Georgia's Criminalization of Consensual Sex Continues

I first saw this story on Scienceblogs, and now on BoingBoing, about Wendy Whitaker of Georgia who is required to be a registered sex offender because she gave a nearly 16-year-old boy a blow job when she was 17 years old. Both students were high school sophomores. Previously, the law in Georgia made any sex act between an individual 16 years or older with another individual under the age of 16 a criminal act of child molestation.

Now, she's being evicted from her home because of an unadvertised childcare center located in a local Catholic church. Her and her family have until thanksgiving to move out.

I'm reminded of the Genarlow Wilson case, which I wrote about before. Nearly identical circumstances -- Wilson was the 17-year-old who received a blow job from a 15-year-old classmate. The publicity and controversy that generated from the case when Wilson refused to take the plea bargain forced the Georgian legislature to rethink its sex offender laws. Eventually, the legislature repealed the law; however, the decision was not retroactive and did not apply to the Wilson case. When the state Supreme Court heard Wilson's case, though, they decided that his 10 year prison sentence was cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" committed. Wilson was released after serving 2 years, and he was not required to be a registered sex offender.

But this now repealed law, this injustice, is still affecting Georgian residents. I think that Whitaker's case should be enough to convince the legislature that their decision to repeal the law should be applied retroactively to all similar cases.

Failing on Sex Education

Today's Baltimore Sun has an article about House Appropriations Committee Chair David R. Obey's decision to push for increased funding of abstinence-only education in public schools:

President Bush, in his budget request, asked for a $28 million increase in community-based grants, which Obey has obliged.

What's the problem here? Obey is the Democratic Representative from Wisconsin. What are the Democrats thinking? Obey claims to be taking this strategy because he thinks that he "can pick up Republican support for much bigger health and social welfare programs that the White House wants to cut." If history is any indicator, Republicans are very unlikely to make such a compromise -- it's more likely that they will take this win from Obey and give Democrats nothing in return. Not only does it help them pass legislation that they support, but it makes the Democratically-led Congress look ineffective when Republicans block the health and social welfare programs that Democrats support. This is a terrible strategy.

Not only that, though, but why are Democrats even considering to endorse legislation that runs counter to the current science on sex education? Aren't we trying to fight the anti-intellectualism of the Right? We have complained for nearly 7 years that the Bush administration puts ideology ahead of science. What is Obey thinking?

At least Henry Waxman, Democratic Representative from California, gets it:

I've made clear to my colleagues that I don't believe abstinence-only is an effective approach, or that it makes sense to increase funding. I haven't been able to prevail on the issue of appropriations but plan to continue to fight for better programs for youth.

Keep up the good fight Mr. Waxman!

Banned Books

Today, I read this post over at Pharyngula about objections to a book from a 15-year-old student and her grandmother:

Lysa Harding, 15, couldn't believe the sexually charged prose of the novel she checked out from the library at Brookwood High School. Her grandmother was offended, too. Now they're refusing to return the book, "Sandpiper" by Ellen Wittlinger, saying other teens shouldn't be exposed to it.

Yeah, yeah, another load of bullshit. Reading through the comments, though, I happened upon this link to the American Library Association. The news-release has a list of the ten most "challenged" book of 2006:

• "And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;
  
  
• "Gossip Girls" series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;
  
  
• "Alice" series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;
  
  
• "The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things" by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
  
  
• "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
  
  
• "Scary Stories" series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;
  
  
• "Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language.
  
  
• "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group
  
  
• "Beloved" by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group;
  
  
• "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence.

What do you notice? Nine out of the top ten challenged books make reference to sexuality in some form or another, and that's why they're on this list.

Are we still so obsessed with the sexuality of others in this country? Parents, just get over it already. Kids are going to fuck whether or not you shield them from the realities of the world. Instead of forcing them to navigate these waters without a compass, wouldn't you rather it be that your children are informed about sex so that they don't make a stupid decision? Don't you think it would be better that your child knows how to have safe sex (i.e., using a condom) so that you don't have grandchildren before your own kids have graduated high school, or so that your kid doesn't have to experience the unpleasantness of piss that feels like burning, broken glass?

Seriously, get your heads out of your asses.

The Criminalization of Sex

American injustice, served cold:

When he [Genarlow Wilson] was a senior in high school, he received oral sex from a 10th grader. He was 17. She was 15. Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.

[...]

The trial finished [...] and the jury came back with [...] "guilty" on the aggravated child molestation.

He looked at the forewoman. She was crying, seeming to understand they'd just undone a promising future. Indeed, when the jurors found out there was a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, several were incensed. The prosecution told them to write a letter, then moved on to the next case.

And look what the prosecutor of the case, Eddie Barker, thinks about it:

Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate.

Fair? Are you fucking kidding me? In what fantasyland is this punishment reasonable and how does this punishment serve justice? What wrong was corrected? Can barker even answer these questions without resorting to, "Well, I was just doing my job." You know what? The Nazis said the same shit.

Or could it be because of this?

The first time the Supreme Court voted on Genarlow's case, it was 4-3. The four judges who voted against the black teen were white. The three judges who voted for him were black.

Seems like this case is knee-deep in race issues. Consider this:

At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days.

But there's some good news. CNN reports that the case will be reviewed and a decision on whether or not Wilson will be given back his freedom will be be issued Monday.

You can follow the case here.

This is yet another reason why mandatory sentences are bullshit. The blanket application of punishment doesn't take context into account, and then people who have wronged no one are charged with a crime. Not to mention that criminalizing sex between consenting minors itself is completely unreasonable. What purpose does this serve? Who is being protected? The consenting minors?

BULLSHIT.