GA - Genarlow Wilson for oral sex with minor, Douglasville, 2004
- Thread starter csds703
- Start date
nanandjim
Former Member
Where do you draw the line? It's also a case of stupid kids doing stupid things when they vandalize cars, knock down mailboxes, spray paint houses, steal cars and joyride. Should these kids not be prosecuted, too?csds703 said:
I seem to remember this case being televised. There is more to this story. I recall the prosecution team saying that this boy was very arrogant and totally unrepentant. Had he had the sense to act apologetic and not been so arrogant, the prosecution probably would have been more lenient with him. Right or wrong...That's the way that it is. Perhaps, they thought, by his attitude, if they gave this kid a break, he would continue to commit crimes. Many juveniles graduate into adult offenders because they have been given a slap on the wrist as kids.
Minors cannot give consent. I guess many of you posters want that law to be changed. I personally do not. I can remember being a 15-year-old kid; and I was immature. I would not do the same things now that I did as a child nor do I even think the same way.
If we give this kid a break, that will open the floodgates for all sorts of things. I personally think that the law should stay the same. Most people, especially over the age of consent, know not to mess with a minor. Don't they still call it "jailbait?"
It was pretty stupid and/or arrogant of this guy to allow himself to be videotaped having sexual intercourse with a nearly comatose girl then receiving oral sex from a minor. Now, he's paying the price for his arrogance.
Of course, I can see some are blaming the girl(s). Some things never change...
The reason I agree and think that this should not have been as large a sentence as it was is because when you weigh this crime with say a Dateline preditor sex offender and then look at the sentences that these guys are getting it's just crazy. Some who thought they were talking with 12 and 13 yo are out within a day and some never do any time at all. As we see on the tv program most of these guys are sexual preditors. A lot in positions of power. Teachers, lawyers, and even ex police officers.
These teens in the hotel were just stupid kids. They see it online and in the R rated movies all the time not to mention the "stars" who get on covers of magazines for it, then they think what's the problem. That is of course their immaturity speaking. I have 3 teenagers ranging from 15 to 18 and so I understand the mentality of these CHILDREN making these adult decisions.
Somthing has to give here. Why is a stupid teenager spending 10 years in prison and high school teachers who have been caught are just transferred? I've spoken at length with both my girls about what the future holds and luckily neither of them want children for a long long time, raising them right now is tough enough but it is going to get worse and I am worried for my future grand babies.
These teens in the hotel were just stupid kids. They see it online and in the R rated movies all the time not to mention the "stars" who get on covers of magazines for it, then they think what's the problem. That is of course their immaturity speaking. I have 3 teenagers ranging from 15 to 18 and so I understand the mentality of these CHILDREN making these adult decisions.
Somthing has to give here. Why is a stupid teenager spending 10 years in prison and high school teachers who have been caught are just transferred? I've spoken at length with both my girls about what the future holds and luckily neither of them want children for a long long time, raising them right now is tough enough but it is going to get worse and I am worried for my future grand babies.
nanandjim
Former Member
Your question involves flawed reasoning, IMO. There are plenty of people that get away with murder. Does that mean that we should prosecute no one who murders?bing1 said:
Martha Stewart did jail time for lying to the feds about insider trading. Many bigger fish are never caught and prosecuted for insider trader. Does that mean that MS should have been given a pass?
Not everyone gets caught, prosecuted and sentences they deserve for crimes committed. However, many do. Laws are there for a reason, people. If you don't like the laws, work to have them changed.
In the meantime ==> If you do the crime, you have to be willing to do the time.
No one--to include this kid--is above the law. He allowed himself to be videotaped, for God's sake. What is wrong with this picture??!! :doh:
hoppyfrog
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 231
Great post. I agree with you completely.nanandjim said:Minors cannot give consent. I guess many of you posters want that law to be changed. I personally do not. I can remember being a 15-year-old kid; and I was immature. I would not do the same things now that I did as a child nor do I even think the same way.
If we give this kid a break, that will open the floodgates for all sorts of things. I personally think that the law should stay the same. Most people, especially over the age of consent, know not to mess with a minor. Don't they still call it "jailbait?"
It was pretty stupid and/or arrogant of this guy to allow himself to be videotaped having sexual intercourse with a nearly comatose girl then receiving oral sex from a minor. Now, he's paying the price for his arrogance.
Of course, I can see some are blaming the girl(s). Some things never change...
Hoppy
Did they mention what the age of consent is in GA?nanandjim said:
If it is 18, then shouldn't that 15 year old girl be charged with assualt for performing a sex act on a minor, because he was not old enough to consent to receiving the BJ?
Or is it because she is "more of a minor" than he is?
The whole thing is very sad.
BirdieBoo
New Member
nanandjim said:Where do you draw the line? It's also a case of stupid kids doing stupid things when they vandalize cars, knock down mailboxes, spray paint houses, steal cars and joyride. Should these kids not be prosecuted, too?
I seem to remember this case being televised. There is more to this story. I recall the prosecution team saying that this boy was very arrogant and totally unrepentant. Had he had the sense to act apologetic and not been so arrogant, the prosecution probably would have been more lenient with him. Right or wrong...That's the way that it is. Perhaps, they thought, by his attitude, if they gave this kid a break, he would continue to commit crimes. Many juveniles graduate into adult offenders because they have been given a slap on the wrist as kids.
Minors cannot give consent. I guess many of you posters want that law to be changed. I personally do not. I can remember being a 15-year-old kid; and I was immature. I would not do the same things now that I did as a child nor do I even think the same way.
If we give this kid a break, that will open the floodgates for all sorts of things. I personally think that the law should stay the same. Most people, especially over the age of consent, know not to mess with a minor. Don't they still call it "jailbait?"
It was pretty stupid and/or arrogant of this guy to allow himself to be videotaped having sexual intercourse with a nearly comatose girl then receiving oral sex from a minor. Now, he's paying the price for his arrogance.
Of course, I can see some are blaming the girl(s). Some things never change...
There was another case where 3 or so boys had sex/raped a girl who was passed out or nearly so and videotaped it, one of them was the son of a high ranking LE officer, and those boys thought they were above the law and went on to break other laws while even on trial.
However....I am not "blaming" the girls but in this case it sounds like the 15 year old girl did not just "consent " to giving BJ's to all these boys, rather, it sounds from the story as though she was offering them.
Yes it is wrong, yes it is against what I would have done, even as a teen I was not sexually active. However, it happens. It happens a lot because teens like to experiment with sex. It even happened at my school, a girl gave oral sex to 5 guys while they were waiting for the school bus. A lot of other kids watched, as my school had a lot of busses and the bus stop area was largely unsupervised. The girl's parents found out and sent her to a different school the next year. But honestly, some teen girls do things like this for attention and "love".
All parents would hope their children would use better judgement, but teen boys can be pretty obsessed with sex, so IMO it is understandable if a girl (who wanted attention) freely offered a boy oral sex (in front of his peers even!) the boy might be thinking with his "other" brain rather than thinking about his future right at that moment.
nanandjim
Former Member
I'm thinking that the age of consent may be 16 years old. Isn't that what it is in most states? I think that the videotape is what forced the hands of law enforcement. Had it not been for that, no one would have been prosecuted.mrsjonnob said:Did they mention what the age of consent is in GA?
If it is 18, then shouldn't that 15 year old girl be charged with assualt for performing a sex act on a minor, because he was not old enough to consent to receiving the BJ?
Or is it because she is "more of a minor" than he is?
The whole thing is very sad.
As I said in a previous post, I think that this young man was very arrogant. I could be wrong, but I am almost certain that I saw this story on television where both sides were presented. There is always two sides to a story, so to speak.
Injustice In Georgia: The Case of Genarlow Wilson
ESPN shines its bright light on the story of Genarlow Wilson -- an honors student jailed for 10 years because of a poorly written Georgia law, a zealous prosecutor, and an impotent governmental system. The (very) short story: Wilson, 17, had consensual oral sex with a young woman, 15. He was convicted of aggravated child molestation and then sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to FindLaw:
But wait. It gets worse. At the same time that Wilson was being sentenced to 10 years in prison, down the hall in the courthouse, a 27-year-old high school teacher got a slap on the wrist (probation, 90 days in jail, not prison) for having sexual intercourse with an 16-year-old male student.
