The following is lines from the story in the AJC.

Wilson was originally charged with raping a 17-year-old at a party on New Year's Eve of 2003, but he was acquitted. He was ultimately found guilty of aggravated child molestation involving the 15-year-old girl. Four other male youths at the party pleaded guilty to child molestation of the 15-year-old and sexual battery of the 17-year-old. A fifth pleaded guilty to false imprisonment.

Their party was captured on a profanity-laden and sexually graphic video filmed by one of the male youths. The video shows Wilson having intercourse with the 17-year-old and receiving oral sex from the 15-year-old. Wilson's appeal was filed in Forsyth because he is being held there in the Burruss Correctional Training Center.

What the story does not say is that both girls were drugged and the 17 old was unconscious. I can not believe that all of you are being fooled into believing this is an innocent little prom date that went a little to far.

He is a rapist and child molestor, and all of you are making him out to be the victim. I cant possibly begin to imagine what the parents of the two girls are feeling right now. I bet they dont feel like justice is being served.

Judicial Activism, there you have it!

Rep. Davis,

If he's a rapist and child molester, then why wasn't he convicted? Judicial Activism?

Paul, he was and so was all of his buddies. 10 years, remember?

But a judge just let him out.

He is a rapist and child molestor, and all of you are making him out to be the victim.

AMEN!

Representative Davis, if he is all you say why did the legislature change the law the following year?

Trust the conviction based on the law you changed but do not trust the acquittal based on laws still on the books?

Rep. Davis, you are a servant of the people. Why do you continue to further urban legend?

He is a rapist...

Strange...I remember him being ACQUITTED of that charge.

and child molestor...

No, sir. This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual.

Paul, he was and so was all of his buddies. 10 years, remember?

His friends, which you and Eric Johnson seem to be fixated on, took plea deals (which Wilson was offered, but because of the sex offender tag he refused...I don't blame him).

What he did was stupid...no disagreement, but the punishment did not fit his actions by any means.

Can't help but jump in on this one...... Several months ago there was an article in which one of the victims of this party stated that to make him out to be a "good" boy who used poor judgement was a crock. That he actually was an arrogant jock at school with all the negative connotations that go with the label.

I know that we live in different times than I was raised in, but the kind of amateur porn flick that he starred in turns my stomach. It is the sort of thing that is glorified by a society that embraces rap and hip-hop and aspires to an anything goes lifestyle... Women (in this case girls) exist as sexual toys for the pleasure of men (boys). It is a sad commentary of out times. Shame on all of them. Most of all shame on the parents who let this happen.

No, sir. This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual.

My understanding of the case is that at the time of the act, sexual acts with anyone under the age of 16 was illegal.

I don't care what the age difference was. If the law said under 16 was off limits, then it's off limits. Therefore, if the law calls him a child molestor, consensual or not, so be it.

Now, should he be released? I think so...by now. If the law says he has to be registered as a sex offender, then someone needs to give him a Bic & a book to bear down on. By the law, he is/was a sex offender.

No Danny, the law said anyone who had committed sodomy i.e. anal or oral contact on someone younger than 15 was guilty of aggravated child molestation. No exception for age difference or any kind of consent. That's why the legislature, including Rep. Davis changed the law to address this vaguery the next year.

The irony is that if he had actually had intercourse with the girl, he would not have been charged with child molestation.

And it is exactly this type of confusion that Rep Davis wants to continue to foster.

[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html[\URL]

From the link: "Georgia law at the time made such an action a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and listing on the sex offender registry."

Now, I hate to believe CNN on this one, but if memory serves the age was 16, not 15.

griftdrift, age difference under the old law, right or wrong, was irrelevant.

But I'm pretty sure that the age was 16. If you can show me legal proof that the law at the time was 15, not 16, my opinion on the matter would sway.

Until I see proof, I think he deserved to do some time & he should have to register, at least under the text of the old law.

Jason and Gift,

You are both being ignorant to the facts and are splitting hairs with this kid. He is the scum of the earth and you treat him as if he did no wrong. There is a video of him dragging a limp body from one room to another and then having intercourse with that limp body after passing around a 15 old girl for his buddies.

He had a trial and he lost. Do you think the jury did not know what the minimum sentence was? Yet you guys want to talk about a Romeo and Juliet clause that might or moght not have even been invoked in this case. The prosecutor might have taken another angle or charge to prosecute this criminal.

There was a lot of things he did not get convicted of that he did that night (drugs and alcohol delinquency of a minor, etc..., he was 17 remember). I think he got lucky not to get all of the charges as convictions especially the rape!

So lets put it all out in the open. Do you think he is a criminal at all? Or just a innocent teenager that was in the wrong place at the wrong time? What kind of sentence should he have gotten? What do you think the purpose of the video was for?

Oh, "This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual." I guess your saying she is at fault. She brought it on herself, right? I bet she bought all the drugs and alcohol for all the older boys?

Come on lets get real. He is a criminal and deserves everything he got and more!

The law says under the age of 16 and it is a separate law from statutory rape statues which makes it confusing. Statuatory rape law already had so called "romeo and juliet" provisions to address consensual acts between teens of near age. This section of the law did not.

You can see the law here and the reason why the jury had no choice. Which also led to the reason the legislature changed it the following year. A fact some legislators continue to fail to address.

Steve, he did have a trial and he was acquitted of rape...please acknow