This space, like most in a newspaper, tends to emphasize the negative and to harp on poor decisions by politicians and other “leaders” in society. Today, however, I would like to highlight the Supreme Court of Georgia’s admirable reversal of an unfortunate case. Admittedly, the ruling remains imperfect, as does the law that governed the case, but the court deserves kudos for its willingness to admit unfairness.

Seventeen-year-old Genarlow Wilson was at a party with a 15-year-old girl, hardly an uncommon occurrence as anyone who has been to a high school can attest. Similarly not surprising was their mutual decision to engage in sexual conduct, specifically oral sex. Wilson was an upstanding child: a star athlete, an honor student and his school’s first homecoming king. Parents might not like his actions or the situation surrounding them, but they must respect Mr. Wilson’s good nature and responsibility.

Because of a Georgia law aimed at protecting women and children from child molesters, a court convicted Wilson of aggravated child molestation, a crime of which he was certainly guilty by the letter of the law. However, the letter of the law in this case was more morally reprehensible than the action it condemned. Wilson received 10 years in prison for receiving consensual oral sex. The state also mandated that he register as a sex offender. Although the jury had no knowledge of the mandatory sentence, its hands were tied because the law explicitly defined the crime.

Between the court’s sentencing of the harmless Mr. Wilson and his Oct. 26 release, the state of Georgia made the completely absurd law somewhat less absurd. However, the state refused to reconsider his sentence because the new law lacked a retroactivity clause, forcing him to endure the long appeal process that only recently concluded.

To be clear, the Georgia Supreme Court acted properly in releasing Wilson. This is the admirable aspect of the story. The tragedy lies not only in Wilson’s conviction and sentence, but also in the state’s mediocre attempt to fix the law. Instead of the excessive 10-year/sex-offender registration penalty, underage teens that now engage in oral sex can receive up to (only) one year of prison time. One year!

At what point will our country drop its obsession with oral sex and focus on real problems? From Bill Clinton to Genarlow Wilson, we fixate on the mouth and its sexual uses, socially or legally prosecuting acts that are more or less benign. The only person to judge President Clinton was Hillary, while the only people to whom Wilson needs to answer are his single mother and the girl involved. Their actions are not crimes; they are questionable decisions.

The closeness in the court’s 4-3 decision reflects the state of Georgia’s recognition of the unfairness in Wilson’s case, but simultaneously demonstrates society’s utter lack of perspective on matters of sex. The rule of law mandated that the court act within its legal parameters, and thus could not retroactively apply the modified law to Wilson. It ruled instead that the sentence was excessive and therefore “cruel and unusual.” While the ultimate decision to free the young man, and enable him to reclaim some of his life, represents the triumph of rationality, the criminalization of consensual inter-teen oral sex demonstrates how Georgia (and any other state or township with similar laws) is out of touch with reality. Laws can prevent some actions that hurt society, but some behavior is so ingrained into culture that legislatures and courts should ignore it. There are real problems and real issues for our government; consensual youth oral sex is not one of them.

Society cannot ignore some decisions teenagers make as “the folly of youth.” These include murder, driving drunk and rape, among others. However, the category of transgressions that begins with sneaking into R-rated movies and ends with safe, consensual sex defines the phrase “youthful indiscretions.” Both the law and society need to ignore such actions while emphasizing their unacceptability. Families and social circles may set their own limits of what they tolerate, but actions such as Wilson’s are not inherently detrimental to society’s overall well-being.