Georgia Woman Faces Eviction Because Of Decade-Old Sex Act
Wendy Whitaker had consensual oral sex with her boyfriend when she was 17 and he was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. She was convicted of sodomy in 1997 as a result, had to register as a sex offender for life, and can’t live within 1000 feet of schools or churches.
The Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta has filed a suit on her behalf to overturn parts of Georgia’s sex offender registry law, and she has just filed another suit to stop the state from evicting her from her home. She won’t be able to afford both a mortgage and a rent on a new home, so she would have to face foreclosure if she is forced from her house.
Whitaker’s case is reminiscent of that of Genarlo Wilson (r), a Georgia man who got 10 years for consensual sex he also had as a teenager. Wilson was finally freed after serving 2 years, and Whitaker is citing the cruel and unusual punishment in that case which will hopefully help her own cause.
Funny, isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend stands to lose everything because of a few moments of mutually consensual pleasure.
Something about a baby and washwater comes to mind. We, as Americans, seem to make sweeping legislative measures that leave no latitude for individual situations or interpretation by judges. Since a portion of the political spectrum starts to shudder at the thought of affording the bench latitude to make individual decisions, it can come in handy when considering some cases.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Holy crap that poor woman.
If oral sex is sodomy…
…
well, ah…
…well, I know a lot of people who are fugitives from justice.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Did read that right–Alan said having oral sex with a 15 year old is ok?
Jesrey–”Poor woman” ? How bout poor guy—did you look at her?
Oral sex –Sodomy–how in the hell do you get those 2 confused? As dumb as I am I know which end is which.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Some judges are plainly dumb. It looks like she got one of those dumb ones.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:25 am
If the Law says that, than the Law is an Ass.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS:
Funny, isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend stand to lose everything because of a few moments of mutually consensual pleasure.
====================
The People that continue to enforce this unjust law need to be in prison. Laws are largely created for justice and mercy, this law has neither!!
November 24th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Bryan, you’re dumber than you think. Sodomy, as defined by law, can refer to either oral or anal sex. As an example, Charlie Chaplin’s first wife filed for divorce, citing the fact that Charlie asked her for oral sex. In California, at the time, oral sex fell under the sodomy statutes.
And, secondly, you can gain a lot of weight in 11 years. Please grow up and stop being an idiot.
Thank you.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Any sex act that is not vaginal intercourse can and has been considered sodomy. Oral sex used to be an arrestable offense in some states and grounds for divorce in others because it was deemed unnatural.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am
We have to do better job with our laws! It is possible that we are destroying a lot of lives out there over sweeping legislation that isn’t just!
November 24th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Will you all stop bickering? This is basic civil liberties stuff. The invasiveness of this government is staggering. The federal government has no business in the bedrooms of the people of this country. To understand the stupidity of these laws, you simply have to look at those responsible for creating them. If only they were able to adhere to their own laws.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I think the photos, and the state this happened in, tells the story. They couldn’t punish the black guy for being with a white woman, in this case, so they punish the white woman who shares her bed with him. Any technicality they can get.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Damien—Sorry–didn’t realize there was a Sodomy expert here–my apologies.I just never had a reason to research Sodomy Laws as you have.I just always thought it was anal sex.
I never mentioned her weight—you have a problem with Big Women?
I suppose you agree with oral sex with a 15 year old is fine also.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Supreme court has ruled with Lawerence V Texas(2003)
It was called Procreative Sexual Activity and it is legal at an age of consent.
The only crime she should have been charged with was stautory rape.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:58 am
17 year old and 15 years old? If it’s consensual? No cameras or anything like that? I’d hope they were protected. Other than that, it’s fine.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Sorry, the pictures don’t tell you anything, they’re not related – two different cases. Nonetheless, consensual oral sex between two teenagers, less than two years apart in age is hardly the act of a sex offender. It’s ridiculous that this woman’s life (and the guy pictured, too) is being ruined for something that they both wanted to do, especially since she wasn’t an adult either. I don’t care what they consider the age of consent, common sense should have them look at the age difference and the fact that it was consensual.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:02 am
In California, 17 and 15 together would be perfectly legal, as long as all parties are consensual. Planned Parenthood would supply then the rubbers. I think 14 or lower is considered lewd acts with a child. And, of course, 18 or over with anyone under 18 is against the law. Being a Californian, their sexual act isn’t even an issue, with me.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Prosecution for the original offense was stupid.
She is not a pedophile so the law requiring her to register as a sex offender several times as stupid.
And the Bill-Monica age difference was substantially greater but no one has to register as a sex offender then.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:09 am
It is funny. Conservatives/Republicans want nothing regulated,….. except for sex. Oh, sex has to be fully regulated because “sex is bad”.
You righties are all a bunch of !@#$%
and typical of idiot righties: Bryan
16 years old, not 15 [I think you did that intentionally because you are incapable of having an honest discussion]
and it was when she was 17, so a years difference in age of the two people having consensual sex
and this all happened 11 years ago. you think maybe this had a negative effect on her life and maybe as a result she is depressed and became overweight?
and I don’t even know how you dare compare accusation of a sexual crime to consensual sex between two people that may have been unattractive.
It is really that simple. Righties/Conservatives claim morality, but really you are all ugly, evil, malicious, and disgusting on the inside.
All your beliefs are based on hypocrisy. You are all fake. None of you are going to heaven no matter how much you say you love your savior. He knows how much hatred and anger you have for your fellow human beings that are his creation.
Now go to sleep thinking you are smarter than God and you can fool him into thinking you actually love him.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Actually, Man in Black… I live in California, too. In California, it is illegal for any person under the age of 18 to have sex… the age of consent is 18. So, in California, a 16 year old can not legally consent to having sex with another 16 year old, and could potentially go to juvenile hall if they are caught. Outrageous, I know… but look it up, the law is on the books.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
MIB–In my state anyone over 18 having any kind of sex with anyone under 18 can be charged.But I don’t think 2 16 or 17 years olds can be—strange law.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I live in Georgia and all of these type laws need repealing.
Amazingly enough, my husband’s grandmother was 13 when she married his grandfather and 14 when she had her first child. That was COMMON in the first quarter of the 20th century and earlier.
Kids have hormones and they have sex. Prosecuting them for natural acts is the absolute most ridiculous thing we could do to them. How badly has this woman’s and Genarlo’s lives been screwed by these stupid laws?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Joe Bob–another advocate for kiddie sex it seems.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Did read that right–Alan said having oral sex with a 15 year old is ok?
If you’re 17, sure why not? Most states have an allowance for age ranges per the age of consent as well. I-E an 18 year old can be with a 16 year old, a 19 year old with a 17 year old.
Secondly, sodomy is a rough charge, but technically within the definition. Bestiality is sodomy as well. Any sex that’s non-procreative is sodomy if I remember correctly. Wearing a condom is sodomy, in the strictest sense.
and this – Bryan was caught!
I never mentioned her weight—you have a problem with Big Women?
