Genarlow Wilson to be freed

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']about fucking time, he was possibly ivy league bound, i just hope he can get his life back together[/QUOTE]

While I don't know what his education or sports career will entail, the time in prison doesn't appear to have affected him too negatively - he's planning on educating others about what happened and the consequences. Hopefully he can get into college somewhere.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/10/26/genarlow_1026.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

:applause: Chalk one up for the Justice System.[/quote]

Meh. If the justice system worked like it should, Wilson would've gotten a slap on the wrist and a fine like he should have. Plus, even though the law was changed to reflect the circumstances, it wasn't retroactive so it doesn't apply to Wilson, thus questions such as "Does he still have to register as a sex offender?" must still be asked. Even if he doesn't, there's that social stigma that comes with having a prison record (especially if he does still need to register as a sex offender). It will follow him like a Scarlett Letter. What about the 2 years he spent behind bars while they sorted out 'justice' as well? He'll never get them back and it's highly unlikely he'll be compensated for the grevious error. And he was basically punished for what teenagers across the world do.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Meh. If the justice system worked like it should, Wilson would've gotten a slap on the wrist and a fine like he should have. Plus, even though the law was changed to reflect the circumstances, it wasn't retroactive so it doesn't apply to Wilson, thus questions such as "Does he still have to register as a sex offender?" must still be asked. Even if he doesn't, there's that social stigma that comes with having a prison record (especially if he does still need to register as a sex offender). It will follow him like a Scarlett Letter. What about the 2 years he spent behind bars while they sorted out 'justice' as well? He'll never get them back and it's highly unlikely he'll be compensated for the grevious error. And he was basically punished for what teenagers across the world do.[/quote]

If the justice system worked like it should, there wouldn't have been any punishment, and this wouldn't have even been a legal issue in the first place. A 17-year-old receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old? Really, there's no reason that the government should even concern itself with that.
 
[quote name='prmononoke']If the justice system worked like it should, there wouldn't have been any punishment, and this wouldn't have even been a legal issue in the first place. A 17-year-old receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old? Really, there's no reason that the government should even concern itself with that.[/quote]

I disagree. There's a very legitimate reason for it. Boundaries should still be observed. Sexual promiscuity is and should be a big issue to the government. If it weren't, you'd have a lot more teenagers running around getting pregnant and spreading STDs. No one wants to pay welfare for kids that aren't theirs so it's in the government's interests to stem that by any necessary and ethical means. I'd rather my taxes go towards building more roads & neighborhood improvements than caring for someone's else lack of willpower and mistake. Plus, while not all welfare mothers are bad, there are enough of them that abuse the system by having 6 or more kids while having no means of supporting them other than food stamps. I favor education and pregnancy prevention kits as a weapon because you're not going to dissuade teens from having sex so better to arm them w/ knowledge of the dangers of sex as well as responsibility. So, yeah, I think he should have been punished but not to the severity that he got. He should've gotten a slap on the wrist and a hefty fine. Actually, now that I think about it, both of them should get that punishment. Why is it the guy was punished but the girl was not? She was consenting so there was no rape (and statutory really doesn't count once you hit 15-16 so though it's legal it's not right). Plus the girl has more to lose - a baby changes everything.
 
Morality police FTMFL. Punishing a 17 year old for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old is absolutely ridiculous, period. There is no logical justification for the government to spend time and money on policing it, and those that believe that they should are deluded at best and tyrannical moralists at worst.
 
[quote name='evanft']Morality police FTMFL. Punishing a 17 year old for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old is absolutely ridiculous, period. There is no logical justification for the government to spend time and money on policing it, and those that believe that they should are deluded at best and tyrannical moralists at worst.[/quote]

I think you're a bit misinformed here. It's not about morality - fcuk morality; it's about practicality and logistics. Teens are going to have sex. That's just a plain fact. What you don't want is pregnancy or spreading STDs. And oral sex still qualifies as fluid transmission so there's still a chance for spreading STDs. At best, you'll get herpes in the mouth. At worst, you get something like AIDS. Now, I don't have any kids but, if I did, I sure as hell don't want them to get any STDs at a very minimum, were they to have sex.
 
