Posted on 07/21/2007 10:36:21 AM PDT by grundle
ATLANTA, July 20 — Only a few observers usually show up for arguments before the Georgia Supreme Court. But the gallery was packed on Friday as the seven justices heard two expedited appeals on behalf of a young man serving a mandatory 10-year sentence for having had consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party in 2003.
The man, Genarlow Wilson, now 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation, which was a felony in Georgia in 2003. The state legislature has since made the crime a misdemeanor.
Mr. Wilson, who was 17 at the time of the party, has served two years of the mandatory minimum sentence, which was so harsh it shocked even the jury members who convicted him. State law also requires that Mr. Wilson be listed as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The two appeals the court heard Friday dealt with whether Mr. Wilson’s sentence was constitutional and whether he is eligible for bond as his appeal moves through the legal system.
But Mr. Wilson’s lawyer, B. J. Bernstein, argued that Mr. Wilson’s case was unique and therefore demanded unique remedies. Even the state legislature realized the mistake made in Mr. Wilson’s case and fixed the law, Ms. Bernstein said, though it did not apply the remedy retroactively to her client.
“Over the years, it is highly extraordinary for our legislature to change a felony with lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences from a felony to a misdemeanor,” Ms. Bernstein said, adding that she could not find another example as precedent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’ve had enough of the predator vs slut scenario. This case should go away.
Was the convicting jury "hopping mad" too?
Johnson: The untold truth about Genarlow Wilson
The mainstream media is portraying Genarlow Wilson as a victim and Georgia as a backwater state by oversimplifying this case. There is more to this story than a young student getting 10 years in prison for consensual oral sex. A lot more.
Genarlow Wilson was charged with rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation. He and five buddies videotaped their "party" on New Year's Eve with two young girls - one of whom was 17 and "semi-conscious" (according to the Georgia Court of Appeals) and another who was 15 and a minor.
This was not two star-crossed lovers on a date. Wilson engaged in intercourse with the 17-year-old after she was passed out drunk and high on drugs and encouraged the others to join him. She accused the young men of rape and has never recanted. Sex with a semi-conscious female who cannot grant consent is rape - even if she earlier granted it consensually. She also was locked in the bathroom in between the sex acts and this resulted in a "false imprisonment" conviction for one of the men. Later, all but one of them received oral sex from the minor. This is against the law in Georgia because a minor is not deemed capable of consenting to such an act.
There were six men with 40 prior arrests among them in a hotel room with a semi-conscious girl and a minor. They were consuming illegal drugs and alcohol underage. They weren't choirboys. One of the men impregnated a 12-year-old while awaiting trial and has since been convicted of statutory rape. Five of the six men pled guilty to the lesser charge of child molestation instead of aggravated child molestation. All are serving time.
Wilson refused the plea bargain and was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers. The sentence for his crimes is a harsh, but mandatory, 10 years in prison. He continues to turn down offers that would release him from jail and keep him off the sexual offender registry. But he and his new lawyer appear to prefer martyrdom to freedom. There is a Web site, a publicist and a limo for his attorney.
People are judging this case based on 60-second news clips instead of watching the video, reading the court transcripts, and trusting the jury system. Georgia's laws are designed to protect minors from sexual predators. Genarlow and his buddies violated the law. A young girl charged them with rape. The police arrested them. A district attorney chose to prosecute them. A grand jury decided to indict them. And a jury convicted them.
Now, an entirely new judge enjoying his 15 minutes of fame ignored the law, the trial, the appeals, and the facts of the case. He reduced Wilson's sentence and ordered him released from prison. His decision was a shock and clear violation of Georgia law. The attorney general has filed an expedited appeal with Georgia's Supreme Court, which just last year unanimously upheld the constitutionality of an identical case. This has put the prisoner, his family, and the victims on an incredibly cruel and unnecessary emotional roller coaster.
Wilson is not the victim. A semi-conscious female and a minor girl were the victims. Society shouldn't wonder why females hesitate to charge "rape." They are portrayed as "trash," and the men are just doing what men do. Women should be outraged.
Life comes with accountability for our decisions. Genarlow Wilson could have selected different friends to hang with. He could have joined millions of law-abiding teens all over the country enjoying New Years' Eve without alcohol, drugs and sex. He could have left the hotel when the fun started. He didn't. He made a choice. Now his life has changed forever. That is sad. I hope other young men and girls will learn from this tragedy and avoid his errors.
The attorney general's office disclosed that as recently as this past weekend Douglas County offered Wilson's attorneys a plea deal that would have allowed Wilson to avoid a criminal record and inclusion on the sex offender registry once his sentence had been completed. The plea deal would have also allowed Wilson to serve a "substantially shorter" prison sentence, possibly leading to his "release based upon time already served."
Wilson, through his attorneys, refused those offers.
I think the young black girl was almost certainly gang-raped, but that's just my opinion. The three attorneys I know personally who have seen the tape say that a not guilty of rape verdict is laughable. Two of them are liberal criminal-huggers. One is black.