Now you tell me: which act represented a greater breach of trust and societal expectations? Which act has the greater potential for harm?
Backstory
The District Attorney -- who makes the decision on how to handle cases: which ones to prosecute, which to drop -- charged Wilson with rape and aggravated child molestation. The jury found Wilson not guilty of the rape charge.
According to the jury forewoman, the jury did not know that by convicting Wilson of the aggravated child molestation charge that they had just sentenced him to a mandatory 10 years in prison. People were screaming, crying, beating against the walls, she recalls. I just went limp. They had to help me to a chair.
Yet right down the hall, Alexander High School English teacher Kari McCarley was standing trial for "carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male student." She was married, with children. This wasn't a one-time sexual encounter. Her sentence? Three years probation and 90 days in jail.
Like the judge in that case, most of the posters at Free Republic thought her crime was no big deal.
District Attorney David McDade: "We suggested prison time, but the judge imposed a sentence that he felt was right. She [McCarley] was not having sex with a student directly under her supervision."
See, with sexual intercourse, the judge has discretion. With aggravated child molestation, the legislature set the minimum at 10 years. Nevermind that the intent of the legislation was to prosecute adults preying on pre-adolescent children, not two teens where the younger teen initiated the sexual contact.
Plea Deal Declined
Wilson chose not to plea bargain because first, he wasn't guilty of either rape or molestation, and second, he did not want to spend his entire adult life on a registry of sexual offenders. He was the only teen involved whose case went to trial. The others succumbed to pressure from the DA's office; most also had prior records. Wilson did not.
The small-town (Douglasville estimated population in 2005: 27,568) district attorney and prosecutor -- Eddie Barker -- made Wilson pay for the effrontery of insisting on his innocence. [Also, Douglasville is predominantly white; Wilson is black.]
Why do I say they "made him pay"? First, the DA's office agreed that the young woman initiated the act. (So did she.) So why prosecute? Wilson was an honors student, had no tangles with the law, and there was no crime, ie, no one was harmed.
Nevertheless, McDade and Barker chose to prosecute the case. Moreover, as ESPN writes:
Atlanta Magazine quotes District Attorney McDade:
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207995.htm
ESPN shines its bright light on the story of Genarlow Wilson -- an honors student jailed for 10 years because of a poorly written Georgia law, a zealous prosecutor, and an impotent governmental system. The (very) short story: Wilson, 17, had consensual oral sex with a young woman, 15. He was convicted of aggravated child molestation and then sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to FindLaw:
Because Wilson and a 15-year-old girl engaged in nonprocreative sex, his conduct fell squarely within the terms of the aggravated child molestation statute. And though the Georgia legislature subsequently passed a "Romeo and Juliet Law" limiting sentences in cases like Wilson's to one year of incarceration, this law was not written to apply retroactively.
Had Wilson and the 15 year old had sexual intercourse, his maximum sentence -- according to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling in the Marcus Dixon case -- would have been one year. That case, of course, made its way to Oprah. Wilson has Mark Cuban. But wait. It gets worse. At the same time that Wilson was being sentenced to 10 years in prison, down the hall in the courthouse, a 27-year-old high school teacher got a slap on the wrist (probation, 90 days in jail, not prison) for having sexual intercourse with an 16-year-old male student.
Now you tell me: which act represented a greater breach of trust and societal expectations? Which act has the greater potential for harm?
Backstory
The District Attorney -- who makes the decision on how to handle cases: which ones to prosecute, which to drop -- charged Wilson with rape and aggravated child molestation. The jury found Wilson not guilty of the rape charge.
According to the jury forewoman, the jury did not know that by convicting Wilson of the aggravated child molestation charge that they had just sentenced him to a mandatory 10 years in prison. People were screaming, crying, beating against the walls, she recalls. I just went limp. They had to help me to a chair.
