also, I'm not saying that get rid of that.

I'm saying they're kids doing what kids do. The punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case. Which I suspect is why they changed it in the first place.

 

[Maulds]

They were both minors and it was concensual.....so what was her sentence?

 

[Homer]

if the ages were reverse we'd never have herd about it.

 

[Tim]

If he wasn't black and she wasn't white living in GA you would have never heard about it either...