You never mentioned it, but the only feature on the woman that is remarkable for that picture is her weight. Nothing deformed about her, good skin, her eyes and mouth are unremarkable, and her hair is a nice shade of red. So if you weren’t referring to her weight, you cad, what did you mean by this:
Jesrey–”Poor woman” ? How bout poor guy—did you look at her?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Joe Bob–read the ages again–then we will discuss who is the liar here.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:25 am
SaveTheWhales=Bryan
November 24th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Sodomy is placing genitalia anywhere that is not defined as a reproductive organ. If you place your penis inside of a woman’s ear on any level (just the tip obviously) or her nose you’ve just committed sodomy. I somewhat know how this woman feels as I’m a convicted felon. Twenty years ago my roommate owed me $187.00. I took a check of his and signed his name and tried to cash it….didn’t work because his sister works at the bank. Duh. Anyhow….two class E felonies now. I’m 41, have a Masters, a wife & daughter, two dogs and a small business. Yet, I can’t have a liquor license, own a weapon, vote or expand my business to the next county because they don’t allow it from a felon. It absolutely sucks for lack of a better phrase. Small crimes with gargantuan repercussions. Stevens almost won in Alasa and was indicted on seven felonies, yet I can’t defend my family or sell alcohol at my restaurant. Ridiculous. We need to revamp some laws absolutely. I was sixteen and my girlfriend was fourteen when we both lost our virginity… Guess I’ll need to report to the sheriffs office soon.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am
[...] And thanks to Georgia’s draconian sexual statutes, she’s being evicted now. She is fighting them, under the Constitutional provisos against cruel and unusual punishment, arguing that her [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Jersey –I already admitted I didn’t realize Sodomy refered to anything but anal sex so yes I was caught.
You are right about the Procreative part—but I do find it strange you paid such attention to her “unremarkable mouth”
The Southern Center for Human Rights may can ‘hook’ you up there.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:32 am
so the righties out there all agree that its wrong…
so shouldnt young Ms. Palin be prosectued and sent to jail?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Wolfgang—-Her ear or her nose–damn—And I thought I was kinky—that was good.
Jersey–I don’t hide behind fake names here—stand by what I believe and say and unlike MOST here admit when I am wrong.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Bryan, you are a filthy cad.
Why are the conservatives on this site always ill-mannered and ignorant?
You are right about the Procreative part—but I do find it strange you paid such attention to her “unremarkable mouth”
I addressed all of the features visible in the photo. I paid no special attention to any of them. The fact that you are doing so says a LOT more about you than it does me.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am
HAHA Caesar!
Damn right, if it’s a defendable law, arrest the knocked up Palin girl! She’s a sodomizer!
(watch, the cons will get indignant if it’s related to a Republican politician and claim liberal media bias against her, or that somehow Palin’s daughter was in a state of temporal flux when she rode the purple python.)
November 24th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Small minded bigots, keep you G*D DAMN noses out of people’s sex lives, and keep your filthy laws off our bodies.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:43 am
exactly Jim from Jersey..
my opinion is this.. these laws are ridiculous.. as a kid growing up in the 90’s in south jersey…. lord knows i had my share of sexual encounters….
i was not aware there were laws barring consensual sex at the time…
reality is this.. these few cases are not gonna stop kids from screwing..
parents should take more of an avtive role in what their kids are doing to help prevent this kinda stuff.
but even then.. its gonna happen.. i am not happy about my tax dollars going to prosecute teens going through their little coming of age things.. and then housing them in prisons for getting some cooch…
BAH
November 24th, 2008 at 1:43 am
That’s the south for you, it’s one of the most f-ed up places on earth. Not to mention one of the most uneducated, uncultured, unproductive, non-influental, etc.
I’ll never set foot that land of hillbillies and bigots. We’d be better off if we had just let them secede.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:44 am
To those on here professing outrage at sex with someone who was to all intents and purposes a 16 year-old: Jeez, c’mon, yeah he was fifteen, but she was only seventeen. It’s not exactly like she was robbing the cradle. They were BOTH kids. Have you all forgotten fooling around with others your own age when you were a teenager? It’s not like she was some forty year old predator.
And the bottom line is, what the hell is government doing in the bedrooms of its citizens? The state has no compelling reason to outlaw any consensual act between consenting adults. Those pharisees among us who would “protect” us from ourselves would do well to concern themselves with their own sexual urges and leave the rest of us alone…pursuit of happiness, right?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Ceaser,
EXCELLENT POINT! I said the same thing because young Ms. Palin is a much bigger issue! Clearly statutory rape by Johndon!
November 24th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Ceaser, where in South Jersey?
It’s pretty rural here. I really want to get back to the city, but my wife don’t wanna leave. Eh, whatcha gonna do.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Burlington County Area
November 24th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Salem County here.
This is the kind of law they’d try to pass here.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:53 am
These are stupid laws legislated and enforced by politicians pandering to fear mongering religious zealots. They do such damage to people’s lives. Stupid, hateful, ignorant laws. Teenagers should not be arrested and tried for sexual behavior with other teenagers unless coercion or rape was involved. They might need a good spanking and some parental guidance, but jail? Ridiculous.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:56 am
The spanking might be dangerous once they’re teenagers Curtis. Especially given people to having fetishes.
O.O
In any case, I have never seen anyone in my family or anyone I know getting spanked past the age of 10-11.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:02 am
I think there’s still state laws on the books that make all acts of “sodomy” illegal, even between married couples, and if you and your sig-other spend time in Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North & South Carolina, Utah or Virginia you should probably look up the statutes.
And you might want to talk to a lawyer, because we already know that the NSA intercepts US military calling home to talk to their spouses, and God knows who else, and thanks to Bush administration initiatives the feds can share info with any law enforcement agency, including your local police and public prosecutor.
[See "sodomy law" at the Wiki for starters.]
November 24th, 2008 at 2:12 am
She should move to have her sentence pardoned, especially since the act is now considered a misdemeanor under the conditions under which she was convicted.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:21 am
And Mark Foley is a free to live next door to an all-boys school and cruise around in his Boi-magnet Benz, swapping IM addys with teen-agers. When the Right says justice they really mean Just Us.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:22 am
I think Palin’s daughter’s fiance would like the name Jim gave his member, Purple Python.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Alan,
Where do I start with you? I guess its all in the LAST PARAGRAPH:
“Funny, isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend stand to lose everything because of a few moments of mutually consensual pleasure.”
Why must you and every other liberal glom (like sushi sticky rice) several issues together to then justify your point?
Just stick with the STORY about the woman, and I’m with you. 100% as a conservative I might add. Kids have sex. Yes, as Republicans, we advocate abstinence so things like this don’t happen, as well as no sex before marriage so that sex then becomes a higher more spiritual aspect of life, instead of a one night stand that can lead many youngsters to doubt, unhappiness, cliche formation (the cool kids vs. the geeks that don’t get laid), etc. THAT BEING SAID: we are all human, and we do human things and this woman is not in any way, shape or form, a sexual predator as defined by the information in your article. Totally stupid and needless govt spending on incarceration for this woman and it ruins her life (where the boy who enjoyed the outcome of this act is not in trouble and thus its sexist as well).
Now regarding your point about “destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability” all I can say is: your sentence structure sucks. Too many conjunctions when it should have comma’s and then end with a conjunction. Where is your NEA English teacher now? I, as a paying citizen for your education, want a refund!
November 24th, 2008 at 2:27 am
[...] Alan Colmes’ Liberaland
November 24th, 2008 at 2:30 am
justanotherlawgirl, as a laymen, I’m not really sure how that could work, though maybe there’s precedence for it (I wouldn’t know). I know it’s not the same thing, but it reminds of ex post facto, though instead of trying to convict, or keep listed as having been convicted, a person with a crime not then illegal at the time of its supposed violation, the intent is to try to overturn a then legal conviction on grounds that the law changed. That makes sense as a recognition of the cruelness of the specific case, and ones like it, in question, I just never knew it could be done.
Well, based on the name you’re using, I’m sure you’ll help me understand better, if willing.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:37 am
I can’t believe how good the liberals are to camparing EVERYTHING to the curren administration. Halarious. Alan, come up with something new….PLEASE!
November 24th, 2008 at 3:06 am
I saw a girl in my in laws village yesterday. She was again pregnant. This will be her third child. She is 17. She is a competent capable woman who not only maintains her household, she sees to the care of three aging parents as well as several siblings.
America really needs to wake up.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Sometimes common sense would save time and money.Casey Anthony gets free lawyer when we all know she’s guilty of murder where’s this poor girls help?
November 24th, 2008 at 3:09 am
Hmm, I think maybe it’s time we took on the traditions of pre-colonial, pre-missionary Hawaii. Older, highly trained women taught young people the art of sexuality over the course of several years beginning at the first signs of sexual maturity. Everyone should required to learn how to properly administer good head in accredited school programs beginning around freshman year in HS. Programs in hot sex leading to advanced degrees should be instituted in all higher learning institutions. Good sex skills should be a requirement of citizenship.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:14 am
[...] to register as a sex offender for life, and can
November 24th, 2008 at 3:21 am
It is interesting how much of the commentary implies that if one of the participants were older it would then be ok to torture them for the rest of their lives.
The commentators may not be as progressive as they like to think.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Dear God what are we turning into. I mean she was 17 and he was 15. Both were minors. Hello?? get a f. life. Come on. This girl should be set free of her conviction. This is not right.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:32 am
Why would she be considered a sex offender when both parties were minors? Why arent the parents of both parties being held responsible?
November 24th, 2008 at 3:36 am
it just struck to me, reading this blog; america is in some states not very different from countries such as afghanistan, iran and iraq. Stupid laws enforced by uneducated, scared people on the basis of a book of disputable historic value. I can’t believe this, but maybe it’s because I’m from europe.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:18 am
She was legally an adult. The age of 17 is the age of consent and the age when defendants are held responsible as adults. The boy was 15. That is statutory rape in many, many states. Some states do not prosecute if the age difference is two years, however, she was an adult, he was not. At the time sodomy was not legal. She could have been charged with statutory rape had the law allowed a woman to be prosecuted for rape–that is only a recent legal development.
Who cares how much the defendant weighs. She is a sex offender under the law. Her victim was a minor who legally cannot consent to sexual activity period.
The other case in question–the football player? He should have stayed in prison. His victim couldn’t consent to oral, anal, vaginal sex with him either even if he was an attractive football star befriended by Oprah.
Either we have statutory rape laws or you have 21 year olds having intercourse with 12 year olds. Why is it we want exceptions when it isn’t our child but want the full force of the law to protect our children from sex offenders.
Too bad. She knew she couldn’t live near schools or other places where children are.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:20 am
it moves me very deeply ,to see that the people in this country are getting their heads out of the sand , and not standing by and allowing injustices to go uncheck , Right On America
November 24th, 2008 at 4:23 am
This has got to be one of the most pathetic cases I have ever heard. Is this the middle ages? I can’t even believe a law like that is still on the books let alone enforced and prosecuted.
The ultra-conservative right, strikes again!
November 24th, 2008 at 4:26 am
[...] Link. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Appropriatefelonious head – oh no not again [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 5:30 am
This is what Georgia’s law says about this woman’s sex act with her boyfriend. How does any court believe she has to move or is a child molester? Patti
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-1-1
Scroll down to:
16-6-4.
(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.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:41 am
This is outrageous, archaic and inhumane, based on religious dogma that injects itself into our legal system forcing anything but procreative missionary position sex to be criminalized whenever possible — but, but, but… One question has not been answered: who reported the woman 10 years ago for having the consenting oral sex with her boyfriend? Who thought this was enough of a “crime” to call the police? Who needs to get more of life than to report 16 year olds and (4 days short of being 16 year olds) from “playing doctor” of their own accord. Can we as a nation just please grow up!
November 24th, 2008 at 5:53 am
C’mon people did you read the article she was a teen also! I thank GOD everyday I don’t live in the crazy @ss South those people are f’n crazy when comes to sex, RACE, everything. Backwards I wish the South had left the Union back in the day CRAZY!hahaha
November 24th, 2008 at 6:13 am
This isn’t surprising at all! Our whole civilization is skewed against sexual EQUALITY!
There’s an amazing (and hilarious) new film about this very theme on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-152460894465175765&hl=en
Definitely recommended!!!
November 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
I noticed ‘almost’ nothing posted so far mindful of outrage regarding Gernarlo Wilson. How much did it matter to you as he wasted away as someone’s political football in prison?
I share all sentiments of great empathy for this young lady. Such laws anywhere are way too draconian. Hope she is spared.
P.S. Somehow, I would be surprised if the rightwingers don’t log more time on the nasty websites any anybody on earth!
November 24th, 2008 at 6:19 am
The Supreme Court overturned all of the nation’s sodomy laws in Lawrence vs Texas. Wouldn’t she be able to overturn her conviction on the grounds that the law under which she was convicted was declared unconstitutional?
November 24th, 2008 at 6:45 am
What do you expect from a state that chose a Draft Dodger over a real war hero
November 24th, 2008 at 6:53 am
“…who reported the woman 10 years ago for having the consenting oral sex with her boyfriend?”
My theory: the boy boasted to his friends, his friends talked, and eventually the talk got back to the boy’s parents who were disgusted to learn that their 15-year-old had had a BJ.
So many issues here. First, I don’t see what good it does to call people “hicks” and “rednecks,” or to insult their religious beliefs. The people you’re insulting come in all sizes and shapes, and many of them are considerably kinder and more tolerant than you are.
Second, some posters here have made fun of this woman’s appearance. We don’t know what she looked like 10 years ago, but I’ll bet that spending ten years as a registered sex offender simply for doing what most of the other girls in school were also doing takes its toll.
Finally, why should non-procreative sex acts even be discouraged, much less punished, among teenagers? They function as innocent (yes, innocent) ways to relieve sexual tensions without resulting in unwanted pregnancy, and with a greatly reduced risk of sexually transmitted disease. There are stories about many a well-to-do Georgia peach who can honestly say she’s a virgin on her wedding day after having gone down on half the football team in high school and college. As long as she isn’t an unwed mother and she doesn’t give her husband a dose of HPV on their wedding night, I couldn’t care less.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Actually, the California statutory rape/consent laws have changed recently. If both parties having sex are under the age of 18 (but old than 14) and are less than 3 years (it may be no more than 2 years) apart, it is not considered a crime.
