Cruel and unusual punishment

Again with Georgia and its ridiculous sex-offender laws:

The state of Georgia regards 28-year-old Wendy Whitaker as such a threat to public safety that it posts her photo and address on the Internet, bans her from living near schools, churches and playgrounds and forbids her from working with children.

What makes Whitaker such a terrible danger?

Eleven years ago, when she had just turned 17, Whitaker engaged in a single act of oral sex with a boy in her sophomore class on school property. That's it.

Though less than two years separated the couple — the boy was about to turn 16 — Whitaker was arrested for sodomy, a charge to which she pleaded guilty and completed five years probation. However, that plea also means that Whitaker will serve a lifetime on the state's sex-offender registry, placing her in the same category as truly dangerous people such as rapists and child molesters. It also imposes severe — some might argue unconscionable — limits on where she can live and work.

To review: she gave a classmate a blowjob in high school. And for that, she is treated as a pariah -- sort of a modern-day, Western version of an Untouchable -- for the rest of her life. What kind of a screwed-up country is this?

By the way, in case you were wondering, Genarlow Wilson is still in prison.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Comments

[Condor]

I wouldn't post too many more of these unless you want Bill O'Reilly to send a camera crew to your house to interview you as you walk to your car about why you want soft sentences for convicted child molesters.

[gahrie]

This girl plead guilty. You should either be attacking her lawyer for allowing her to do this, or her for making such an important decision without the advice of a lawyer.

I doubt the girl would have been convicted of such a serious crime if she had gone to trial.

These offender registries are important. Sex offenders do not get rehabilitated. They do not change their behavior. They continue to prey on children until they die or are imprisoned for life.

[k]

Actually, studies show that sex offenders who are convicted of crimes when teenagers and with victims close to their own age are dramatically less likely to reoffend. The most likely reoffenders are those who molest young children and rape adult women. Teenagers who molest children--or other teenagers--are highly unlikely to reoffend as teenagers, and that rate drops even more dramatically once those offenders reach the age of 25.

In other words, sex offender registries are a good thing when they seek to track the most risky individuals. Sex offender registries are RIDICULOUS when they treat all offenders the same, notwithstanding the age of the offender, the age of the victim, and the contextual circumstances.

[Ken]

gahrie....While I understand your comment about the lawyer allowing his client to plead, etc....I wonder if this law was even in existence 11 years ago. Indeed, I suspect it very likely that the law was not in force at the time of the plea bargain. (Most, if not all of these sex offender registration laws have been enacted within the last 5 years or so and the article does not mention when this law went into effect. It does note, however, that some of the provisions of the law have recently been added to make the law tougher regarding living arrangements, etc.) And of course these laws have been allowed to be applied to those who were convicted of the offenses prior to their enactment.

[USC 2L]

"This girl plead guilty. You should either be attacking her lawyer for allowing her to do this, or her for making such an important decision without the advice of a lawyer.

I doubt the girl would have been convicted of such a serious crime if she had gone to trial.
================================

Maybe, or maybe she would've gone to prison like Genarlow Wilson.

[Becky]

I think the problem here isn't so much with the sex offender registry itself as it is with the way that Georgia's laws are written in regards to consensual sexual activity between teenagers.

[k]

Ken makes a good point. The Georgia residency law is actually quite new--first passed in 2003 (I think) and then amended in 2006 to further restrict the areas where sex offenders (ALL sex offenders) can live or work.

[Mike]

I'd agree with Becky in that Georgia's laws regarding consensual sexual activity between teenagers are idiotic. States need to have halo laws to prevent this sort of miscarriage of justice from occurring, and they need to get out of the Victorian Age with statutes regarding sodomy. Speaking as someone who could've been prosecuted under this law had I lived in Georgia, both this and Genarlow Wilson's case are pretty scary to me.

K is onto something as well with treating all sex offenders the same. I don't think anyone here is going to argue for doing away with sex offender registries, but at the same time, I think it's pretty obvious that any sort of penalty that lumps people of wildly varying offenses together cannot be just.

[Brian Foster]

"What kind of a screwed-up country is this?"

When an otherwise-intelligent law school graduate completely ignores all principles of federalism and imputes the poor legislative decisions of a single state to the entire republic, I must ask the same question.

[Megan]

It's not just Georgia. Kansas has laws just like this and I deal with young people all the time being charged with aggravated criminal sodomy for their 15 year old girlfriends giving them oral sex when they were 17. The legal age of consent in most states is 16 if the victim is under that age it's "criminal". Doesn't matter if one is almost 16. It could be the day before her 16th birthday and it doesn't matter. I hate this law!!! It's meant for sickos not two young but maybe not so bright teenagers experimenting with sex. IN FACT!!!!! Let me get on a soap box...... Are they not teaching in school that oral sex is better than having sex now and that you can not get pregnant that way. Ok well anyway the schools tell kids to go around giving each other blowjobs then lock them up when they do!!! Ok.....I'm done now ;-)

[gahrie]

If you disagree with a state's laws governing sexual relations with minors, either move, or work to get the laws changed.

