Richard Dennis Whitehead
Posted by Webmaster in Charges Dismissed, Georgia, High Schools, Language Arts, ME-FV
(11/14/07 – Initial BBT Report)
Richard Dennis Whitehead, a former English teacher at Bainbridge High School, in Bainbridge, Georgia has been convicted in a two-day bench trial and sentenced on nine counts of sexual assault of a person in custody.
Superior Court Judge Wallace Cato found Whitehead guilty of having sex with a then-17-year-old female student on nine occasions between March 23 and April 20, 2007.
Judge Cato then imposed the maximum 30 year sentence on Whitehead and ordered that he serve at least 20 years of that sentence as prison time.
Additionally Whitehead will have to register as a sex offender, cannot teach and must restrict his involvement with children whenever he is released on parole.
Although Whitehead’s sexual contact with the student was consensual Georgia law prohibits anyone with supervisory control over another person from engaging in sexual contact with that person, regardless of their age.
Whitehead came to the attention of authorities when friends of the girl saw inappropriate text messages of a sexual nature on the girl’s cellphone and told the girl’s mother. The mother took the victim to the sheriff’s office and deputies used the victim’s cellphone to set up a meeting with Whitehead. When Whitehead arrived at the church where the victim stated the alleged sexual contact took place he was arrested.
10/31/09 – Conviction Overturned
The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of Richard Dennis Whitehead.
The Court of Appeals held that Whitehead’s sexual contact with the student was not a crime in light of the recent George Supreme Court ruling regarding consensual sex between teachers and students who are of the age of consent.
References:
Whitehead conviction reversed (10/23/09)
Former teacher headed to prison for sex with student (11/14/07)
Background:
Teacher charged with sexual assault (4/24/07)
Teacher arrested for sex with student (4/24/07)
Entries (RSS)
@Andrew,
My opinions about what should have happened to Whitehead are simply that–my opinions. They weren’t, and are not, interpretations of current Georgia law. If you’re going to criticize what I wrote, then you need to keep that in mind. I don’t mind the criticism at all, but I don’t think I was so unclear that you couldn’t tell when I was expressing statements of what occurred (facts), and what I think _should_ have occurred (opinion).
I acknowledged that the current law, as I understand it, was lacking the ’special relationship’ that would have disallowed a consent argument. And I acknowledged that the conviction was rightfully reversed under the current circumstances. I didn’t say it exactly that way, but that’s the essence of what I said.
I used the ‘technicality’ language because Tony described the U.S. legal system as being slanted toward ‘real criminals getting off on technicalities.’ Tony made this claim against the backdrop of believing that Whitehead wasn’t or, more importantly, shouldn’t be a criminal for what he did. I would agree that Whitehead wasn’t a criminal according to current law. So to that extent, it was not a technicality. The ‘technicality’ I alluded to (which isn’t actually a technicality, I agree) was that there is some sense that some were surprised to find that the law actually allowed for this behavior. And there were expressions of committment to close the ‘loophole’ so to speak. And, in that spirit, imo Whitehead got lucky. Technicality? No. But the result is remarkably similar (person walks away after committing act that many would want to be a felony). Note that I fully understand that that loophole isn’t currently closed. I fully understand that it may never be closed. I fully understand that ‘loophole’ is a spin word. And I don’t actually know what will transpire going forward. I acknowledge that I used the term ‘technicality’ loosely. However, I find it odd that you have more issue with that than the broadbrush, and likely unfounded, claim that Tony made.
I don’t feel sorry for Whitehead at all. He had to know that the relationship was questionable. As you point out, there are, at a minimum, moral and ethical issues regarding such behavior. And in a number of states, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. And it seems to me like it would be rare that someone would get to 34 years old and not know that not everyone is down with teachers having sex with their students. And I doubt he got legal advice to see if he was ‘okay’ before they had their first rendezvous. My personal opinion is that his behavior should be defined as a crime as it is in other states. And, since Georgia law doesn’t currently define things that way, my hope is that they will update the law and eliminate that defense. In other words: it wasn’t a crime, but it _should_ have been a crime. And since, imo, it should have been a crime, I’m having a real hard time feeling too sorry for a scumbag such as Richard Whitehead.
justsayno makes at least two mistakes. The General Assembly, as many other states, has essentially made a “graduated” system of adulthood/majority–no pun intended–depending on the particular subject addressed: 21 to drink; 18 to vote and enter into contracts, etc. 16 and above is the age of consent, i.e., the age at which lawful consent to sexual intercourse can be made. [Actually, it's my understanding that lawful consent can be given by any 'emancipated' minor 14 years or older.] This wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether the “special relationship” between Whitehead and JAP (student/teacher) removed the defense of consent. Under such circumstances (there being a special relationship) JAP’s consent would be legally worthless regardless of her age–16 or 18 or 50, which is an old high school student but this isn’t the only special relationship recognized in the law, e.g., prisoner/guard. The issue at hand was whether the statute Whitehead was prosecuted under allowed consent to be raised. The “new understanding” of the law is that consent may indeed be so raised. As such Whitehead and JAP’s conduct is no different than any other “garden variety” sexual relationship. Whitehead didn’t get off–again no pun intended–on a technicality, which implies criminal conduct but the “criminal” escapes punishment due to issues unrelated to his guilt. (Use of the word ‘technicality’ shows a general ignorance of the law. ‘Technicalities’ exist because they are essential to the ‘non-technical’ portion of the law.) Simply put, Whitehead’s conduct wasn’t a crime to start with. Whether it was moral or ethical is another issue, it was not a crime.
If there is someone to feel sorry for, it’s most certainly Mr Whitehead, who has had his life ruined, spent two years in prison (and he didn’t look like the ‘prison type’ to me either), and will forever be haunted by this episode.
Well, worse, he was actually sentenced to 30 years with a minimum of 20 to serve. IMO, that’s unbelievably harsh.
Considering that female teachers (in most states) get a small “slap” for having sex with a 14 year old male, it’s somewhat odd that a male teacher would get 20 years in prison for having sex with a 17 year old student…yes, no teacher should have sex with a student, period. But 20 years in prison? Give me a break….6 months +, registering as a sex offender (and surrending teacher’s license), would have been adequate in my opinion….in this case, the crime did not fit the punishment, I understand its Georgia, but does the Taliban run the state house?…well, then again….
@Tony,
Last I checked, a legal adult is 18 rather than 17.
Second, it’s your opinion that it would be a miscarriage of justice even if she were 18. I completely disagree with that opinion for circumstances such as this. And that only gets worse when you consider that, I think, you’re arguing that the 37 year old teacher is well within his rights to pursue and bag a 16 year old student as long as the 16 year old student agrees. Wow.
Limiting the consequences to license revocation and claiming ‘that’s good enough’ is also your opinion and an opinion I, also, don’t share with you.
You being career military is irrelevant.
And regarding your points about the court of appeals: well, actually, Whitehead is getting off on a technicality though I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that their opinion was that the law was unenforceable and that you can’t make consensual sex a felony. All I saw was that Mr. Whitehead should have been allowed to argue that consent was relevant and that, therefore, there was no crime (since the kid consented). And, the way the law is currently written, there is no real argument to be made to counter that point. However, the article goes further and states that some Georgia legislators have committed to tightening up the language to ‘better protect high school students.’ I doubt that means they’ve learned their lesson and will now allow such behavior with only administrative penalties applying from here forward. And I doubt they’d agree with you that ‘you can’t felonize consensual sex’ or that such laws are unenforceable. And I’m going to bet on their side rather than yours.
Personally, I think 30 years was an asinine sentence. So, to that extent, I’m okay with this ruling. But, not because I don’t think he should have been sentenced to begin with, but rather because he has already served a chunk of time and 30 years is exorbitant. That his ‘conviction’ will likely be expunged is an unfortunate side-effect, but sometimes these things happen.
A parent is still legally responsible for their high school kid, and a parent should have the right to expect that a 37 year old teacher consider their kid off limits with serious consequences if the teacher choses to ignore those inducements. I’m not buying the license/job is good enough theory.
I seem to remember reading of another case on this site about a similar situation in Georgia where the pedophile was released due to their age of consent laws. Does anybody else think that this is a huge loophole that any but the most bassackwards states would close up right away?!
It would be a miscarriage of justice to convict a person for having consensual sex with a legal adult, regardless of other circumstances. If the government wants to take action against abuse of positions of power, it can do so administratively (license revocation) without making a felony case of it. Being career military, I see no necessity, OUTSIDE military discipline, for felonizing this particular abuse of power. Seems like losing your job and permanently being banned from your chosen profession is good enough.
Oh, Keir, this is why we have a court of appeals. Lower courts do make mistakes, or more information comes to light, not to mention the GA Supreme Court decided the law was unenforceable (can’t felonize consensual sex). Besides, in light of the U.S. legals system’s penchant for real criminals getting off on technicalities, your protestations don’t really hold much water.
That’s madness. One day he’s sentenced to three DECADES in prison, the next it’s decided it’s not really a crime after all and he’s free to go.
Is that how serious the law is administered in the US? I mean, rapists and murderers get lighter sentences. Then they belatedly find out the girl’s age and find out it “was over the age of consent when the sexual contact occurred”? Is anyone else deeply troubled by this?
I’m happy to note that the webmaster immediately amended their story regarding Mr. Whitehead after being informed of his acquittal by operation of law by the Court od Appeals, my doubts to the contrary notwithstanding. I stand corrected.
It should be noted here, because I’m sure it will not otherwise be noted officially by this cite, that Mr. Whitehead’s conviction was reversed on appeal. WHITEHEAD v. THE STATE. A08A1923. 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 1211. “[Whitehead's] conduct with [J. A. P.] was not a crime because [J. A. P.] was over the age of consent when the sexual contact occurred” and J. A. P. was a “willing participant” in the sexual activity.”