Posted on 07/05/2007 6:08:06 PM PDT by Daffynition
USING? Who said anything about using? The sex was consensual. It may be morally wrong, it may be a sign of bad parenting all-around, but it isn't -- or shouldn't be -- a crime.
Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
And this basically is your argument -- you don't like people like Genarlow Wilson, so you want him to go to prison for 10 years, even though you don't have anything on him. Genarlow went to a party you don't like, you don't like his supporters, you don't like his friends -- so he must be punished. That's what passes for justice in your parts?
If she was 14 and he was 16, or her 12 and him 14, yes I would feel same way. While she was only 15, he was still only 17. We all do many stupid things when we are 17. I think 10 years is a long time when it was consensual. Many receive less time when when it is not.
A 15 yr old cannot consent to anything. The 17 yr old still says it was rape. She has NOT recanted.
It may be morally wrong, it may be a sign of bad parenting all-around, but it isn't -- or shouldn't be -- a crime.
So you are saying that a 15 yr old can consent to sex with anyone, any age?
And this basically is your argument -- you don't like people like Genarlow Wilson, so you want him to go to prison for 10 years, even though you don't have anything on him.
It has nothing to do with me. A JURY viewed HIS tape and found him guilty.
Genarlow went to a party you don't like, you don't like his supporters, you don't like his friends -- so he must be punished. That's what passes for justice in your parts?
Liberal crying. Try facts. His 5 buddies took the plea deal. They had them on tape. Only Wilson, who chose a jury trial, thinks he's above the law. If he admits to what's on the tape, it's likely he'll be realeased for time served. He refuses. He is where he is because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions.
Again, when I was younger, 15 yr olds were called “jailbait” not party favors. I have zero sympathy for these guys.
That's nice, however a jury said said otherwise. The 17 year old is therefore irrelevant.
A 15 yr old cannot consent to anything.
So if a group of a dozen fifteen year old boys had sex with a single 17 year old girl, you'd propose locking her up on 12 counts of rape and letting them go?
Your "situational ethics" don't work.
This is probably the reason more rape victims don't come forward.
Furthermore, you refused to answer my question -- if a white girl had sex with 12 black boys two years her junior, would you support sending her to prison for ten years? If not, you can add hypocrisy to your long list of moral failings.
I'm not sure I follow -- if the evidence was there to convict, the jury would have convicted him. You want this fellow to be [punished for raping the 17 year old, even though a jury found him not guilty of raping her? If you don't trust juries to establish facts, why have them at all?
Situational ethics do NOT work. And they are widely embraced by liberals.
You want this boy locked up just because you don't like people like him.
When logic and facts aren't on your side, use accusation and assumption.
Your position seems based solely on personal aversion (he's a "thug"), not on any high notion of justice and is completely lacking in integrity.
15 yr old girls are not party favours. There really ARE moral absolutes in this world.
Furthermore, you refused to answer my question -- if a white girl had sex with 12 black boys two years her junior, would you support sending her to prison for ten years?
The race card AND situational ethics all in ONE sentence! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
And PLEASE don't break into a rendition of "Feelings".
Have you read ANYTHING about this? The jury found her semi-conscious state to be awake enough to say “No”. However, one of the 6 was found guilty of illegal imprisonment for locking the 17 yr old in the bathroom.
Moral failings?!? You sound like Genarlow explaining that he couldn't admit in court that he had done anything wrong because he cared too much about "doing what's right" and "standing up for what I believe in."
And, of course, you had to play the race card. Won't be long before we'll have an Al Sharpton Fan Club here on FreeRepublic. (I just hope it meets the same fate as the Rudybot clique.)
It's becoming pretty obvious that this is a minority opinion, even here on FreeRepublic.
Maybe not. I think there are others that agree with us but don't speak because of the nasty responses, accusations and assumptions. When you can't win with facts, sling mud. I believe THAT keeps some from agreeing in print.
The other 5 accepted plea deals to lesser charges. Wilson was the only one to go to trial and was acquitted of rape despite the tape. The jury offered some rather twisted logic to acquit him. There is no question that he is guilty of the crime that he was convicted of.
That’s what it is, lack of Fathers. As I said on another thread, a real man would have protected these girls and kept them from being harmed, dishonored and tossed aside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.