[Sandy Underpants]

Riiiight. I think a campaign to soften "child molesters" punishments would be very successful, maybe I'll recommend that to Fred Thompson. DA's abuse their power and screw people over to make their resumes look more impressive, that's a big problem with our judicial system. Maybe her attorney sucked, maybe her family couldn't afford an attorney, she was freakin 17 years old, people shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars for an attorney because some dick DA charges a kid with a sex crime that shouldn't be a crime. Americans are so sex-obsessed it would be funny if it wasn't so sick. I remember watching Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the ruling right-wing pontificators go Ape-crap about children's lives being destroyed because they saw Janet Jacksons nipple for 1/3 of a second during the Superbowl half-time show. Genarlow and this chick are victims of a sexually oppressed/obsessed society. And it's so frickin arbitrary, some dude in Utah got life for having child porn on his computer, while men who actually molest children in Los Angeles get a couple years, WTF!??!?!?

[Brendan]

Brian, federalism?? I didn't blame the federal government, for heaven's sake. This "country" is made up of multiple individual states, and when a whole lot of them have equally sh***y laws, it's perfectly reasonable to ask "what kind of a screwed-up country is this?" in reference to those laws.

[Condor]

I'm curious as to why oral sex is entailed by sodomy laws. Can some legal-type explain this please?

[Sandy Underpants]

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm a retired pervert and I can tell you that oral and anal sex both fall under the legal term "Sodomy" because neither are 'natural' or necessary for heterosexaul copulation, which is already the shameful and disgusting act that persons must go through in order to pro-create. The thought that sick-o's might actually enjoy this act and do things with other orifices outraged good-minded individuals all too long ago and therefore laws were passed outlawing such actions so that prudes could sleep well at night, in bed, ALONE, dry dreaming about wholesome things like puppy dogs and church.

[Condor]

Anyone else?

[Brian Foster]

Hyperbole aside, Sandy's basically correct -- sodomy, as used in most state statutory codes, is not limited to anal sex but is usually broad enough to cover any sort of sexual activity involving contact between the genitals or anus of one person and the genitals, anus or mouth of another, except for good-old-fashioned heterosexual intercourse.

[Brian Foster]

West's Code of Georgia Annotated

Title 16. Crimes and Offenses

Chapter 6. Sexual Offenses

§ 16-6-2. Sodomy; aggravated sodomy

(a)(1) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.

(2) A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person or when he or she commits sodomy with a person who is less than ten years of age. The fact that the person allegedly sodomized is the spouse of a defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of aggravated sodomy.

(b)(1) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of sodomy shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years and shall be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of aggravated sodomy 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. Any person convicted under this Code section of the offense of aggravated sodomy shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Sections 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7.

(c) When evidence relating to an allegation of aggravated sodomy is collected in the course of a medical examination of the person who is the victim of the alleged crime, the law enforcement agency investigating the alleged crime shall be financially responsible for the cost of the medical examination to the extent that expense is incurred for the limited purpose of collecting evidence.

(d) If the victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of sodomy 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.

Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 787; Laws 1949, p. 275, § 1; Laws 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Laws 1994, p. 1959, § 7; Laws 1996, p. 1115, § 2; Laws 1997, p. 6, § 3; Laws 2000, p. 1346, § 1; Laws 2006, Act 571, § 9, eff. July 1, 2006.

(note that subsection (d) was the change made in the wake of Genarlow Wilson's case, but the Ga. legislature specifically declined to make it retroactive, i.e. it does not apply to Genarlow.)

[also]

Note that depending on Georgia's definition of "sex organs," it's possible that a rimjob is perfectly legal. But I'll bet "sex organs" includes the anus, so I wouldn't risk it in front of the DA.

[Brian Foster]

And Brendan, I didn't say anything about you blaming the federal government. Quite the opposite -- you're blaming the entire country for the arguably ridiculous decisions of a single state. Or at least, that's all you mentioned in your post. You have now invoked "multiple individual states" with "equally sh**y laws" in order to justify your characterization of this thing as a national, instead of a Georgia problem. Well, okay. I still think we should keep the focus on the fact that it's several states with sh**y laws, and not some broader problem on the national or federal level.

Unless you're suggesting, as some seem to be, that there's a nationwide unhealthy obsession with sex at the root of these situations -- a contention I find laughably silly, by the way -- but even then, the immediate answer to the identified problem is to change state laws, which involves changing state minds, which is much less likely to work if it's approached at a macro/national level.

And I think we can agree that if Congress comes anywhere near passing the Child-On-Child Sodomy Universal Criminalization, Elimination, and Retribution(COCkSUCkER) Act of 2007, then federalism is well and truly dead.

[Condor]

Thanks. That was helpful.

[USC 2L]

If you disagree with a state's laws governing sexual relations with minors, either move, or work to get the laws changed.

Public discussion and discourse is part of the process of changing a law, so thanks for encouraging us to do what we are already doing.

[Andrew]

Well, that'll teach her to swallow.

Brian and Sandy, you have damn near redeemed yourselves in my eyes, thanks to your comments in this thread.

Remember kids: smoking in bars = bad; sodomy after class = good (according to bloy.com legal analysis).

[Brendan]

Andrew, you show me the phenomenon of "second-hand blowjobs," and maybe I'll start to think these sorts of prosecutions are more justified. Or for that matter, show me where people are getting put on government registries that stigmatize them for life, making it impossible to live or work where they choose, because of smoking in bars.

Until you're able to do that, what a God-damn ridiculous analogy. Intellectually lazy to the extreme, absolutely unworthy of your logical and rhetorical skills. I've gone into a great deal of detail grappling with the smoking-ban issue and explaining the logical underpinnings of my evolving position on that; you ignore that completely, and compare it to something that it is self-evidently distinguishable from, just to make a cheap and inaccurate point. Ridiculous.

[Scientizzle]

You don't have to be pro 15-yr-old BJs to 17-yr-olds to realize that perhaps lifelong legal ostracization is an inappropriate punishment for two teenage kids foolin' around.

...
Second-hand blowjobs, eh?

"Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter."

[dcl]

As a legal matter for the Constitutional law nerds out there, how is a sex offender registry requirement (for those convicted prior to the passage of the law) not an ex post facto punishment and or double jeopardy? Granted that I don't think such a thing is necessarily wrong in all cases, and the registries do serve a valid purpose. That said I don't think they serve any useful purpose in this case. Of course the other question would be, so if this person has a kid, does that mean she cannot take them to the park? Or, for that matter, attend any school plays they happen to be in? I must say there is a certain degree of schizophrenic madness in our legal system. But then, I suppose we already knew that http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071008&s=pinker100807

[Mike]

A valid point, dcl. I've heard the argument made that if these people are that dangerous that perhaps we should just be locking them up forever, and if they aren't that dangerous, maybe we shouldn't be following them around for the rest of their lives.

A tough question, but schizophrenic? Definitely

Anyway, who's up for a little Family Guy? I thought it was somewhat relevant:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sUSmQ4WVlt4&mode=related&search=

"Sodo-me-EY!!!!!!! Sodo-me-EY!!!!! Sodomy."

[dcl]

hang on, was she convicted of sodomy or some sort of "statutory sodomy". Because to my understanding the supreme court has rejected sodomy as actually being a crime. thus rendering the law under which she was convicted unconstitutional, unless, of course, it was statutory sodomy which would be different. But seriously, this girl's lawyer told her to plead guilty? Did he honestly think a jury would convict a girl for giving a guy a blow job? Is he that crappy of a lawyer?

[dcl]

hmm, Interesting reading the article, another issue is the wheat from chaff issue... Identifying those that are actually a threat is severely muddied by all those who are not. thus making the purpose of the law nearly useless...

[Brian Foster]

dcl,

If you are referring to Lawrence v. Texas, the analysis there was pretty well focused on laws prohibiting same-sex conduct, although concededly the core holding almost certainly applies to invalidate both same- and mixed-sex sodomy laws. But it also was pretty clearly predicated on the rights of consenting adults to pursue their own happiness and define one's universe for oneself or whatever, so it would almost certainly not apply in situations involving a minor or minors, which is what I assume you mean by the term "statutory sodomy," and what I earlier referred to as "statutory oral rape."

So yeah, bottom line, a) sodomy laws as applied to consenting same-sex adults, definitely unconstitutional; b) sodomy laws as applied to consenting adults of different genders, possibly/probably unconstitutional; c) sodomy laws as applied to an adult and a minor, regardless of gender -- not unconstitutional under Lawrence.

[Andrew]

Brendan, you're arguing a straw man. Who here actually thinks this broad got her just desserts and should suffer the same indignities of being on this sex offender list with convicted rapists and such? Puh-leaze, Brendan. Everyone here thinks this application of Georgia law is ridiculous, there's simply been very modest disagreement about what is the most appropriate way to remedy the situation and/or prevent future injustices along these lines. As for smoking in bars, while there are arguments in favor of outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants that potentially hold some merit, to be in favor of outlawing smoking but against sodomy laws being applied to minors is to subject yourself to libertarian-fueled ridicule. Beyond that, if you really think I was trying to accomplish anything in my above comment aside from simply being crude, you need to have a drink or two and stop taking things so seriously.

[Victoria]

The goverment is becoming unfair, she served her time and has been put on probation. the girl has had time to think about what she has done. They goverment should be spending less time caring about small problems like these and more on real issues with wars and killins/murders.