With Technology Comes a New Crime – Sexting

As technology steam rolls over us like a runaway train a new set of crimes have evolved. Many of these crimes often creep up on people without warning and the law does everything it can do to make an example out of a select few in order to really startle everyone else thinking about jumping on the back of that same wagon. Sexting is the new crime that is sending young minors through a whirl wind in the legal system, some as young as 12 years old.

Sexting is the new craze for young teens and it requires just a cell phone and experimentation. Sending nude photos from one cell phone to another amongst the school systems has been creeping up onto the news channels across the nation. What many of the youngsters don’t realize is that it could very well land them in years of probation and counseling if not prison. Cell phones are getting more high tech by the minute leaving the imagination of our young youth curious and exploring. Exploring that could land them behind a set of jail house bars. Some statistics are showing that as many as 60% are sending nude photos over cell phones. This is a staggering number that only seems to be growing. Some states have already made it a felony to send nude photos of anyone under the age of 18. Next time you decide to send a photo of your child playing in the bath tub I would think twice about it.

Offenders are treated just like sex offenders, with your name in the newspaper and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender for many years. The law is taking this very seriously and eagerly looking to make examples of as many individuals as they can get their hands on. Technology has made it very easy for sex offenders to prey on the young individuals in society. As these laws might seem very harsh they have been put in place to protect all the young children out there that might have a little more freedom than they should. This type of conviction can quickly escalate prohibiting you from working in certain areas or even causing you to lose your job entirely. Sexting has even caused some to commit suicide due to all the pain and grief it has caused them amongst their peers. This has become a serious problem in many cities across the United States and without these harsh laws it will only get worse. More and more kids are finding ways to bring cell phones into schools and as technology grows and gets stronger the cell phones will become smaller and more powerful only adding fuel to the fire. It is up to society to put a kink in that growth by applying some of these harsh repercussions.

Just the Facts About Officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown, and Dorian Johnson: No Sensationalism!

Recently I heard a black retired military officer, in his late 50s, say some extremely provocative things contradicting the facts about what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, concerning the shooting of black strong-arm robber Michael Brown by white Police Officer Darren Wilson. I seriously believe that he said those things without considering the implications of what he was saying. Racial bias can play a powerful emotional role in shaping a person’s perceptions of the actual facts surrounding the shooting of a black by a white or a white by a black, or, for that matter, the shooting of any person by another person of a different race or ethnicity. If the material facts about any such shooting, unobstructed by overshadowing racial biases and subjectivity, are not accepted as reality by the men and women associated closely, or distantly, with the people involved in it, an extremely slanted and inaccurate picture of what actually happened can be generated and publicized to the detriment of the innocent.

Here are the correct facts about Michael Brown, as have been properly established by law enforcement. Brown was an eighteen year old black male weighing approximately 300 pounds with a height of well-over over six-feet. An autopsy of Michael Brown has determined that a substantial amount of THC, the main chemical in Marijuana, was in Brown’s blood at the time of his death. About 20 minutes prior to the shooting, Brown, and his black cohort, Dorian Johnson, robbed a convenience store, by strong-arm means, and Brown physically charged at the store-owner, physically threatening him, as was shown in the video footage of the convenience store robbery. Dorian Johnson was with Brown at the time he grabbed the merchandise, and was probably there to help intimidate the victim, if needed, and to share in the stolen merchandise. It was established that Brown strong-arm-robbed the store-owner of over fifty-dollars of merchandise. After Brown, and Johnson, left the scene of the convenience store robbery, they were seen by Officer Wilson, approximately 20 minutes later, walking down the center of a public road in the town of Ferguson.

