Genarlow Wilson Freed, But Will Others Follow?
Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia man who was sentenced to ten years in prison for consensual teenage sex, has been freed at last. But some are questioning whether states’ various teen-sex laws are in need of a complete overhaul. Many states still allow prosecutors to go after two teenagers engaged in consensual sex, and at least one Georgia prosecutor believes that we should just educate teens more — so they’ll understand better when we slap the cuffs on them.
In Kansas last year, the AG tried to make it a law that any adult care provider who had any knowledge of teen sex would be required to report it. Federal courts have blocked the move.
Proponents of these laws like to imgine that they are preserving something that is almost lost; that they are protecting the past from the onrushing future. They are deluded, however, because teen-age sex has always been prevalent. It used to be afforded more legal protection than it is in some states today. Far from preserving and protecting, the proponents of anti-teen-sex laws are in fact seekng to usher in a very new world — and one that has never existed before. We can label this many ways, but to call it “conservative” is not one of them.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
gurusteve
E the Wise
Andre the Defiant
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Here, I was going along and agreeing with the post, and then something this condescending pops up…
The logical gymnastics practiced here are interesting. First: This logic seems to believe that those “proponents” are unaware that teens are engaging in sex. If that is the case, then why have “they” passed these draconian laws? If “they” are unaware that this has been going on forever, then why have these laws been around in one form of the other forever?
Second: This “new world” concept is silly on its face. Trying to protect children from being taken advantage of sexually, and taking advantage of others sexually is not new. It is beyond credulity to accept the view that all who oppose your anthropological approach to teenage sexual practices are puritanical fools trying to preserve something that never existed.
Third: The Libertarian argument that because a behavior exists, no prohibitions should be placed on it is absurd. Children engage from a very early age in behavior, that though natural, needs to be discouraged, for their safety and well being. This can range from a toddler wanting to touch a hot stove to a ten year old being curious to smoke the crack cocaine he sees others using. That these behaviors are natural can not be denied. That even though they will not stop just because they are prevented a few times can not be denied as well. That announced laws prohibiting them will not make them stop altogether is also true. So What?
That this guy took advantage can not be disputed. He was not without fault in this. This was not a case of young lovers exploring their bodies. If he was just being a boy and doing what comes naturally, fine, then he needs to be told that this behavior is not tolerated. We then need to punish said behavior. Just because something is natural does not mean all of its various expressions should be tolerated. The question of consent and ones capacity to give it is always problematic regarding children.
Having said that, his punishment was extreme, and the law he was sentenced under needs work. It is also extreme to believe that all who opposed a supposedly enlightened view regarding teenage sex, or sex in general, are cultural and scientific Neanderthals. One thing that is definitely as old as the hills is the tension that societies have regarding sexual behavior.
Mr Warner wrote:
Why? It was the decision of the duly elected legislature of Georgia that the behavior specified merited ten years, minimum, in the hoosegow; it could have been thirty.
The legislature changed the law, making the sentence far less severe, but Mr Wilson broke the law before the change.
“Excessive” is a judgement call — and the proper people to take such judgement calls in our society are our duly elected representatives in the legislature.
The Georgia court was wrong, and Mr Wilson should have had to have served out all ten years in the state penitentiary. The girl was below the age of consent, and therefore could not consent; that makes it rape.
The “why” is that society bristles at statutory rape being applied within one’s peer group. This was not a case of an adult taking advantage of a child. In a number of jurisdictions the boy is below the age of consent as well. There was no was no physical force applied. The sentence on its face is absurd.
I am so very tired of the insidious Libertarian arguments that seem to permeate everything these days. This is not a situation where judicial activism is in play Mr. Pico. Judges, who, by the way are legally appointed (and in civilized states like Texas, elected), have a duty to make sure injustices are not perpetuated. Come now, I am supposed to trust in the “wisdom” of an elected body? Some laws are wrong my friend, it is just as simple as that. This country is replete with tales of these types of laws being abused by police and prosecutors, not judges.
This is supremely vindictive and petty. A person should continue to be victimized because your “elected representatives” in their infinite wisdom neglected to fully make things right? How wonderfully Kafkaesque!
Whether your point was it “was” rape, even though it is not now; or the court did not have the legal authority to address this egregious situation, you are wrong.
Funny, usually I am throwing stones from the mountain top. In this case I have people on one peak wanting to give birth control to 11 year olds, and on the opposite peak I have people wanting to destroy kid’s lives for having sex. Well, I am just going to have to sit in the valley and dodge rocks.
Dana gutlessly dodges the argument. Fine, if you think that judges should leave the legislature to their idiocy, but to argue that the sentence was reasoanble is lunacy. MILLIONS of similar situations exist in America, and Dana Pico thinks all of them are child rapists?!
