So will the DA who locked up Genarlow Wilson be

[malaise]

disbarred? What he did was way worse than what happened at Yale. That racist MF and the judge should lose their jobs.

Cruel and unusual punishment -two years in jail!

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Sadly, No

A real crime occurred in this case, even if it was incredibly stupid. Probably the was even worse, since he sent the sentence.

[hlthe2b]

2. I think you mean what happened at Duke (LaCrosse players)

In this case, as appalled as we all are, the DA was following current law to the letter. It was a mandatory sentence of 10 years and the changes to the law specifically were written to exclude retroactive consideration.


As mad as we are, it does not appear to be the fault of the prosecutor, but the racist, "God Fearing" REPUG GA legislature.

[High Plains]

10. Of course it's the prosecutor's fault!!!!

He's the guy who decides to lay the charges. He should be removed from office.

The legislator changed the law after this case. Why it didn't make it retroactive, I don't know, but again, the prosecutor is the villain here. He should be removed from office.

[hlthe2b]

14. You don't know much about law, do you?

I really don't wish to insult you, but you do appear to be misinformed. I share your frustration, but wishing doesn't make it so.

Prosecutors have to follow the law. In some cases, (e.g., misdemeanors or where there is a lack of evidence) they have latitude in terms of what to charge. That being said, they don't get to decide WHICH laws are right and which are wrong and therefore which to prosecute.

I agree this was a miscarriage of justice, but one that needs to be laid directly in the hands of the historically racist, misogynistic, and homophobic laws that exist in some states and republican run state houses that refuse to change them.

What I will argue is that the prosecutor could have asked the court to free this young man on bail, pending the Supreme Court appeal, and after the local appeals court ruled. However, at this point the state attorney general had taken on the case.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. why would he be disbarred?

He followed the law.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. No

he acted according to the law. The GA Supreme Court ruled the law was bad.

The DA didn't do anything legally wrong.

[malaise]

5. So why was it cruel and unusual punishment n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Yes

the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that "Wilson's sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under both the Georgia and the United States Constitutions."

[hlthe2b]

24. While I agree with the sentiment "justice delayed is justice denied'

for many of these cases, it is the court that must make the determination that any given law is "cruel and unusual." It does not fall within the power of the DA (prosecutor) to do so.

This case is not like the Duke case--there the prosecutor broke the law in terms of his methods for prosecuting. He lied and withheld substantive evidence. In this case the prosecutor followed the letter of the law, no matter how wrong that law may have been to most of us (as ratified by the GA Supreme Court decision)

[flashl]

6. As in many cases, it is about

the prosecutor's broad discretion to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions.

[hlthe2b]

41. Prosecutor's "broad discretion" differs by locale and procedures

in place. See post #8 for the facts of this case. Blaming the prosecutor is convenient, but misinformed.

[flashl]

44. I am informed by a society that is corrupted from stem to stern. Thank you.

[hlthe2b]

45. ahh, an anarchist, eh?

Well, we might all get to that point, but for right now, I'm going to fight for my democracy & that means fighting to change unjust laws.

[flashl]

46. Its because I am in the trenches I have an unvarnished view. n/t

[hlthe2b]

47. ...

a :toast: to your efforts and for the "good fight"

[flashl]

48. ...

:toast:

[aikoaiko]

8. No, I don't think he should be. This was not equivalent to Duke, His 'crime' was on tape.

(I posted this elsewhere)

First, let me say that I glad he is free.

Wilson was prosecuted because one of the other girls he had sex with that night, a Black girl, said she was so drunk when they had sex that she was raped (Wilson would be acquitted of the rape charge). When police investigated they found the video tape of Wilson and friends having sex with the drunk 17 year old and sober 15 year old. By all accounts the drunk girl was "sleepy" looking and she wanted Wilson and friends charged with rape -- which he was. The aggravated sodomy charge (oral sex with an underage girl, even consensual) was almost impossible to avoid because it was on the tape Wilson made.

What was the prosecutor to do? Ignore an arguable rape and technical aggravated sodomy of two Black girls and let the Black male football player with good grades gets a pass, or prosecute. Of course, I wish he prosecuted the aggravated assault as a lesser charge, but even a jury agreed it qualified.

Of course the real discrimination came when the GA legislators would not allow the new law, which would charge people like Wilson with a misdemeanor and not be on the registry, to be retroactively applied to Wilson explicitly.

Overall, Wilson paid more than he should have, and I'm glad the GA Supreme court made the correct decision.

Any word on whether or not he is still a convicted felon and on the registry?

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. well said.

And remember. He did the offense, but chose to go to trial rather than take an offer that was much less time in custody.

[backscatter712]

16. Am I the only one that thinks this feature of our system is a crock?

I'm sorry, but if you commit a crime, you should get the same sentence whether that sentence is derived from a plea deal or a completed jury trial. At least within a margin of error.

Punishing people for demanding their day in court is just sick.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. You're not alone

This particular episode is a textbook case of everything that's wrong with our "justice" system.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. actually, it seemed to work very well

He was convicted of the crime he obviously did. The citizens decided that it should not be a crime, due to his age...and he was released from prison and the law changed.

[Mandate My Ass]

34. Tell that to Genarlow and his family

Two years of his life gone and his future in ruins over consensual sex. The only "crime" here was perpetrated on Genarlow. Some people are so uptight about sex they can't see that. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

40. I do not see a single post on this thread arguing otherwise

Flippantly accusing others of being uptight about sex that they can't see that is really beside the point and not helpful, unless you just want to antagonize your DU colleagues.

The fact is there was bad law written that was followed and the system took its typically long, drawn out course to correct. Sadly this young man got caught up in this. I hope he will feel that his sacrifice will have gone for some good--in that a horrendously written law was finally corrected.

[hlthe2b]

19. This is among many aspects of our system...

that really sucks. That, a lack of access to competent (affordable or free) legal representation, clogged courts, and the gross inequities across the spectrum of society in terms of "justice" rendered.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. I think of it as the opposite

They are not punished for demanding their rights. They are rewarded for taking responsibility for their actions, for not putting the victim through a trial, for not clogging up the system with trials.

If they did the crime, they should take responsibility for it, and get a break. Having said that, if the crime is especially henious, then there likely would be no deals.

[hlthe2b]

26. good point...

while in practice, it doesn't always end up that way, I agree that that is probably the intent.

[flashl]

22. Hobson's choice

is what poor defendants face every day. Take the plea or go away for a VERY LONG time.

Mychal Bell would not plea. And, we know what happen in Jena.
Juan Rayford, an eighteen years old, did not plea, he got 220 years.

[High Plains]

11. Oh, Jesus Christ! "He did the offense..."

He got a consensual blow job.

He was acquitted on the rape charge.

[malaise]

15. It was not an offense n/t

[hlthe2b]

17. Per a really assinine GA law in effect, indeed it was

If you want change, you have to understand the relevant facts to know how to effect change. Arguing the craziness of a law is like blowing into the wind or hitting your head into a wall. You have to change the law...

No one here is defending this stupid law or what happened to this poor kid. It was a miscarriage of justice. But one has to change the basis for what happened. The system played out under a very inappropriate set of "rules." That's what has to change.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. ohmygod

"consensual?" She was legally too young to consent. There is nothing "consensual" about having sex with a child.

[Mandate My Ass]

25. So what? He was 17. She was a peer to him.

Get a grip. Kids in middle school are getting it on every day. None of them are going to jail for it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. that is why they changed the law

they felt that there were too few years difference in age. But, that does not mean that a 15 year old is old enough to consent.

get your own grip.

[Mandate My Ass]

31. And yet she did consent

like 15 year olds do every day. We don't have to like it but putting kids in the slammer for doing what they do all the time is folly at best. I personally find it unconscionable that a promising future is in ruins over consensual sex.

[malaise]

32. That simple n/t

[hlthe2b]

37. No, you forget that "consent" is a legal term...

MINORs can not consent. I know it seems ludicrous to some, but that is the law.

I agree that the fact she was not alledging rape and that she defended this young man NEEDS to be taken into account (and ultimately was in the changes to the law), but to say that she "consented" is really not the case per the law. And this is a legal matter.

[hlthe2b]

36. Reality runs afoul of expectations...

The law does not recognize "consent" in minors. Reality is that minors "consent" all the time. Yet the law is meant to try to protect those very immature teens who could, so easily be manipulated, or intimidated, or otherwise pressured by someone older or more "street-wise" or "cooler" or whatever.

Would you feel that an developmentally disabled 15 year old would have the same ability to "consent" as a seemingly mature, socially conscious honor student at 15? The law is meant to protect both. Arguably the first needs more "protection" than the latter, but how do we address this?

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. I agree with you

That is why it depends on the age of the older person involved. 15 year olds are not mature enough to consent. So when two 15 year olds engage in sex, it is stupid with all sorts of potential ramifications (disease/ pregnancy, etc). But if an adult who is more powerful, wordily, knowing, able to pressure, manipulate, intimidate, they should be held responsible.

In our state, there must be 48 months difference in age between the two. If the child is developmentally disabled, there does not need to be any difference in age, as long as that disability prohibits the ability to consent.

[hlthe2b]

28. What if he had been 19?

Or 18 plus one day? and had drugged her or gotten her drunk? I'm just playing devils advocate and I do agree it is necessary to look at it a bit different in terms of two underage kids versus and adult and a young teen. But, our laws do state that consent can not occur if a participant is underage.

[malaise]

35. He wasn't n/t

[hlthe2b]

39. Why not read some of the points made before replying?

Many are trying to discuss this with you, who are not arguing the concern you so rightfully express. Don't you think you should at least read their points before instinctively discounting everything?

Progressives discuss and debate. Isn't that what we are here for?

[malaise]

49. Hypotheticals don't help the discussion

He was 17.

[hlthe2b]

56. uhh, yessss. & no one here has questioned the inappropriateness

of the sentence..... :shrug:


But, only trying to inform on the issue of your OP.

[malaise]

58. Several DUers discussed this case

and I welcome the discussion but not the 'hypothetical s'.

[backscatter712]

42. They were both adolescents.

We're talking about a seventeen-year-old and a fifteen-year-old, who were both willing.

I don't think this merits the kind of punishment you would give to a 42-year-old who banged a five-year-old.

Seems the Georgia Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

[hlthe2b]

43. As does everyone who has posted on this thread...

Read through...! The law was assinine and was finally overturned.

[Rosemary2205]

55. I think there's only 16 months between their ages.

[malaise]

12. He is off the register

and not a felon.

Add -nice response.

[tammywammy]

13. No

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. Of everything that was said here not once was the vicitm mentioned.

That is the travesty of our justice system. We are all so distraught about what "happened" to this guy. And no one has one bit of concern for the female.


Our society needs some work.

[hlthe2b]

30. So speak for the female...

What should have happened on behalf of the female? What are we not expressing that you would like to see expressed? It is my understanding she defended this young man and argued that the act was consensual (though we know that legally there is not such thing for a minor). So, rape was not alleged for this young girl. Tell us, what are we missing?


It seems as though (however misguided the current law) it is designed to protect this young girl... What are we missing?

[malaise]

33. What victim?

Two teens consented to sex.

[Rosemary2205]

50. you beat me to it. -- there's no victim here.

[Rosemary2205]

51. He didn't break the law to warrant disbarment - but loss of elected office would be good

[depakid]

52. Nancy Grace did much worse

And probably still holds her ticket to practice law in Georgia.

[malaise]

53. Great point

:rofl:

[tammywammy]

54. I don't understand how anyone can watch that show of hers

I even find her voice to be irritating. I think I watched like 5 minutes of it once, and I'll never punish myself like that again.

[Brewman_Jax]

57. The DA sent out copies of copies of the video

which is distribution of child pornography. That conduct is worthy of investigation and disciplinary action.


http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/07/28/sex_video/#more-1251
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/07/13/Nation/Georgia.Prosecutor.Under.Fire.For.Releasing.Teen.Sex.Video-2923499.shtml

[mondo joe]

59. I don't see how it was worse than the Yale case. Wilson received an excessive

punishment, but the DA didn't knowingly pursue a false case. The law - and virtually everyone agrees it was a VERY bad law - was altered after Wilson was prosecuted.

There are a number of problems with this case, and I am confident racism was one of them.

But the DA was not charged with prosecutorial misconduct.