At the time Officer Wilson saw Brown and Johnson, he was in his police cruiser and drove past Brown and his cohort with his driver’s window rolled-down. From inside his car, where Officer Wilson was sitting, Wilson shouted for Brown and his cohort to move from the middle of the road to the side of the road and the sidewalk; to which Brown and Johnson responded by refusing to move, and by shouting profane and demeaning diatribes and epithets at Officer Wilson. Whether, or not, Officer Wilson had heard a report of the strong-arm robbery on his radio, he had justifiable cause to stop the car for the purpose of field-interrogating Brown and Johnson, since they had refused to follow Wilson’s instructions to get out of the street. If Wilson had heard the report about the robbery and the description of the perpetrator, he had more than ample justification for conducting a valid Terry stop.

According to eye witness testimony, Officer Wilson stopped the car, stepped out of the car, and, with the car door left open and his gun holster unsnapped, approached Brown who, a few seconds later, ran toward Wilson and pushed him back into the car, hitting him with his fists in an attempt to take his sidearm away from him. During the fight that ensued inside the car, Brown slammed Officer Wilson’s head into the dashboard causing severe damage to the officer’s eye. Officer Wilson gained control of his sidearm and pointed it at Brown as the large black man backed out of the car. Wilson ordered him to get down onto the ground with his hands and feet spread. Brown was about 35 feet away from Officer Wilson at the time. With Brown facing Officer Wilson, he said, “You’re not going to shoot me.” Then he charged Officer Wilson again, running and flailing his arms. It was only then that Darren Wilson, fearing for his life, began firing his handgun at Brown until Brown was subdued on the ground. From the foregoing facts, it is very clear that Michael Brown’s aggressive and hostile actions and behaviors caused Officer Brown to have a reasonable fear for his life, since he was already injured and feared that Brown would attempt to take his gun away from him and use it to kill him.

Had Michael Brown been white and the size of the massive television character “Big Smo,” probably nothing at all would have been publicized by the media accusing Officer Wilson of an unjustified shooting. The shooting would have been totally justifiable in the eyes of the black community. What I fail to understand is the blatant disregard by the media of what Brown had done just prior to his encounter with Officer Wilson. Brown was caught on video, with Dorian Johnson, strong-arm robbing a convenience store and leaving the store with Johnson in trail behind him. The retired black man I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, who had said what he did without knowing all of the facts, told me that he had not seen the video of the robbery; but acted as though the robbery, if true, hadn’t really mattered. Why should Dorian Johnson be regarded as an accessory in the strong-arm robbery? Do you think that Brown and Johnson had probably planned to hold-up the store before they robbed it? The great majority of strong-arm robberies are planned, and involve two-or-more perpetrators. And was Dorian Johnson doing anything in the store besides standing behind, and next to, Brown while he was taking the merchandise? Doesn’t this clearly indicate that both Brown and Johnson were in the convenience store for the same reason? Does it matter what the merchandise was that was taken in the robbery; a pack of cigarettes, a package of Twinkies, or beer, or soda? The cost of the merchandise taken by Brown was over 50 dollars.

Then came Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Eric Holder, three conspiring pragmatic black men seeking racial sensationalism and an obfuscation of the material facts for the benefit of the liberal media and the corrupt Obama administration. The unjust denigration of Officer Wilson and the promotion of lies promoting the innocence of Michael Brown, as an innocent gentle giant, followed, culminating in the sensational funeral for an ordinary 18 year old criminal thug, a media event that was publicized to be in the likeness of a funeral for a saint; and, of course, the biggest media offenders were CNN and “The Washington Post.” I subscribe to the “Post” to only read and know the propaganda that they are regularly dispensing to the public, which they call news. I don’t see why any Northern Virginian would want to read the “Post” for correct news coverage; for only 25 percent of what they publish is actually news. The rest is consistently hype and sophistic Marxist punditry. Even their comparative political, economic, and social discourses are designed with rhetoric made to make the “Post” editorial view look more cogent, at the expense of the facts. I think that the only redeeming aspect of the “Post” are the comics that they publish on Sunday and on a daily basis in their “Style” section.

Brown’s funeral eulogy by Al Sharpton was an exercise in sophistry to try to make a robbing felon look like a peaceful innocent choirboy. He actually eulogized a criminal offender, a strong-arm robber who had injured, and attempted to kill, a police officer who was endeavoring to perform his sworn duties. A law-abiding citizen, who has been taught right from wrong by his parents, will not strong-arm-rob a convenience store for any reason. Only a person with a history of violent juvenile crime would have the anti-social mindset to rob a convenience store. A good kid does not get-up in the morning and aspire to commit a robbery. Perhaps Brown was high on marijuana laced with some other mind-altering drug at the time, but, again, a gentle, law-abiding citizen, even under the influence of marijuana, would not have even considered robbing a convenience store; that is, without having some history of committing violent crimes. Furthermore, for some reason, nothing has been said about how much money Brown had in his pockets at the time he was stopped by Officer Wilson. Is it possible that he had possessed the money to pay for the merchandise he took in the robbery, but just wanted to rob the store for kicks? Remember how the juvenile criminal history of Trayvon Martin had been unlawfully withheld from public scrutiny? I seriously think that the collective outpouring of support for Officer Wilson, coming from millions of reasonable folks, black and white, around the nation, greatly overshadows what has to be one of the most flagrant demonstrations of rabid racial sensationalism that has been witnessed in the country during the last two decades.

A friendly city police officer can’t afford to not do his duty. If, perchance, Officer Wilson had disregarded the diatribes and epithets hurled at him by Brown and his partner in crime, Dorian Johnson, after he had ordered them out of the middle of the Ferguson street on which they were traipsing, and let them proceed in the middle of the road, he would have been intentionally derelict in his sworn responsibilities. If he had heard the report of the convenience store robbery on the radio, and had a description of the suspect, Wilson had reason to suspect that Brown had committed a crime. The Officer would have, again, been derelict if he said to himself, “That guy is massive. I don’t want to mess with him,” and had driven on by without doing anything. Officer Wilson was placed in a position, such as I was placed on several occasions in 1985 and 1986 as a San Diego County, California, Sheriff’s deputy. He had to do what he was sworn to do, regardless of the dangers involved, and had just, and probable, cause to stop and interrogate Brown and Wilson. There, however, was no mention of Officer Wilson calling for back-up; that is, if he had heard the radio report of the robbery. Calling for back-up is a normal procedure for police officers who are by themselves and are certain that a felon is in sight, and needs to be apprehended and arrested. This is why I suspect that Officer Wilson hadn’t known that Brown was a robbery suspect. Yet, Brown and Johnson certainly realized, if they were in their right minds, that a report had in all certainty been called-in from the convenience store that they had robbed, including Brown’s very distinct description. Isn’t it, then, reasonable to believe that Brown and Johnson thought that Officer Wilson was stopping them because of the robbery, and resisted Officer Wilson’s instructions because they did not want to be arrested? I think that that is a reasonable and plausible conclusion.

The bottom-line is that orders came down from Jay Nixon, that appeaser of a Missouri Governor, to give the blacks of the City of Ferguson what they wanted by offering innocent Officer Wilson as a sacrifice. The Ferguson Police Chief, of course, wasn’t buying what the Governor was selling, but, unfortunately, was forced to obey unjust orders to keep his job. That was why the picture of the injured Officer Wilson was not, and has not yet, been revealed to the public by the Ferguson Police Department. What would have been a simple, local, news report about the killing of a 290+ pound strong-arm robber who had attempted to kill a police officer in the performance of his duties was turned into a media sideshow. If the strong-arm robber had been white, instead of black, the shooting would have been regarded by all concerned as justified.

Today is September 1, 2014, and one of the front-page “Washington Post” articles is about poor Dorian Johnson’s “budding” friendship with Michael Brown. Nothing, however, was mentioned about their friendly cooperative plans to strong-arm rob a convenience store. Real law-abiding friends don’t encourage each other to commit crimes, and that is what they probably did just before robbing the convenience store. I had managed a high-volume 7-Eleven Store in Carlsbad, California in 1990, and had two strong-arm robberies occur while I was managing the store on the graveyard-shift. One of them involved two men in their late-teens came into the store together just after midnight. One of them went to the magazine rack, and the other went to the beer cooler. The man at the magazine rack created a noise to which I was attracted, which caused me to be distracted for a moment from the man on the beer aisle. Suddenly, while my back was turned, the man on the beer aisle grabbed two six-packs of expensive can beer in both hands and ran rapidly out of the store, with the man by the magazine rack right behind him. Responding as quickly as I could, I jumped over the sales-counter by the cash register and bolted after them; and as I ran outside the front-swinging glass door, the second man poised, waiting for me, on the side-walk about 30 feet away with a beer can in his hand. Then the man threw the beer can hard at me with an accurate aim, which hit me, lacerating my forehead and knocking me nearly unconscious for a few seconds. Yet, I saw through blurred vision the second man, who had injured me, getting into a car parked on the side-street, and the car roaring-off. Perhaps, Brown had arranged with Johnson, in like manner, to help him if someone had tried to stop him from leaving the store. The video showed Brown leaving the convenience store with Johnson right behind him, looking around.

If anything, this incident of strong-arm robbery, and of the perpetrator receiving the brunt of the proper application of the law, should be a strong deterrent for other men and women to heed who believe that they can break the law with impunity. It should not be a means to denigrate the police officers who, on a daily basis, put their lives on-the-line to perform their sworn duties to protect and serve. There are unfortunately bad law enforcement officers presently around the nation, mostly federal. Most state, county, and municipal peace officers are good and reliable people. They are the ones called-upon to do the most dangerous work with felons on the streets. Most of them are faithful to the U.S. Constitution and to their States’ constitutions and penal codes. The root problem of fascism raising its ugly head in police departments, and officers abusing citizens illegally under color of authority, stems from the acceptance of federal money and equipment by state, county, and city police departments and the federal strings that are attached. The feds are inexorably encroaching on fundamental liberties and freedoms of the People through their subtle manipulations of state, county, and city police departments. If State governors, State legislators, State attorneys general, county supervisors, and city mayors and managers will tell the feds in no uncertain terms to butt-out of the management of the People, or States, and refuse to accept the federal money, armaments, and other paramilitary equipment offered by, already, fascist Executive branch agencies, there might perhaps be a return to a veneration, by the People, of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Things have changed for the worse since I was a sheriff’s deputy. This is certainly not the same America in which I swore to protect and serve the People of San Diego County in 1985. Evil immorality is currently regarded as transcendent morality, severe criminal offenses are regarded as tolerable pranks and mischief, sordid lies are regularly regarded as the truth and sustained by those sworn to tell the truth, and the Constitution of the United States is currently regarded by the federal government as only a piece of paper and not the Supreme Law of the Land. When standing federal laws are systematically unenforced by the U.S. Department of Justice at the behest of the U.S. President, how else do you think criminals in the American society are going to act, but to regard State criminal laws as equally unimportant and unenforceable.

It takes a great deal of courage, integrity, and intelligence for men and women to be good and honorable State, county, and city cops. In the end result, they will be the ones to stand-up and protect the rights and freedoms of the People when the federal government is sending its minions to abolish them. That’s why the States, counties, and cities in America must select, and hire, the best officers to do the most dangerous and intricate jobs of enforcing the criminal laws. From all I know about Officer Darren Wilson, I truly believe that he was, and is, one of the best.

When Should Parents Snoop on Their Teens?

The Question

Our primary job as parents is to keep our children safe. Are we permitted to “snoop” on them in order to protect them from harm? Should we read their diaries, listen to their phone conversations, check their email log, and supervise their internet activity?

The Court Case

Before you answer the question, be aware of your legal rights. The State Supreme Court of Washington, as described in the Seattle Times, unanimously reversed a 2000 robbery conviction in a case that was based in part on the testimony of a mother and what she heard in a telephone conversation between her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend.

The mother, Carmen Dixon, reportedly heard the boyfriend discuss the robbery and even took notes of the conversation as she listened to it. By reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court is saying that it’s a crime to eavesdrop on anybody’s private conversation, including that of children. Although the attorneys cited provisions in the federal wiretap law that allow parents to listen to their children’s conversations, in Washington State there is “no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception,” according to the court opinion.

Will we get into trouble for performing our parental duty? Are there limits to our parental prerogative?

The Debate

My son doesn’t talk to me. If I ask him about school he says “It’s fine,” even though I don’t see him doing any work and his teachers report that he’s not handing in his assignments. He spends almost all of his time in his room, on the computer or on the phone. He doesn’t respond if I ask him about his friends or where they’re going. I’m happy that he still comes home at night.

Parents are in agony when left in the dark about a child’s activities. Who knows what he is doing! Is he involved with the “wrong” type of peer group? Is he hurting himself by engaging in behavior that is dangerous, either physically or emotionally, or illegal? What is a parent to do?

On the one hand, maybe we should just control our anxious thoughts and feelings. After all, we parents recognize our teenagers’ desire for privacy. They need time to be alone, space for their possessions, and the knowledge that we won’t pry into their lives. We want to have a relationship of trust and respect with them. We also want them to become increasingly independent so that they may be prepared for adulthood. If we control their lives too much we might impair their decision-making ability and hinder them from attaining the self-confidence to make the important decisions that lie ahead.

On the other hand, are we being naive and foolish if we don’t snoop on our children?

To determine what to do, let’s examine what we mean by snooping. To snoop, according to the dictionary, is “to pry into other people’s business or affairs, especially in a furtive way” (Encarta). Thus you are snooping when you monitor your children’s activities without their knowledge or expectations. That secretive activity implies that you don’t trust your child.

When There is Trouble

Are you indeed worried about your child? Do you have cause for concern or just intuit that something is not right? Then, most experts agree, go right ahead and snoop. Search your child’s room for any clue that indicates that the child is leading a secret life. You are doing so out of fear for their safety, not because you are a nosy, controlling parent.

If upon investigation you do find something inappropriate, confront your child directly about it. But plan your conversation carefully. Make sure that you control your emotions and convey your worry not your anger. Have an agenda in mind of what you want to say. State (1) why you were concerned; (2) what you found; and (3) what you will do about it.

Above all, show that you care and that you want to protect your child. Emphasize that a child’s freedom from intrusion is a privilege, not a right. As long as everything seems okay – which you will ascertain by continued monitoring of his or her behavior – then you will not need to investigate further. On the other hand, if you feel concerned, you will do whatever is necessary to find out what is going on.

What are the possible causes for concern? They include any change in a child’s behavior, school grades, hygiene, friends or sleeping and eating habits. We’re not talking about a typical teenager’s late hours. But late hours combined with irritability, withdrawal and poor performance may indeed be a red flag for trouble.

Recommendations

The best strategy is to be proactive. Discuss with your child what is private and what is not. Go over your rules and expectations. In addition, clearly state that you will periodically drop in on their blog or cell phone log and be in touch with their teachers.

Go into your teenager’s room periodically – being careful not to trip over anything on the floor – and look around. You may see something that is left around by accident. Then don’t get into a battle about cleanliness. We’re discussing far more important values than a spotless room.

Likewise, get to know your children’s interests and friends, as well as their friends’ parents. Ask them who they’re chatting with on the telephone or online and set appropriate limits. You might want to prohibit chat rooms and IMing (Instant Messaging), and to generally limit the amount of online usage.

Many parents keep the children’s computer in a common room, not a child’s bedroom. This strategy facilitates hands-on supervision of their computer usage. These days it is fairly easy to check out their web sites, and don’t hesitate to do so.

