The Genarlow Wilson Case [Archive]

Roxie

06-12-2007, 07:10 PM

Justice mocked again in Genarlow Wilson case
A judge says he should go free, but state attorney general will fight to prevent it

Published on: 06/12/07
Genarlow Wilson's attorney bought him an outfit from Ralph Lauren to wear the day Wilson walks out of prison. But for now, that outfit will stay in a box.

As will Wilson. On Monday, a Monroe County judge ordered Wilson's release, ruling that a mandatory 10-year prison sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment for consensual oral sex between teenagers. The announcement was greeted by tears and joy from Wilson's mother and attorney, and from thousands of supporters around the country outraged by such a clear case of injustice.

But that jubilation proved short-lived. Within an hour of the judge's decision, word came that Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker would appeal the judge's ruling to the state Supreme Court. It's unclear now whether Wilson will be freed during the appeal process.

"This is wrong," said attorney B. J.

Bernstein as she read the notice of Baker's appeal. "There is nothing right about this."

It's not just wrong, it's a senseless outrage. Wilson was 17 when he engaged in oral sex with a classmate two years younger at a raucous 2003 New Year's Eve party. Because of a strange and unanticipated glitch in state law that treated oral sex as far more heinous than intercourse, Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation.

That glitch has since been fixed by the General Assembly, which made the conduct committed by Wilson a mere misdemeanor with a maximum jail term of 12 months.

But Baker argues that Wilson was convicted under the old law and his sentence should stand.

How are the citizens of Georgia helped by making a teenager with no prior record remain in prison for a decade because of a poorly drawn law? How is justice served?

"If this Court, or any Court, cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... Justice being served in a fair and equal manner," Monroe Superior Court Judge Thomas H. Wilson stated in his plain-spoken ruling.

Baker's decision to appeal that ruling suggests that he has lost any sense of perspective on justice, and in turn may lose his grasp on his job as well.

As the judge noted, Wilson has served two years for what is now a mere misdemeanor; making him serve another eight years "is a grave miscarriage of justice."

Before learning that Baker would block Wilson's release, the Rev. Raphael Warnock of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta had led the inmate's mother and supporters in a prayer of thanksgiving at Bernstein's law office.

"We pray that in the days ahead you provide purpose and direction for his life," Warnock said, "... that Genarlow might move from a prison cell to a college classroom."

The words of a previous pastor at Ebenezer Baptist seem appropriate as well. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. put it, "An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."

— Maureen Downey, for the editorial board (mdowney@ajc.com)

Jetsetlemming

06-12-2007, 07:12 PM

I believe in the last thread about teen sex we had, someone suggested a law banning teens owning video cameras.
:blank: I feel like bringing that up again here.

Kaji

06-12-2007, 07:19 PM

You'll note that, ironically, there are no child pornography charges involved...

Pierrot le Fou

06-13-2007, 02:07 AM

I don't get it, how does getting oral sex fall under the "sodomy laws"?
You could have at least looked it up (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=sodomy):In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

ミュー

06-13-2007, 03:54 AM

In Japan, if a 17 year old recieves oral pleasure from a 15 year old, his older friends get jealous and whoop his ass. Then, in a flurry of rage, he pleads with his policeman father to have them brought to justice. "Sure," his dad says, "But only if I can have her phone number!"

ParryDat

06-13-2007, 04:15 AM

I remember this.It happend at a New Years Eve Party or something.

All I have to say is,what kind of a parent is the father to let his daughter,go to a Motel for a New Year's Eve Party

Obviously a party with a bunch of teens isn't going to involve fucking Tea and Crumpets.

Georgia as a state is just backwards and archaic as fuck.I'm happy not live down there.

The kid's life is ruined basically before it even began.He is always going to have this asterisk on his record for the rest of his life.

Roxie

06-13-2007, 04:18 AM

Hey, the ATL is the blue island in a red sea.

ParryDat

06-13-2007, 04:21 AM

Maybe,Maybe not.

I still have to deal with the millions of wack rappers that come out of Atlanta and it border states.

Roxie

06-13-2007, 04:23 AM

Ahem...OutKast.

That is all.

but I do agree about the hotel thing. How crazy.

4letterwords

06-13-2007, 04:23 AM

I dunno, I got yelled at by a Russian gas station attendant in Atlanta for not wearing shoes... in my car.

ParryDat

06-13-2007, 04:24 AM

Ahem...OutKast.

That is all.

Does Andre3000 even rap anymore?

Roxie

06-13-2007, 04:24 AM

Well he was Russian.

Yes he does...and he makes cartoons. Besides, there's also Big Boi and the ATL movie was pretty damn good. Surprised the hell out me.

ParryDat

06-13-2007, 04:29 AM

I never liked Big Boi much as a rapper.Andre always made the group for me.

ATL was aight I guess.

Psychochink

06-13-2007, 05:12 AM

Roxie

06-13-2007, 06:43 AM

Well, like alot of misguided youth that currently recieve abstience only education, he probably didn't know that oral sex carried any such penalty.

Pierrot le Fou

06-13-2007, 06:49 AM

Yes, because sex ed clearly outlines the laws regarding various sex acts Roxie.

Excellent point.

PopCulturePooka

06-13-2007, 08:27 AM

http://www.state.ga.us/ago/images/baker.jpg

CUNT

ParryDat

06-13-2007, 01:37 PM

Stupid law? Well, yes, obviously. The severity of the original sentence was too harsh.

Having said that, how fucking thick do you have to be to not comprehend the concept of don't fuck 15 year olds? What, one year is worth the risk?

Yeah,because I am sure when the guy is about to get a blowjob he is going to ask for the Girl's age.There was probably alot of underage drinking and stuff going on here.It was a Motel party,on New Year's Eve so of course some crazy shit is going to happen.

Hell I was surprised that the state came down on people that were only two year's apart,and both of them were Teenager's.At worst I thought maybe he would be sent to Juvenile penetiary,or something like that.

I KNOW he was surprised when the state told him that he could get 10 year's for something that both parties consented to.

Kaji

06-13-2007, 02:36 PM

Truth is, as long as he has good behavior in jail, he'd probably be released by 21 at the latest, and the record could well get sealed if there are no other offenses. I know Virginia works that way with underage crime, at least...

Roxie

06-13-2007, 02:56 PM

The kid has no priors, is an honor roll student and had some scholarships lined up. some of the kids who took the plea deal had priors.

Psychochink

06-14-2007, 02:14 AM

Yeah,because I am sure when the guy is about to get a blowjob he is going to ask for the Girl's age.

What, you didn't establish the age of your sexual partners when you were in your late teens before you went too far? I sure as hell did, because I understood the concept of 'Statutory Rape conviction = Bad'.

Pierrot le Fou

06-14-2007, 02:23 AM

What, you didn't establish the age of your sexual partners when you were in your late teens before you went too far? I sure as hell did, because I understood the concept of 'Statutory Rape conviction = Bad'.
I sure as Hell did.

Apparently they don't make honor roll students like they used to -- common sense seems to be optional.

Roxie

06-14-2007, 02:27 AM

Oh dear Lord, never made a mistake in your life PLF?

They didn't charge him w/statutory rape. If they had, this would all be different. They charged him aggravated molestation, mostlestaion of a child...they've basically pegged him as a "predator" who must serve a minimum sentence of 10yrs in jail.

I know when I got my sex ed, they did NOT go over the law. That something much more whispered about and when I did find out all I knew about was the age of consent, not aggravated molestation.

Pierrot le Fou

06-14-2007, 02:38 AM

Did you ignore the part where everyone found it absurd, changed the law, and the judge said this was a gross miscarriage of justice?

Or are you still on the prowl for people to blame for what everyone seems to agree was pretty shitty?

I mean what the fuck is your major malfunction here? Everyone's saying this is screwed up and should be fixed! So they're fixing it! But he should have known better anyway.

ParryDat

06-14-2007, 02:39 AM

What, you didn't establish the age of your sexual partners when you were in your late teens before you went too far? I sure as hell did, because I understood the concept of 'Statutory Rape conviction = Bad'.

For the record,I am in my late teens right now(17 years old).

Anyway,you are right about how he should have made a note of how old she was(Or at least be smart enough to not video tape the incident).

Roxie

06-14-2007, 02:41 AM

Pierrot le Fou

06-14-2007, 02:51 AM

My God! You're right!

QUICK! The justice system is fucked! They're following procedure! We should just open all the jails upon the demand of a judge! Yes, that'd be great! God forbid we actually go by the law!

Perhaps rather than bitching at me, you could petition the Governor to issue a pardon? Far more effective at getting the job done.

Or, y'know, break into the prison and let him loose.

Roxie

06-14-2007, 02:52 AM

Wow...i'm so not the one with the malfunction here.

No, I couldn't. Our Governor doesn't have the power to pardon..
Georgia doesn't let its Governor pardon people in jail; only the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles can do that (http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/genarlowwilson.html)

OH and with regards to Statutory Rape..
The crime was child molestation, defined as receiving oral sex from a minor. If the teens had been recorded having what Bill Clinton regards as the one and only sex act, it would have only been a misdemeanor because Georgia law acknowledged that consensual intercourse between teens less than three years apart could not reasonable be called statutory rape. (http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/genarlowwilson.html)

Pierrot le Fou

06-14-2007, 03:24 AM

Pity, that.

So petition the pardon/parole board.

Roxie

06-14-2007, 03:30 AM

I'll just go ahead and paste what the rest of the link says

Oh and here's a petition. (http://www.wilsonappeal.com/petition.php)
Ethics and the Tragedy of Genarlow Wilson
(2/2/2007)

A badly drafted Georgia law that was aimed at child molesters but wounded normal teenagers is being condemned by all ends of the political spectrum, and rightly so. In 2003 Genarlow Wilson, a 17-year-old senior at Douglas County High whose scholarship and athletic skills had endeared him to several Ivy League schools, attended a party in which an overly-friendly 15-year-old girl volunteered to give oral sex to several boys. One of the dimmer ones thought the event needed to be videotaped. Later, when the girl found herself being cross-examined by her suspicious mother, she claimed she had been raped, which, since she was under the age of consent in Georgia, sounded plausible. Police went to the scene of the party and found the video camera, with a tape that depicted, not a rape, but what the law then in effect decreed was a felony carrying a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison. The crime was child molestation, defined as receiving oral sex from a minor. If the teens had been recorded having what Bill Clinton regards as the one and only sex act, it would have only been a misdemeanor because Georgia law acknowledged that consensual intercourse between teens less than three years apart could not reasonable be called statutory rape.

An odds-defying sequence of stupid, unethical and irrational acts converged to put Wilson in jail for a ten year sentence without a chance of parole. The idiot videotaping the group sex started it; the orally enthusiastic 10th grader falsely crying rape did her part. Then Douglas County District Attorney David McDade displayed classic abuse of prosecutorial discretion by prosecuting Genarlow and the other boys based on the video. Genarlow's defense attorney failed his client by not being able to persuade him to take a plea bargain like his fellow defendants: as ridiculous as the law was, Wilson was guilty of breaking it. According to press accounts, Wilson rejected McDade's offer of a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea because it would have made him a registered sex offender and prevented him from living in the same house with his sister. But his decision meant that he was counting on a jury to disregard the law, always a desperate hope unless Clarence Darrow can be resurrected to make your closing argument.

Even without Darrow, the jury should have done the right thing and refused to convict. It didn't. It might have, but the judge never told the jury that a conviction carried a ten year mandatory sentence, so the jury (members now say) assumed that the judge would be merciful. The trial judge, who has the discretion to reverse a jury verdict in the interests of justice, wouldn't take a stand, and rendered the full statutory sentence. While Wilson languished in prison, the Georgia Legislature changed the law that convicted him…but didn't have the sense, courage, brains or compassion (pick one) to make it retroactive.

Next up to bat, the Georgia Supreme Court. In a 4-3 vote, the justices ruled that their hands were tied: it was a valid law and Wilson broke it, so there was no legal justification to reverse the conviction. The opinion admitted this was unjust, and suggested that executive clemency was called for, or another bill by the legislature. But Georgia doesn't let its Governor pardon people in jail; only the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles can do that, and so far, it hasn't.

So let's review, shall we? At this point, the prosecutor, the jury, the State Supreme Court, and the legislature, not to mention the so-called "victim," all believe that Wilson does not belong in jail for a ten year term. But all of them have helped to put him there and keep him there.

Many of them will say that they "had no choice." That is a dishonest rationalization. McDade could have dropped the aggravated child molestation charge when Wilson didn't accept a plea bargain; it would have been embarrassing, but then, he should be embarrassed. He was irresponsible: Ethics Foul #1. The jury, like all American juries since the John Peter Zenger trial, also had a choice: they could have refused to convict in defiance of a bad law. That was the right thing to do, and they whiffed: Ethics Foul #2. The judge allowed this travesty to occur: he should have dismissed the case and reprimanded the D.A, making Ethics Foul #3. The legislature was simply incompetent, but twice---once in passing the original law, and again by not making its repeal retroactive. Ethics Foul #4. Then the Supreme Court of Georgia showed how "judicial activism" is sometimes not only justified but essential, and showed it by being craven. It had the power to reverse the case in the interest of justice, and refused. Ethics Foul #5.