Who knows if even Dana is guilty of such madness, because he hides behind a legalistic non-argument.
Similarly, PGW tosses out nonsense with equal blitheness.
Trying to protect children from being taken advantage of sexually, and taking advantage of others sexually is not new.
Spare me the sanctimonious horseshit. Neither you, nor Dave, nor Dana, nor any of the others in the Vanguard of Decency care to “protect” “kids,” you want to control teenagers. There is an enoromous difference.
You didn’t feel you needed to be protected from consensual sex when you were 17, nor did you. Neither do today’s teens. And you all know this, but it rankles your morals that they do it anyway, and so you cook up mechanisms to restrict them (just as cranky elders have always done) and then dress it up as “concern for their safety.”
Nut up, and call it what it is!
PGW continues:
That this guy took advantage can not be disputed.
There is not a shred of evidence that this is true, and the blind, unsupported assertion helps explain how such injustices take place in civilized societies.
This was not a case of young lovers exploring their bodies.
Again, how the hell do you know? All the evidence available says it was precidely that, and THAT is what you all hate so! You guys can’t stand it that “young lovers explore their bodies,” so you formulate patently dishonest arguments to restrict it.
At last, PGW is honest when he declares that “We then need to punish said behavior.” Then round up the posse, my man, and stake out every prom night, homecoming dance, Friday night football game, Saturday night movie, and anywhere else where the decadent youngters gather. But you’re going to need a lot more prisons, especially if they get Dana’s lunatic sentences.
And finally, to look at this man and read his account — and to nonetheless think that he somehow deserved criminal sanction, let alone the dastardly evil that was done to him — is to lack the very quality that the ConClub moralists think they have in such abundance. If you wish condemnation on Genarlow Wilson, then you hold an immoral position.
I’ll wager that any of us on this site either did engage in such activity when we were 17, or we would have. To wish horror on Wilson for things you yourself would have done, is a putrid, disreputable, and truly indefensible act. It is the absence of character, not a plethora of it. And those on this site who are so overwhelmed by their own righteousness seem to hold a position that is clearly contemptible. Would that the ConClub Cardinals could see their own depravity, then they’d perhaps be less eager to rundown their compatriots’.
Thank you for your reasonable and considered comments Scribe.
DFV - I’ll wager that any of us on this site either did engage in such activity when we were 17, or we would have
I’d still be locked up for my “crimes” if I lived in Georgia.
DFV - “Spare me the sanctimonious horseshit. Neither you, nor Dave, nor Dana, nor any of the others in the Vanguard of Decency care to “protect” “kids,” you want to control teenagers.”
Then DFV doesn’t know Dave very well. That comment is completely untrue, and is itself ’sanctimonious horseshit’. I’m proud be a small voice that believes in the most elementary of personal self-control and perhaps an advocate of a small dose of decency, morals or values from time to time. Unfortunately, I’ve seen far too many damaged people and lives in my three and a half decades on the face of the earth that were directly related to the concept of the ‘eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die’ lack of morals philosophy and many have had to pay tremendous life changing penalties for falling into that trap of lies. It is extremely sad to see and I see the same heart wrenching scenes over and over again. At times it is a very painful thing to watch.
I do believe that the criminalizing of inner-tennage sexual relationships probably should be revisited in many circumstances. I have my own little legal code in mind that would be far more reasonable, but since my influence on the law makers of the various state legislatures is fairly limited I have not developed it to its final, polished version.
I do believe this would be a fascinating table topic for the next Conclub Conclave so if we could schedule a fifteen minute slot for it I would appreciate it. Steve, we hope you can make the conclave as well. And I hope E and DFV have contacted Scottie as well. It’s always nice to have a decent crowd for our gatherings.
Dave - I’m proud be a small voice that believes in the most elementary of personal self-control and perhaps an advocate of a small dose of decency, morals or values from time to time.
Far be it of me to accuse you of sanctimony!
I am what I am, and I do what little I can. (:
It’s unfortunate that the Genarlow Wilson case, which included drugs, videotaping (child pronography), and an allegation of rape by the 17-year-old girl involved, became the test case. The day Wilson was set free, the Atlanta Constitution Journal ran a story about a woman who was convicted at 17 for having oral sex with a boy who was about to turn 16. She served her prison sentence but remains on the sexual offenders registry. Now married, she and her husband have had to move twice to comply with laws that forbid her to live within a certain distance of school zones or school bus stops.
The court did not overturn Wilson conviction; it overturned his sentencing. He remains convicted of sexual child molestation. However, the court ordered his named stricken from the sex offender registry. The quirkly thing about the court’s ruling is that it applies only to Wilson. Other people convicted as teenagers of the same type of offense as Wilson remain on the sexual offender registry. The state should scrub the list to remove the names of people who were convicted as teenagers for having consensual sex with other teenagers their approximate age.