The government doesn't need to be policing who does and doesn't have sex, in a case like this. Perhaps when you become a parent, you'll realize that it isn't the government's will to dictate that a guy who on his 16th birthday goes to jail because he had sex with his girlfriend who turns 16 the next day.

This had nothing to do with disease or pregnancy. That's where you're misguided.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Come fucking on. There is no god damn way in hell this guy's unfortunate story put even the smallest dent in teen sex, and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that Vermin is going to have charts and graphs and surveys and venn diagrams and peer-reviewed somethingorothers in here within the hour to confirm this.[/quote]

That's true, it won't but you're missing my point which I explain below.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']The government doesn't need to be policing who does and doesn't have sex, in a case like this. Perhaps when you become a parent, you'll realize that it isn't the government's will to dictate that a guy who on his 16th birthday goes to jail because he had sex with his girlfriend who turns 16 the next day.

This had nothing to do with disease or pregnancy. That's where you're misguided.[/quote]

Uh, where do you see me saying that he should go to jail? Please, look over my posts again. A slap on the wrist + fine =/= jail. I never said that. A slap on the wrist would be mandatory sex ed classes or something along those lines. I don't wear rose-colored lenses to believe that teenagers aren't going to have sex. They most definitely are. But, they should do so armed w/ knowledge so they, at the very minimum, practice safe sex. Oral and anal would be preferred but teens also must realize that you can still get diseases that way. So in this particular case, while pregnancy isn't an issue, disease most certainly is. And that's not to say the guy won't have sex w/ another girl but his case could've set a precendent by which logical guidelines about teen sex could be laid out practically.
 
This case has NOTHING to do with teen pregnancy, STDs, or sex education.

What it does relate to is a archaic law that equates this (now) man with a child molester. What he did =/= child molestation. THAT's the crux of the matter, none of the irrelevant BS that you've brought up.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']First of all: Something that should be - and I thought was - part of the American school curriculum isn't a slap on the wrist.

Second, there's still the matter of fines (even "hefty" ones) being absolutely god damn pointless in that they will do nothing to dissuade people of my age bracket from fucking like rabbits.[/quote]
First of all, tell me, as someone in that age bracket, how often did you pay attention in sex ed class w/o actually giggling or making sexual innuendo? All the time? Most of the time? I got my sex ed in 8th grade and again in my sophomore/junior years and I'll admit it, I was immature and didn't pay attention. I'm willing to bet there's a lot of guys & gals that are the same who care more about what to wear or who to fcuk for the upcoming party that they don't give two shits as to what the teacher is saying. So a mandatory refresher course might be what it takes to get them to learn some willpower, or at the very least, carefulness.

Second, did I say anything about dissuading teens from fucking like rabbits? None. Go back and read all of my posts again. Please. I've already stressed my viewpoint that it's impractical to stop teens from having sex. My point is not to stop teens from fucking at all but to make sure that they do so responsibly. And, being teens, I know responsibility is the last thing on their minds. Just like there are consequences to drinking & driving, a hefty fine is there to show you that actions have consequences so that you stop and think before you do something stupid. It's not to stop you from fucking completely.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']This case has NOTHING to do with teen pregnancy, STDs, or sex education.

What it does relate to is a archaic law that equates this (now) man with a child molester. What he did =/= child molestation. THAT's the crux of the matter, none of the irrelevant BS that you've brought up.[/quote]

I agree that it wasn't child molestation but it would be irresponsible to let him off completely. And it does have to do teen pregnancy, STDs, & education because they all govern acts which most directly affects the group it is supposed to protect. To say he didn't do anything bad would be wrong.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']So work the mandatory refresher course into the curriculum, if you think there's going to be any less immaturity and giggling.[/quote]
Clarify what you mean. Sex ed was mandatory for both 8th grade and high school for me so I don't know what you mean. What I was talking about was mandatory sex ed class after he commited the act. The whole point of the refresher would be to remind him of why he got in trouble in the first place and to take precautions in the future.

