Posted on 10/26/2007 11:18:25 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
ATLANTA -- Georgia's Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a young man who has been imprisoned for more than two years for having consensual oral sex with another teenager.
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. He has been in prison since Feb. 25, 2005.
Wilson's lawyer, B.J. Bernstein, said she expected Wilson would be released Friday afternoon from the Al Burruss Correctional Training Center in Forsyth, Ga.
"His mother is just thrilled. We're all in a little bit of shock," Bernstein said.
Wilson, 21, was convicted of aggravated child molestation following a 2003 New Year's Eve party at a Douglas County hotel room where he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. He was 17 at the time.
Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party.
The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower court"s ruling which said that the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively.
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature"s view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."
Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment" and that Wilson's crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children."
State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he accepts Friday's ruling.
Baker said he hopes the ruling will "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 this case."
The man who prosecuted Wilson, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, said that while he disagrees with the court's decision, "I also must respect their authority as the final arbiter in this case."
Wilson"s supporters were jubilant.
"It's been a long time coming," said U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat. "Each day that this young man spent in prison was a day too long."
Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who is visiting Georgia this week, called for an end to mandatory minimum prison sentences.
State lawmakers announced they had raised $4,000 toward a scholarship fund for Wilson, and Jackson promised another $5,000 from the Rainbow/PUSH organization.
The state Supreme Court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state"s appeal of a Monroe County judge's decision to reduce Wilson"s sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice."
Dissenting justices wrote that the state Legislature expressly stated that the 2006 change in the law was not intended to affect any crime prior to that date.
They said Wilson's sentence could not be cruel and unusual because the state Legislature decided that Wilson could not benefit from subsequent laws reducing the severity of the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.
They called the decision an "unprecedented disregard for the General Assembly's constitutional authority."
I'm not sure that I believe this to be correct. The Georgia Supreme Court previously affirmed his conviction once before; it was only after the legislature changed the law that he petitioned for rehearing.
I don't disagree that ten years for oral sex is excessive. I don't believe that if I were a legislator I would have voted for it. However, I don't think it comes anywhere close to "cruel and unusual punishment" and I don't think it's the court's place to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, especially in these circumstances.
Reponsibilities of the Judicial branch:
Determines which laws apply to any given case
Determines whether a law is unconstitutional
Has sole power to interpret the law and to apply it to particular disputes
May nullify laws that conflict with a more important law or constitution
Determines the disposition of prisoners
Has power to compel testimony and the production of evidence
Enforces uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
Polices its own members
Is frequently immune to arbitrary dismissal by other branches
***********************************************************
I think the courts are qualified to determine what laws are reasonable because they are made up of a group that studies the law, and has been certified in the practice of it. Not to say there aren’t plenty of incompetent members of the court, but our system of government is designed to do just that.
Yes, I think so, and I don't think anyone is debating that. I think the question, rather, is what standards ought a court be using to determine whether a law is constitutional? I just don't believe you can say "reasonableness," because then a court is no more qualified to assess whether something is reasonable than the legislature, right? After all, there is nothing about judges that make them inherently brilliant or inherently perceptive about social policy, right?
So I think there has to be objective standards. Years ago, while talking about the Eighth Amendment, someone put forth the argument to me that if the legislature allowed a particular penalty for a crime, then it was, by definition, not cruel or unusual. I pooh-poohed him at the time and said "no no, that's ridiculous," but I think that as I've reflected on it over the years, I'm not sure that it's the wrong approach to take. It is objective and clear and ensures that the legislature makes policy and the judiciary interprets the law. As it should be.
The whole point of a supreme court, federal or state, is to determine whether what emerges from legislatures conforms with the relevant constitution.
So then do we need legislatures? Shouldn't the judiciary--which is uniquely qualifed in the area of the law--make the laws? Or, at the very least, shouldn't we then have a House of Lords-type judiciary, that both judges and legislates?
I'm not saying this to be sarcastic; I'm asking a legitimate policy question: do you think it's a better solution?
I totally agree. I'm just saying that there has to be objective standards in so doing. "Reasonableness" is subjective. That's no good.
I think the legislature is needed to make the laws, because of separation of powers. Also, because the legislature is elected it would be more closely related to the will of the people (I tried to word that carefully, because it certainly hasn’t been that way lately)
The legislature, because it is elected by the people has no requirement to be familiar with the legal profession or laws in general. The courts, are not representatives of the people, but are required to have a strong knowlege of the law/constitution. Legislatures have tried to enact all kinds of laws that are contrary to the constitution. This tells me that there needs to be some legal oversight.
I think the calibre of the courts could be improved, although I haven’t really thought out how that could be accomplished. I think judges that are politically appointed with no term limits is an inherently bad idea. That is about as far as I get with it. I do know that legislatures without oversight could be a scary thing.
Excellent summary, and this is long overdue.
Perdue should pardon the rest, on the sex offender aspects.
When was his first one? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
There's nobody on this forum who would want this guy as a neighbor if they reviewed the circumstances of the crime for which he was convicted and his subsequent self-serving statements about standing up for what's right. Will he be back in jail within a couple years? I'd say the likelihood is 100%
I wouldn’t mind having him as a neighbor. He was a kid and he made a mistake. He ran with a rough crowd, and things caught up with him. He has served a pretty severe punishment already. I would have preferred to have him as a neighbor before, when he was a high school kid with a promising future as a college football player, than after 2 1/2 years in prison. Maybe he will end up back in prison, but I don’t think it is 100%. Personally, I don’t think he should have gone to prison at all.
I wouldn’t mind having him as a neighbor. He was a kid and he made a mistake. He ran with a rough crowd, and things caught up with him. He has served a pretty severe punishment already. I would have preferred to have him as a neighbor before, when he was a high school kid with a promising future as a college football player, than after 2 1/2 years in prison. Maybe he will end up back in prison, but I don’t think it is 100%. Personally, I don’t think he should have gone to prison at all.
You're fond enough of this kid that you posted the same thing twice. Well, good for Genarlow. I hope he does move next door to you. Perhaps he'll throw another New Year's party and invite you and/or the females in your family to come.
i’d throw the first stone, but then again... the girl consented and looked 17...
teeman
What you are missing is the “nailed when he thought he could get away with it comment” is from someone who thinks we peons are fools and way out of line if we dare defend ourselves when the state accuses us of anything. You see he should have coppped a plea afterall he is acused by the state and we all must kneel before the state.
Thank god for Justice!!!
LOL, the excuses for his future criminal behavior are already being offered up.
Be sure to tell the families of his future victims how happy you were to see him released.
Because the Supreme Court is there to make decisons regarding the constitutionallity of the cases that are presented before it. They did their job. They made the right decision.
sod·om·y (...) n. 1. Anal copulation of one male with another. 2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 3. Copulation with an animal. [Middle English sodomie, from Old French, fromSodome, Sodom, from Latin Sodoma, from Greek, from Hebrew s’dom.]
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.