Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia judge voids 10 year sentence in conseunsual teen sex case.
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/11/2007 11:05:28 AM PDT by John Cena

ATLANTA — A Georgia judge on Monday voided a 10-year sentence given to a man who was convicted while a teenager of having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson voided Genarlow Wilson's sentence and dropped it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month sentence, plus credit for time served. Under the new ruling, he will not be required to register as a sex offender

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abatement; activistcourts; activistjudge; ageofconsent; ageofconsentlaws; commonlaw; culturewar; genarlowwilson; habeascorpus; ifitfeelsgooddoit; moralabsolutes; statutoryrape; teensex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

1 posted on 06/11/2007 11:05:29 AM PDT by John Cena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Cena

Good. This case was nothing more that people worshiping the law, regardless of what it says. Putting a 17 year old honor student in prison for 10 years for oral sex is stupid.


2 posted on 06/11/2007 11:07:09 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

A judge who understands human nature, error and makes a distinction between crime and stupidity.


3 posted on 06/11/2007 11:07:13 AM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Cena
Genarlow Wilson

The kid's parent(s) should get 10 years for naming him that....

4 posted on 06/11/2007 11:07:48 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

Happy ending....sorry


5 posted on 06/11/2007 11:08:10 AM PDT by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Not only that, but our esteemed (not) former president says oral sex doesn’t count.


6 posted on 06/11/2007 11:08:19 AM PDT by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: burzum

And if he’d been 18 then he should’ve been prosecuted? What if she was 14 and he was 17?

The law does not distinuish between the minor who is 18 and drunk and the minor who is 20years and 11months and drunk. Both are in violation of the law.


7 posted on 06/11/2007 11:09:06 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: burzum
What it amounts to is paternalism ~ thinking that young black men are unable to control themselves when made sexual offers by young women.

Honor student or not the guy proved he's an idiot.

8 posted on 06/11/2007 11:09:28 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

“makes a distinction between crime and stupidity.”

You’re not going to find too many guys who agree that getting oral at 17 is an error.


9 posted on 06/11/2007 11:09:40 AM PDT by JerriBlank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Well we wouldn’t want to stop consensual teenage sex would we President Carter. What would happen if “Dad” banged Genarlow’s head off the door jamb on the way out after catching him on his little girl?


10 posted on 06/11/2007 11:11:11 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JerriBlank

The error was he should have been with a girl 16 years old, 1 day. The age of consent in Georgia is 16.....en error in his judgement.


11 posted on 06/11/2007 11:11:54 AM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

Since when can a 15 year-old consent to sex?

It’s like a 15 year-old consenting to buy a house.


12 posted on 06/11/2007 11:12:06 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Quite a stretch of an analogy.


13 posted on 06/11/2007 11:13:32 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Truth : Liberals :: Kryptonite : Superman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: John Cena

I like the fact he has been released, but can’t help buy think of the irony that many here who think the judge made the proper decision also cry foul about judges “legislating from the bench”. There was a law in place which was violated. On what grounds did the judge overrule this? Or is he creating his own law?


15 posted on 06/11/2007 11:14:01 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
And if he’d been 18 then he should’ve been prosecuted? What if she was 14 and he was 17?

The law does not distinuish between the minor who is 18 and drunk and the minor who is 20years and 11months and drunk. Both are in violation of the law.

I can tell you are another of the law worshipers. I know it is a hard thing to ask in this age, but is it too hard for our legal system to use good reason and critical judgment? 10 years for a minor having oral sex with another minor only 2 years younger! 10 years! The villain in this case isn't the 17 year (he was just stupid). It is the legal system that threw his life away. And it is the people who worship that legal system and excuse any outcome as long as it follows "the rule of law."

16 posted on 06/11/2007 11:14:39 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: weegee
“The law does not distinuish between the minor who is 18 and drunk and the minor who is 20years and 11months and drunk. Both are in violation of the law.”

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Neither 18 or 20 are minors.