If one party is over 18 and the other is under 18, same rules apply.
They changed this rule recently to stop parents of minors from prosecuting their son’s/daughter’s girlfriend/boyfriend simply because they didn’t like them. Statutory rape is a crime that, once a complaint is filed w/ valid evidence is filed, must be tried in court.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:08 am
This has nothing to do with either weight or sex. It has to do with the State dictating what constitutes proper sexual behavior. Most states have laws against sodomy -and use those laws primarily against gays. But those laws are not written as anti-homosexual but as anti-sexual. There is only one legal sexual position – the missionary position. Everything else is considered deviant. Makes me wonder when Levi will be charged with statutory rape of Bristol Palin?
November 24th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Why do I get the feeling that her boyfriend’s race has something to do with this in Georgia?
November 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am
I agree with the ruling (except for the sodomy charge). I don’t want some nasty 17 year old blowing my 15 year old son. I want some nasty 15 year old blowing my son, as long as he doesn’t bring that wh*re home to me.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:51 am
More than half of my High School class would be in prison if the law had anything to do with it. There would be an even larger number going to prison today if the law prosecuted all that is going on in school today. Give me a break, or better yet, wake up.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:53 am
It’s ridiculous that he is within 2 years age of the guy and she was labeled a sex offender. This is a law that you would expect to come from the Roman Catholic church 500 years ago. Sex laws should look at the relative age between the 2 people as well. The law as it is is completely incompatible with human nature.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I think these laws are overkill, generally, but I cannot see the purpose behind requiring that a convict of any stripe not live near a church. It’s as if you are trying to deny them redemption, and that would seem to violate the first amendment.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Georgia is one of the most intolerant states in the union, along with Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas and lets not forget the cultist state of UTAH. Utah will be carrying the torch to light the flame for the next bigots Olympics.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:08 am
“Why are the conservatives on this site always ill-mannered and ignorant?”
Conservatives are like that on all sites and in real life.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Did someone vote on this 300 Billion Citibank bailout????
I think we are all being sodomized.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
More and more I am wondering what Americans mean by ‘land of freedom’. Most States restrict your personal life with laws that are an insult to common sense and individual freedom. Any country of the European Union offers you more individual freedom, and governments don’t interfere that much -although they keep trying of course, but we won’t let them- with your personal doings.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
This poor woman. Teens are Teens with hormones flooding their systems. This is one of the most ridiculous so called crimes I’ve seen prosecuted.
Some prosecutor obviously had one on for her and should be ashamed that they put her through this.
Next they’ll be arresting 4-years for playing doctor.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:59 am
The Republicans in this country spent 55 million dollars to get a sitting President impeached for a BJ. Republicans are obsessed with how you have sex and who you have sex with, your body and what you do with it, your religion, your marriage and your race.
They are not concerned with your air, your water, your job, the education of your children, your health, your home or your basic human dignity.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I am confused, isn’t this what the abstinence only crowd preaches? No vaginal intercourse before marriage. What’s the problem?
November 24th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Why is anyone surprised. They only change the rules when they want to punish. You know like when they say they are going to try a 13 year old as an adult. God bless America ..please
November 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Frist of all, she was a kid herself at the time and could have recently turned 17, we don’t know those details. This is a silly bible belt law that needs to be revised and most of us could be arrested under those guide lines.
“You know like when they say they are going to try a 13 year old as an adult. God bless America ..please”
Agreed, be aware that the 8 yr old who the police have accused of murder in AZ, was in danger of being tried as an adult. In fact the police were pushing for it.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Patti, that is the current law. The law at the time was not well defined and efforts to make the current law retroactive have, as Laura succinctly points out above, have been viciously opposed by republicans whose only concern is to inject big republican government into people’s personal lives.
That is the main issue at hand with their cases.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
This case is a good example of where there must be some reason and sanity applied when holding up the law. Clearly, this woman is not a sexual predator. She was punished according to the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.
Now, if she were a 27 year old who performed oral sex on a barely 16 year old boy then it would be a much different situation. But in all honesty she was still pretty much a kid herself at 17. The court should have considered the actual maturity level of the girl before passing judgement on her.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am
This is without a doubt, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. Let me get this straight, at 17 years old, it’s a ‘register-as-a-sex-offender-for-life’ level crime to have sex of ANY kind with your significant other that is within a year and a half of your age?
Georgia should have to pay some kind of tax penalty refund to its residents for allowing such a stupid law to stay on its books.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
What ! Change that law. Good greif,that,s a total mess.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
WHAT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE BACKWARDS SOUTH A BUNCH OF SO CALLED BIBLE TOTING BOBBLEHEADS
November 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Most of these “get tough” laws were written by politicians seeking votes by scaring people. Novel idea, huh? This woman can’t go to church?? Are you kidding me? Laws that change or add penalties after the fact are unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause of the US constitution. We seem to have gotten away from that wonderful document through fear-mongering in recent years.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:11 am
If a 17 year old girl talked my 15 year old (virgin) son into oral sex, I would be furious, and I would want to see the girl arrested and prosecuted too! I am not a prude, but 15 is too young to be having sex, and children under 17 need to be protected from the sexual advances of children over 17. This is just good common sense. It’s not good for very young children to be exposed to sex at an early age when they are not ready for it mentally/emotionally/physically, and that’s why we have laws making this illegal sodomy/rape or whatever.
Regardless, keeping teenage offenders on the Sex Registry for life is absolutely stupid, and this must changed. Only pedophiles and dangerous rapists should be on these Registries.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Again, I’m ignorant, because I don’t think that’s what ex post facto refers to. I thought it referred to the act of trying to make what was legal illegal, in order to prosecute a person for comitting an act which was legal at the time it was comitted. Excessive penalties would be covered by clause against cruel and unusual punishment, wouldn’t it?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Thought your first post didn’t go through, huh, Kate. This thing is a pain.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:17 am
ex post facto
adj. Latin for “after the fact,” which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=701&bold=||||
November 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
[...] 24, 2008 by Tatiana Welcome to Georgia! Here your teen can blow off her boyfriend and be charged of sodomy and get on the sexual offenders list – for a freakin blow job! Whew, do I know some lucky girls [...]