Yet right down the hall, Alexander High School English teacher Kari McCarley was standing trial for "carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male student." She was married, with children. This wasn't a one-time sexual encounter. Her sentence? Three years probation and 90 days in jail.
Like the judge in that case, most of the posters at Free Republic thought her crime was no big deal.
District Attorney David McDade: "We suggested prison time, but the judge imposed a sentence that he felt was right. She [McCarley] was not having sex with a student directly under her supervision."
See, with sexual intercourse, the judge has discretion. With aggravated child molestation, the legislature set the minimum at 10 years. Nevermind that the intent of the legislation was to prosecute adults preying on pre-adolescent children, not two teens where the younger teen initiated the sexual contact.
Plea Deal Declined
Wilson chose not to plea bargain because first, he wasn't guilty of either rape or molestation, and second, he did not want to spend his entire adult life on a registry of sexual offenders. He was the only teen involved whose case went to trial. The others succumbed to pressure from the DA's office; most also had prior records. Wilson did not.
The small-town (Douglasville estimated population in 2005: 27,568) district attorney and prosecutor -- Eddie Barker -- made Wilson pay for the effrontery of insisting on his innocence. [Also, Douglasville is predominantly white; Wilson is black.]
Why do I say they "made him pay"? First, the DA's office agreed that the young woman initiated the act. (So did she.) So why prosecute? Wilson was an honors student, had no tangles with the law, and there was no crime, ie, no one was harmed.
Nevertheless, McDade and Barker chose to prosecute the case. Moreover, as ESPN writes:
Barker is quick to point out that he offered Wilson a plea after he'd been found guilty -- the first time he has ever done that. Of course, the plea was the same five years he'd offered before the trial -- not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. None of the other defendants insisted on a jury trial. Wilson did. He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, "took their medicine."
This quote makes no sense to me. I don't see how Barker could offer a plea post-conviction if the mandatory sentence is 10 years. Before trial, sure. Atlanta Magazine quotes District Attorney McDade:
"We dont believe that a 10-year sentence is an appropriate punishment [in this case], buthe made that decision to put himself in that predicament, explains McDade, of Genarlows refusal to cop a plea. He has decided to become a martyr because people have been whispering in his ear, Well make you famous like Marcus Dixon. ...
McDade says he further supported the judges decision to treat Genarlowthe only one who had not had any run-ins with the law prior to this casethe same as the other [five] boys because he does not believe in offering First Offender status in sex crime cases.
I find the attitude reflected by the DA's office to be small-minded, abhorrent and fully representative of too many middle-aged southern white men. (I know of what I speak: I am a middle-aged southern white woman, even if I no longer live in my native South.) McDade says he further supported the judges decision to treat Genarlowthe only one who had not had any run-ins with the law prior to this casethe same as the other [five] boys because he does not believe in offering First Offender status in sex crime cases.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207995.htm
BirdieBoo
New Member
I agree with you up to a point Nan, I think that in this case the girl giving the BJ's was acting irresponsible as well and should not be considered a "victim" as much, I don't know, its a moral grey area for me in a way, because it sounds like the girl was not just consenting but "offering" and the boys were underage as well.
The other girl who was semi-passed out is not such a grey area to me, but then again a lot of teen sex education these days is just "abstinence, don't do it, that's all there is to it", kind of mentality. When girls and boys get into college they are taught about "date rape" and being responsible with alcohol etc. but for some of them they have already learned the hard way or worse.
The other girl who was semi-passed out is not such a grey area to me, but then again a lot of teen sex education these days is just "abstinence, don't do it, that's all there is to it", kind of mentality. When girls and boys get into college they are taught about "date rape" and being responsible with alcohol etc. but for some of them they have already learned the hard way or worse.
nanandjim
Former Member
So was Scott Peterson. Just to name one of many who have committed a crime for which they were eventually punished.csds703 said:
Of course, I could also name many others who fit into this category that committed crimes and were not punished.
I guess what I am trying to say is, "So what?"
nanandjim
Former Member
Hey BB - I got away with A LOT of stupid, punishable acts (none involving sexBirdieBoo said:
). I am very lucky that I do not have a criminal record. Because I was lucky, I was able to work for large corporations and make a fair amount of money. Many of my peers were not so lucky. This guy falls into this category. As I said in a previous post, I think that his biggest mistake was to allow the videotaping. If not for the videotape, he would be a free man. He may or may not have committed other offenses in the future. It does take a while to mature. Some get caught; others are luckier. It doesn't mean that they aren't all committing crimes and taking a chance of being caught. He was probably underage drinking, too. This is technically a crime.
OK...I get your point there Nan.nanandjim said:So was Scott Peterson. Just to name one of many who have committed a crime for which they were eventually punished.
Of course, I could also name many others who fit into this category that committed crimes and were not punished.
I guess what I am trying to say is, "So what?"
I think my problem here with this case is the fact that he is being branded a sex offender. As you read about this case, there is alot of questions being raised about whether the DA acted in good conscious. This girl admitted to initiating the sex so why isn't she responsible for her actions.
I am appalled by all their behaviors.
I just don't buy that he should be doing 10 yrs in jail for accepting a *advertiser censored*.
nanandjim
Former Member
Was it a mandatory sentence or did the judge have discretion? I am wondering why the sentence was so harsh.csds703 said:
angelwngs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 5,038
- Reaction score
- 482
In researching my family history I was amazed at the age many of the females in my family were when they got married and even more astonished, in several cases, at the number of months after the date of their marriage that their 1st child was born.
Then I considered my own 1st sexual activity and what age I was when I "CHOSE" to "do it". I also thought about who I "CHOSE" to have sex with and "why" I made that choice. I recalled the day I got birth control and how my, now "out of the closet" lesbian, cousin admonished me way back then for getting the pill and for my choice to "have sex". . . I also thought about the evening this same cousin told me that she was gay and how I chose to accept that fact without casting any verbal judgement upon her choices.
"Appropriate Sex" changes according to the morally acceptable circumstances of the times........
Some cultures still castrate females to help prevent sexual activity involving young females and to prevent all females from having their 'desire fulfilled'.
In some states in our country, laws are passed which generalize every female's ability to consent to having sex according to her age, which is, in my personal opinion, beyond absurd. I have known many 15 year olds capable of making decisions with much better judgement than a lot of adult females. (A blond 39 year old who died in Hollywood, Fla last week immediately comes to mind on the 'legally adult' point. NOT!)
Also, these laws are primarily intended to scare the MALE into "not doing it" and to punish HIM if he does. That is gender discrimination! This 17 year old male was NOT of legal adult age in the state of Ga! He could have counter sued if he had had a lawyer with half a brian.
Another absurdity about laws defining the age of consent, how can males KNOW that a female is below the age of consent? Should each state make young females wear white until the age of legal consent and ban white to be worn by those above the age of consent? What if a girls cheats and wears something red? That is as absurd as expecting certain females not to lie about their age when a male asks. I guess we could micro-chip females and issue all males some sort of scan guns to determine the legal age of consent, but then the "age buzzer" would have to change from state to state...and can you imagine how annoying it would be to have to hear that darn buzzer going off all of the time!
The fact is, males and young females have been 'willingly' getting together since the beginning of time.
Nature dictates when females are mature enough to reproduce. Humans create these laws to justify their inability to teach their children their own chosen moral standards.
My personal definition of "rape" involving biologically mature males and females is if either the male or the female, say "no", and /or do not participate in the 'act' willingly then it is rape.
Subjective? Yep, but there is a crap load about the 'law and its enforcement' that is subjective.
Then I considered my own 1st sexual activity and what age I was when I "CHOSE" to "do it". I also thought about who I "CHOSE" to have sex with and "why" I made that choice. I recalled the day I got birth control and how my, now "out of the closet" lesbian, cousin admonished me way back then for getting the pill and for my choice to "have sex". . . I also thought about the evening this same cousin told me that she was gay and how I chose to accept that fact without casting any verbal judgement upon her choices.
"Appropriate Sex" changes according to the morally acceptable circumstances of the times........
