| 0 |
Subject: The case of Genarlow Wilson
Posted by: Tree
- [300382815] Sun, Jan 28, 2007, 22:15
this probably oughta go in the WTF thread, but it is such an astonishing miscarriage of "justice", that i felt it should go here.
it just is especially disgusting, and every single person involved in the prosecution of this young man should be removed from office and/or fired.
i'm especially interested in the thoughts of the law folks around here, but really, anyone.
Outrageous Injustice
in a nutshell, a 17 year old Wilson received oral sex from a 15 year old school mate. that's it. and now he's serving a 10-year jail sentence for it.
if this law was applied universally, every single male i went to high school with would have served time.
there are so many incredible quotes in this article, it's hard to pull some out.
In (prosecutor, Eddie) Barker's eyes, Wilson should have taken the same plea agreement as the others. Maintaining innocence in the face of the crushing wheels of justice is the ultimate act of vanity, he believes...
...At the same time this trial was under way, a local high school teacher, a white female, was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a student -- a true case of child molestation. The teacher received 90 days. Wilson received 3,650 days...
|
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 130452817
Sun, Jan 28, 2007, 22:30
|
This actually was in the WTF thread
(Post 75).
Deserves a fuller treatment.
So should Maher Arar, for that matter.
|
| 2 | Tree
ID: 300382815
Sun, Jan 28, 2007, 22:59
|
look at that. i actually went back into that thread, because i felt like i commented before, but still didn't see it. my bad.
|
| 3 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Jan 29, 2007, 19:34
|
I understand that this kid was prosecuted under a stupid, completely irrational law. (If he'd have scewed the girl silly, it'd have been a misdemeanor under the Ga. law at that time)
Among other factors, he got some really lousy legal advice and/or he is a stubborn idiot. Regardless of how stupid he thought the law was - he was clearly going to be found guilty and recieve the sentence that he recieved. Even after the verdict, he was offered a plea bargain that would have had him a free man right now. He refused it. That was really arrogant and dumb. A conditional Alford plea would have allowed him to make whatever appeals he wanted to but not stick him with the 10 years without parole. Bad advice. Dumb kid.
All that said - do y'all think that prosecutors should be allowed to completely ignore the laws that the people, through their elected legislators hav enacted? I think gambling prohibitions are just as dumb, irrational and inconsistnt as the law this kid was prosecuted under. Under some gambling prosecutions, people get more than 10 year sentences. Should I as a prosecutor be allowed to just willy-nilly disregard clear violations of laws I'm not keen on? Discuss if you wish.
|
| 4 | Pancho Villa
ID: 1311532913
Mon, Jan 29, 2007, 21:22
|
Here in Utah, polagamy laws have been ignored for decades.
Recently, there have been several high profile prosecutions, but these have been for alleged arranged marriges to underage girls.
But generally, concerning polygamy, prosecutors have disregarded clear violations of laws they're not keen on, though deliberately, not willy-nilly.
|
| 5 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Mon, Jan 29, 2007, 22:44
|
Yes, rational selective prosecution can be a reasonable alternative if the legislature is too caught up in their own political fears to do the right thing.
If the legislature screws up, the justice system has some flexibility to fix it. If they both screw up, the executive has the ability to fix it.
One of the good things about our system that we should fight to protect.
|
| 6 | Tree
ID: 540242917
Mon, Jan 29, 2007, 22:46
|
MBJ - by agreeing to a plea bargain, he would also be agreeing that he is a sex offender. which he's not. he would also not be allowed to live in the same house as his younger sister.
this is clearly the case of an overzealous, pompous, ego-driver prosecutor who 50 years ago wouldn't have bothered with going to court at all, and instead would have just put the white hood on, and strung Genarlow Wilson up from the nearest tree.
|
| 7 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 08:33
|
bili - Isn't there a difference in prosecutorial discretion on a case by case basis, on one hand, and a prosecutor simply refusing to enforce whatever laws are not to his liking?