November 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Sex after pubety is a natural process.Sexual prevention before 18 yo is socially unachievable.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“..or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed.” Well, I’m not sure that applies here, unless such punishments as Miss Whitaker has received weren’t in law before she engaged in oral sex . Anyway, I do agree that she should be taken off the list. It is absurd.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Who the hell are these people with links as poster names, and who just give Alan a link bag to his own post?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I mean, other than Jerry? He’s at least human. I think. More sure about him than me in that regard.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bryan,
In the puritan/American world-view, any sex act that is not man-on-top-penis-in-vagina IS legally considered “sodomy’
She was 17, he was 16. That is a far cry from advocating “sex with a 15 year old”
And as far as her looks….I’m sure a visit with the mirror in your bathroom might do you a world of good
November 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
The male who is pictured in the article is not her boyfriend. That is the high school kid who, along with some other friends, got a blow job and they video taped it. The teen girl who gave the blow job(s) happened to be white.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
You have to be seriously disconnected from reality to think that a 17yo girl giving a blow-job to a 16yo kid is damaging him in some way. Even at 15 yo (as some here want to technically insist) it’s simply going to make him feel good about himself. It’s not anything like actual molestation. The sad irony is that people who support these kinds of laws do so not because of the harm done when kids are molested; if they did they would see clearly there’s no harm here. No, they support these laws because they think sex is immoral. Sad, repressed fools. Calling this “kiddie sex” or something like that is just ignorant.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I am quite sure nearly everyone on this blog engaged in some form sex as a teenager. That law is insane. Do not me wrong,i am not saying for teens to go out and have sex,but i was a teen at 1 time and i know what i did and alot of you on here did too. MAINLY TO THE 1,S THAT WANT TO SEE THIS LADY SUFFER.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Although I agree in principal that govt should not be “in our bedrooms” or, for that matter, in our homes at all, and agree that the laws are overly punitive with little leeway, there must be a way to protect children from pedophiles and teens from rapists. Remember that most rapes are from someone the victim knows, and most children are victimized by family. So how do we achieve a balance? We could give judges more power to consider the circumstances – but can we believe a fair judgment will be reached if a far right wingnut is the judge? (Certainly not if we look at the example of the supreme court decision on the Florida election, a case they should not have even agreed to hear.)
November 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
When I was a public defender in 2004/2005, my client (a 15 year old boy from Mexico, illegally) had sex with his 15 year old gfriend. They charged him, not her, and, the kicker, charged him as an adult (yes, legally possible). He faced 10 years in prison. I contacted every big media outlet (wish this blog were around then), and only got a semi-national paper (Orlando Sentinel) to show interest and do a few front page articles. Anyway, the “deal” was that he’d avoid prison time and be transported to an immigration detention center and back to mexico…but he is now a sex offender in the U.S. My contact with the media raised the ire of a local cop (detective on the case) in a backwoods town who wrote the local paper about me and asked for the state ethics board to look into my actions for my contact w/the media. Oh, and he said I should move to California (?), IF I could pass the California bar
November 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“had to register as a sex offender for life, and can’t live within 1000 feet of schools or churches.”
This law is so dumb. I can understand the schools part. But churches? Common. Underaged usually go to church with their parents.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I am all in favor of protecting children from predators, but there has to be room for reason. These laws are there to protect older adults from having sex with children. An 18 year old and a 15 year old is not even close to the same ball park as, say, a 40 year old and a 15 year old. The fact that a 17 year old can get into trouble with a 16 year old shows how these laws go too far.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I’ve honestly not read every comment here. Does someone think Mr. Wilson was/is Miss Whitaker’s boyfried, the one she had oral sex with?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
How realistic is it to lock up teenagers’ sexual arousal? Do we really think they are capable of ignoring it until the age of majority? Rather than help them to understand and grow into adulthood, this approach just produces more mayhem and post adolescent irresponsibility. The teen years are the learning years. If they don’t learn to deal with sex safely and with responsibility during this precious time? How will they deal with it at the age of majority?
It’s a perversion of nature to expect sexually wired teenagers to behave like prepubescent ones. They’re not. It’s perverse to ignore the needs of these persons to know and understand their bodies. It’s also perverse to tell them don’t enjoy these arousals even though they are bombarded daily by them. It’s perverse to punish them for something which is usually be beyond their control. And most of all it’s perverse to ruin young lives that weren’t hurting or exploiting anyone.It’s perverse to interpret the law so narrowly that ignores the true purpose of the law which is to protect.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
One of the biggest problems with these laws is, of course, that the facts of the case which puts one on the registry, even if readily available, probably won’t be researched by prospective homebuyers where a person on the registry is, nor by the community in which a person on the registry hopes to move to. Two or three things come to mind when sex offender registry is mentioned, especially if you’re a protective parent or advocate against domestic violence, etc., that the person on the registry molested a child, raped another adult forcibly, as opposed to placing the victim under the influence of a drug, or exposed himself to other people.
The possibility that it was just two amorous teens who might well have looked about the same age, and were probably so mentally, is one of the least likely assumptions.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:48 am
What is not mentioned is that ole Wendy screwed herself by breaking probation, which in turn caused her first-time offender status to be revoked.
Was the law stupid? Yes; which is why it has been overturned. Is the new law excessive? Probably; and I doubt it would stand-up to strict judical review. At the same time it is important to keep in mind the context in which these laws are being sponsored. If not for a judiciary that has failed in its obligation to protect society from some of the worst offenders, legislators would not be taking these extreme steps.
If, as so many homosexual rights activists argue, sexual orientation is inate and not a choice then why are we trying to “cure” pedophiles by releasing them into society?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
later.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
@ Matthew
I agree with what you said except for one thing: 500 years ago the Catholic church was run by incestuous murderers. The most famous is family Borgia, but the others were just as cruel. Most of the wars were religious, they were hunting and killing witches, Jews and anybody else who even hinted to think differently. Life long imprisonment, torture and confiscation of your possessions because you might have read a book written by a heretic such as Galileo… just some examples. That is what happens when butheads like Jaye and Mormons4bigots come to power. I guess people don’t change, just the technique. People still think they have the power to command other people because they have read a book of a doubtful quality, to forbid the scientists to perform experiments on certain types of cells (I am “sure” it is morally much better to protect a single cell than people suffering of Alzheimer, Parkinson, diabetes and a gazillion other sicknesses) or to teach children with straight face that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago but then disappeared (perhaps a dino-rapture happened?). An then, this story: 2000 years ago god has send his own son, who was actually himself because there is only one god, down to earth. I am not sure heaven was populated at that time because god was on the earth unless god has a split personality (and I wonder if one can see the hell from there and who was keeping an eye on it while god was running the campaign in Israel through his son who was actually him). In few years Jesus god was blessed by a holy spirit who was actually himself, sent my god who was actually himself. Few years later Jesus god was killed, but not before he asked god in heaven who was himself not to die if it is the wish of the god in heaven who was himself, only to resurrect and to join his father – who was himself – and the holy spirit – who was himself. Sounds ridiculous? That it because it is.
Why am I saying this?
This kind of sentence and destroyed life is exactly what happens when this kind of people judge others.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
This case has nothing to do with an adult. Both parties were teens and the other teen not charged. It takes 2 in this case. That,s a dumb law and teenage sex has been going on for years. Most of the folks on this blog had some form of teenage sex. The sad fact,i,ll bet several teens are breaking the very law she is charged for at this very moment in the state this lady is from.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Bryan,
You are dumber than you think: Sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex ; also : copulation with an animal.
And, since you are paying member of the moral majority, she was 17 yrs old having sexual relations with a near 16 yrs old. It’s not like she was 27.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
How in the world do you guys know her boyfriend is black? The picture of the black guy isn’t the boyfriend in this case. It’s a picture of a guy who got tripped up by the same kind of thing a few years back.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
some legal clarifications. The laws on sodomy were overturned by the supreme court. Therefor the convictions of sodomy are illegal because the laws were not changed by legislations but because the Supreme courts said the laws were illegal. To the person with the felony conviction please check http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Cfd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf
most states allow voting after the completion of parole. maybe you should move to a state that treats you as a full human being.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Theres a signpost up ahead it reads You Have Just Entered the TWILIGHT ZONE
November 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Oh boy! I can’t believe it. You have that mad man in the white house with blood on hisw hands big time and his cronies and he will waltz into the sunset with bags of dosh and not a care in the world, whereas this woman is being victimised for having a boyfriend and showing her love for him.
I need a drink
November 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
To those on here offended at the thought of a 17 yr old girl giving a BJ to their 15 son….many 15 yr old young men are quite mature for their age and many 17 yr old young ladies are very sheltered and naive. No one knows if the young man was the influence here…so don’t make judgements without all the facts.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I would not stick my stick in that mouth.
She got what she had coming, wrapping those jowls around an innocent phallus.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:49 am
While I agree that she should not have to be on the Sex Registry for life, I think another point to look at that I haven’t seen discussed here is the draconian restrictions placed on where sex offenders can live. The laws vary by location, but usually people on the sex registry can not live by schools, daycares, parks, and even bus stops. I know this gives everyone a warm fuzzy to know such people are not close to places that kids hang out, but is it truly effective?
First of all, this makes the assumption that all sex offenders are child molesters, which is not true. Second, as Carol just pointed out, most rapes are from someone the victim knows. These restrictions only make sense for the small percentage of offenders inclined to go to a park to find a victim. It wouldn’t make sense to me to go to a park close to your house anyway, where people might recognize you.
To give this woman the same ’sex offender’ label that you would give to an older man who molests an 8yo is just wrong.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I will bet my pay check that someone is breaking the same law right now in the very state this lady lives in. I wouldn,t stick anything their as well,but that,s not the point. That law is absurb. I will keep on saying it,that most of had sex acts as teens as well. The right wing buffoons blasting this lady know you did something along this line as a teen.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
And the reason we aren’t harping on Wilson is because they didn’t make him register as a sex offender. He was released in October 2007.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
We live in a society that uses sex to sell everything from Bubble Gum to Guns and yet we prosecute teens for sex? God Bless America,we need it.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
You Yanks need to build more prisons! There are many people down there still not in jail for serious crimes such as sex and drugs and not being a citizen.
This is not acceptable people. Let’s herd ‘em up and put ‘em where they belong…
November 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
This is the crap you get when you allow religion to influence government. God save me from your adherents.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Frosty,you yanks need to build more prisons.Let’s herd ‘em where they belong…Starting in D.C.and Wall Street where the real criminals and gangsters are,these pedophiles are petty.We lead the world in prisons, incarcerations and still there’s not enough prisons 4 these scumbags…
November 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
When we legislate measures that restrict sentencing in an effort to ensure severity, we end up with situations like this one. Flexability in sentencing guidelines allows individual case consideration by judges.
When we mandate….we end up suffering unanticipated side affects.
Some still fear giving the judicial branch flexibility, but they were elected for their power of fair judgment….it doesn’t make much sense to tie their hands so that any …(I can’t believe I’m going to ((gag)) type this)..Joe the dummy judge just reads the standard sentence for the designated crime like any court clerk could do.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Exactly Robert Blair! They legistlate sentencing with the intention that people don’t get off too easy, but now we end up with people who receive sentences that are too harsh.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Darn, and all this time I thunk oral sex was jes talkin about it.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
**flag flies into the air**
Five yard penalty for speaking common sense with sense of humor. Register as a penalized humor offender and notify your entire neighborhood. Be grateful we don’t throw you in the stocks, lad….now, where is that letter “A” we need to put on your coat?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Mandatory minimum sentences and “3 strikes” laws in the US are a Clintonesque stain on the dress of Lady Liberty indeed…
Up here in the frozen north we are constantly horrified by stories in our beloved national news network, the CBC* of travesties of justice south of the 49th.
Case in point, a man (who happened to be black) who was “done” for:
1)Shoplifting from a dept. store, but because it was pre-planned and he had a “lookout” it was conspiracy and thus a felony. Strike 1
2)In a drunken stupor, he stole a bicycle from an open garage…but because the family was at home and were awakened, it was a home invasion. Strike 2
The “third strike” was a robbery where the victim said there was a carpet knife or a box cutter….no other witnesses…no knife was ever recovered
There ya go 25 years, no parole. Nice.
There’s your “best country in the world” justice for you..
However, bilk millions of Americans out of their savings, spend a few months in a federal country club and return to your wealth, carefully hidden away awaiting your triumphant return…
God bless America
November 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Although I’m one for the separation of Church and State, and even the removal of the phrase “In God We Trust” on our coins, etc., I’m not sure it’s fair to blame religion or its adherents for these excessive laws/ punishments. I agree religion had to have played an important, perhaps original role, most likely in making sodomy laws and the punishments for their transgressors, but I think long ingrained notions of what appropriate sex ages are, could also be psychological, as well as cultural in origin, and exist because of their influences, as much, if not greater, than any specific religious law or principle.
Besides, is it not the case that some children barely in their teens are married in countries where religion is intrinsic? I’ve heard Mary of the Bible, and not the Magdalene one, might have been 12 when she had Jesus.
I think it’s possible that the continued existence of these laws is based to some degree on the perception that children are innocent, and, though arguments about interfering with the nature of people can be made, the reaction to any report of sexual activity with a minor will offend the sensibilities of many, including, of course, atheists. I don’t know that religion is necessary for the existence of that perception.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
When I was fifteen, I had sex with someone thirty-two. It was consentual and it was thirty years ago. Imagine if someone started dregging up all the sex that everyone had as a teenager. The courts would be swamped with lawsuits and charges. Teenagers are horny! They don’t care who they have sex with!
November 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Rigidity, in any form, religious or other, is detrimental to the justice process.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I think that, at some point, whatever may have predicated the argument for bad laws, our capacity to reason against them, or at least find it within our empathy to forgive violators of these laws, or recognize said laws as being much ado about nothing, has to take responsibility. Religious books are just that, books. They are inanimate. I don’t deny their influence, nor the influence of parents who raise their children by them, but I don’t excuse reasonably educated and intelligent people for what they could do, if they took a step back to consider what they are proposing and defending.
We can ignore bad religious doctrine, and choose to not subject others to it.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
On this matter I agree with WFG, religion is not to blame for the ‘age of consent’ laws.
But it porbably has a lot to do with the attitude by many that sex is dirty and sinful and if there is any way possible, should be punished. But “protecting” our children from old perverts is one thing, but “protecting” them from having sex with each other stinks of conservativism and the church(es)
yes, there are youngsters being married in religious countries…but that’s to prevent them from having sex with anyone else but their promised mate ( an older man)…It’s more an indication of women being used as chattel in poor nations. In India girls are bethrothed as young as 6.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Well, my main point about the reference to countries wherein children are married off, is only to show that, looked at numerically, the notion of young persons engaging in intercourse isn’t necessarily anti religious.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The only concern I have is at what point does the sexual contact become wrong? She was 17 and he was 15. Most everybody here says that that is no big deal. Fine. What about 18 and 15? 17 and 14? 18 and 14? 17 and 13?