Some cultures still castrate females to help prevent sexual activity involving young females and to prevent all females from having their 'desire fulfilled'.
In some states in our country, laws are passed which generalize every female's ability to consent to having sex according to her age, which is, in my personal opinion, beyond absurd. I have known many 15 year olds capable of making decisions with much better judgement than a lot of adult females. (A blond 39 year old who died in Hollywood, Fla last week immediately comes to mind on the 'legally adult' point. NOT!)
Also, these laws are primarily intended to scare the MALE into "not doing it" and to punish HIM if he does. That is gender discrimination! This 17 year old male was NOT of legal adult age in the state of Ga! He could have counter sued if he had had a lawyer with half a brian.
Another absurdity about laws defining the age of consent, how can males KNOW that a female is below the age of consent? Should each state make young females wear white until the age of legal consent and ban white to be worn by those above the age of consent? What if a girls cheats and wears something red? That is as absurd as expecting certain females not to lie about their age when a male asks. I guess we could micro-chip females and issue all males some sort of scan guns to determine the legal age of consent, but then the "age buzzer" would have to change from state to state...and can you imagine how annoying it would be to have to hear that darn buzzer going off all of the time!
The fact is, males and young females have been 'willingly' getting together since the beginning of time.
Nature dictates when females are mature enough to reproduce. Humans create these laws to justify their inability to teach their children their own chosen moral standards.
My personal definition of "rape" involving biologically mature males and females is if either the male or the female, say "no", and /or do not participate in the 'act' willingly then it is rape.
Subjective? Yep, but there is a crap load about the 'law and its enforcement' that is subjective.
Mabel
Former Member
I've searched so hard for info about this case since I saw it featured on Crier a few years ago. Wilson's mother was on, begging people to help her son. It broke my heart. Wilson was a truly nice kid who had his future all planned out. He was an all A student, star athlete, liked by everyone. Now, because of one stupid act, his whole life is ruined. He will definitely not be the same person after 10 years in prison. When he comes out, he probably will actually be a criminal.
He knew he made a mistake going to that party, but kids do make mistakes. The girl admitted that she OFFERED oral sex to all the guys. She refused to testify against Wilson and didn't want him to go to jail. Honestly, how many 17 year old boys are going to turn down oral sex when a pretty girl offers it?
The whole thing is just such a shame. I've thought about that poor kid a lot, and especially about his mother who can do nothing but sit and wait while her son's whole life is destroyed. So sad.
He knew he made a mistake going to that party, but kids do make mistakes. The girl admitted that she OFFERED oral sex to all the guys. She refused to testify against Wilson and didn't want him to go to jail. Honestly, how many 17 year old boys are going to turn down oral sex when a pretty girl offers it?
The whole thing is just such a shame. I've thought about that poor kid a lot, and especially about his mother who can do nothing but sit and wait while her son's whole life is destroyed. So sad.
nanandjim
Former Member
That law needs to be changed. However, I still think that this young man acted in a very arrogant fashion with LE. He thought that he was above the law and therefore refused to accept a plea agreement as all of the others had. I feel certain that his lawyers told him what he was risking; and he was arrogant enough to think that the jury would go against a law on the books and just let him go free. They couldn't do that.csds703 said:
If the boy had been contrite, I would have recommended a year, suspended sentence with some community service to be done at schools warning kids about underage sex, etc.
If the boy was arrogant (as has been reported), I would be inclined to let the chips fall where they may (and did).
Human nature is to be sympathetic towards those with good attitudes and towards those who admit when they are wrong. It is also human nature to want to be harsher towards towards those with superior attitudes who think that they should be above being punished for something that "everyone else does."
I'm afraid that someone with this kind of attitude will continue to push boundaries because s/he thinks that s/he should be able to get away with it. Laws set boundaries and tell society what's expected. Without them, there would be chaos.
If people don't like a particular law, they should lobby to have it changed.
nanandjim
Former Member
If this is the same young man that is being discussed in this thread, I agree with you. Somehow, I thought that I saw where the boy was arrogant and unapologetic. If I am wrong, I apologize. :blushing:Mabel said: