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?