The prosecutor DID NOT 'nail Wilson to the wall on the remaining oral sex charge'; That would suggest he lost the rape case and then decided to go after Genarlo Wilson for the oral sex.
Both charges were tried at the same time as part of the same trial. The prosecutor included the lesser charge in the case in order to try and prove the more serious charge of rape. The prosecutor wanted a guilty verdict on the rape. The judge may have nailed Genarlo to the wall with a stiff sentence. If the judge did so, then it may have been because he saw the tape and knew that Wilson was more culpable than just being the recipient of oral sex.
Do you know anyone who has seen the tape who believes the seventeen year-old black girl was conscious during all of the sex acts, including the time her pants and underwear were removed? The jury never actually had to said so; they can engage in jury nullifcation. Of the seven guys, wasn't Wilson the guy who removed her pants and underwear while she lay there unresponsive and apparently unconscious? Wasn't she lying passed out, unmoving, eyes closed, unresponsive, on the bathroom floor during one of the times Genarlo Wilson had sex with her? Even the media at the time consistently said the boys had sex with the seventeen year old on multiple occasions "when she appeared to be unconscious." In that context, "appeared" is a journalism term that means "the girl was out like a light, but we can't say so because if the guys are found not guilty, the can sue us" It's like saying the police offers "appeared" to beat Rodney King.
The jury appears to have rendered either a "she got what she had coming to her" verdict, a "let's not ruin this kid's life, but let's find him guilty on the lesser charge so that he doesn't get away scott-free"; or, most perversely, an "it's okay for black men to rape black girls but not okay for black men to have consensual oral sex with a white girl" verdict. Not guilty verdicts do not mean innocence, they mean the state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are there facts in my account that you dispute? Let me know, because it could change my opinion.
If consensual oral sex between minors within two years of each other in age is now a misdemeanor, then I have no problem with releasing Genarlo Wilson. If the legislature decided not to make the lesser offense retroactive, then I have no problem with that.
I have a problem with portraying Genarlo Wilson as merely the innocent recipient of voluntary oral sex. Yeah, that happened, but that's not the full story. If the public wants Genarlo out, then that's fine, but let's not say this is all about consensual oral sex between teenagers.
I think my grandparents were married with children at 17.
My problem with this is posted in 24. He could be out now but wants to be declared innocent. He’s not.
Was there a gang-rape with drugs and alcohol first? See post 23.
>>And the twisted thing is, if he had vaginal penetration of the girl (exposing her to pregnancy), he would have been protected under Georgia’s law that defines such conduct between young people within three years of age as a misdemeanor. The oral sex made it a felony.<<
Which makes it particularly odd since oral sex in Georgia is sodomy and almost all the sodomy laws that don’t involve nonconsent have been thrown out by the Supreme court.
As for sodomy laws . . . the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Georgia's sodomy law (even oral sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home was illegal) in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
The Georgia Supreme Court had already struck down the Bowers law as it applied to consenting adults in Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327 (1998). However, oral sex with a minor was still a crime, as evidenced by Genarlo Wilson's penalty, because minors cannot consent to sex.
About the time Bowers was decided, one guy in Georgia went to jail because, during a divorce proceeding, he testified that he had received oral sex from his soon-to-be-ex wife. He was under oath and was sentenced to prison. Because his wife didn't testify that she provided the oral sex, nothing happened to her. If I remember correctly, he served at least a year - for consensual oral sex with his wife, in the privacy of their own home.
Excellent points all.
And you’re right it is very important to remember that children cannot legally (and usually practically) form adult consent.
But this case was between two minors. There is a tendency to overlook minor status only on the punishment side not on the commission side.
The cases are better used to prosecute every adult involved but using it to correct the child or (children, in this case)’s behavior to help them, rather than the state making a concerted effort to destroy the child’s life.
As appears to be the case here.
He wants to not spend his life on the sex offender list for a crime that no longer exists in Georgia. "Eastcoast Johnny Sutton", on the other hand, wants another head to mount on his office wail.
This is not an innocent man. He had a drug and alcohol party in a hotel and had 2 girls as party favors.
Then why doesn't he take the plea bargain?! The offer is still on the table. Post 24
Also, the change in the law COULD have been retroactive but the legislature did not do that. Wonder why? The media breathlessly announces that the law was changed for him............but they didn't free him when they could have. THEY didn't free him and a jury convicted him. Might that be because innocent people don't have gangbangs with semiconscious and underage girls replete with drugs and alcohol?
He did not rape anyone.
I see a tint of red in your neck. I wonder if this young man was not black you would feel the same way.
Cases like this give the racist blacks like the rev. Jesse and Al the ammunition they want to show courts are not blind when it comes to race.
When your view isn’t supported by facts, use the race card.
Why? It was TWO TEENAGERS. Both were minors.
It’s not the same as a 17 year old male and a 10 year old, or a 23 year old female and a 14 year old male (which, despite the “not guilty” cries of Freepers...is wrong even if said female is a hot teacher...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.