[quote name='The Crotch']But just replace "dissuading teens from having sex" to "dissuading us from doing it irresponsibly". You know what? None of my friends really give a shit about fines. That's why they just stole a good 15% of the road signs in the RM. That's why they brag about how many times they've driven drunk (not advocating getting rid of fines there - don't put words in my mouth). That's why this would have zero effect on any of us.

Besides that, how would fining this guy for having oral sex with his girlfriend (and that bit you did say you supported) have anything to do with getting across the message of "have safe sex!"[/quote]
I'm open to alternatives. What would it take to tone down someone like your friends' sexual activities? Not stop it, not deny it, but tone it down. Meaning to do so w/ some responsibility in mind. Meaning wearing a condom, making sure the girl's not close to her period, etc.

The fine is symbolic. It's essentially saying, if you do this, this is a result of that action. If that's not enough, I don't know what other actions may work save for jail but I don't consider that an option on the table.
 
Here's the problem you don't understand: they changed the law, and the current law is a misdemeanor that doesn't even carry any jail time.

This was all a matter of an opinion on whether it would be looked upon as child molestation, even when it was consensual.

If they had normal intercourse, he never would have gone to jail, even under the old law.

The issue should be law education, not sex education.
 
This is probably my last response of the night as I'm about to go out so if I don't respond right away, it's because I'm gone. I'll probably answer any post tomorrow or sunday (depending on my hangover or lack thereof).

[quote name='The Crotch']When in high school did you get it?[/quote]

As I mentioned, I got it both in 8th grade and in both sophomore/junior year.

[quote name='The Crotch'] First of all, I would like to see Vermin pop in here and weigh in on this. I'm pretty sure he has every single study on the history of everything bookmarked, so I'm sure he could pop in and tell me whether or not my anecdotal evidence (as Dogbert would say, the best evidence of all) means a thing, and whether or not any of my potential suggestions have failed in the past.

Second, you still didn't comment on what fining the guy would have done. Symbolism? What he did has pretty much nothing to do with what you're talking about...[/quote]

I thought my comment did cover it. It's a slap on the wrist to say, "hey, you had oral sex w/ this girl. Don't do it." While it doesn't explicitly say "Don't have oral sex because you might get an STD" does it really need to be spelled out that having sex w/o consideration is probably not a good idea? If a fine is not enough of a motivator, again, I ask, what would it then take?

[quote name='CocheseUGA']Here's the problem you don't understand: they changed the law, and the current law is a misdemeanor that doesn't even carry any jail time.

This was all a matter of an opinion on whether it would be looked upon as child molestation, even when it was consensual.

If they had normal intercourse, he never would have gone to jail, even under the old law.

The issue should be law education, not sex education.[/quote]

Yes, I do understand. What you have to understand is that my stance is side discussion sparked by prmononoke's reply to my first comment in this thread. And if you look at my very first comment in this topic, I thought Wilson's punishment was grossly unfair but I still advocated punishing him for different reasons (irresponsible sex acts) that weren't directly related to his situation.

On whether or not it was a child abuse issue, I was of the opinion that it was not.

On whether he should've gone to jail for intercourse of any kind, I was of the opinion that he should not.

The direct issue, at hand, in reference to Wilson, was about law education. The side issue I brought up is about sex education.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']First of all, I'd just like to point out the humour involved in my discussing this with someone who calls himself "Professor of Pimpology".Sophomore? So you would have gotten it the same year Wilson committed his "crime" then, no? So what good would a second round in the same year do?[/quote]
Meh. The title just means I have experience and can draw from such experiences and, yeah, I've had sex when I was a teen and, no, I don't think it's hypocritical. I don't think it's hypocritical since, in retrospect, it was pretty much a bad idea. Sex isn't as big a mystery as inexperienced teens think it is. I've also had about, at least, double digit "I'm pregnant" scares not to mention the occasional "my gf just got herpes and it wasn't from me so I need to get tested" scare. I'd say at least 4 of those pregnancy scares were in my late sophomore year/early junior year. I distinctly remember sex ed class because the pregnancy scares were the cold bucket of realization that I could fcuk my life up if I don't watch it. You better believe I paid attention. Now, even though I've had more pregnancy & STD scares since then, I'm at least at an age (30) I can take care of a kid as well as be more aware of safe sex practices to prevent and/or minimize disease (thank goodness for fringe benefits of having a doctor for a mom). I didn't have the same resources and knowledge back then that I do now which is why I think sex ed is very important and crucial for teens.

As with me, a second 'refresher' course would be good for Wilson since he got caught and might be more willing to pay attention instead of the first time around like how a one-time drunk driver might be more willing to pay attention in court-mandatory driver's ed.

[quote name='The Crotch']" I've already stressed my viewpoint that it's impractical to stop teens from having sex." Ahem.[/quote]
That's taking my quote out of context, you need to include the 2nd part of that quote, especially in bold:

"While it doesn't explicitly say "Don't have oral sex because you might get an STD" does it really need to be spelled out that having sex w/o consideration is probably not a good idea? If a fine is not enough of a motivator, again, I ask, what would it then take?"

[quote name='The Crotch']1: Who says he had sex without consideration of the consequences (as pertain to disease, not the law)? 2: Your question's a little awkward, in that I can only give an answer for the people I know. First and foremost, our "Sex Ed." is an absolute god damn joke seemingly made to skirt around pretty much every issue of any significance. The few times it does go into any sort of detail, it's an overload of numbers that will go entirely over the head of any 14-year-old (the only time we get any sexual education here in my province - another problem). After that... well, do you want me to rant on the irresponsibility of parents? Because that's the big bit, and it goes well beyond this.

Good luck with the hangover.[/quote]
1) Well, according to reports, he was drunk and, people who are drunk usually don't make the best decisions. That why responsible people have designated drivers so their stupidity doesn't translate to an accident on the road. Plus, he was stupid enough to get it filmed while both were underaged which is another sign of irresponsibility. So, those 2 things are enough to for me to infer that he probably wasn't considering the possibility of herpes type II occurring on his dick just that he was getting it sucked.

2) I can't speak for your area other than, if you think it's a joke, why not find ways to improve it? Shit, it worked for "The Girl Next Door" w/ Elisha Cuthbert. I don't think it's too farfetched to help develop a better sex ed curriculum than is already there. Plus, you can use that as a way to get pussy. Girls like guys who take initiative and look responsible. But that doesn't answer my question. As a member of your generation, what would it take to convince your peers to be responsible for their actions as it pertains to sex?

3) I'm a bit of half-and-half on the whole irresponsible parent thing. For one thing, there's just such a thing as a really fcuked-up kid despite a parent's effort. Another thing is that many of the tools parents used to have are no longer allowed or enforced such as spanking. Even a literal slap on the wrist could be misconstrued as child abuse. God forbid a parent spanks a kid's butt before the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) claims child abuse. My viewpoint on that is if you can't distinguish between spanking and violently hitting a kid, it's probably best that you don't have kids.

Also, grounding is effective so long as the child still has respect for the parent. But how do you ground a kid who already has a tv in his room along w/ a computer, his ipod, video games, etc.? Take them away? Good luck. Kids aren't as dumb as parents think. Hell, I used to defeat the TV parental controls on the remote control on a weekly basis when I was 10. However, I still respect my parents for teaching me discipline. My parents rewarded me when I was good and (deservedly) punished me (sometimes via spanking) when I was bad.

Now, preteens & teens are an even bigger conundrum. They're already past the age of spanking but still lack the discipline to hold themselves back sometimes. This is how you get shit like that Xbox Live kid telling his mom to fcuk off and demanding his chocolate milk like she was some kind of waitress. How do you deal w/ that? I honestly don't know since I'm not a parent. Props to those that keep their teens in line while still garnering their teens' respect.

On the other hand, there are a lot of parents that use TV & video games as an alternative babysitter and those parents don't get any respect from me at all. These types of parents need to actually learn to involve themselves in their kids' lives instead of bitching at the school for not raising their kids for them the way the parents want. There's also the parents who involve themselves in their kids' live too much. These parents need to learn a degree of tolerance if their kids aren't exactly what they expected them to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top