I think many people see this and feel sympathy for this woman, but are a bit worried about the next instance. What if their impressionable, gullible, or easily influenceable 13 year old is taken in by somebody who is 17 or 18?
Would you be ok with that if that was your child? I am not making pronouncements even though I know what I think. I just think we can also look at the forest as well as this one tree and admit nothing happens in a vaccuum.
If time and the American Judicial System have shown us anything, it is once a precedent has been set, it is extremely difficult for it to be turned back.
Take care of people, but don’t sell the rest down the river at the same time.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Georgia, figures.
Don’t most states have a provision that teens in a certain range can’t be prosecuted for doing it with each other?
This sort of thing ends up hurting real victims or real sex crimes. When we start realizing that the “Sex crime registry” is filled with people who were caught doing the nasty with highschool classmates as teenagers, we will not take that registry as seriously and REAL deangerous sex offenders will start to go off the radar. There are also places where serious NON-sexual offenders are put on the same list. I can argue we are also making mistakes with the way we treat more serious sex offenders, but we should at least start with the idea that we need to end the oe list for everything.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’m not sure it’s clear SHE preformed oral sex on him. Maybe he was the one doing the work. Or maybe they were going to town on each other??
But it’s ridiculous that she was prosecuted. Outrageous. Are we still in the 19th century? Because this story reminds me of Les Miserables where the main character gets put in jail for 5 years for stealing a loaf of bread for his starving family. He gets 14 more for trying to escape.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Cama Bert is right. Every state seems to have draconian laws regarding sex that make certain aspects of the laws during the so-called Victorian age appear benign and enlightened by comparison. Notwithstanding the fact that men and women go through puberty earlier now than a century ago, legislatures keep raising the age of consent. Laws about who can have sex with whom as to what age are a welter of confusion. Quick, in your state can an 18 year old have lawful sex with a 16 year old? If a 17 year old woman can consent to sex with an 18 year old man, why can’t she consent to sex with a 25 year old man? These ridiculous statutory schemes would be laughable if so many innocents weren’t caught up in the net they cast.
What is wrong with us? Bill Clinton gets oral sex from Monica and that ultimately prompts an impeachment proceeding! Aren’t some things beneath the dignity of the Congress? What next? How about a prosecution for failure to flush a toilet? In today’s society, oral sex is viewed as common by the twenty and under crowd. Don’t believe me? You haven’t been out much.
If you want some scary reading, pull up your state’s sex offender statutes. They make treatment of lepers in Bible times seem mild. And as we see above, a woman is going to be booted from her home for a sex act, and one 30 years old at that.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The funny thing is that when I discuss this case among others in Georgia they all declare it ridieculous. They wonder how the sex offender laws in Georgia have gotten so far out of hand.
Yet when I ask them what a sex offender is, not mentioning this case, they go immediately to child molester and bring up visions of Jessica Lunsford or Adam Walsh. ‘No one wants someone who would do that living near them…’ is the constant refrain. When I explain that over 65% of the people on Georgia’s draconian registry have no identifiable victim (internet pornography, etc.) or no victim (public indecency [read: urinating in the woods, etc]) or engaged in consensual sex as a minor with a minor and that sex offenders have among the lowest recidivism rate of all classes of crime they turn away from the conversation in discomfort.
Then they go to the polls armed with their cross and ‘family values’ and re-elect Representative Keene and his cohort of repressed and repressive legislators.
For these people it seems it is better to defend a belief and sustain a lie than to accept the truth and change.
I take it back, it is not funny, it is sad. What have we become when issues are so hysteria driven that we allow the Constitution to be shredded by enacting preemptive justice. A free people will never be protected by the government, there lies the path to tyranny.
Kelly R Piercy Georgians for Sex Offender Registry and Residency Restriction Reform
http://www.gasorr.org/
November 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Bryan said
“Did read that right–Alan said having oral sex with a 15 year old is ok?”
Yes, of course, as long as the 15 year old is almost 16 and the partner is 17!
November 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
[...] to register as a sex offender for life, and can
November 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I think it’s a disgrace the way some people are so horrified about “their precious teens ” having sex…
…try this on – teach your kids about safer sex, birth control, unwanted pregnancies and std’s etc etc…better yet, let profeesionals teach them.
It’s bordering on child abuse for the conservatives to prevent proper sex ed in schools.
And it CERTAINLY cannot be left up to parents (be honest) and churches (abstainence? R u kidding?)
November 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The right wing wants less gov,t but they want someone in the bedroom. Come on and be real,what happen to this person is the crime.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The US needs to get past the Victorian codes for sexual conduct. Exactly who was protected by this conviction? Sex exists America, it is pervasive in our society yet still looked upon as a socially unaccceptable act and topic. Any law that forbids a consensual sexual act between partners of consenting age needs to be struck down as unconstitutional under the first amendment. You want to make the consenting age 18, fine. whatever, but we are sexual beings and religious dogma has no place in my bedroom.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Funny, isn’t it, how we can have an administration that destroys our economic infrastructure and violates the Constitution and escapes punishment and accountability; yet, a woman who had oral sex with her boyfriend stands to lose everything because of a few moments of mutually consensual pleasure.”
Well now … since she was convicted in 1997, 5 years into the Clinton administration, I assume that is the administration of which he speaks. Can’t believe old Bill was prying into people’s bedrooms though. He wasn’t that big of a hypocrite.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Late Post Here—With Discussions on this site about Tax Cuts and Obama’s Cabinet—Liberals advocating Kiddie Sex gets the mose passionate responses—why am I not surprised.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Late Post Here—With Discussions on this site about Tax Cuts and Obama’s Cabinet—Liberals advocating Kiddie Sex gets the most passionate responses—why am I not surprised.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
You’re not surprised because ones own backward and stunted logic merely will not surprise oneself!
me thinks you protest too much bryan
November 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Backward and Stunted Logic—if that means I think sex with a 15 year old is wrong—thats me.
Proudly flies my “Backward and Stunted Logic” flag.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
This a PERFECT example of how Religion is obstructing the law making process and why the separation of Church and State needs to be wider than it is. Our laws ARE influenced by that and we tend to have knee jerk reactions. The Patriot Act is the latest example of that.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I think not giving judges discretion in cases like this is absurd but a line has to be drawn for an age limit for consensual sex. We can’t have a free for all- just look at the cases of teachers with students. Though I had some hot teachers in school that I would of liked to take advantage of me.
Judges need to be allowed to use a little common sense in cases like this. Since they were both under age then they should of been left alone-perhaps tell their parents. That probably would have been enough.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
You should strike those colors and fly a “Clueless and Ridiculous” flag.
No MINOR girl (17) should be convicted for having sex, oral or otherwise with a minor boy (15). They should have a good talking to from their parents, and perhaps education on safe practices and on the benefits of abstaining, but they should NOT be convicted, or even charged, with even a misdemeanor. This was not a ‘lewd’ act, this is how people regardless of age share pleasure. There are certain qualifiers of course, one who is an adult shouldn’t corrupt the sensibilities of a minor, or take advantage of the fragile emotional or hormonal state of said minor, but two minors engaging in sexual activity is not only common, but not the worst thing they could be doing. Why ruin someone’s entire LIFE because she gave someone oral sex who was IN HER AGE GROUP.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
You should strike those colors and fly a “Clueless and Ridiculous” flag.