I've said before as a proponent of legalized MJ, I'v never had someone put into jail for the mere possession of MJ. However, I think I'd be completely wrong, ovrzealous and arrogant if I, by my actions, made MJ possession unprosecutable in my jurisdiction. That's not my place.
Case by case analysis and discretion is one thing. Flouting statutes one doesn't like is another.
How would you have a prosecutor decide which laws to ignore? Is there a rational process?
tree - The law in Ga was clear. Under Ga law he was a sex offender. He still could have appealed his conviction under that law - he just wouldn't have had to do it from prison. That was dumb and arrogant.
The race card has been played heavily from the outset in this case. Waste of time. This has more to do with a bad law and a vindictive DA than with race. Wrong target.
|
| 8 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 11:45
|
If you are asking for hard and fast rules, then you misunderstand me. Obviously there can't be any. Prosecutors are human. Judges are human. It would be a worse system if they weren't. (part of the reason I hate 3 strikes laws - it takes judgement and the human element out of the equation).
Of course mistakes are going to be made, and there are times when even bad laws should probably be enforced. Their are also times when they shouldn't and will, unfortunately, as in this case.
You just hope most of the time that with each individual case, somewhere along the line, justice will shine through.
|
| 9 | walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 12:03
|
I guess I could have done a better job of highlighting this case when I originally posted it in WTF (III). It's just unbelievable. My answer to question MBJ poses is "judgment" and common sense. I guess it's just not as clean as that, as exceptions could then be expected to be made on a great number of cases, but this one seems so in the face of anything resembling reason, common sense and justice.
- walk
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 13:29
|
What I cannot understand for th elife of me, is why the GA Gov hasnt stepped in to "make it right".
|
| 11 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 14:46
|
So this is what the Politics Forum is all about! ;) I haven't been here since the Presidential Election.
Anyhow, just read about Mark Cuban getting involved in this and thought I'd take a look in this forum to see what was being said and sure enough...
The real problem in this case is the Georgia legislature. Because of this case, they passed a law making intercourse and oral sex the same penalty (under three years difference though). However, in that same bill they said it would not apply retroactively. WTF!!! On appeal, the State Supreme Court voted 4-3 not to overturn the guilty plea. The four whites voted no and the three blacks voted yes. Again, WTF! How is this about race?
What's more, in the same state where a teacher had sex with a student, she only gets 90 days! WTF! Also in the same state where an 18 year old had sex with a 15 year old, that conviction was overturned.
This young man was not a thug and while he obviously wasn't perfect, has no business being in jail. After he was acquitted of rape, the prosecutor offered him the same deal of 5 years instead of 10 and still would be forever on the sex offenders list and have to move out of his home because of his younger sister. I'd have rolled the dice too. Btw, these convictions are not parolable and you don't get credit for good time, etc.
I agree with Sarge. If I was the Governor, I'd step in and offer a pardon or what have you. This is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. The prosecutor could have assuredly figured something out that would keep him off the sex offenders list yet slapped him on the wrist for technically breaking a law even though he wasn't the instigator or aggressor.
|
| 12 | walk
ID: 259313119
Tue, Jan 30, 2007, 14:50
|
Well said, Ref. Nice to see you.
- walk
|
| 13 | Tree
ID: 29082512
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:18
|
Judge ponders appeal by man in prison for teen sex
this line is the one that stuns me:
If Wilson had had sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old he would have fallen under Georgia's "Romeo and Juliet" exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex between teens constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence.
and someone needs to hit this man with a stun gun:
Wilson's most vocal critic has been Georgia's top Republican senator, Eric Johnson, of Savannah.
"This was not two star-crossed lovers on a date," Johnson wrote in an opinion piece opposing the bill written to help Wilson.
|
| 14 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:40
|
Sure hope the judge says: "enough." What's the basis for the republican senator's conclusion? I also don't understand the motivation of even the prosecutors? Why continue to punish this kid for an obviously bad law that has since been changed? The author of the law and the jury think the sentence stunk, and the sex was consensual and had their "just beein intercourse" instead of fellatio, it'd have been a different outcome. None of this adds up.
- walk
|
| 15 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:42
|
and the sex was consensual
Technically, the sex was not consensual.
|
| 16 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:51
|
Oh, it wasn't? I thought it was. So was this a he-said/she-said thing? Was it a judgment made by the jury after seeing the video? MBJ, you are an attorney, IIRC, what was the technicality?
thx, walk
|
| 17 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:53
|
She was 15, below the age of consent, right?
|
| 18 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:55
|
Aaaaaaah, right, I think a few days. So, in the spirit of what they were doing, and that it was non-technically consensual, this 10-year sentence seems just or unjust? I am not a letter of the (bad) law kinda thinker. I say unjust.
- walk
|
| 19 | biliruben
ID: 52014814
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:55
|
No, she initiated the act.
My guess is that technically a 15 year old can not have consensual sex with someone older than 16.
|
| 20 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:57
|
Well, she was also a heavily intoxicated 15 year old, doubly unable to consent to sex.
|
| 21 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 15:59
|
I think he was 17. Even the guy who wrote the law said something to the effect of: "I did not write this law to punish teenagers having sex." At least the intent was good, but talk about the implementation. Gotta believe there's more than just one Genarlo Wilson out there, too. I don't want sex offenders around, and if my 14 year old daughter was having sex with multiple partners I'd be a mess, but outcome seems way off.
- walk
|
| 22 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 16:00
|
Right, MBJ, and cooler dudes would not have taken advantage of the situation, but 10 years for two teens having intoxicated sex seems off.
- walk
|
| 23 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 16:04
|
Right, MBJ, and cooler dudes would not have taken advantage of the situation, but 10 years for two teens having intoxicated sex seems off.
I don't know of anyone not of the lunatic fringe who would disagree.
|
| 24 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 16:26
|
Yeah, but with three negatives in your #23, I had to read it 3x times to see if you agree or disagree with my statement! Always trips me up, but you said it right.
;-)
walk
|
| 25 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jun 06, 2007, 17:39
|
Again, where is the Governor!!!
|
| 26 | Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 12:13
|
ATLANTA (AP) — A judge on Monday voided a 10-year sentence for a man accused of having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. Genarlow Wilson was instead given a 12-month misdemeanor sentence with credit for time already served.
The state is likely to appeal the ruling.
Wilson's original sentence, for aggravated child molestation, was widely criticized on the grounds it was grossly disproportionate to the crime. State lawmakers later passed a law to close the loophole that led to the 10-year sentence.
Wilson, now 21, has already served more than 27 months. He is expected to remain behind bars while the appeal proceeds.
|
| 27 | Tree
ID: 16352221
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 12:46
|
why on earth is the state appealing this??
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 30550117
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 12:49
|
Because some lawmakers are simply mean-spirited.
|
| 29 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 16:01
|
26 Great news! Still going to be a sex offender (still awaiting that Pardon!!!) but at least he can get out of jail if the state will quit being dumbasses for fear of swallowing their pride.
27, 28: agreed
ESPN Outside the Lines did a huge report on this. WSPn is now covering that right now. The Attorney General refuses to release him until the appeal is heard.
|
| 30 | walk
ID: 259313119
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 17:10
|
Judge Throws out Wilson Sentence
|
| 31 | Tree
ID: 16352221
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 17:53
|
walk - maybe so, but because of the appeal, an intelligent kid who might otherwise have a good future, is being forced to rot in jail because of an insane law, and an even more insane prosecutor.
|
| 32 | walk
ID: 259313119
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 18:45
|
I know, the mofo prosec's are appealing. I just don't get it...
- walk
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 30550117
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 19:23
|
The answer, I think, is in the end of the article you linked to. They believe he's guilty of the rape of the other girl, and are using the one thing they got him on to punish him for not being found guilty on the other count.
|
| 34 | Doug
ID: 441251914
Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 20:09
|
Ms. Bernstein said in response to the attorney general office’s announcement that she would try to get Mr. Wilson out of jail on bond while the defense prepares for the appeal.
Sounds like this issue is unresolved... the AG doesn't want the judge to offer bond (forgive me if I'm botching the legal terms), but given that he's already ordered him released and the wording of his statement about how keeping him there would be losing sight of the role of judicial system and what not... seems pretty likely to me that the judge would allow him to get out on bail until the appeal is heard, no?
|
| 35 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 18:02
|
State AG explains appeal
wish they were written.
Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson's order struck Genarlow Wilson's original sentence, and then purportedly went on to sentence Wilson to a misdemeanor. The law in Georgia is clear that while a habeas court may grant habeas relief, there is absolutely no authority for a habeas court to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court, in this case, the Superior Court of Douglas County.
I have attempted to bring the defense lawyers and Douglas County prosecuting attorneys together in hopes of reaching a resolution. As recently as this past weekend, the Douglas County district attorney's office offered Wilson's attorneys a plea deal that would have allowed Wilson to plead to first-offender treatment, which would mean he would not have a criminal record nor would be subject to registering on the sex offender registry once his sentence has been completed. The plea deal could also result in him receiving a sentence substantially shorter than the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for which he was originally sentenced, possibly leading to his release based upon time already served. Wilson, through his attorneys, rejected all of those offers.
I'll stand by my inital post - this kid is either getting real poor advice or is a major idiot.
He's not a hero for some nobler purpose. He prolly raped one girl and was absolutely doing a lot of very bad things. The fact that his punishment was grossly disproportionate to his crimes earns him some sympathy from me - but his victim act wears thin.
|
| 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 28525129
Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 18:10
|
The last paragraph of this reader email seems to directly confront the AG's reticence to cut him loose.
I do agree that his lawyer's advice seems a little off--even to me. Declining to sign a plea bargain because this would mean agreeing to a felony is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse gets out. He was found guilty of a felony, so his agreeing or not is a bit moot, IMO.
I do think, however, punishing him for the rape is extremely problematic from a justice point of view. He was tried for that crime and they did not get a conviction. Holding him is jail on the other charge longer to make him pay for the crime they couldn't convict him on is simply wrong.
|
| 37 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 21:08
|
Wilson prosecutor hoist by his own petard?
Strict adherence to the letter of the law....
Douglas County District Attorney David McDade violated federal law when he distributed a videotape from a rape and child molestation case to legislators and journalists, the U.S. attorney's office said Wednesday.
U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said federal law prohibited distributing the videotape because it depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and warned that people who had received it would be in violation of federal child pornography laws.
The videotape was of the raunchy party in a Douglasville hotel room that led to the conviction of Genarlow Wilson on aggravated child molestation charges. Wilson was 17 at the time and the tape showed him receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. The video has been given to both reporters and legislators.
Federal law prohibits the distribution and receipt and possession of child pornography in most circumstances, Nahmias said. "These laws are intended to protect the children depicted in such images from the ongoing victimization of having their sexual activity viewed by others, potentially for years to come," Nahmias said.
McDade told The Associated Press he was required to release the tape under the state's Open Records Act because it was introduced as evidence at the trial. Nahmias, though, said federal law trumps the open records law.
I'm pretty sure that the 1st Amendment, if nothing else would protect McDade here.....but stil...
|
| 38 | holt
ID: 410511410
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 21:22
|
I guess almost every male from my old high school deserved to go to prison for 10 years. 17 year olds getting it on with 15 year olds is something that happens, what, thousands of times every day? the fact that it was caught on video-tape must be what got this guy in so much trouble. nothing can slow down a prosecutor when they have video to back them up.
I've never been arrested in my life, but if I had to do time for every crime I ever committed, uhh... I guess I'd never get out of prison. the same can be said for most of us, probably.
|
| 39 | holt
ID: 410511410
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 21:31
|
But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively, though another legislative solution might be in the works.
uh - this is unbelievably ridiculous. I'm surprised there isn't more public outrage over this. especially considering that he is black. you can't help but wonder how this would have played out if he were some rich white kid.
|
| 40 | walk
ID: 7952415
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 11:45
|
Court Orders Genarlo Wilson Freed
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 11:52
|
3 words....
about, damn, time.
|
| 42 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 16:06
|
so in the end - genarlo gers what was offered all along - a conviction but reduced sentence -right?
|
| 43 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 16:27
|
well, the article says:
The court ruled 4-3 that the 10-year sentence Genarlow Wilson received was cruel and unusual punishment, and it directed a lower court to reverse the conviction and release him.
|
| 44 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 16:30
|
hmmmmm ...usually not a conviction reversal on a finding of cruel and unusual punishment.
|
| 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 5936267
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 16:48
|
Yeah, I would think that cruel & unusual punishment would be about the sentencing, not the conviction.
|
| 46 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 17:00
|
Here's the decision
It would appear that the conviction was dismissed becuase the minimum punishment for the crime he was convicted of was found to be cruel and unusual - thus the trial court had no authority to sentence him.
Similarly,
in the present case, Wilson stands convicted of aggravated child molestation,
and, as in Weems, we have determined that, under the statute then in effect, the
minimum punishment authorized by the legislature for that crime is
unconstitutional. Because Weems was decided on direct appeal, and the present
case stems from Wilson’s habeas petition, we cannot direct the trial court to set
aside the judgment and to dismiss the proceedings against Wilson. Instead, the
corresponding and appropriate habeas relief would be for the habeas court to set
aside Wilson’s sentence and to discharge Wilson from custody.
|
| 47 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 17:02
|
I assume that if the minimum punishment had included a sentence not deemed unconstituitonal, then the convicion would have stood - that's usually what happens.
|
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 17:24
|
Wilson's felony conviction and sentence was overturned and replaced with a misdemeanor in 'habeas court' (a kind of intermediate appellete court?) and that it was the habeas court ruling that was challenged by the state in the state supreme court. Correct?
From the first paragraph:For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the habeas court properly ruled
that Wilson’s sentence of ten years in prison for having consensual oral sex with
a fifteen-year-old girl when he was only seventeen years old constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment, but erred in convicting and sentencing Wilson for a
misdemeanor crime that did not exist when the conduct in question occurred.
|
| 49 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 18:56
|
The habeus corpus court refers to the type of appeal - not the type of court. Wilson had lost in his "direct" appeals; subsequently his lawyers filed habeus corpus (literally, "produce the body" [Wilson]) claiming that Wilson should be released because of the alledged unconstituionality of his punishment. That's why the Respondent in this appeal was the prison warden - not the state. To be precise, the appeal was that Wilson's original lawyers were incompetent because they did not raise certain constitutional issues on direct appeal. If they had failed here, I have no doubt they would have proceded with a separate habeus proceeding in Federal Court.
|
| 50 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 18:59
|
BTW, on direct appeal the same Ga Supreme Court had turned down Wilson's claim of an equal protection violation.
|
| 51 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Oct 26, 2007, 19:06
|
Another BTW - the state actually "won" this appeal. Their claim was that a habeus Court could not modify a a trial court judgment by substituting its own. In the end, they were right; that's why Wilson's conviction was dismissed, as well, though.
|
| 52 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 01:12
|
[41] AMEN!
|
| 53 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Oct 27, 2007, 02:42
|
Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XVII to the Georgia Constitution, a sentence is cruel
and unusual if it “is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.”
Moreover, whether “a particular punishment is cruel and unusual is not a static concept, but instead changes in recognition of the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Legislative enactments are the clearest and best evidence of a society’s evolving standard of decency and of how contemporary society views a particular punishment.
Full Ruling
|
| 54 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, May 17, 2010, 13:29
|
Life 'cruel and unusual' punishment for teens, court rules
amen.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|