Then there's Sonny Perdue, the Governor. True, he can't issue a pardon on his own, but he could take some political risk and force the issue. That would take some courage. Instead, he is staying out of the matter, adopting one of the Scoreboard's least favorite rationalizations, "It's not my fault!" Well, that's debatable (Perdue signed the legislature's non-retroactive change in the law), but it doesn't matter whether it's his fault or not: he is in the best position to show leadership and make something happen. He's the Governor, and an innocent young man has had his life savaged by the government Perdue heads. So far, nothing: Ethics Foul #6 goes to you, Sonny.

Now the media is beating the drums. Specials on TV, editorials from The New York Times to the Smallville Gazette….petitions, blogs blazing, pleas to the legislature.

I originally concluded with the assertion that President Bush had an obligation to use his presidential pardon power to end this fiasco, but even that is impossible. George Mason Law School's Professor Ron Rotunda reminded me that the President can only issue pardons for federal crimes. So Wilson must wait for the Georgia legislature to pass a bill directed specifically at his plight, or for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to act, something it has so far been unwilling to do. All of which should remind us that the worst Ethics Foul of all was the first one.

This was an unjust and unethical prosecution that never should have occurred.

Pierrot le Fou

06-14-2007, 04:14 AM

This is a classic case where clemency is called for! Blaming the courts or the prosecutors for not following the law and precedent is silly, when the blame lies solely with the one group of people who can legally do something about it, and whose job it is to do just that!

Kaji

06-14-2007, 06:20 AM

All of which should remind us that the worst Ethics Foul of all was the first one.

So true, considering the ethics of recording underage porn and accepting sexual favors from someone who's under the AoC...

Roxie

06-14-2007, 05:49 PM

Wilson attorney blasts Douglas DA office
Prosecutors tape mother of victim after she speaks with media

By JEREMY REDMON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/14/07
The attorney for Genarlow Wilson lashed out at Douglas County prosecutors this morning, accusing them of "bizarre" tactics and intimidating the mother of a victim in Wilson's child molestation case.

At a news conference in her Midtown law office, B.J. Bernstein held up a copy of an article in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution that says one of the prosecutors showed up at the home of Veda Cannon Wednesday morning with an audio recorder after learning she had talked to the AJC.

Douglas County District Attorney David McDade also disclosed Wednesday afternoon that his office taped a telephone conversation Cannon had with an AJC reporter that morning.

"It was extremely shocking to believe and read something that almost reminds us of what happens in a Communist country, that when you speak out about something to the media you get a visit from the government," Bernstein told reporters. "This is pure intimidation."

McDade did not immediately respond to a telephone call for comment.

Before Douglas County Assistant District Attorney Eddie Barker visited her home Wednesday, Cannon told the AJC that Wilson should never have been prosecuted and imprisoned for having oral sex with her 15-year-old daughter more than three years ago. Cannon said the sex between her daughter, Wilson and four other teens was consensual.

"I felt like Douglas County was trying to make an example out of these boys," Cannon, 39, of Douglasville, asserted Tuesday in what she said was her first interview about the case. "They should have been made to pay for their actions, but not to this severity."

In a strange twist Wednesday, Cannon scrambled to soften some of Tuesday's comments following a visit to her home from Barker who had learned of her interview with the AJC.

Responding to Cannon's assertions, county prosecutors said they suspect Cannon is bending to pressure from people supporting the defendants, an assertion she denied.

"Never once did she ever ask us not to prosecute this case," said Barker, who worked closely with Cannon during the case. "Where was she at when all of this was going on? Why is she just now telling you this three years later?"

Bernstein responded to the prosecutors' suspicions today.

"I have not spoken to this woman in over a year and a half," Bernstein said of Cannon.

Wilson, meanwhile, is fighting to get his felony conviction and 10-year prison sentence thrown out. He has so far spent more than two years of that sentence behind bars. At the same time, his case has captured national media attention. And his appeal has drawn support from several influential people across the country, including former President Jimmy Carter.

Three of the four others convicted of molesting Cannon's daughter remain in prison.

DA's office tapes phone interview

A bizarre series of events occurred Wednesday morning after Douglas prosecutors learned Cannon was speaking to the press. Cannon said Barker and a colleague soon showed up at her home with an audio recorder to discuss her comments to the AJC.

After being taped, she raised concerns that she was being misquoted.

After that conversation, McDade disclosed his office had taped a telephone conversation Cannon had with the AJC that morning.

"We were actually at her home when you were talking to her [Wednesday] morning," McDade said. "We were recording the conversation and so we have a tape of her telling you that you were twisting her words."

In the initial interview Tuesday, Cannon described a conversation she had with Barker before Wilson's case went to trial. She said she had asked Barker what would happen if she did not want to participate in the prosecution, and she said he responded by telling her she could face legal trouble for "neglect" as a parent, an assertion Barker vehemently denied.

On Wednesday, after a visit from prosecutors, Cannon said Barker was not "threatening" her when he told her what could happen if she did not cooperate with the prosecution. She said Barker was giving her advice she had solicited and that his office was open and helpful to her.

"Can you imagine — if this is what the district attorney does with this case what they have done with others?" Bernstein said. "Is this the tactics they have used all the time? I want to know. Everyone should ask: Who is David McDade? What does he do?"

Cannon ultimately testified in Wilson's trial, pointing out her daughter on a videotape of the party that was played for the jury. Her daughter did not take the stand.

The Journal-Constitution is not identifying Cannon's daughter or the unrelated 17-year-old girl in the case because both were victims of sex crimes. Cannon said she did not want to be photographed for fear that publicity surrounding the case would affect her three other children, ages 22, 17 and 10.

The case stems from a 2003 New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. Wilson's friends rented neighboring hotel rooms that night at a Days Inn in Douglasville. One of the partygoers videotaped the events that evening with a handheld camera.

The tape shows Wilson having intercourse with a 17-year-old. Both appear intoxicated in the video.

Wilson was charged with raping the 17-year-old but was acquitted.

In another part of the video, Wilson is lying on his back in one of the motel room beds and receiving oral sex from Cannon's daughter. Wilson does not appear to be forcing the girl in the video. Cannon said her daughter told her the sex was consensual.

Authorities went to the hotel room and confiscated the videotape after the 17-year-old girl's family complained to police. Wilson was found guilty of aggravated child molestation involving Cannon's daughter, a crime that carried a minimum 10-year prison sentence under the law at the time.

The Legislature, however, changed the law last year to make similar acts a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison.

Five other male youths reached plea deals in the case. Wilson was the only one to go to trial.

"She did not want any of this to happen," Cannon said of her daughter. "She was friends with all of them."

Cannon said her daughter misled her into believing that night that she was heading to a friend's house for a New Year's Eve party and that it would be supervised by parents. She said she instructed her daughter to return home by 1:30 a.m. on New Year's Day. Cannon said she never would have let her daughter go out that night had she known she was going to a party at a hotel.

"I know what my instructions were, and I don't feel that I have to justify myself to anyone," Cannon said.

Cannon's daughter, now 18, declined a request for an interview through her mother. Cannon said her daughter and Wilson had been classmates at Douglas County High

School. The girl graduated from another high school before joining the Navy to pursue a career in nursing, her mother said. She is not married and has a 2-year-old son. Cannon proudly showed off photos of her daughter and grandson Wednesday.

"She is trying to put it all behind her," Cannon said, adding that her daughter regrets having sex that night. "She does not want to come back to Douglasville because it is still a touchy subject. She still deals with it every day."

ParryDat

06-14-2007, 06:14 PM

Prosecutors tape mother of victim after she speaks with media

That right there just makes me sick.Really grinds my gears

Roxie

06-14-2007, 10:15 PM

Ga. High Court to Hear Teen Sex Case
By SHANNON McCAFFREY
Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA — Georgia's Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear the state's arguments for keeping in prison a man who had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The attorney general later said his release could open the floodgates for hundreds of incarcerated child molesters looking for a way out.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker has caught heat for appealing a state judge's decision to void Genarlow Wilson's 10-year sentence but said at a news conference Thursday that he has no choice under the law. The state Superior Court had no authority to reduce or modify the trial court's sentence, he said.

Baker called the sentence "harsh" but added: "It looms much larger than just this Genarlow Wilson case, and we have to keep that in mind."

The court said it would hear the case in October.

Wilson, now 21, has served more than 28 months in prison. A jury convicted him in 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with the girl during a 2003 party. Although the sex was consensual, it was illegal under Georgia law.

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but he was acquitted. The party was captured on videotape. The other male partygoers took plea deals.

Wilson's lawyer will seek to get Wilson released on bond at a July 5 hearing. Baker said he would not oppose bond while the appeal moves forward.

As black leaders called Thursday for the state to drop its effort to keep Wilson in prison and planned an evening rally — Wilson and the girl are black — Gov. Sonny Perdue suggested the controversy is casting Georgia "in an unfair light."

Treating Wilson differently from the other young men in the case might be unfair, he said.

"How would they be treated fairly if this issue regarding the Wilson young man is adjudicated differently? What is our responsibility to them?" Perdue asked. He called it "a very difficult situation."

At an afternoon news conference, The Rev. Joseph Lowery, president emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said: "It is abuse of power by keeping this young man in prison when everybody knows he should be out."

A 6 p.m. rally was planned outside the state Capitol in Atlanta.

In Washington, members of the Congressional Black Caucus criticized Wilson's sentence as "abusive and excessive" and accused Baker of seeking to "perpetuate the injustice."

"This case represents yet another tragic breakdown in the criminal justice system that, unfortunately, fails young African American males too often," the group wrote in a statement. "It is unjust, unfair and un-American."

If Wilson had had sexual intercourse with the teen, he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex for teens still constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence, plus listing on the sex offender registry.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole. But the state Supreme Court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Also Thursday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the 15-year-old girl's mother said Wilson should not have been criminally charged but changed her statement a day later after a visit from prosecutors.

B.J. Bernstein, a lawyer for Wilson, called the prosecution's visit "pure intimidation."

The mother's interview made clear that the encounter "was definitely a consensual act," Bernstein said.

The day after that interview, the mother spoke to the newspaper again, saying she was worried that she might be misquoted. She said Douglas County Assistant District Attorney Eddie Barker was at her home with an audio recorder to discuss what she had said.

Douglas County District Attorney David McDade later disclosed that his office had taped the woman's second conversation, the newspaper reported.

Messages left Thursday with McDade's office seeking further comment were not immediately returned.

Barker, the assistant district attorney, told the paper: "Never once did she ever ask us not to prosecute this case."

The AP is not naming the mother to protect the identity of the girl, who is considered a sex crime victim.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Evans in Washington and Dorie Turner in Atlanta contributed to this report.

___

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Jetsetlemming

06-14-2007, 10:27 PM

Oh, fucking great. Racial assholes. Wonderful.

Roxie

06-14-2007, 10:39 PM

who's being "racial"?

Jetsetlemming

06-14-2007, 10:50 PM

As black leaders called Thursday for the state to drop its effort to keep Wilson in prison and planned an evening rally — Wilson and the girl are black — Gov. Sonny Perdue suggested the controversy is casting Georgia "in an unfair light."
...
In Washington, members of the Congressional Black Caucus criticized Wilson's sentence as "abusive and excessive" and accused Baker of seeking to "perpetuate the injustice."

"This case represents yet another tragic breakdown in the criminal justice system that, unfortunately, fails young African American males too often," the group wrote in a statement. "It is unjust, unfair and un-American."

Exactly the kind of "support" this kid doesn't need: Idiots making this case about race instead of sex laws and ambitious prosecutors.
There's no way anyone could say this guy was being prosecuted and jailed because he's black! The charge that got him in court was RAPE, for christ's sake. He could be bright fucking green for all anyone cares, a rape charge is going to end with him making a court appearance, bottom line. Evidence of other crimes were on the tape of evidence on the rape, so of course he gets charged with them, too. there are 3 other guys charged and convicted of the same crimes as this guy. Making this into a case about race just because Wilson is black is helping absofuckinglutely NOBODY but these assholes who do it so they can insert themselves in a high profile matter and use it to further their bullshit.

Roxie

06-14-2007, 10:55 PM

I'm sorry. I still don't see where they're making it about race..not from this article at least. I do see where they said "This case represents yet another tragic breakdown in the criminal justice system that, unfortunately, fails young African American males too often," the group wrote in a statement. "It is unjust, unfair and un-American."
But that's not "making it about race". If that's what they truly intended to do, I'm sure they would've used much more explicit language.

To ignore race in the case (as in converstaions about the bias in the justice system that this will inevitably start) would be dishonest. It's impossible to extract race from this situation. However, everyone i've heard and read have not made this "about race" but more about this...law.

Although, like I said it's like Marcus Dixon con't or something.
God, I could set my watch by you Jet.

Pierrot le Fou

06-15-2007, 12:21 AM

"This case represents yet another tragic breakdown in the criminal justice system that, unfortunately, fails young African American males too often," the group wrote in a statement. "It is unjust, unfair and un-American."
Yeah, not racial or explicit at all!

Are you for real?

Roxie

06-15-2007, 12:27 AM

So, they mention race and now it's all about race and absolutely nothing else?

stsparky

06-15-2007, 12:33 AM

So, they mention race and now it's all about race and absolutely nothing else?
I think it is about being stupid and young myself as well as victimizing the those traits. There are adults in jail over oral sex - this needs to go to the Supreme Court and get the government out of people's bedrooms.

The idiot is caught on tape - so he has to argue the whole idea of what he was doing is healthy and normal versus I was just temporarily "lucky" ... best of luck with that.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 12:43 AM

well, if you by the ages of when Americans lose their virginity, he's normal. However, it seems (from that ethical article) it also helped it his case too.

Psychochink

06-15-2007, 01:49 AM

So, they mention race and now it's all about race and absolutely nothing else?

The issue overall isn't all about race, but this particular group's only interest in the case is race-related (i.e. they figure they can blow the racism trumpet to further their own agenda).

You're not seriously trying to claim that the Congressional Black Caucus, talking about how "the criminal justice system...fails young African American males" isn't making the issue about race, are you?

You are aware that the consistent and unwavering blinkers that you appear to have on when it comes to anything that can possibly be related to racial (read: black) issues has the effect of undermining your credibility, right?

Roxie

06-15-2007, 02:45 AM

Blinkers?

Perhaps you meant "blinders"?

Well, I am consistently and unwaveringly black, so...

I agree with issue isn't all about race. I've never said that it was. However, I don't think that single statement automatically, all of a sudden makes the case "all about race". Like now it's all about race cause someone mentioned it? I don't think so.

One would be navie to believe that groups like the Congressional Black Caucus (btw, I'd like to know what you think their "agenda" is--pm me) would keep their nose out of a case like this. Moreover, to expect any silence on the part of race in this case is just as bad.

However, I do not believe their state makes this case "all about race". They aren't "making it racial" when it already was to begin with. I mean come on, the guy is black in the U.S.

And it's not as if their comment (barring opinion on what "justice" is, I guess) is baseless. African-American men are incarcerated (sp) at higher rates than anyone else, so of course they're gonna have something to say...but still I don't believe them pointing out the obvious overshadows all the other issues that this case is about--that's what I think of when someone makes something "all about race". Someone who discusses racial aspects as if they're the ONLY (or even most prominent) aspects that matter.

Pierrot le Fou

06-15-2007, 02:53 AM

...

They are making it about race. When they pop into a case that has absolutely nothing to do with race, for the sole reason that the defendant is black, and start making inflammatory statements about the judicial system and race, they are making it about race.

The case is about a person, race does not matter having himself taped fucking an intoxicated underage woman, and then getting a blowjob from an even more underaged girl.

Do you truly think that somehow this would have turned out differently if he were white? Do you think that the color of his skin has contributed at all to the current situation?

Or do you think that, and I know this may be a shock, the fact that he video taped himself committing a crime was what had to do with him being punished?

Provide me evidence that black men videotaped committing a crime are punished at a higher rate than white men videotaped committing a crime, and I'll listen. Otherwise stop being daft.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 03:08 AM

lol, I am not the one being daft.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? You seem to often have this problem. I said, quite clearly and I quote
I agree with issue isn't all about race. I've never said that it was
Also, 16 is the AoC in Ga. The 17 yr old was not underaged.

Psychochink

06-15-2007, 03:42 AM

Well, I am consistently and unwaveringly black, so...

You identify strongly with your ethnic heritage. Good for you, more power to you. But just because you do, doesn't mean that you have to turn every issue that involves a black person into some kind of 'fight for equality'. That kind of attitude takes the focus away from the real issues and actually undermines more credible arguments.

Hell, notice how this particular discussion has stopped being about the merits of his case, and about special interest groups using it for their own agenda?

Now, you may not be doing it is this case, but the CBC is (and you are chiming in to defend them). Forget the PMs, I believe their agenda is to "create, identify, analyze and disseminate policy-oriented information critical to advancing African Americans and people of African descent towards equity in economics, health and education."

That is a worthy and noble cause. However, by seizing the opportunity to get their message out about the alleged mistreatment of African-Americans by the U.S. legal system in a case where ethnicity has nothing to do with what has occurred, doesn’t do that cause (nor this man) any favours.

that's what I think of when someone makes something "all about race". Someone who discusses racial aspects as if they're the ONLY (or even most prominent) aspects that matter.

So, in other words, precisely what the CBC does.

The reason that jetsetlemming is pissed off about them “using it to further their bullshit” is precisely because we would apparently be “naïve” to expect them to keep their noses out of it.

Special interest groups such as the CBC would do a lot more good if they didn’t consistently have to have their two cents in every goddamned thing that they think they might get some mileage out of.

I’m also a strong believer in equality and when groups like this keep taking actions that paint them as fanatics, then they cease to have as much impact when they actually do have a point.

Frankly, I would have thought that as somebody who thinks that equality is something worth pursuing herself, you’d feel the same way.

Have you ever worked in politics/had much experience with politicians? Let me tell you, when a political advisor can predict almost word for word what an interest group is going to say every single time they want a meeting, you stop listening, parrot back what they want to hear and move on to more important things. More moderate approaches are a lot more successful in actually getting things done.

Also, while you’re bagging PLF for not reading your post, you seem to be doing some selective reading yourself. Jetsetlemming, PLF and I have all been stating that they (not you – although you have been defending them) are making the issue all about race, which is what we have the problem with.

Do you really have that much trouble admitting that you're biased? If I remember correctly, you were ready to convene a lynch mob for the Duke lacrosse team as well - but I didn't notice much in the way of "I was wrong" posts after all the facts came out.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 04:36 AM

You identify strongly with your ethnic heritage. Good for you, more power to you. But just because you do, doesn't mean that you have to turn every issue that involves a black person into some kind of 'fight for equality'. That kind of attitude takes the focus away from the real issues and actually undermines more credible arguments. I didn't.

Now, you may not be doing it is this case, but the CBC is (and you are chiming in to defend them). Perhaps I was not as clear as I could've been. I'm not defending them. I don't know anything about them and I don't pretend to. What I am saying is that their comments do not make the entire case suddenly all about race.

I resent the assesment that their comment, which mentions the race of the convicted, some how transforms the case to simply a racial issue. I do not think their comment does so. While they make seek to do so (don't know), I do not think that comment does so and I don't want it to do so *pout*

However, I don't think you can take race completely out of the equation.
Do I think it's the most important part? Is race what's got most people upset. Nah, I don't think so.
I’m also a strong believer in equality and when groups like this keep taking actions that paint them as fanatics, then they cease to have as much impact when they actually do have a point. The CBC is a fanatic organization?

I'm really asking, I don't know.

That statement in the article doesn't seem fanatic to me, however, I don't know anything about the CBC. Maybe it's one of their more tame statements?

Do you really have that much trouble admitting that you're biased? If I remember correctly, you were ready to convene a lynch mob for the Duke lacrosse team as well - but I didn't notice much in the way of "I was wrong" posts after all the facts came out.You don't remember correctly.

Pierrot le Fou

06-15-2007, 05:49 AM

However, I don't think you can take race completely out of the equation.
Provide me evidence that black men videotaped committing a crime are punished at a higher rate than white men videotaped committing a crime, and I'll listen. Otherwise stop being daft.
Show me ANY evidence that race was a factor in this.

Stop beating around the bush.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 06:04 AM

I don't know what you're getting at.

What I mean is he is black man in the U.S. justice system and the stats regarding black men in the U.S. justice system speak for themselves. However, I do not believe his race was a huge factor in anything that happened here.

Pierrot le Fou

06-15-2007, 07:41 AM

More men get arrested than women.

Therefore the system must be biased against men.

If a man gets arrested for prostitution because he solicited a police officer, we should say that it's indicative of the sexist nature of the justice system I suppose.

Or maybe it's that he solicited a police officer, and even if systematically more men are arrested for crimes than women, prositution is one crime where that does NOT hold true.

In other words, gender had nothing to do with it.

You're applying the same damned logic in this case.

Because more black people are arrested for assault or a slew of other crimes, it means that the system is biased in a case where the defendant was taped committing a crime? No. It means he committed a crime, had no grounds to deny it, and was found guilty. His race was irrelevant, just as the gender in the prostitution hypothetical.

Get off your high horse and return to reality little princess.

Beowulf

06-15-2007, 08:15 AM

This argument is hilariously pointless. Roxie clearly didn't want to make this about his race, then everyone dogpiled her saying that it's all about race because of the comments made by a black rights group...
What the hell else are they gonna say about it?

Roxie

06-15-2007, 02:26 PM

In other words, gender had nothing to do with it.
That wouldn't be gender, that would be sex.

You're applying the same damned logic in this case.
No, I'm not.

In fact, it's evident you don't get what I'm saying at all. And enjoy just jumping to false conclusions so you can "prove a point" about me that is absolutely wrong.

What I'm saying is African-American males face very strong bias in the justice system. Wilson is an African-American male, so it is possible he faced/faces some bias. However, I do not believe that bias plays a strong role in the case at all. I don't know if I can say it any more plainly.

Jetsetlemming

06-15-2007, 03:43 PM

Roxie didn't make this case about race (though I was suspicious considering she linked in the first post to a superficially similar case where a black guy was charged with a similar crime and it was accused of being racism....), but the Black Caucus and the other people quoted in that article specifically talking about how the justice system fails "African american men" ARE. They are taking advantage of Wilson's situation for the benefit of their politics, and that's wrong, bottom line. Sure, there's an argument to be had in race and law. However, applying that same argument to EVERY SINGLE black guy who gets tried and convicted? Because the statistics claim that there's judicial bias against black defendants ALL black defendants are victims? That's a pretty fucking huge example of intellectual dishonesty. Wilson's case has nothing to do with race, and these people who think of themselves as the "leaders of the black community", speaking up about his case using racial topics, as if he's being persecuted for his skin color, are doing him no favors whatsoever.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 03:54 PM

Ah, now I understand what you're saying.

stsparky

06-15-2007, 03:59 PM

Teen-Sex Case to Be Heard by Ga. Court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402515.html?nav=rss_print/asection)
Associated Press Friday, June 15, 2007

ATLANTA, June 14 -- Georgia's Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to hear the state's arguments for keeping in prison a man who had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The state's attorney general later said the prisoner's release could lead to hundreds of incarcerated child molesters looking for a way out.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Thurbert+Baker?tid=informline) has been criticized for appealing a state judge's decision to void Genarlow Wilson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Genarlow+Wilson?tid=informline)'s 10-year sentence. He said at a news conference that he has no choice under the law, and that the state Superior Court had no authority to reduce or modify the trial court's sentence.

Baker called the sentence "harsh" but added, "It looms much larger than just this Genarlow Wilson case, and we have to keep that in mind."

The court said it will hear the case in October.

Wilson, now 21, has served more than 28 months in prison. A jury convicted him in 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with the girl during a 2003 party. Although the sex was consensual, it was illegal under Georgia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Georgia?tid=informline) law.

Wilson's lawyer will seek to get his client released on bond at a hearing on July 5. Baker said he will not oppose bond while the appeal moves forward.

At a rally and prayer vigil Thursday night that drew 150 protesters at the state Capitol in Atlanta (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Atlanta?tid=informline), the Rev. Joseph Lowery, president emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said he and others question Baker's assertion that releasing Wilson would open the floodgates for other appeals.

"If there are 1,300 people in jail under the same circumstances as Genarlow Wilson, well, they ought to get out," he said, adding that most of those inmates were probably convicted of more serious crimes and would not be freed.

====
Maybe there's hope, I feel less sorry for idiots who document their antics on video. I do know some people have been sent to jail for oral sex after being reported on by their children.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 04:49 PM

Wow, I literally just heard this on the news.

Octfuckingtober, geezus

Jetsetlemming

06-15-2007, 05:30 PM

Wow, I literally just heard this on the news.

Octfuckingtober, geezus
He's already spent 2 years of the sentence in jail. Another season is short compared to that.
I'm wondering what'll happen to the three other guys everyone is ignoring that are in jail for the same shit as Wilson. I hope they aren't forgotten if Wilson is pardoned...

Roxie

06-15-2007, 06:13 PM

Sure, a few months is shorter than 2 years, but to be told (earlier this week) that he was going to be released and then have the rescinded can't feel good.

what other three guys in jail? Of the peopl who were on the video tape/at the party, the only that is in jail is Wilson.

Trump

06-15-2007, 09:11 PM

Sure, a few months is shorter than 2 years, but to be told (earlier this week) that he was going to be released and then have the rescinded can't feel good.

No, however, that is life.

Roxie

06-15-2007, 09:12 PM

uh...no shit?

Kaji

06-16-2007, 05:23 AM

PopCulturePooka

06-16-2007, 06:22 AM

It has been pointed out that Thurbert Baker is black right?

Roxie

06-16-2007, 03:00 PM

Yes. We saw the picture you pasted.

Roxie

06-16-2007, 03:05 PM

So the ones who took plea deals for 5 years are out on parole now or something?The other young males involved (including one charged for the same oral sex acts as Wilson) accepted plea bargains with the possibility of parole; they are required to register as convicted sex offenders.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson#_note-BlackAmerica) Wilson had been offered, and rejected, a plea bargain for a five year sentence with the possibility of parole before the trial. After the jury had returned the guilty verdict, the prosecutor offered the same 5-year plea bargain again, and Wilson refused again. Another young man involved in the case had accepted a similar 5-year plea bargain and was paroled after two years.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson#_note-ESPN)
from the wiki link in the first post.

Jetsetlemming

06-16-2007, 04:07 PM

So one of them has been paroled and the others are still in jail for two more years. The ones out on the street are still branded as sex offenders legally for life, however. Just because they're out of jail doesn't mean they're off the hook.

Roxie

06-16-2007, 04:29 PM

I'm confused, what others are in jail? Where did you read that?

Four of the six decided to accept a plea bargain, avoiding mandatory 10-year sentences for the aggravated child molestation, but forever being labeled sex offenders, despite the fact that the girl who performed oral sex had decided not to press charges. (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/wilson0111)

Jetsetlemming

06-16-2007, 04:51 PM

a plea bargain for a five year sentence with the possibility of parole before the trial.
Only one person is mentioned being paroled. Therefore, presumably all the others besides Wilson are in jail on five year sentences, with Wilson being on 10 year one.

Roxie

06-17-2007, 05:32 PM

NPR's done alot of segements on this case. If you're at all interested I highly advise you listen to them all.

http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=genarlow

Roxie

06-21-2007, 05:34 PM

from ajc.com
READERS WRITE: The Genarlow Wilson case

By Johney R. Friar, Jack Miller, Nancy Yoder, John Chandler, Legrande Blount, Howard Michael Henderson, Daniel Lowry, Mike Schinkel
For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/20/07

The defense attorney also is at fault

Although I understand the purpose of the almost daily editorials by the AJC decrying the plight of Genarlow Wilson and the demands that he be freed, I feel that you are leaving out another villain.

If state Attorney General Thurbert Baker is correct in his assertion that Wilson's attorney turned down an agreement that would free Wilson —- which would essentially accomplish what the AJC is demanding —- then why would Wilson's attorney not also be included in the list of those obstructing his freedom?

JOHNEY R. FRIAR, Auburn

Attorney general should be ashamed

The Genarlow Wilson case is a disgrace. Yes, the letter of the now-repealed law may indeed call for this once-promising young man's continued jailing, but the fact that his case has brought the repeal of a very bad law should enter the legal thinking, especially of state Attorney General Thurbert Baker.

The judge who ordered Wilson freed understands justice and fairness far better than Baker does. Consensual sex between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old is not something rare or atrocious. That Baker wants to continue to punish Wilson for what is now in Georgia a misdemeanor, and was for Wilson an act of foolish, poor judgment, is a worse crime than the offense itself.

JACK MILLER, Atlanta

Video turns sympathy into a sick feeling

I was sympathetic to Genarlow Wilson until I saw the video that he and the other sex offenders made of what happened that evening. I was appalled and sickened.

I am also appalled and sickened that the leader of the Ebenezer Baptist Church is calling for the exoneration of this sex offender. Instead of standing in the pulpit condoning this kind of sexual behavior among young people, why is he (and all black clergy and the NAACP) not taking a firm stand against the degenerated morals that so many of the young people in their congregations and communities are displaying?

Perhaps if more time and effort were spent with all young people (black and white) on how to be more responsible as citizens and human beings, our prisons would not be so overcrowded and we would not be hearing news about numerous killings daily.

NANCY YODER, Stockbridge

Ponder the reverse

If the girl had been 17 and Genarlow Wilson 15, would she be in prison? Probably not. If she were, it would still be an injustice.

JOHN CHANDLER, Macon

Equality shouldn't be applied equally

The AJC editorial board has come out in support of the convicted criminal who molested a young girl, but its rationale is flaky at best.

Is the law wrong? Well, no; it is appropriate that adults (as defined in the penal code) not engage children (as defined in the penal code) in sex.

Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Well, no; it never has been.

It appears the only rationale the AJC stands on is, "We don't want the law to apply to some people." Ah, now to that thought process I have heard recently in regard to I. Lewis "Scooter" "lie to the grand jury" Libby from prominent judicial scholars: Some are just more equal than others.

LeGRANDE BLOUNT, Woodstock

Easy to be tripped by technicalities

I want justice for Genarlow Wilson also, but I want it according to the laws of the state of Georgia. I don't want him released and placed back in jail on a technicality. So, I agree with the state attorney general in this case.

I think that it will all be worked out and the young man will ultimately be free, but we should make sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted to avoid any technicalities.

We all know that justice is not totally blind, but the good will of mankind will prevail in the end.

HOWARD MICHAEL HENDERSON, Chamblee

Responses to "It's Wilson's fault he's in jail," @issue, June 15

Point taken; now do right thing

Ken Wynne's essay on the opinion page, as well as the previous essay by state Attorney General Thurbert Baker and articles by Genarlow Wilson's attorneys and supporters only show one thing: This has become a contest between lawyers. Forgotten has been Genarlow Wilson, the person most affected by it all!

There is no question that the Douglas County District Attorney and Baker are right about the state law at the time Wilson was convicted. However, there is a bigger issue.

After Wilson's conviction, the state Legislature, in its wisdom, changed the law because the old law was unjust, saying it was never meant to be applied to cases like Wilson's. Wilson and the other defendants were caught in a time warp through no fault of their own. The easy way out would have been for Wilson to plead guilty as the other defendants did. But Wilson chose to take on the system.

What all the defendants were guilty of was being a teenager in today's world. Even the mother of the young lady involved in the incident admitted as much.

Attorney General Baker, you have made your point. Now why not do the right thing for this young man?

DANIEL LOWRY, Fairburn

Lawyers not focused on justice

I really want to thank Ken Wynne, district attorney of the Alcovy Judicial Circuit and president-elect of the District Attorneys Association of Georgia, for his opinion essay, which helped me better understand the case against Genarlow Wilson.

Prior to Wynne's article, I assumed state Attorney General Thurbert Baker must have been power mad, with a vendetta against young Genarlow Wilson. Now I know better.

I now know that it was, instead, the result of an entire legal establishment more concerned with the letter of the law than its spirit. Now I know that the district attorneys are far more concerned with abstract legal definitions than with ensuring justice. And now I know that the institutions of law in Georgia are not at all concerned with fairness; nor are they concerned with ensuring that punishments fit the reality of the crime, but are instead concerned with distinctions only lawyers can appreciate.

So thank you Mr. Wynne for supporting the attorney general, and in doing so stripping from me and most other citizens any ability whatsoever to respect Georgia's judical system moving forward.

MIKE SCHINKEL, Atlanta

Kaji

06-21-2007, 06:22 PM

The Constitution explicitly provides protection against ex post facto legislation, nominally so that people can't be tried for things that were legal when they did them. However, the letter of that likely prohibits the application of new laws to previous cases unless explicitly written to do so (it's been a while, but it's something worth looking up).

Love it or hate it, the system is doing its job here. If he didn't want to have to deal with this shit he shouldn't have had a drunken underage sex party on tape.

SlickWilly440

06-21-2007, 06:26 PM

^
What if one gets a long jail time sentence for a crime, but then the law is lifted making what he did not a crime...would he still have to server his sentence?

Kaji

06-21-2007, 06:33 PM

It was still a crime when he did it, so logically speaking, yes.

Pierrot le Fou

06-22-2007, 12:03 AM

Let's say there's a draft. Let's say I refuse to serve. Let's say the war ends. Let's say the draft disappears. Should I be freed of all responsibility for shirking my responsibility because it's no longer my legal responsibility?

The answer is a resounding no.

Roxie

06-22-2007, 04:00 AM

Not quite the same.

Pierrot le Fou

06-22-2007, 04:11 AM

Exactly the same. Precedent would be set, and there's no reason that I couldn't use it in support of having my conviction overturned.

Roxie

06-22-2007, 04:18 AM

Pierrot le Fou

06-22-2007, 04:26 AM

I can't agree.

This law was not very well known at all. And any teenager of age wouldn't try to check the child molestation laws.

Having grown up in the same state, I can tell you it was not discussed. Only the age of consent with regards to statutory rape which is not relevant in this case.
It boggles the mind.

If a law is passed, and I break that law, then the law is changed, and the judicial system says, "Well then, freedom for you!" then ANY time a law is changed, people previously convicted for that crime have a right to appeal that decision. You do see the problem with this, right?

It's NOT about this law being unknown (ignorance is no excuse), and it's not about it being 'fair' for him to still be in jail.

This is a case study for when clemency should be used -- not judicial review. A judge making a dumb decision can have FAR more reprecussions than a few years of one man's time. The question is, why hasn't he been granted clemency yet?

Roxie

06-22-2007, 04:27 AM

There is a bond hearing later this month.

Kaji

06-22-2007, 04:38 AM

Even if you're arguing that he didn't know sex acts with a 15-year-old were illegal in GA at the time he did them, it doesn't change the fact that he did other stuff that rates as criminal, too (child porn (since he taped it all) and underage drinking). This one just happens to overshadow the other charges due to the nature of it is all.

Roxie

06-22-2007, 04:41 AM

can he be charged with child pornography since he is not of legal age himself?
Edit: and it probably wasn't considered b/c it wasn't statutory rape.

geesehoward4life

06-22-2007, 05:17 PM

Or not, I actually find this case bizarre, yet funny. Though my amusement is nothing more than an ironic laugh at some of the people from my younger days who thought I was wayyyyy too strict as a high school kid and as a college kid.

#1) How did this mess happen? Because nobody seemed to have told Gernarlow where he was actually at and what he was doing shouldn't be done cavalier. He was a jock with a good GPA, but he was doing the same kind of dumb-jock crap that dim-witted jocks do! He was living off of his popularity and clearly he was being absolutely careless with the company he was keeping. That said, he was/is, in the deep South, knockin off little White girls without a care about the history of his people and the bizarre reactions of some Whites to it, especially Southern Whites!

So I first fault his parents the same way I fault many Black parents for somehow buying the PC-Era crap that everything is equal and lets move on. The system doesn't even work for White people! So your odds decrease geometrically as you factor in Race, education, gender, status, ad nauseum... if that's even a word! :karate:

Mind you, Hot Lanta is the same place that had that Black man go ape-shit about two years ago after he thought his successful status and big money was gonna save him from gettin railroaded by the system when his White woman claimed he'd raped her. I also would have thought that Blacks would be more interested in finding out what OTHER weird ass laws were still on the books when the Black Florida voters were conveniently shifted to the felony roles in Florida, thus allowing Dictator for Life El Presidente Taejo Emperor Bush to rish to power! :eyepop:

I was sadly mistaken :bang: .

I've known about this case and the biggest problem is the same hurdle I used to encounter as a Bill Collector when doing my job! Federal laws versus State laws! Most people throughout this country believe that 18 is the legal age of becoming an adult and they erroneously tie age of consent to it as well :frypan: . However, state laws hold sway in these matters and various states have various age of consent laws. This case is a silent indication of how little we actually teach our children about the differences between the Federal government and national laws, and the individual states and their laws! I was called a nuisance as a high schooler for bringing this kinda thing up :duh: . Last thing you need is smart ass high school kids debating the way that high school education is done! :frypan:

Gernarlow thought that because he was under 18 he was still a minor. A huge mistake, but I can see how it could be made.
:whoops:
HOWEVER...
#2) The 17 year old high school groupie that they ran a train on in the video? :bored: Dude... wtf:gloomy: that was just dumb... and scummy... she's all f'd up, I can't relate to "that kind of sex", so that alone shows that he was really not too keen on making good judgments. I also feel the need to point out that if we hold these boys to the letter and absolve the girls, then we're one step away from Japan if not behind them. They had no business sleeping with either of them, regardless of if they're White or not, but its the girls behavior that concerns me. The 17 year old groupie got sloshed to the point of uhhh. She then gets screwed senseless, wakes up eventually and then doesn't know exactly how many boys did she do, did they do her, F did they do? She has no clue and then panics because she knows she's gonna get in big time trouble with her father!

The video is bad but was mysteriously enough for them to NOT get convicted, which is AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS TO ME! :blank: Here you have a girl who is clearly incapacitated and if you're gonna nail them to the wall, this should be the reason why! So they let that slide! I would hope that someone somewhere has raked her over the coals for foolishly going out and getting so damn drunk that she knows that she did, something happened, but she can't recall anything! Then her reasoning of being worried about her father? I'd have to check to make sure, but from my understanding, she only came forward because she was worried her dad would find out that she was not only an irresponsible drinker, not like she can legally DRINK! But she's also the slut for the football team and they happen to be all Negroes! Hmmm, who needs a suicide bomber with that kind of explosive mix! Plus you're in the South! :karate:

If you go the full card about charges, then she has to be charged with her crimes as well, but it is the Jenna Jameson in training, the 15 year old, that disturbs me! She knows about what just happened with the 17 year old but then she wants to dish out BJ's for dessert! :eyepop: Uhhh, okay, that is CREEPY! :box: This whole thing just reeks of "Where did these kids? Can the wolves that raised these kids please report to Atlanta! PLEASE COME GET YOUR CUBS!"

The fact that this girl goes after them is disturbing to me and even more disturbing is, she gets caught on tape! Now I know some of you will try to say they're 17, they're not minors, blah, blah ARGH! But I have found over the last six or seven years a REALLY BAD TREND of young high school girls going around and trying hard as hell to push up on MEN! I've brought this to the attention of a few people here in Philadelphia and you'd think I mentioned the Anti-christs real name AND where he's hiding out at RIGHT NOW! Public officials don't seem to want to acknowledge that little Suzy, Becky, Belinda and Shaqueeta are trying to score with ACTUAL MEN! :frypan:

So to see Gernarlow who should've hung on the 17 year old great train ride! To see him get strung up because of the 15 year old AND the law has the unique code about oral sex, etc! Meanwhile, the 15 year old AND HER MOTHER! Testify that it was consentual, don't lock him up!? While her daughter faces definite public scrutiny, humiliation, what have you. But she faces no actual punishment for soliciting an adult and clearly looking to do so. This problem of not acknowledging that the 15 year old needs some sort of SOMETHING! Is what concerns me the most. We have an ever growing population of juvenille delinquent girls where even my mother went to the school board and said that she was flat out frightened after waiting to pick-up my nieces, by the language and behavior of too many of the girls at the school.

If we want to keep the men/boys in line, that's fine, well and good. But I don't think that people are paying attention to the fact that women/girls in America have changed dramatically and in some ways, not for the better. I think we need to stop and take a good look and at least start talking about the changing of the times and how girls/women in America are changing too. Otherwise, new issues will crop up on us that involve women/girls, like the silently soaring rate of young girls getting sent to juvi for assault.

As for Genarlow... believe it or not, he needs to stay right where he is. :frypan: 15 is still 15 dude, sorry OJ Jr, but you're stuck.

Roxie

06-22-2007, 05:23 PM

First of all, none of the girls where white. They're all black.

geesehoward4life

06-22-2007, 05:29 PM

Hate to tell you, but everyone north of the Mason-Dixon that I've come across or has talked about the case has been told they were White. :eyepop:

Roxie

06-22-2007, 05:31 PM

Well, they've been misled.
The girls were black.

OliveButtercup

06-22-2007, 05:33 PM

Forget the page long posts. It all boils down to the fact that some starstruck girl
got a chance to party with some star athletes and jumped on it. Literally. All the guys ran trains on the girl(s) and filmed it. Shaquisha told Daquisha told Chaquann's mom that her daughter got railed buy some jocks...ON VIDEO. What does the 'vic' do? she says she was raped. Here comes exhibit A, the tape showing the vic clearly consenting in the tryst. So anyone with half a brain knows it's not rape. So, now it's time to appeal...but guess what? Georgia's laws are outdated and arguably unreasonable hence Mr. Wilson's plight. Hope the sex was worth it.:bang:

geesehoward4life

06-22-2007, 05:43 PM

I just made some phone calls and THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT! A lotta people are running around now and trying to figure out how the hell the WHITE PART got into it! :frypan:

A friend just called back and said it probably got twisted up with the OTHER CASE of the Black high school boy adopted by White parents that got railroaded for actually having consentual sex with a White teenage schoolmate who changed her story to rape when her father found out that she'd slept with the Black boy.
:duh:
Sorry for the screw up.

Oliver Buttercup; I definitely agree, post was long, but necessary, even with imaginary White victims of injustice! :cop: Bottom line still is that the 15 year old was 15. Even as another minor, it doesn't make sense to me to even roll like that. When I was their age, I had far more important problems than worrying about sex!

Roxie

06-22-2007, 05:50 PM

The case you're thinking of is the Marcus Dixon case, which I linked to in the first post.

Also, I think that article has already been posted here.

geesehoward4life

06-22-2007, 05:52 PM

:blank:
Okay there comes a point when you have to take a step back and realize that your f'n up. I'm at that point!
LATER!

Roxie

06-26-2007, 02:59 AM

Group offers $1 million for Genarlow Wilson's bond

By JEREMY REDMON
Published on: 06/25/07
A New York City investment fund manager and 10 other businesspeople are offering to put up $1 million in bond money to release Genarlow Wilson from prison pending the appeal in his child molestation case, Wilson's attorney announced this afternoon.

Whitney Tilson, the founder of T2 Partners and the Tilson Mutual Funds, and the 10 other unnamed contributors are ready to wire the money on Wilson's behalf on 24 hours notice, said Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein.

"The goal of this bond is to help a young man in Georgia get his life back," Tilson, also a founding member of Teach for America, said in a prepared statement Bernstein's office distributed today.

Tilson is out of the country today and could not be immediately reached for comment. But an aide close to him confirmed his commitment to Wilson.

Bernstein is trying to free Wilson pending an appeal in his case that is now before the Georgia Supreme Court. Wilson was sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The age of consent in Georgia is 16.

A bond hearing has been set for July 5. At that hearing, Douglas County Superior Court Judge David T. Emerson will consider whether Wilson should be granted bond based on several criteria, including his risk of fleeing and his ties to the community.

Wilson's attorneys say that hearing would not be necessary if Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, whose office originally prosecuted Wilson, would agree to bond for Wilson.

"Why wait for July 5," Bernstein wrote McDade today.

"Genarlow has no prior offenses, made all previous court appearances, and is not at risk of flight since he has significant ties to the community. His case deserves a signature only bond or a reasonable bond in the amount of $25,000."

McDade did not immediately respond to a request for comment today. He has previously said that he was undecided about whether he would support or oppose bond for Wilson.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Thurbert Baker is appealing a decision in Wilson's case to the Georgia Supreme Court. In his appeal, Baker says a Monroe County Superior Court judge overstepped his authority by reducing Wilson's felony conviction to a misdemeanor and ordering him freed from prison. Baker, however, has said he does not oppose bond for Wilson pending the appeal.

Wilson's case stems from a 2003 New Year's Eve party at a Douglasville hotel. He was originally charged with raping a 17-year-old at the party, but he was acquitted. He was ultimately found guilty of aggravated child molestation involving the 15-year-old girl, a felony that carried a minimum 10-year prison sentence under the law at the time. The age of consent in Georgia is 16. A friend captured their party on a videotape that became key evidence in the case.

Roxie

06-29-2007, 07:29 PM

Hearing canceled; ruling could keep him in jail for months

By JEREMY REDMON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/27/07
A Douglas County judge ruled Wednesday Genarlow Wilson is not eligible for bond in his child molestation case, a development that could keep Wilson behind bars for at least several more months pending an appeal.

Superior Court Judge David Emerson issued an order canceling a July 5 bond hearing for Wilson. He cited a state law that prohibits appeal bonds for people convicted of Wilson's crime -- aggravated child molestation -- and who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison. Wilson is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.

"As the court has no authority to grant an appeal bond in this case, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's eligibility for a bond," Emerson wrote in his three-page order. "The motion for bond is dismissed. The hearing scheduled for July 5, 2007, is therefore cancelled."

Civil rights officials reacted angrily to Emerson's ruling.

"The NAACP is convinced that justice has taken a summer vacation in Georgia," said Dr. Francys Johnson, the organization's Southeast Regional Director.

Johnson called the order "the latest of series of rulings that strains common sense and leave the overwhelming impression that the system is working overtime to keep Genarlow Wilson behind bars."

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a veteran civil rights activist and former Southern Christian Leadership Conference president, said he suspects racism and classism are at play in Wilson's case.

"I suspect it transcends race," he said at an impromptu news conference beside the tomb of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "I suspect a Latino, a poor white as well as a black probably get the same treatment.

"I doubt that one of the affluent Caucasians of Douglas County would get that kind of treatment," said Lowery.

All the defendants and victims in the case as well as state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, however, are black. And of the 1,322 men and women who are in prison for aggravated child molestation charges, 967 are white, 344 are black and the rest are of other races.

Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation for receiving oral sex from the 15-year-old girl at a 2003 New Year's Eve party. The age of consent in Georgia is 16. The law at the time required a minimum 10-year prison sentence for the crime.

The Legislature, however, changed the law last year to make the same offense a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison. Wilson, now 21, has served more than two years of his sentence.

This month, a Monroe County Superior Court judge threw out Wilson's prison sentence and reduced his conviction to a misdemeanor, calling his case a "grave miscarriage of justice." In making his ruling, the judge granted an appeal from Wilson's attorneys, who argued his prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution.

Baker has appealed the Monroe County judge's decision to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing the judge overstepped his authority.

Baker filed a request for an expedited review by the court, but the court rejected his request last week. The earliest date the case could come before the court is October. And it could take until April of next year to be decided.

Judge Emerson had scheduled the July 5 hearing to decide whether Wilson should be freed on bond pending the appeal. Douglas County District Attorney David McDade and Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein, did not immediately respond to telephone calls for comment on Wednesday. Baker's office did not have an immediate comment.

However, McDade has previously argued Wilson is not eligible for bond since his crime is one of Georgia's so-called seven deadly sins. He also has said Bernstein was being "totally disingenuous" Monday when she held a news conference and called on him to consent to a bond for Wilson.

"The law is clear that he is not eligible for an appeal bond," McDade, whose office originally prosecuted Wilson, said Monday. "I don't know if Ms. Bernstein knows the law or not. I know the judge knows. This is a continuing saga in her three-ring circus.

"I don't try cases in the media," he said. "It is not where you're supposed to try your cases."

Bernstein denied McDade's assertions Monday, insisting that state law does allow for bond in Wilson's situation.

"He is looking at the wrong statute," Bernstein said Monday. "Georgia law allows bond for habeas cases. McDade does not know what he is talking about."

Staff Writer Steve Visser contributed to this report.

Roxie

06-29-2007, 07:29 PM

Teen sex case shows that focusing on the letter of the law doesn't always spell justice

By Radley Balko
Published June 24, 2007

Earlier this month, a Georgia judge threw out the 10-year prison sentence of 21-year-old Genarlow Wilson. Wilson had been convicted of molestation for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party. He was 17 at the time. Wilson was convicted under a Georgia statute (since revised) that, strangely, would have resulted in only a misdemeanor charge had Wilson and the girl engaged in vaginal sex. The sentence generated outrage across the country, including from such unconventional sources as ESPN magazine (Wilson was a high school athlete) and former President Jimmy Carter.

But one person was more outraged by the revocation of Wilson's sentence than by the sentence itself. He is Georgia Atty. Gen. Thurbert Baker. And his opinion, unfortunately, is one of the few that really matter.

E-mail this story

Printable format

Search archives

RSS

Writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Baker explained that he would appeal the judge's decision, not because he thought Wilson's sentence was just but because the girl was under the age of consent of 16, and, "It is my responsibility to follow the laws of Georgia as they are written, not how some may wish they were written."

In other words, as the Charles Dickens character Mr. Bumble famously proclaimed in "Oliver Twist," "the law is a ass." And it's Thurbert Baker's job to slavishly follow that ass wherever it may lead.

That, unfortunately, is an increasingly common sentiment among many prosecutors—"I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." It's also not entirely honest.

Prosecutors have enormous discretion in when and how and against whom they bring charges. They can overcharge and pressure the defendant to plea bargain. They can undercharge if they feel there are mitigating circumstances associated with the crime. Or they can determine that despite the fact that a crime has been committed, in the interest of justice, charges ought not be brought at all.

What's more, every prosecutor's office battles with limited resources. A prosecutor can't possibly enforce each law against each person who breaks it. So prosecutors set priorities. And in choosing which laws they will enforce vigorously and which laws they will let slide, they make public policy.

It's entirely appropriate, then, for citizens to question those policies.

So why were the charges against Wilson brought in the first place? Why would Wilson's prosecutors choose to pursue a charge of "aggravated child molestation"—a law clearly aimed at pedophiles—against a teenage boy who had consensual oral sex with a teenage girl? And why would Georgia's attorney general continue to expend taxpayer resources to ensure that Wilson stays in prison?

Part of the answer may lie in the crime's sexual nature. Whether because of latent Puritanism, moral panic or the media's infatuation with them, prosecutors seem particularly aggressive in prosecuting sex crimes. This, of course, is what we want when talking about actual sexual predators. But that clearly is not the case here. And there has been a rash of stories of late about similar overreaches.

In one of the more egregious examples, in February, the tech news site CNET reported a case in Florida in which a 16-year-old girl and 17-year-old boy were prosecuted for producing and distributing photographs depicting the sexual exploitation of a child. The two had photographed themselves having sex. The distribution charge came when the two e-mailed the photos from the girl's computer to the boy's. Inexplicably, a state appeals court upheld the conviction.

From silly anti-sodomy laws, to prostitution stings, to prosecutions of consenting minors, sex seems particularly adept at clouding a prosecutor's judgment.

More generally, after 40 years of "get tough on crime" rhetoric, many prosecutors and politicians have unfortunately come to measure success in our criminal justice system by the number of people they put in jail. Criminal laws—particularly those pertaining to drug and sex crimes—are increasingly written with extraordinary breadth and reach. Police officers typically are rewarded for arrests, not for preventing crimes. Prosecutors tend to be promoted or re-elected based on their ability to win convictions, not their fairness or sense of justice. Appeals courts, meanwhile, generally focus on constitutional and procedural issues. Only in extreme cases will an appellate court review the appropriateness of a verdict.

From the writing of laws to their enforcement and prosecution, our system has evolved to the point where justice, mercy and fairness often go overlooked. It's no surprise that the U.S. leads the world in its rate of incarceration, and by a wide margin.

Polls show that most Americans think our criminal justice system usually gets things right. Yet we're finding through the use of DNA evidence just how alarmingly often it doesn't. Sometimes the culprit is incompetence. Sometimes it's malfeasance or corruption among forensics experts, police officers, DNA lab technicians and other criminal justice gatekeepers.

But as the Wilson case shows, even when there is no corruption, no lying and no shortcuts taken—even when everything is done by the book—you can still get a result that's far from just.

Traditionally, that is why we grant executives the power to issue pardons and clemency. It's why the Founders gave those powers to the president. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 74, "The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

Unfortunately, we've drifted from that notion. Today, governors (and the president), loath to appear soft on crime, tend to be stingy with their pardon power, using it more for political patronage or to bestow mercy and forgiveness on repentant lawbreakers than to seek out and correct real injustices. (Georgia's pardons are granted by an appointed pardons board, not the governor.)

That makes it essential that prosecutors choose cases in which there is a clear demonstration of guilt, where the crime caused real harm to another person and where the potential punishment is proportional to the crime. The ability to secure a conviction isn't enough.

In the Genarlow Wilson case, there was no question of the teen's guilt. Yet the jury's forewoman shed tears as she read the verdict. Other jurors expressed regret after the trial, outraged that they weren't told their verdict would result in a 10-year sentence. The point here is that the prosecutors should have shown the good judgment never to have brought the molestation charge in the first place.

Prosecutors need to be more than inveterate slaves to the (often poorly written) law. And more broadly, we need to stop gauging our criminal justice system's effectiveness by how many people it puts in jail. We need to measure it by how well it metes out justice

Roxie

07-10-2007, 07:11 PM

By CARLOS CAMPOS
The Atlanta Journal-Consitution

Published on: 07/10/07

A state senator who has railed against the 10-year prison sentence given a Douglas County 17-year-old for having sex with a 15-year old has asked the state attorney general for an investigation into the distribution of a tape depicting the act.

State Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) said it is "an absolute, utter disgrace" that a videotape of the raunchy party in a Douglasville hotel room that led to the conviction of Genarlow Wilson on aggravated child molestation charges has been shown to both reporters and legislators. He characterized the videotape as child pornography.

Wilson, 17 at the time, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving oral sex from the 15-year-old girl. Many reporters, and some legislators, have viewed the videotape that was taken by one of the party-goers showing the girl engaging in oral sex with Wilson.

Even if the tape was disclosable under the state's Open Records Act, the identity of the 15-year-old should've been masked, according to Jones.

A letter that Jones delivered to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker asks the state's top legal officer to issue an opinion on Douglas County District Attorney David McDade "distributing the videotape depicting sexual acts with a minor in the Genarlow Wilson case." The tape also shows Wilson having sex with another teenager. He was acquitted of rape charges in that incident.

"Although the tape was in evidence at trial, continued distribution of the tape should not be protected by the Open Records Act nor under the guise it was evidence at trial," the letter reads. "Georgia law has specific statutes which do not allow distribution of this type of material and I am also concerned that no efforts to cover the identity of either young woman involved was made by his office to the tape despite the women being minors."

Jones also wants Baker to investigate allegations that McDade intimidated a witness — the 15-year-old's mother — into changing her account to a reporter about the family's willingness to prosecute Wilson.

McDade and Baker's office did not immediately respond to telephone calls for comment Tuesday.

— Staff writer Jeremy Redmon contributed to this report.

More on ajc.com

Roxie

07-12-2007, 05:19 PM

Genarlow, make this wise choice
Published on: 07/12/07
He's represented by some of the best pro bono legal help available. Even the Rev. Al Sharpton has become a spiritual and political adviser. So Genarlow Wilson — Georgia's most famous prison inmate of the hour — probably doesn't need any fatherly advice from me. But here it is anyway:

Take the deal, son.

Get out of prison as soon as you can. If you lose this next round in your legal fight, there's a real chance you'll be stuck in prison for eight more years. Take the deal.

The district attorney who prosecuted you — a guy your attorneys and supporters have decided to cast as the villain, with you as his victim — has offered to negotiate a plea to a lesser charge that could get you out of prison faster and perhaps keep you off the sex offenders registry, which you say is your biggest concern.

And even if the Georgia Supreme Court works extraordinarily quickly and changes your sentence — an outcome that is anything but certain, since it has already turned down a previous appeal — you need to show a little more remorse for what was a clear violation of human decency.

No matter what you hear in music lyrics or watch in videos, real men don't treat women the way you did. You and your friends took despicable advantage of two girls who were in no way capable of consenting to sex, one because of her age and one because of the alcohol she had consumed during that drunken, drug-addled party in a motel room on New Year's Eve in 2003.

Unfortunately for you, one of those friends videotaped the whole encounter for his own perverse enjoyment. That tape, not the prosecutor, is what convicted you. In a strictly academic sense, the Wilson case illustrates problems with Georgia's laws addressing sex offenses. Voters have told legislators to get tough on such crimes, and they responded by creating ever-growing lists of sex offenses and offenders.

In some cases, the laws they've written provide little distinction between a pedophile cruising playgrounds for young children and a 17-year-old youth having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend in the back seat.

Wilson, for example, is serving felony time for a crime that, had it been committed today, would be a misdemeanor. He was 17; the girl with whom he engaged in oral sex was 15, a minor. His trial took place before the Legislature changed the law to make such a narrow age difference subject to a lighter sentence. However, the Legislature declined earlier this year to make the new law retroactive to apply to Wilson's case.

It's important to remember that all of Wilson's co-defendants plea-bargained to lesser charges rather than go to trial. Most of the young men got five years in prison with the possibility of parole, followed by 10 years of probation. Wilson was offered the same deal but refused, saying he didn't want to be on the state's sex offender list like his pals were going to be. He took a high-stakes gamble and was acquitted of rape of the 17-year-old, but was found guilty of aggravated child molestation. That charge carried a mandatory 10-year-sentence.

Wilson's 21 now, having served just over two years of his 10-year sentence.

"Some of the decisions I made were not some of the best ones," he says, and he's right. On that New Year's Eve, he made some very bad decisions, and he has made some since then as well.

Don't make any more, Genarlow. Take the deal and fight the battle over the sex offender registry in a different arena. The prosecutor says he's willing to cut you some slack; so will everyone else, but only if you accept responsibility for what you did.

• Mike King is a member of the editorial board. His column runs Thursdays.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/king/stories/2007/07/11/mkinged_0712.html

so, wilson is not a sex offender.
the sex was consensual.
he's already served two years in prison for "assault"
Yet, he's not accepting responsibility?

Pierrot le Fou

07-13-2007, 12:18 AM

so, wilson is not a sex offender.
the sex was consensual.
he's already served two years in prison for "assault"
Yet, he's not accepting responsibility?
What the fuck are you on about? The article quoted:
He took a high-stakes gamble and was acquitted of rape of the 17-year-old, but was found guilty of aggravated child molestation. That charge carried a mandatory 10-year-sentence.
Are you calling 'aggravated child molestation' assault now Roxie? That is a crime that will put you on the sex offender registry to boot. He's served two years for aggravated child molestation and he's not accepting responsibility.

Roxie

07-13-2007, 12:47 AM

Are you calling 'aggravated child molestation' assault now Roxie?
Down, boy. It was just a typo. I couldn't recollect the exact phrase.

Gee, I don't know something about him "accepting responsibility"..just seems slippery in this case. Considering it was consensual, it wasn't statutory rape, that the law was not intended to be used in this kind of situation--which is reflected by the changing of the law and he's already served two years in prison for it...
I mean what they did was undeniable, however, it is also undeniable that he shouldn't be in prison for it.

To me it seems he's asking something extra from Wilson...I'm wondering what does he want? I'm just puzzeled by it. Either that, or someone said "Hey Mike, we need you to chime in here" and very, very begrudgingly did so on a bathroom break.

Pierrot le Fou

07-13-2007, 01:12 AM

But the legislature specifically decided not to have the law enacted retroactively. He's not accepting responsibility because rather than make a plea, and admit that he did something wrong, he's fighting to have the current law enacted retroactively in his case to avoid ANY semblance of wrongdoing. That's crap.

Is what he did worthy of 10 years in prison? Nope. Is it right for him to have a clean slate? I'd say no. And so would the legislature, prosecutor, and judges so far.

Roxie

07-13-2007, 03:07 AM

it's just kinda trips me up though...cause did he do wrong?

what he did was illegal at the time...and we should prosecute illegality, not wrongness, right? If the argument is a moral one..okay, toss up, but this is law...however, a majority of ppl (including those on the jury) agree that this sentence shouldn't've been levied agnist him. I mean if it was so clear that his sentence of 10 yrs enough to get the law changed...I guess why did they not make it retroactive is the question?

I don't know, I feel like somethings missing here.

one judge did disagree.

Pierrot le Fou

07-13-2007, 03:21 AM

Because he DID SOMETHING WRONG!

He was participating in drinking and drug use, fucked a woman who was underage and unable to consent, and then got head from a 15 year-old who had been participating in the same.

In your mind this is all perfectly okay, and not improper behaviour?

Should it result in 10 years in prison? I don't think so. But should it be glossed over as if he did nothing wrong? Fuck no.

Psychochink

07-13-2007, 03:30 AM

did he do wrong?

You're kidding, right?

If I ever have a daughter (God forbid) and some punk has sex with her when she's 15, drunk and on drugs...

He's not going to be the one on trial, I guaran-damn-tee you. Or at least, not the only one.

Roxie

07-13-2007, 03:30 AM

No, it'd definitely improper, but it's the illegality of it that's in question, right?

I'm gonna get a nap and come back to this later.

Psychochink

07-13-2007, 03:32 AM

How is the illegality in question?

Bottom line, he had sex with a minor. There's no way you can spin it where that's legal.

Pierrot le Fou

07-13-2007, 03:35 AM

The illegality isn't in question. It was illegal when he did it. Hence he's in jail. There's no question about the ethics of it. It was unethical when he did it.

How is he accepting responsibility?

stsparky

07-14-2007, 02:40 AM

Release of tape in teen sex case may violate child-porn law (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/teen.sex/index.html):

“...The tape was used in the prosecution of Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for a consensual sexual encounter he had as a teenager.

Wilson, now 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17 during a New Year's Eve party in Douglas County, Georgia, just west of Atlanta.

The sex act was videotaped by another partygoer -- and that tape shows the faces of several underage girls. ...”

manrush

07-14-2007, 10:01 PM

Was the video released on the internet? This all seems similar to this story (http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+Teens+prosecuted+for+racy+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=newsmap) that I managed to dig up on CNet.

The two teenage lovers were sending racy pictures of themselves to EACH OTHER. And somehow, in the great state of Florida (/sarcasm), that is a crime. A stupid thing to do, maybe. But not a crime.

The point is, laws aren't magically above being completely idiotic. Mr. Wilson was 17; the girl he had sex with was 15. It's only a two-year age gap. Can't the authorities take that into consideration? Or do they have to be all 40-foot-long-pole-up-the-ass about it?:bang: :bang:

Pierrot le Fou

07-14-2007, 11:57 PM

No, the authorities are NOT in the business of deciding which laws 'make sense' -- that's the job of the legislature. In this case, they changed the law, but decided not to have it enacted retroactively.

Why is this so fucking difficult to understand?

manrush

07-15-2007, 12:28 AM

Couldn't they (the defence) take this all the way to the state or national Supreme Court? Or is there some obscure law in the books forbidding that?

Okay, so what's the difference between this case and the one mentioned on CNet?

Pierrot le Fou

07-15-2007, 01:15 AM

They can try. Most of the time they can file the appeal, but it doesn't get heard by the US Supreme Court. They get thousands of appeals, and don't take most of 'em. Not enough time and all that.

Kaji

07-15-2007, 03:47 AM

There's no law against an appeal, however it's incontrovertible that he violated the law as it had been enacted at the time of the alleged offense. All he can do is try to argue that it's unconstitutional since the legislature used his case to change the law, which even then fails due to ex post facto protections in the Constitution.

Roxie

07-15-2007, 12:06 PM

Ok. I think I've gathered my thoughts now.

What i meant is, since it was apparent to the Legislature that this law had been so inappropriately misapplied (knowingly misapplied) to his case that they felt they should change it, why did they not apply it to his case? I've heard nothing about why.

I mean, since it is his case specifically that spurred the change in the law what does Mike want Genarlow to do exactly? Well, I mean, I know, take the plea deal and serve 3 more years, but still 5 years seems wrong to me. Mike seems to think that his appeal and rejection of the plea deal is somehow a denial of what he did...but, Wilson isn't denying it. The sentence seems just as innapropriate. Isn't two years enough? somehting seems amiss.

I defininetly feel there is something missing from the story. Something is being held back, cause it's not fitting together and it's getting circular. Why are so many ppl holding on to keeping him in prison? (except for that one judge)

Roxie

07-15-2007, 12:28 PM

By JEFFRY SCOTT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/14/07
As thunder rumbled overhead about 2,000 marchers chanted through the streets of Douglasville Saturday morning in a "March For Justice" protest organized by the NAACP, calling for the release of convicted teen sex offender Genarlow Wilson.

The marchers walked under threatening skies and though a few rain sprinkles from Douglasville High School to the front steps of the Douglas County Courthouse, where speaker after speaker called for the release of Wilson, once an honor student and star athlete at the high school.

Wilson was given a 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex at age 17 with 15-year-old girl. Georgia law has since changed; the maximum sentence he would receive now is one year. Next month Wilson will have spent three years behind bars.

His case — which will be heard July 20 by the Georgia Supreme Court — has become national sensation while the Douglas County District Attorney who prosecuted him, David McDade, has increasingly come under attack.

Last week the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta said McDade violated federal law when he distributed a videotape from a rape and child molestation case to legislators and journalists. The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition activist group filed a formal complaint Thursday with the State Bar of Georgia, demanding McDade lose his law license because of abuses of authority in the Wilson case.

Many in the crowd Saturday wore white T-shirts with "Free Genarlow Wilson" written on the back. Others wore T-shirts with a photograph of McDade under the word: "Wanted." Below his picture were the alleged charges, including "abuse of power" and "racial profiling."

Wilson's mother, Juanessa Bennett, told protesters she and her son have become "part of a much bigger movement" to make the justice system equal for all. "God put him [Wilson] here for a reason," she said. "We won't take it anymore."

Vincent Forte, a state senator from Atlanta, called for the prosecution of McDade because he distributed the "pornographic" videotape evidence in the Wilson case. He endorsed efforts to have the DA removed from office, saying, "Dave McDade needs to go somewhere and sit down."

Shelia Polk, 51, of Winston, Ga., said she was there for the same reason so many others showed up. "This is not just for Genarlow," she said. "Genarlow kicked it off. But this is for everybody. Black people in this country aren't getting the same justice as our counterparts, the Caucasians."

Douglasville police chief Joe Whisenant said he feared the march, which attracted people from across the state, might spark counter demonstrations. "We were worried about a bunch of neo-Nazis and skinheads showing up," he said. "Fortunately they didn't."

The marchers gathered on the lawn after 1-hour, 15-minute walk from the high school and heard speeches for more than two hours before the crowd started thinning out by early afternoon. Ezra Hill, 47, of Fairburn, said she was moved by the rally.

"I am concerned about injustice," she said. "If you're going to be harsh on people, you have to be equally harsh on all people of all colors."

She wore a button on her blouse. It read: "Racism Is An Illness."

Roxie

07-15-2007, 12:33 PM

Oh, hey, I found an article about the plea deal!

Wilson turns down plea deal

By JEREMY REDMON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/29/07

The Douglas County man imprisoned for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, has turned down a plea deal a prosecutor offered in writing this week, his attorney said Friday.

B.J. Bernstein said Genarlow Wilson won't accept the deal offered by Douglas County District Attorney David McDade because it would require him to plead guilty to a felony with a 15-year sentence and serve five years in prison.

Bernstein pointed out that a Monroe County judge granted her appeal this month, changed Wilson's conviction to a misdemeanor and ordered him freed from prison. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, however, is appealing that judge's ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court.

Bernstein is also concerned that Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender under the deal, despite McDade's contention that he could plead to an offense that does not normally require registration.

Bernstein said she spoke to Wilson about McDade's offer during a meeting with him Thursday in prison, where he has already spent more than two years of his 10-year sentence for aggravated child molestation.

"Yesterday he just told me to keep going — that this is not what is good for him — that he has concerns about this plea offer," Bernstein told reporters.

Bernstein spoke to reporters this morning at the Georgia Court of Appeals, where she filed papers seeking "emergency" action on her appeal of a Douglas County judge's decision that Wilson is not eligible for bond pending Baker's appeal.

McDade spelled out his plea deal in a letter to Bernstein's co-counsel, Rodney Zell, Monday. In the letter, McDade offers to let Wilson plead to a felony "that reflects his criminal actions with the victim in this case." McDade, however, does not identify possible charges. But he says Wilson could plead guilty to an offense that does not normally require sex offender registration, which has been one of the main sticking points in the case.

A series of court decisions and legislative actions, however, make it unclear whether Wilson can avoid registering as a sex offender regardless of the plea deal, said Mark Jackson, director of legal services for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

McDade said his offer would also let Wilson get credit for the time he has already served in prison and that he would not oppose parole for him.

Kaji

07-15-2007, 08:34 PM

The law was applied perfectly appropriately as it was written. It's a tragedy he has to deal with the consequences of it, but he should have known better than to 1) get two underage girls drunk, 2) be drinking underage himself, and 3) perform sexual acts with said underage girls.

Ironically, he was let off on the rape charge involving the 17-year-old. As per your arguing in the rape thread, he should have been convicted of rape, as she was drunk, and his own drunkenness was explicitly cited as no excuse. Is he suddenly excused because he's black?

Roxie

07-15-2007, 08:40 PM

Also, you remember we made up our own situations in that thread. We came up with the details.

I don't know the details reguarding the rape charge, so I can't speak to it.

Pierrot le Fou

07-16-2007, 02:10 AM

Ceirnian

07-16-2007, 02:26 AM

Race gives a +2 frame advantage on block and upper body invincibility. Gender is nuetral on block but has an 3 frame frc point on frames 4-6.

Basically I came in here to say, you know through the articles exactly what happened (it was videotaped) so why is it you can't come to your own conclusion if it was rape or not?

Pierrot le Fou

07-16-2007, 02:29 AM

Because he's black, and everyone knows that all camcorders are racist. REMEMBER RODNEY KING!

Ceirnian

07-16-2007, 02:38 AM

Because he's black, and everyone knows that all camcorders are racist. REMEMBER RODNEY KING!

That just blew my mind... it all makes so much sense now! Good thing I'm only half.

Roxie

07-16-2007, 03:38 AM

I've figured it out.

Roxie's priority:
Race > Gender > Anything else

So if it's a black guy, he isn't guilty of rape, but if it's a white guy he is.

Don't know the details of rape? Bullshit. You already posted an article about them in this thread.

Why can't you just fess up to your blatant bias and disregard of the law and the way the system works here, and to the culpability of a guy who fucked an underage girl after giving her drugs and/or alcohol, and had another give him head, all on videotape?
what the fuck are you talking about? when did I say anything about a white guy?

I'm sorry, I must've missed the details of the rape b/c all I recall is that they were all drunk/high, it was video taped, she says he raped her, and the jury after seeing said tape, acquitted him.

If there was more than that, I don't remember, so I'll reread the articles.

Oh, btw 17 is not under aged in Georgia.

Kaji

07-16-2007, 03:54 AM

So you openly concede that they were all drunk. According to the list you wholeheartedly supported in the other thread, if you have sex with a drunk girl, it's automatic rape. Further, if the guy is drunk and have sex with someone, it's automatic rape as well. It also made mention of drugs as well, as I recall. Either way, according to the strict feminist interpretation you subscribed to (and defended rigorously), he's guilty of rape.

However, you've stated that the case is all about rape, damn the evidence, several times. He even got acquitted of a rape that was caught on tape, and you still say they're targeting him because he's black. Which way does it go, Rox?

Roxie

07-16-2007, 04:24 AM

So you openly concede that they were all drunk. According to the list you wholeheartedly supported in the other thread
I never once said I supported that list at all. In fact, I don't. Particularly the one about "if the condom breaks, it's rape."

However, you've stated that the case is all about rape, damn the evidence, several times.
I never said that. This case is about the purposeful misapplication of the law. It's about being young and stupid and then having a law intended for sexual predators applied to teen sex which is completely foul.

He even got acquitted of a rape that was caught on tape, and you still say they're targeting him because he's black.
I never said that either. In fact, I said he was acquitted. They must've seen something in the video that allowed them to acquit him of rape. That's all I can assume.

It's funny. I just read through this entire thread again...and you know what I said about race in this case?

I don't think you can take race completely out of the equation.
Do I think it's the most important part? Is race what's got most people upset. Nah, I don't think so.

What I'm saying is African-American males face very strong bias in the justice system. Wilson is an African-American male, so it is possible he faced/faces some bias. However, I do not believe that bias plays a strong role in the case at all.

Roxie clearly didn't want to make this about his race,

Trump

07-16-2007, 02:22 PM

Roxie there was never a white guy mentioned. I'm not sure why it was hard for you to follow, but the entire tone of this thread has to do with you claiming this guy was not given justice because he was black. Now that justice is being applied and he has been exonerated from several charges, you still haven't dropped your case. So yes, it still feels like you are mainly arguing for this guy because he is black while disregarding most other things.

Roxie

07-16-2007, 06:02 PM

Roxie there was never a white guy mentioned. I'm not sure why it was hard for you to follow, but the entire tone of this thread has to do with you claiming this guy was not given justice because he was black.
Where did I say that? Could you quote me please?

Now that justice is being applied and he has been exonerated from several charges, you still haven't dropped your case.
What are you talking about? The whole case was about him receiving 10 years in prison for child molestation charges when it clearly was not child molestation. Things haven't changed. They offered him a plea deal, however, they couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't be placed on the child molestation/sexual offender list. Because of that, he didn't take the deal.

I have never said that this has all happened because he's black. That they did this b/c he's black. I've never said anything like that because I do not believe that's the case.

Trump

07-17-2007, 01:16 PM

From your very first post.... The articles mention race almost exclusively.

[/quote]
Marcus Dixon, an African-American teenager, was sentenced to ten years in prison for having had sex with a white teenaged girl.
His prosecution was racially motivated: Undetermined[/quote]

That was in the first couple lines of the article. The article continues similarly.

The other article is from wikipedia and seems fairly neutral (after a quick glance), but you directly compare the two. Posting articles with such heavy overtones sets the tone for the entire discussion especially when you directly compare the cases.

I ask you this Roxie, would you have even bothered mentioning this issue if all parties involved had been white? From your posting habits I'd wager not.

Roxie

07-17-2007, 01:40 PM

From your very first post.... The articles mention race almost exclusively.
Marcus Dixon, an African-American teenager, was sentenced to ten years in prison for having had sex with a white teenaged girl.
His prosecution was racially motivated: Undetermined

That was in the first couple lines of the article. The article continues similarly.
Notice, I don't share a by-line on that article? Also, that IS NOT FROM AN ARTICLE, IT IS NOT FROM A NEWSPAPER NOR MAGAZINE, that is from snopes.com
The Urban Legends Reference Pages, also known as snopes.com, is a website dedicated to determining the truth about many urban legends, Internet rumors, email forwards, and other such stories of uncertain or questionable origin.

Also, the "article" does not "continue similarly". Snopes analyzes an e-mail about that case, which means Snopes did not write that e-mail.

So don't try to pretend that what Snopes didn't even write, addressing concerns of the Marcus Dixon case (and not addressing it as a belief of their own) is a belief that I have expressed.

Again, that's the Marcus Dixon case..this thread is about the Genarlow Wilson case. You accused me of saying that Wilson didn't get a fair shake because he was black, which I never said and now you want to switch to what someone else said about the Dixon case?

I ask you this Roxie, would you have even bothered mentioning this issue if all parties involved had been white?Absolutely. The sentencing would still have the same ridiculous nature. From your posting habits I'd wager not.
What habits? You mean the habit where I say "this is not all about race" or the one where I stated "However, I do not believe that [racial] bias plays a strong role in the case at all." What is it "opposite day" and no one told me?

Pierrot le Fou

07-17-2007, 03:41 PM

Roxie

07-17-2007, 03:55 PM

No, the one where you bring up a case involving a black person getting an 'unfair shake', where you ignore the obvious faults in the argument, where you continue to insist it's not about race while posting article after article saying anything but that.

Either you need to stop posting articles then claim that your opinion has nothing to do with them, or you need to accept that when you post a bunch of racially charged articles, people are going to think that you agree with them.
Wait, so me bringing up a case involving a black person who gets unfair shake, despite the fact that I have clearly stated that I do not believe it has anything to do with it's race, auto makes me biased?