No MINOR girl (17) should be convicted for having sex, oral or otherwise with a minor boy (15). They should have a good talking to from their parents, and perhaps education on safe practices and on the benefits of abstaining, but they should NOT be convicted, or even charged, with even a misdemeanor. This was not a ‘lewd’ act, this is how people regardless of age share pleasure. There are certain qualifiers of course, one who is an adult shouldn’t corrupt the sensibilities of a minor, or take advantage of the fragile emotional or hormonal state of said minor, but two minors engaging in sexual activity is not only common, but not the worst thing they could be doing. Why ruin someone’s entire LIFE because she gave someone oral sex who was IN HER AGE GROUP.
Please Bryan, even you cannot be that stupid. Extenuating circumstances exist.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Do you think Bush will pardon her?
November 25th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Man BECAUSE! I’m horny now! hahahaha. You’re NUTS. hahahahaha.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I think it is a bunch of BS.I swear it seems like the US is starting to become what Russia use to be.Whatever happened to land of the free.I swear it seems like our right to do what ever we want is getting limited almost every day.What the hell is the US coming to.There are more important things in the world & in our own country to worry about than sex.I think these people in Georgia who are wasting our (I quote ours not theirs)tax money should be be put on trial & arrested for freakin stupidity.Alan I could go on & on but this is waste of time with what they are doing.Hell just fire the SOBs & get it over with.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I ALSO THINK SOCIETY HAS ALOT TO DO WITH WHATS GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY.WE TEACH OUR KIDS THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO BUT WE ARE ALSO TEACHING THEM THE WRONG WAYS IN HOW TO USE THEM..
November 25th, 2008 at 2:16 am
I think this discussion can go two ways….
1) Is it fair that she was charged with statutory rape…Fair or not the law is the law and it protects more people than it hurts. So you are pointing out the exception not the rule.Fact this (like any other juvenile offense)is a case that should be expunged from your record assuming you turn 18 without recurrance
2)Presumably she did not own the house when she was convicted, so she already knew she was a sex offender and knew that there were restrictions on where she could purchase. So to purchase a house somewhere you know you shouldnt and cry foul when you are caught violating the rules is ridiculous.
I think that anyone who takes a step back and looked at it honestly would have to say that they wouldnt be comfortable with a 17 year old boy picking up their 13 year old daughter.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Sorry for multiple post — Chat Noob
November 25th, 2008 at 3:25 am
[...] facing eviction from her home because of a consensual sex act with her boyfriend – 10 years ago. (here, here, here, here, and [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 9:38 am
A voice of reason. Great post Rascal_King
I was really stupid to buy where you KNEW you shouldn’t.
I agree with both points you raised.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The origin of “Age of Consent” legislation was in the fight against child prostitution where twelve year old girls were having their virginity auctioned off. Putting age limits on various activities is not new. There are minimum age limits to qualify for a driver’s license and to enter into a legal contract. The problem is that if one is going to make such age-limiting laws a legal line must be drawn. This will always cause problems. There are mature teens who can handle sex in a responsible fashion and 40-year-old adults who should never have sex, never sign a contract and never drive an automobile.
In Canada, the age of sexual consent used to be 14. It has now changed to a flexible system in which the minimum age is still 14 but the maximum age of the partner must be 16. This two-year window continues until a person reaches 16 at which time he or she may have consensual sex with any other person of legal age.
The problem is that, in the U.S., the penalties for violation of the age of consent statutes may constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”.
For six years I was a counselor at Scarleteen, a sexuality website for teens. We always advised our questioners, “If you aren’t legal or your partner isn’t legal, don’t do it”. The penalties, if enforced, are draconian and can lead to sex offender status for life.
It should also be mentioned that, contrary to Alan’s comments on judicial discretion last night, the laws are often written to take discretion away from the judge.
Then the question becomes how much legal discretion is a judge allowed. Yes, the boy was three weeks short of being legal. What if he had been five weeks short or 100 weeks short? Perhaps Georgia needs a law similar to Canadian law or similar law in several states. But as long as we recognize that there is an age where a child cannot give legal consent to a variety of things, that age must have an arbitrary definition.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Despite all of these opinions,look at yourself and ask,what did you do as a teenager?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
lol
Maybe that’s the problem Steve…maybe all the middle-aged men and women that want to throw teens in jail for having sex – maybe THEY didn’t get any when they were young, and now they’re bitter and jealous.
“If I didn’t get laid in High School, NO-ONE does!”
I think there is a lot of resentment harboured by people who try to make decisions about other peoples sexuality (and reproductive function), maybe that’s in play here.
LOL Kinda like a celibate old priest giving marriage advice to his flock.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Jersey—Kiddie Sex Advocate?
I agree people can’t stop kids from having sex,but you don’t have to applaude them as you have this girl.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
You are one sick bastard Bryan. Don’t project your hidden desires on others.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Well in the United States sex with animals is illegal.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Well, when i was a teenager, and with that, i mean around the 13-years mark, we boys would talk about the other kids at school’s mothers… which ones we would like to…
November 27th, 2008 at 4:26 am
This article covers such a sad situation. Robert Blair’s comment said much more articulately my thoughts on this issue.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
[...] http://www.alan.com Wendy Whitaker had consensual oral sex with her boyfriend when she was 17 and he was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. She was convicted of sodomy in 1997 as a result, had to register as a sex offender for life, and can’t live within 1000 feet of schools or churches. [...]
November 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
WHY WAS SHE CONVICTED OF SODOMY?? SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF BEASTIALITY!
December 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It’s amazing to see the levels of passionate replies to this one. It’s not really a big deal and the action required is a no brainer…overturn the dark ages-esque legal decision and let the poor woman get on with her life.
December 7th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
What about the male senator who was getting his freak on with the young (boys) lobbist down in Washington while waving the banner against homosexuality. I’ll bet he still has a excellent paying job with a fabulous roof over his head. What about the president who was freaking between the white house walls with the 21 year old. What about the congressman who got Jennifer Lavene pregnant and then got rid of her. When the twin towers fell so did that story disappear. The story goes on and on. The apppointed so called leaders are verything but, what they claimed to be at the podium. Behind the closed doors, in the secret closets and creaping through the night they posess some of the ugliest characteristic personalities of people that the law actually is written for. Deceitful, dishonest and never to be trusted.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
The politions are lawyers and know how to write the laws so that people with money and power can get away with breaking them. The crimes this administration committed is an example. Since when is murdering people in their own country legal because they are trying to stop an invasion. This business about so called sex crimes because of a little thing like too young for sex when nobody knows exactly what age is too young is ridiculous and punishing someone by making them register for life for a crime they paid for is not right. It’s as bad as impeaching Clinton for having sex with someone of age yet letting war crimes go on without so much as a try for impeachment. This country has really been messed up in the last 10 years by a bunch of dirty polititions.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm