Appropriate

I have the instincts of a right wing nut job when it comes to punishments for sex crimes. I'm not bothered by what happens to rapists and pedophiles in prison. In fact, I think the punishment for those who use sex as a weapon should fit the crime - exactly. I find statutory rape to be a more gray area, unless the older person in question is over 22. Then it's just creepy.

But there's a case in Georgia that makes me think we need to go over the definition of sex crime. A man is in prison because he had consensual oral sex with a fifteen year old girl. . .when he was SEVENTEEN. I can think of three men I know who should be in jail if that is a sex crime. I'm sure we all know someone who'd be in trouble if this law was enforced everywhere.

Here's what's especially interesting about this case: the man was sentenced to ten years. He has served two years, and since the Georgia law has been changed a judge ordered the poor kid freed. But the state attorney general says no. Apparently oral sex among teenagers is a greater threat to society than assault and drunk driving. The state attorney is APPEALING. There's an appropriate use of taxpayer money - let's appeal the ruling of a judge that fits the current law. I think the reason that more people aren't up in arms about this is that the young man is African-American, not a young white college boy (as in the Duke case of overzealous attorney attacks).

Every time crap like this happens it makes it harder for REAL sex crimes to be prosecuted and for real sentences to be given out.