Scribe work with me here, will you? Please read what I say, not what you “think” I said.
I am going to address your comments in no particular order. This is fitting as your comments were flung out in no particular order. Where I gave considered responses you flung out insults and accusations.
No, group sex, video taping underage sex, drugs, drinking, passed out girls. Sure, that is not taking advantage.
See above, this guy as a matter of FACT had his body pretty well mapped out. Spare me what you claim the evidence showed counselor. We are not in court. I am not a judge applying rules of evidence in this case; I am allowed to consider other facts. This guy’s conduct may not be criminal regarding the 15 year old, but he is hardly innocent when it comes to sexual knowledge.
This is silly, you are better than this DFV. Do you even take the time to read what I said? Do you? What part about these statements I made do you NOT understand?
What part of that don’t you understand? It is possible that you took what I said to mean other lesser criminal charges would be correct. I was not thinking that at all, and I did not say that. If one does not believe that engaging in under aged drinking, group sex, taping underage kids having sex, taking advantage of impaired girls, and drug use while in high school is acceptable behavior that should not have consequences, then I do not know how to reach them. What should a parent or adult figure do here, nominate them for scholar of the month?
Then again maybe you think that this is acceptable behavior, just kids being kids? This is not a question of wanting to control, that charge is disingenuous in the extreme; it is a question of permissiveness. It belongs in the area of sympathizing with the plight of youth, and understanding how all parents are not good parents. It is a question of wanting to be a child’s friend and not an authority figure, right? How an enlightened teacher can see kids for the individuals they are and not property like their parents see them, right? How very cute. Let’s give these kids extra credit in health class then, a media credit too for the tape.
Hey, who are you talking to here? You are having this argument with yourself. Who is sanctimonious? Check your own eye my friend.
This is quite simply self indulgent. I didn’t wish horror on the guy, quite the opposite. Did you happen to glance over this comment of mine?
Trying to prevent others from making the same mistakes you made is not the same as being hypocritical and throwing stones. It is call having empathy, understanding, and perspective and being proactive. The point that I have walked down some very muddy roads and paid some high prices for it is why feel this way. If that offends your sense of justice then so be it.
I am trying real hard to understand you and why you attack people this way about this subject. Help me comprehend your use language like “putrid, despicable, contemptible, depraved, and patently dishonest” I like you and respect you, I do not respect that behavior. Next time please read what I wrote, okay? This is the fourth time you have done this.
See Wes, this is what being given a real hard time looks like!
It’s interesting how those who have children seem to actually care what children and teenagers do to themselves and others. And those who do not don’t seem to really ‘get it’. But that is probably a point that has been made throughout the ages. It’s not that the childless amongst us don’t have very valuable viewpoints to add to the debate, but the perspective of those who are raising children of their own often seems to be fundamentally different when it comes to ‘protecting’ and ’supervising’ young adults from the more extreme possibilities of teenage ‘explorations’. Just an observation. We should not praise the concept of the Lord of the Flies, but seek to civilize it. Responsibility, maturity, self respect and self control is the goal and the impulses, stupid decisions, and immaturity of a less than full grown adult is why we have concepts of authority and parents to begin with. We all were teenagers and probably did some stupid things, but undoubtedly we did a lot fewer stupid or dangerous things than we could have if certain parameters had not been in place. It’s common sense that we just don’t turn the fourteen year olds of the world loose to do whatever they please. We may not have liked it then, but most of us are wise enough to appreciate the rules and regulations we chafed at when when we were younger.
I think DFV’s hobby of setting off a few wayward and inaccurate rhetorical mortors in the general vicinity of a debate or argument is ineffective and unfortunately serves to undermine points that he is attempting to make that may or may not have had some validity somewhere along the line. Too bad.
PGW, your points are well-stated and well-taken. As you guessed, I did indeed interpret your statements to mean that you supported criminal sanctions on teenage sex, while differing with Dana only on the sentence. Your clarification renders many of my points inapplicable to you. When you said that “we should punish such behavior,” I interpreted that to mean that society should criminally sanction the consensual sex, while you meant only that the larger adult community should condemn the general behavior, including presumably having criminal laws against the drug-use and other portions of the behavior. Am I right there?
Hopefully, this clears up, too, my adjectives to which you object. Since you don’t think that Wilson deserves to rot in prison for a decade, then obviously I don’t think your view is “putrid, despicable, [etc.]….” On the contrary, it seems to be a reasonable position all around.
I do not, however, back off from my description of the views of Dave and Dana, who seem to revel in their role as the unfeeling, unwavering, unyielding moralists.