Sex offender files lawsuit to get off list

15 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2008-11-24 18:06

Snuckles

By Bill Rankin

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn parts of Georgia's sex-offender registry law is now trying to eliminate her classification as a sex offender.

Wendy Whitaker's status as an offender violates the Constitution's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, says her new lawsuit, filed Friday in Columbia County Superior Court.

Whitaker, 29, is on the registry for having consensual oral sex with a classmate three weeks before his 16th birthday. Whitaker had just turned 17. Both were high school sophomores.

Because of her 1997 sodomy conviction, Whitaker must register as a sex offender for life and comply with the law's residency restrictions that bar her from living within 1,000 feet of designated areas where children congregate.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/22/offender.html?...

Tue, 2008-11-25 02:52

remind

Never thought I would say such a thing about a labeled sex offender, but I hope she wins!

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Tue, 2008-11-25 07:42

Stargazer

Me too. It is ridicules to convict anyone one as a sex offender when they were so close in age. And the State knows that and appears to not give a rat's ass.

Tue, 2008-11-25 11:41

kropotkin1951

That is the scenario that caused Bill Siksay to vote against the Canadian crime bill last year. He was the only MP to vote against it. He barely won his seat this time and his "weakness" on crime issues was made an issue by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. Apparently sodomy was an exception in the bill to the age protections. So a young person could have heterosexual sex with someone close in age but if sodomy was involved it would be an automatic crime despite the closeness in age. Even advocates like Libby didn't bother to show up for the vote so it seems that Georgia is not some American anomily. Oh and by the way we have a sex offender registry in Canada as well.

___________________________________________________________________________________________From North of Manifest Destiny

Tue, 2008-11-25 12:14

jas

Thanks for that info, Kropotkin. Sickening.

Just making sure ... if she had been the 15 year old and he had been 17, then it would be him on the list?

I thought sodomy referred mainly to anal intercourse, but apparently not.
Technically the "sodomizing" would have been done the boy, in any case,
no? The girl performed fellatio. She did not sodomize the boy. How did
this case even come to light?

Tue, 2008-11-25 14:39

remind

Fellatio under US law is considered to be sodomy, and illegal, even if a husband and wife partake in it.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Tue, 2008-11-25 14:51

Star Spangled C...

jas wrote:

I thought sodomy referred mainly to anal intercourse, but apparently not. Technically the "sodomizing" would have been done the boy, in any case, no? The girl performed fellatio. She did not sodomize the boy. How did this case even come to light?

I think sodomy under the law can be used to refer to any sort of "unatural" sex act and can be applied to oral sex, anal sex and other stuff. Hell, maybe they can tweak it to be anything other than missionary with the lights out.

Bloody ridiculous. This is gonna ruin her. When people hear "sex offender" they immediately think "child molestor" or "rapist" not "girl who gave her boyfriend a blowjob in high school."

Tue, 2008-11-25 15:19

bagkitty

I believe that you will find that Bill Siksay's vote had to do with the age of consent laws NOT overriding the the specific criminal code provision that dealt explicitly with anal sex (as distinct from the various common law definitions of sodomy [which differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction]). His objection was both principled and precise. Important when speaking about this to be precise... a little knowledge being dangerous and all that. Given the number of lawyers in our Parliament it is more than a little disappointing that Siksay was left out on a limb over this, not least by his own caucus.

Tue, 2008-11-25 15:21

jas

If the boy had consensually performed oral sex on the girl, would it
be considered sodomy as well? Or does it have to involve a penis? And
if it has to involve a penis, does that apply to anything used as a
phallus? Just curious.

[edited out my last question, as I figured it out.]

Tue, 2008-11-25 15:23

#10

Star Spangled C...

I thought the canadian age of consent laws DID have a 'close in age' exemption. I mean, obviously, i don't want to criminalize an 18 year old for having sex with a 16 year old. if you're talking about a 40 year old, it's a different story.

Tue, 2008-11-25 16:26

#11

remind

jas wrote:

If the boy had consensually performed oral sex on the girl, would it
be considered sodomy as well? Or does it have to involve a penis? And
if it has to involve a penis, does that apply to anything used as a
phallus? Just curious.[edited out my last question, as I figured it out.]

Yes it would be considered sodomy under US laws, anything other than st8 sex, penis vagina penetration is considered to be sodomy. And perhaps even not doing it missionary style. Unbelievable eh? My friend on Long Island explained it in depth to me after the Clinton issue, as he was deeply offended by Bill's illegal act of commiting of sodomy in the White House. And I asked what the hell do you mean sodomy, he got a blow job.

He seriously could not believe that we here in Canada do not have laws against blow jobs or fellatio.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Tue, 2008-11-25 17:11

#12

kropotkin1951

[quote] Apparently sodomy was an exception in the bill to the age protections. So a young person could have heterosexual sex with someone close in age but if sodomy was involved it would be an automatic crime despite the closeness in age. [quote]

Did you read my post bagkitty. I am pretty sure that is exactly what I said.

Edited to add: I fucking hate this new non method of trying to quote. It was really easy before and now it is just a pain where Americans can't put a penis.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny

Tue, 2008-11-25 21:37

#13

remind

I think it is exactly the same???

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Tue, 2008-11-25 22:19

#14

torontoprofessor

There was never a "US law" on sodomy: it was a state-by-state question.

Quoting from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States]Wikipedia[... "On June 26, 2003, the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. (See Lawrence v. Texas.) This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruled an earlier ruling from 1986 in which Georgia's sodomy law had been upheld. (Bowers v. Hardwick.)"

According to the same Wikipedia article, prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. Immediately before the Supreme Court Ruling on June 26, 2003, fourteen states had anti-sodomy laws: Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina. The degree of illegality and the harshness of the punishment varied from state to state. Some states had laws only against same-sex sodomy; some states had laws only against sodomy between unmarried people; in some states it was a felony; in some states it was a misdemeanor. In 36 of the 50 states (and the District of Columbia), sodomy between consenting adults was completely legal in 2003. Now it's legal in all fifty states.

The anti-sodomy laws in the District of Columbia were repealed in 1993.

Thus, the sex between Clinton and Lewinsky was perfectly legal in the District of Columbia, where it took place, since that was on or after 1995.

The [url=http://www.glapn.org/]Gay and Lesbian Archives of the Pacific Northwest[/url] has a very detailed discussion of the sodomy laws that had existed in all of the states. See [url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm]here[/url] in particular.

Wed, 2008-11-26 02:01

#15

bagkitty

kropotkin1951:

Yes, I had read what you had posted and was in generally in agreement. I wrote what I did in an attempt to clarify what I had interpreted as confusion that was being generated in the posts following yours around the use of the term "sodomy". I was attempting to point out that Siksay's objections were based on a separate Criminal Code provision solely regarding anal intercourse as opposed to the more general category of sodomy (which, as remind has ably pointed out, is pretty much any sexual conduct other than the penetration of a vagina by a penis). I stand by the clarification insofar as both sodomy and buggery have secondary definitions other than anal penetration -- and will again assert that when dealing with discussions about the Criminal Code (or indeed any other subject that is a) governed by the legal profession, b) can see you doing jail time and/or c) see you with your name on a sex-offener registry) it is damn important to be precise about the definitions of the terms being used (again, something that I think that the members of the legal profession in Parliament [grotesquely over-represented in relation to the general population] conveniently ignored when they left Siksay standing alone in opposition to the letter of changes to the age of consent laws... including those with law degrees who are NDP MPs...).