I'll do that when we get another local daily newspaper. I don't really have a choice, you see. No one's going to cover it like the daily local paper.How about people pay attention to what I actually type. If you have issues with the articles, take it up with he newspaper, not me. Or you can find other articles on your own and post those too.

Pierrot le Fou

07-17-2007, 11:44 PM

Wait, so me bringing up a case involving a black person who gets unfair shake, despite the fact that I have clearly stated that I do not believe it has anything to do with it's race, auto makes me biased?

I'll do that when we get another local daily newspaper. I don't really have a choice, you see. No one's going to cover it like the daily local paper.How about people pay attention to what I actually type. If you have issues with the articles, take it up with he newspaper, not me. Or you can find other articles on your own and post those too.
So if I started quoting KKK texts at you, and other racist crap and said, "I'm not trying to be racist -- in fact I'm being NOT racist -- I'm just trying to discuss race relations in the US" then you'd buy it?

Because you're doing the equivalent.

The shit you post, and what you claim to mean are opposed diametrically. Perhaps YOU should pay attention to what YOU actually type. If you don't share the opinions of the articles then fucking state so you dumb bint rather than posting article after article that state the racial aspect of the case with nary a peep about your opinion only to claim when people call you on it that you don't think it was racially motivated.

Where's your common sense? Do you truly think that you're not accountable for what you say, and that we should be willing to cherry pick what you want us to out of your posts while ignoring the rest?

Because that'd be fucking stupid.

Roxie

07-18-2007, 12:30 AM

So if I started quoting KKK texts at you, and other racist crap and said, "I'm not trying to be racist -- in fact I'm being NOT racist -- I'm just trying to discuss race relations in the US" then you'd buy it?
Yes. If you meant "hey, this isn't what I believe, but I think it's important to discuss this factor", then yes, I'd believe you.

If you don't share the opinions of the articles then fucking state so you dumb bint
I did you dumb ass. I did so several times. Stop pretending as if I did not.

Where's your common sense? Do you truly think that you're not accountable for what you say, and that we should be willing to cherry pick what you want us to out of your posts while ignoring the rest?

Where's your reading comprehension? Of course, I am accountable for what I say. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME!!! I however, am NOT accountable for shit you just decide to make up. I am NOT accountable for the conclusions YOU jump to with out asking questions. That shit I am NOT accountable for.

Psychochink

07-18-2007, 03:11 AM

On Topic: Comments made about the relative intelligence of the two combatants notwithstanding - Roxie, you have to admit that over the years you have developed a reputation for a certain...bias...when it comes to your subject matter. Even if this particular case may be an exception, it's not like the claim is unfounded.

(I suppose you don't have to admit it, but I doubt the majority of the board would agree with you.)

[And before you say it, no I am not inclined to go digging through years of archives to provide incontrovertible evidentary backup to that statement. I'll rely on my memory, and I don't care enough about arguing the point with you to waste my time.]

Off Topic: When are you two just going to hate fuck each other and get it over with?

*runs like hell*

Pierrot le Fou

07-18-2007, 03:22 AM

Off Topic: When are you two just going to hate fuck each other and get it over with?

*runs like hell*
Because she'd cry rape out of spite because I'm a whitey and she's not. Plus she's probably über-frumpy.

Roxie

07-18-2007, 03:31 AM

ahahhaha, frumpy.

Pierrot le Fou

07-18-2007, 03:41 AM

ahahhaha, frumpy.
Citizen should change your name to Frumpy McFrumppants

Roxie

07-18-2007, 03:43 AM

No, no. I told him it's gotta be lethal and feminine...that's neither...

Kaji

07-18-2007, 03:53 AM

I'll do that when we get another local daily newspaper. I don't really have a choice, you see. No one's going to cover it like the daily local paper.How about people pay attention to what I actually type. If you have issues with the articles, take it up with he newspaper, not me. Or you can find other articles on your own and post those too.

This from the person who has a habit of just posting long articles without comment (or with sparse comments) in these kinds of threads and letting the articles speak for themselves?

Roxie

07-18-2007, 03:57 AM

Mostly because I'm just giving updates. I think the news should speak for itself, I cannot speak for the news?

I know what I think...I want to know what other ppl think

Kaji

07-18-2007, 04:06 AM

That's great, but when you're posting the news without any comment, you're leading people to think that what's stated in the news is what your thoughts are on the matter as well. You may know what you think, but you leave people to make assumptions about it based on the evidence when you don't state it. As we can see here, you're leaving evidence that contradicts what you state you really think.

Roxie

07-18-2007, 04:10 AM

That sounds like some of the silliest shit I've ever heard

"well, I don't know what you think...so I won't ask, I'll just base my opinions off the article you pasted (which you didn't write) and treat it as fact."

I'm sure you know what they say about ppl who assume?

Kaji

07-18-2007, 04:50 AM

The cheekiness is cute, sister, but a debate is the worst possible time to leave any ambiguity in your message. By posting an article without any comment as to your thoughts, it's de facto agreement therewith, as if you had any disagreement with its content you should be communicating it. It's one thing to open a thread with one and say you'll post your opinion later in hopes of hearing other people's opinions first or using their opinions to help you form your own. It's another to post them after you've taken a side in the debate, especially when they seem to be taking your side but are apparently saying things you don't agree with.

Roxie

07-18-2007, 02:41 PM

Again, it's NOT "my message". It's the AJC's message. Sorry I don't agree that just because I post it and don't share my opinion, I de facto share the opinion of the article.

If I don't say it, If I didn't write it, If I don't share my "opinion", then don't assume. I'm simply quoting.

Again, I was posting these articles as updates, b/c no one's going to cover it like the only daily local we have in Atlanta. They aren't "entries into a debate" and I'm sorry if you mistook them for such.

Pierrot le Fou

07-18-2007, 11:19 PM

Who wants to make a thread about racism posting the most disgusting racist garbage we can find on the internet? We'll title the thread, 'The Case for Racial Purity' and post a bunch of really foul stuff. When taken to task on the substance of our thread, we'll use the 'Roxie Defense' wherein we claim that we are merely updating people on the state of racial purity, and that since we're just quoting (not writing) we shouldn't be held responsible or be associated with the content at all.

It will be absolutely splendid! I'm sure everyone will understand that our views and the racist garbage we're quoting are absolutely and completely divorced...

Roxie

07-20-2007, 04:53 PM

**update**

Ga. top court finishes hearing Wilson's appeal

By MIKE MORRIS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/20/07
The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments Friday morning on a pair of appeals in the closely watched Genarlow Wilson case, though no ruling was expected immediately.

The courtroom was packed for the hearing, and arguments were broadcast live over the Internet. The hearing came after justices decided earlier this month to speed up the process in the case of Wilson, the Douglas County man imprisoned for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. Wilson's attorneys arguing his 10-year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment.

The justices are considering two appeals in the case.

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker is appealing a Monroe County Superior Court judge's decision to reduce Wilson's felony conviction to a misdemeanor and free him from prison. Baker said the judge overstepped his authority when he granted Wilson's motion last month.

Following the Monroe County judge's decision, Wilson's attorneys requested he be released on bond pending Baker's appeal, but on June 27, the trial court in Douglas County denied the request. Wilson's attorneys have appealed that decision.

B.J. Bernstein, Wilson's attorney, addressed the bond issue first at Friday's hearing, arguing for 10 minutes that her client should be granted bond while his case is under appeal.

"Every day that a defendant spends in jail is a precious day in their life," Bernstein told the justices. Bernstein said that in the past 10 days, "two clients of mine died in prison."

Bernstein argued that the trial court, in refusing bond, improperly applied the criminal appeal bond statute when it should have applied the habeas bond statute, since the Monroe County judge had ruled on a writ of habeas corpus, determining that Wilson had the right to make a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, the original prosecutor on Wilson's case, countered in his time before the justices that state law is clear that "no appeal bond shall be granted to any person who is convicted of a list of crimes, and aggravated child molestation is included in that list."

"It's not vague. It's not gray. It's not subject to interpretation," McDade said. "It is the plain letter of the law that applies in this case."

In its appeal of the reduction of the felony conviction to a misdemeanor, the state has argued that the ruling could open the door for many other sexual criminals to have their sentences reduced.

Wilson's attorneys argued that such fears are invalid and do not justify maintaining such a harsh sentence for consensual teen sex.

Video cameras and still photographers lined the walls well before the arguments began. Outside, satellite trucks and Georgia State Patrol cars were parked all along the street, and security was high. Officers were posted all around the building and on the floor where the Supreme Court meets.

Former state Rep. Matthew Towery, the author of the 1995 law Wilson was charged with violating, submitted a friend of the court brief supporting his release.

"The General Assembly never intended for the Child Protection Act's harsh felony sentences designed to punish adults who prey on children to be used to punish consensual sexual acts between teenagers close in age," Towery's brief said.

The state Legislature in 2006 changed the law, making oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor. The state Court of Appeals ruled that the new law could not be applied retroactively and the state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Bernstein argued in her legal brief that the move by state lawmakers to change the law marked a "tectonic shift in how Georgia views voluntary consensual teen sex and its punishment."

"The new reality is that teen sexual experimentation is commonplace in an era where the media bombards teens with sexual imagery," she wrote.

Bernstein said it is extremely rare in Georgia for lawmakers to pass legislation softening punishment, especially for an emotionally charged crime like child molestation.

But the state countered that it is well established that criminals are subject to the penalty that is in place when they violate the law. To begin to apply legislative changes retroactively would invite chaos and have a far-reaching effect throughout the criminal justice system, Baker argued.

"The decision in this case not only affects Petitioner, but it potentially affects countless others who may be in the prison system or on probation or who have completed their sentences," he wrote.

-- The Associated Press contributed to this report

Roxie

10-26-2007, 04:56 PM

Georgia Supreme Court freeing Genarlow Wilson

By SCOTT THURSTON, BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/26/07

The Georgia Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of Genarlow Wilson, the Douglas County teenager who has been serving a controversial 10-year sentence for consensual oral sex.

The court's 4-3 decision upholds a Monroe County judge's ruling that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under both the Georgia and U.S. constitutions.

The majority opinion said the sentence appeared to be "grossly disproportionate" to the teenager's crime and noted that it was out of step with current law.

Wilson was convicted in April 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a 2003 New Year's Eve party in a hotel room. He was 17 at the time.

At the time, the crime carried a mandatory 10-year sentence with no parole. However, the law was changed in 2006 to make Wilson's crime a misdemeanor with a maximum one-year sentence.

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children ..." wrote Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears in the majority opinion.

She said that "for the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of 10 years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime."

Justice George Carley, in the dissent, said the 2006 change in the law was specifically written so it would not be retroactive. The sentence is not cruel and unusual because "the General Assembly made the express decision that he cannot benefit from the subsequent legislative determination to reduce the sentence for commission of that crime from felony to misdemeanor status," Carley wrote.

Carley said the majority opinion showed "unprecedented disregard" for the legislative intent of the law change and creates the potential for releases of "any and all defendants who were ever convicted of aggravated child molestation and sentenced" under circumstances similar to Wilson's.

In a statement issued Friday, Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he will "respectfully acknowledge" the state Supreme Court's decision.

"I hope the court's decision will also put an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in the case," Baker said.

Baker's office had appealed the ruling by the Monroe County Superior Court judge who overturned Wilson's felony conviction last summer and reduced it to a misdemeanor. This judge's ruling to resentence Wilson to a misdemeanor, "however well-meaning, was unauthorized under Georgia law," Baker said. "It was for this reason that I appealed, in order to (ensure) a fair and consistent application of the law, not just to Mr. Wilson, but to others similarly situated."

In its majority opinion, the state Supreme Court acknowledged that it rarely overturns sentences on grounds that they are cruel and unusual. But the court also noted it has done so twice after legislative changes. It also said a review of other states showed that most "either would not punish Wilson's conduct at all or would, like Georgia now, punish it as a misdemeanor."

Wilson's case has drawn national attention, and a hearing before the Georgia Supreme Court in July drew a large crowd of supporters.

He has been in state prison since November 2005 and is currently held at the Al Burruss Correctional Training Facility in Forsyth.

It wasn't immediately clear how quickly he will be released.

Wilson was arrested following a party also attended by five other male youths. His sex act with the 15-year-old girl was videotaped by one of his friends.

Wilson was also charged of raping a 17-year-old girl at the party but was acquitted of that charge.

Several months after W was convicted of aggravated child molestation, a felony, and given the mandatory 10-year term, Gov. Sonny Perdue signed legislation making consensual sex between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old a misdemeanor.

The Monroe County judge's decision came last June, and the state's appeal by Baker sent the case to the state Supreme Court.

Also last summer, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade offered Wilson's attorneys a deal in which he could plead guilty to another felony and get a sentence including five years of jail time with credit for two years served. Wilson and his lawyers rejected the deal.

Joining Sears in the majority decision were justices Carol Hunstein, Robert Benham and Hugh Thompson. Joining Carley in the dissent were justices Harris Hines and Harold Melton.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/10/26/genarlow_1026.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newsta