In fact, Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 2000. This law requires businesses to secure parental consent before collecting personal information from pre-teens (below the age of 13 years). It allows parents to review the data and requires businesses to obtain parental permission before disclosing any information about their child.

So, at least until the age of 13, some parental rights are protected by law.

However, even within the law, there is a very important caveat: Remember not to over-control and over-manage your child. You want all of your children to be able to manage their own lives, and the pre-adolescent and adolescent years are the training ground for doing so.

Instead, keep the lines of communication open. Sometimes they will close down (teenagers are notoriously moody and private) but you will be there to observe, question and intervene.

Finally, seek professional help if you notice an unhealthy pattern of teenage behavior and you feel helpless or uncertain what to do. Taking action now could prevent much more serious problems later.

The Child Safety Act of 2005

Important legislation has been introduced which, if passed, would go a long way toward protecting our nation’s children from sexual predators. The proposed The Child Safety Act of 2005 would increase criminal penalties against convicted child molestors as well as close loopholes in laws that allow predators to roam free. Let’s take a look at the pending legislation and how you can play an important part in seeing that it becomes law.

HR 3132, also known as The Child Safety Act of 2005, was introduced by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on July 26th as a response to several high profile crimes involving children. Each crime committed involved the kidnapping, sexual exploitation, and murder of the victims by predators including these three cases:

  • David Onstott, 36, has been charged with first-degree murder of 13 year old Sarah Lunde. Law enforcement officials say that Onstott, a registered sex offender, confessed to breaking in to the home of the teen and choking her to death. Her body was found one week later in an abandoned fishing pond near her home.
  • John Evander Couey, 46, has been charged with capital murder, burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery on a child under the age of 12, as a result of breaking into Jessica Lunsford’s home while she was sleeping. Couey reportedly confessed to repeatedly raping the child and then buried her alive in the backyard of his home located in Jessica’s neighborhood.
  • Joseph Edward Duncan III, 42, has been charged with the murder of four individuals from one family as well as the kidnapping and rape of two children. Duncan stalked the Groene family home for several days before overpowering and killing three family members and kidnapping the two youngest children. One of the children, Dylan Groene, was later murdered while his sister, Shasta, was rescued.

    In all three cases the perpetrators all had a criminal history — often extensive — and were able to allude the law by failing to register as sex offenders. The Child Safety Act of 2005 will include the following provisions as outlined in the press conference handout distributed by congressional aides:

  • Improves Sex Offender Registration and Notification Program to ensure that sex offenders register, and keep current, where they reside, work and attend school
  • Improves verification systems for sex offender information by requiring monthly verification, sex offender in-person verification every six months, and regular notarized verification mailings
  • Requires States to have a uniform, public access sex offender registration website
  • Creates Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website to search for sex offender information in each community
  • Expands sex offenders to include juvenile sex offenders
  • Requires States to notify each other when sex offender moves from one State to another
  • Expands sex offenses covered by registration and notification requirements to include military, tribal, foreign, sex crimes, and increases duration of registration requirements to protect the public
  • Expands community notification requirements to include active efforts to inform law enforcement agencies, schools, public housing, social service agencies and volunteer organizations in area where sex offender resides, works or attends school
  • Creates new criminal penalty of mandatory minimum of 5 years to maximum of 20 years for sex offender who fails to comply with registration requirements
  • Expands law enforcement use of DNA to solve sex crimes
  • Prevents and deters violent crimes against children and sexual exploitation of children
  • Protects foster children from sexual abuse and exploitation
  • Increases criminal penalties against child sexual predators

    So, what part can you play in protecting our children? Contact your two U.S. Senators as well as your House Representative and ask them to support the bill. Kindly, but firmly, stress that our children must be protected against repeat sexual offenders and that HR 3132 — The Child Safety Act of 2005 — should be passed as one way to help keep our children safe.

    Too many of our kids fall prey to sexual predators. You can have a part in tightening loopholes that allow these monsters to roam free. Our children deserve nothing less.

  • A Calamity of Justice – The Genarlow Wilson Case

    Is it possible for a 17-year-old to go to jail for a decade for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old? In the state of Georgia–before they modified the law–the answer was yes. Every once in a while a case comes along that shocks the conscious of most good-natured people, this case I assure you is one of them.

    Genarlow Wilson was a high school senior and age 17 at the time of his alleged criminal offense. He received a 10-year prison sentence because at age 17 he engaged in a voluntary act of oral sex with a 15-year-old female classmate. No violence or assault was asserted or raised in any of the police reports or at trial as to the 15 year old. His conviction for aggravated child molestation was based solely on the fact that the female was 15, which is below Georgia’s legal age of consent of 16. However, the sex act in lay terms was “consensual” – that is, agreed to by both teens.

    Genarlow Wilson has already served approximately thirty months in prison for this crime. What shocks the conscious here is that had they engaged in sexual intercourse, Mr. Wilson would have only served a maximum term of 12 months and would not be required to register as a lifetime sex offender. How is this possible you might ask? In Georgia–before they modified the law–When a 17-year-old male has intercourse with a 15-year-old female, statutory rape sets the maximum punishment at 12 months for a misdemeanor conviction with no sex offender registration. When that same 17-year-old male receives oral sex from a 15-year-old female, that teen is supposedly guilty of aggravated child molestation which dictates a mandatory 10 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registry. This, unfortunately for Mr. Wilson and the entire judicial system, is a case of an old outdated Georgia Law being steadfastly upheld by what must be an over zealous Assistant District Attorney, more specifically James E. Barker, who lacks the common prosecutorial discretion of most good district attorneys.

    The archaic Georgia law that Mr. Wilson has been convicted of violating has been subsequently re-written. The law now more accurately represents what most states have in terms of the age of sexual consent and child molestation laws. The new law now reads that a person is 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. This legislature similarly amended the code sections for child molestation and Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes to grant misdemeanor status without sex offender registration for sexual acts when the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim. The legislature also amended the statutory rape provision to reflect the same 4-year differential in age between teens to grant misdemeanor status without sex offender registration for acts of intercourse. I presume that the Georgia legislature made the changes in the law in light of this case. What they failed to do, however, was make these laws retroactive. Had they made the laws retroactive, Mr. Wilson would be a free man today. I assume that the Legislature could not stomach the release of what probably amounts to hundreds or maybe even thousands of individuals incarcerated who might qualify under the retroaction.

    Either my classification of Mr. Barker is accurate or something else is afoot in this case. In the interest of impartiality, I offer one possible scenario. They only other possible reason that I can think of as to why Mr. Barker is holding steadfast on this conviction is that some other evidence must have been excluded from trial that brings to light the commission of a more serious crime by Mr. Wilson. If the district attorney lacks the evidence to prosecute on that crime he may feel as if the punishment is warranted for what actually took place despite the seemingly harmless nature of two young teenagers engaging in oral sex. I am not sure on this, but it is the only possible scenario that I can think of other than the prosecutor’s total disregard for discretion. If this is the case, the district attorney would still be in the wrong because he would in a sense be circumventing the judicial system by not having Mr. Wilson tried on the merits of the evidence for that more serious crime.

    In conclusion, I think this case brings to light some of the troublesome issues that exist in the criminal justice system of America. Once upon a time Genarlow Wilson was a high school football star with a bright future, one consensual blow-job later by a teenager two years younger and now he is a prisoner of the state for what looks to be another seven years on top of the three already served. I don’t know if anyone is going to step up and rectify this injustice. I can only hope that those in the government with the power of pardon will see this as a calamity of justice and work to release Mr. Wilson. Everyday that Mr. Wilson sits in prison is another black mark on the criminal justice system of the United States of America.