17 posted on 06/11/2007 11:16:37 AM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elitemicro
Another activist judge. If the law is wrong, then the legislature needs to change it, not the whim of an activist judge. I’m sick of these types overeaching. The family should have brought their plea before the state legislature and not a willing judge. This will only encourage the liberals to get other convictions overturned - just watch.

You are yet another law worshiper. See #16.

18 posted on 06/11/2007 11:17:20 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005

I can’t answer your questions. Here is a description of the original trial etc, composed by a liberal, nonetheless revealing.....

snip:
During the trial, in response to Wilson’s pointed questions about the propriety of prosecuting people for such conduct, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade said that he did not write the law, implying that he had no choice but to prosecute Wilson for aggravated child molestation. McDade said separately that Wilson should have taken a plea deal but that he failed to do so because he “has decided to become a martyr.”

These statements are remarkable in three respects. First, we should be quite disturbed to learn that a prosecutor, who has more discretion in carrying out his job than almost anyone else in the criminal justice system, is prepared to rely on the Nuremberg defense. Yes, a criminal statute literally applied to Wilson’s conduct, but the District Attorney has no obligation to enforce the law slavishly, when even he himself concedes that “[w]e don’t believe that a 10-year sentence is an appropriate punishment [in this case].”

Second, the notion that the decision to exercise one’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial - rather than waive that right by pleading guilty - is a deliberate choice of “martyrdom,” is positively offensive.

Third, McDade’s suggestion that it was Wilson’s responsibility to have taken a pleading option - literally, a confession in exchange for a more lenient punishment - is precisely the sort of “confess and convert” thinking that characterizes a theocratic justice system. It is perhaps no coincidence that the District Attorney chose the word “martyrdom” to describe Wilson’s ultimate punishment for refusing to say what he does not believe: that he did something terrible and deserves to be branded a “child molester” for life and punished for his sins.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html


19 posted on 06/11/2007 11:18:11 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Ideally, the judge would have let the ruling stand, the 17 year old would have been pardoned by the governor, and the law would have been fixed by the state legislature to include a Romeo and Juliet clause.


20 posted on 06/11/2007 11:18:16 AM PDT by M203M4 (Vote Fruity Giuliani or the terrists will win! Abortion & gun control = price for freedumb!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John Cena
B.J. Bernstein, Wilson's lawyer
Interesting choice of mouthpieces.
21 posted on 06/11/2007 11:18:44 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

You think that 10 years of jail is justified here?

(I hardly think we have excess space in our prisons for “criminals” like this.)


22 posted on 06/11/2007 11:18:50 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside (Rudy Giuliani is just another "Empty Dress Republican")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

Good, a judge with common sense.


23 posted on 06/11/2007 11:20:48 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

This prosecutor’s statements clearly describe exactly what I am worried about by those who worship the law. They always think they are doing the right thing no matter how many people they hurt.


24 posted on 06/11/2007 11:21:24 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

Good, this was a sad oversight in the legislative process in Georgia. That it spilled over into the judicial system and put this young man, and his family and girlfriend, through hell is unacceptable.


25 posted on 06/11/2007 11:21:39 AM PDT by brothers4thID (FDT: "Every notice that while our problems are getting bigger, our politicians are getting smaller?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Cena
B.J. Bernstein, Wilson's lawyer. . .

Hmmm.

26 posted on 06/11/2007 11:22:23 AM PDT by Mike Bates (Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Thank God-this case was an embarressment to me as a Georgian. It probably was racist; I fail to see how such a verdict could have been rendered otherwise.


27 posted on 06/11/2007 11:23:45 AM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

Is he still going to have to register as a sex offender? That’s really sad if he does.


28 posted on 06/11/2007 11:23:47 AM PDT by brothers4thID (FDT: "Every notice that while our problems are getting bigger, our politicians are getting smaller?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: John Cena

They only prosecuted this guy because he is black and the girl is white. He was 17 at the time and she was 15. As we all know, kids of this age having oral sex with each other NEVER happens anywhere else. If they had prosecuted guys for having oral sex with younger girls at my high school, half of the guys would have been arrested and sent to jail. He got a longer sentence than many 40 year old ADULT men who have had sex with 15 year old girls have received, and that is just not right. I am glad he is being released from jail.


29 posted on 06/11/2007 11:23:56 AM PDT by Timbo64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brothers4thID

Never mind I need to learn how to read.


30 posted on 06/11/2007 11:24:08 AM PDT by brothers4thID (FDT: "Every notice that while our problems are getting bigger, our politicians are getting smaller?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: burzum
excuse any outcome as long as it follows "the rule of law."

What better alternative is there? The law is there for all to see and know. Do you seriously advocate for a system that is case-by-case, in which no person will or can know whether or not he will be (or how he will be) punished for an action?

The moral of this story is that if you have group sex with a fifteen year-old, if you have a good PR machine, you can get off with a slap on the wrist.

Do you think ages of consent should be judicially abolished? Apparently, the Georgia legislature thought that it would be a good idea to prevent older, more mature people from coercing younger, more naive people, into to consenting to sexual acts. Why should the judge--acting on his own--overturn the will of the people of the state of Georgia, who spoke through their legislature?

31 posted on 06/11/2007 11:24:12 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
Second, the notion that the decision to exercise one’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial - rather than waive that right by pleading guilty - is a deliberate choice of “martyrdom,” is positively offensive.
Your whole post is excellent. I just wanted to highlight this.

It reminds me of those cases where DNA is used to free somebody who has been in prison for one or more decades and it turns out that at various times the prisoner (an innocent man) was asked to "show remorse" by confessing that he committed a crime he didn't commit and when he didn't, the "authorities" all clicked their tongues at his "failure to show remorse".

32 posted on 06/11/2007 11:24:20 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: weegee

What the hell is a 20 year old minor? I was in the Marines when I was 17.


33 posted on 06/11/2007 11:27:16 AM PDT by Timbo64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elitemicro

...the law was changed last year....so he is NOT an activist judge....and the law was old style flawed...if he had had intercourse with her he would have only gotten one year misdemeanor.....but for oral sex got 10 years....now that does NOT make sense at all....


34 posted on 06/11/2007 11:30:07 AM PDT by NorCalRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Publius. It's now a misdemeanor. The law is not carved into a stone tablet. The law changed. His sentence should have automatically changed with it.
"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote.
Human law is written, altered, changed, and amended by humans. All the time. It didn't come from a burning bush. It wasn't delivered by Moses. It was a stupid Georgia Law that even the State of Georgia decided had to go. But you want them to keep this kid locked up for 8 more years? To honor a law that doesn't even exist anymore? All in the name of The Law?
35 posted on 06/11/2007 11:30:23 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
What better alternative is there?

Good reason and judgment. The prosecutor did not have to bring this case--he had the option of using his judgment. The judge could have dismissed this case. The jury could have not convicted--except that juries today are trained to believe that they don't have the right to make decisions based on their own reasoning. The governor could have given a pardon. The legislature could have rewritten the law. Each one of these is a group that is hell bent on worshiping the law, even if the law gives them the option of good reason and judgment. But why would you use your reasoning when you can instead revert and follow the letter of the law like a computer, no matter how many it hurts?

36 posted on 06/11/2007 11:30:37 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Crazy stuff for GA not to make the new law retroactive.

I am just thankful I wasn’t faced with laws like this when I was 17. Wonder if the attorney general or DA ever did anything like this at that age?


37 posted on 06/11/2007 11:34:47 AM PDT by OSTATE (bad cop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: burzum

There is no “honor” in raping a 15 year old girl —even though it was consensual, it was statutory rape.


38 posted on 06/11/2007 11:35:12 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

15 will get you 20.


39 posted on 06/11/2007 11:36:39 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

So you’d be okay wrecking his life with the “sex offender” designation? Where’s her punishment for her consent?


40 posted on 06/11/2007 11:38:08 AM PDT by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Age of consent laws must be enforced or abandoned.

The Sex Positive agenda has already got our schools pushing teen sexual activity. They oppose abstinence not because it doesn’t work, but because they see sexual pleasure as a birthright to be enjoyed by everyone at every age.

If you believe that “arbitrary” legal (as in established law) barriers between two “consenting” partners are worth removing, then fight it in the legislature, not the bench.

Same as the laws against homosexuality should’ve been repealed. In Congress, not court rooms.


41 posted on 06/11/2007 11:39:33 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
There is no “honor” in raping a 15 year old girl —even though it was consensual, it was statutory rape.

Your argument begs the question (circular logic fallacy). I was saying that the statutory rape law was unjust and the sentence was unjust. Your response was that it was a just sentence because it was statutory rape (which you implied was a just law). You are going to have to do more that repeat definitions at me to convince me that oral sex with someone 2 years younger means that one should spend 10 years in prison.

42 posted on 06/11/2007 11:40:37 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
There is no “honor” in raping a 15 year old girl —even though it was consensual, it was statutory rape.

How can it be "statutory rape" if the perp was a minor too?

43 posted on 06/11/2007 11:42:51 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Timbo64

Minor in possession
What is minor in possession?
When a person age 13–17 signs a diversion agreement or is convicted of possession of alcohol. (Age is determined by the incident date.)
When a person age 13–20 signs a diversion agreement or is convicted of a drug offense. (Age is determined by incident date.)
When a person under age 18 pleads guilty or is found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm while in a vehicle.
When a person under age 18 commits any offense while armed with a firearm in which a motor vehicle served an integral function.
When a person age 13–17 is convicted of any offense involving a firearm, whether or not it is related to using a motor vehicle.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/minor.html


If you have problems with the term minor, you need to take it up with the legislature.


44 posted on 06/11/2007 11:42:53 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Agreed. This is a judge who understands justice.


45 posted on 06/11/2007 11:43:24 AM PDT by Silly (http://www.paulklenk.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
Ideally, the judge would have let the ruling stand, the 17 year old would have been pardoned by the governor, and the law would have been fixed by the state legislature to include a Romeo and Juliet clause.

The law was changed last year by the Georgia Legislature, but they just refused to make it retroactive(why on earth not?). The Governor in Georgia does not have pardon power. That's why this had to be overturned by a court.

Prosecutor will appeal because he has been adiment since day one that any plea or reduced sentence includes him being a registered sex offender for life. for whatever reason, the prosecutor wants this kids life wrecked. The prosecutor is a sick individual and a prime example of the type of person who should never be allowed such power.

Meanwhile, the kid has to stay in jail pending the appeal unless a court will allow a bond(and if someone will pay it for them). IMO, this will be fasttracked and a the court will rule that the appellant is unlikely to prevail and grant release.
46 posted on 06/11/2007 11:44:10 AM PDT by NorthFlaRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Timbo64

Let’s have amnesty for all sex offenders then. Everybody’s doing it, right? < /s >


47 posted on 06/11/2007 11:44:15 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NorthFlaRebel
The law was changed last year by the Georgia Legislature, but they just refused to make it retroactive(why on earth not?). The Governor in Georgia does not have pardon power. That's why this had to be overturned by a court.

Why NOT ask the legislature why they did not make it retroactive?

48 posted on 06/11/2007 11:44:56 AM PDT by weegee (Libs want us to learn to live with terrorism, but if a gun is used they want to rewrite the Const.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: brothers4thID

This is good but it’s sort of sad isn’t it? IIRC this kid had a bright future as a college athlete


49 posted on 06/11/2007 11:45:01 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: burzum; Jaded

I was objecting to the use of the word “honor” in describing this punk! I don’t care what his grades were. It doesn’t matter. Honor has no part of this.

He broke the law. He should be punished; she should be locked up somewhere if it was truly consensual. If the law is “unfair” then the law should be changed and his sentance commuted.

I’d say the same thing to this kid and to all of his defenders as I would say to Bill Clinton: Keep it zipped.


50 posted on 06/11/2007 11:46:48 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson