GA - Genarlow Wilson for oral sex with minor, Douglasville, 2004

[southcitymom]

IMHO the state should take into account the fact that common sense should prevail over the letter of the law when the two are in conflict with each other. This notion is part of many states statutes. I find it difficult to understand why Georgia doesn't have an age difference provision with regards to statutory rape laws like most other states do.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[gman20001969]

The prosecutor has been known to follow the letter of the law. Though I think the same, Mr. Wilson should have not gone to jail. If you say he should be labeled as a sex offender, then you have to also abide by Georgia law and sentence him to jail. The original judge should have used common sense and reduced sentence to something less harsh. Myself? I would have given him 5 years probation and labeled him as a sex offender. Still kinda harsh to label him, but if you bend for one, you set a nasty sliding scale for some defense attorney in the future.

 

[nanandjim]

...I would have given him 5 years probation and labeled him as a sex offender...

I thought that a deal was offered to him (probation and sex offender status); and he refused to take the deal. I also thought that all of the other boys at the party took deals. This young man was the only one who refused.

 

[Details]

Why should he be labelled a sex offender?

He refused the deal because he didn't think he was a sex offender - I think he's completely right. No way is a 17 year old kid getting a BJ from another kid a sex offender (in the sense of the registry and such). What he did should be nothing more than a misdemeanor at the absolute worst! I don't think I'd even put it up there myself.


I just think it's ridiculous - letting him off does nothing to change the laws or penalties for some 25, 36, 60 year old perv. The law was changed, and to the right thing - he should get nothing more than the penalty under the current law. Although I still think it's dumb to even charge him, when it was all consentual. How many of us would have a criminal record if such things were charged (on both sides - the male and the female)? The term 'sex offender' would lose all meaning - there'd be more sex offenders than non sex offenders!


He shouldn't be registered as a sex offender, period. That listing could ruin or change his whole life! Several professions close to him, people wherever he lives will be looking him up, and for what? Is he any real threat?

 

[bnhall]

There is no way this kid deserves to be labeled as a sex offender.

I guess maybe I'm lucky the laws are different here is Missouri. My high school was 7-12 grades so lots of younger girls dated older boys. Half the girls in my class would have sent someone to prison. :blushing:

 

[UM&AMWfan]

I was just wondering if there is any racial bias in this case? Was the girl he had oral sex with black or white?

 

[Masterj]

I have to be honest in that I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case. On one hand, I don't think he should be labeled a sex offender b/c of receiving a bj from a 15 year old. But then I read about this being videotaped, as well as him and others having sex with a girl who was drunk to consent (I am aware he was acquitted of this). I think I am more bothered by the fact that so many people are coming to this kid's defense acting like he was a saint before this. I saw one of the still photos from that night. He looked thrilled beyond belief as I guess most guys would to have performed with 2 different chicks in one night. But when I hear that one was 15 and one was wasted, it makes me think twice about his character or lack thereof.

 

[Details]

I was just wondering if there is any racial bias in this case? Was the girl he had oral sex with black or white?

There's an interesting reversal of racial bias in the LE side of the case. The state senator who is taking the boy's side (it was his law that put the boy in jail for so long, but he's been very vocal that that is not the intent, got the law revoked and rewritten), and the judge who ordered him released are both white. The idiot, power-mad prosecutor who had to go after him when he wouldn't take a plea, can't accept that the judge wants him out, is black.


IIRC, one of the girls is white. This kid is a good kid - good grades, never in trouble, on his way to college - that's why he wouldn't take the plea. The other kids all had records, they caved.

 

[Details]

I have to be honest in that I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case. On one hand, I don't think he should be labeled a sex offender b/c of receiving a bj from a 15 year old. But then I read about this being videotaped, as well as him and others having sex with a girl who was drunk to consent (I am aware he was acquitted of this). I think I am more bothered by the fact that so many people are coming to this kid's defense acting like he was a saint before this. I saw one of the still photos from that night. He looked thrilled beyond belief as I guess most guys would to have performed with 2 different chicks in one night. But when I hear that one was 15 and one was wasted, it makes me think twice about his character or lack thereof.

Not a saint - a teenager. A pretty good one - but yeah, he did take what was offered (I think there's a good reason he was acquitted) - a ton of good kids, who grow up to become good men, would have done the same in their teenage years. A slap on the wrist is all that is appropriate for this, IMHO.

 

[lostwithoutyou]

TEN YEARS?!
thats way too extreme.
i know kids are stupid with sex. and this boy and girl are both to blame. there doesnt seem to be enough evidence to convict the boy. i can understand community service. but TEN YEARS?? that is unbelievable.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

I was just wondering if there is any racial bias in this case? Was the girl he had oral sex with black or white?

--That's easy enough to find out since those CLODS filmed the whole thing--bunch of idiots

 

[Vegas Bride]

One thing I've wondered about with this case, both he and the girl were minors when this happened, why is it that he is the only one charged? The girl also had sex with a minor so shouldn't the same law have gone after her also?

VB

 

[Txmom]

I have a son who is 21, I warned him when he was in HS about having sex with the girls because of the possiblity of being labeled a sex offender. It bothers me to death to think that kids in HS are labeled sex offenders because they have sex. Give me a break, how many of us would have been labeled a sex offender?? How many of us would have children labeled?? This has gone too far. Im sure that when the sex offender bills were written no one thought about the HS aged kids having sex with one another.

 

[crypto6]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

The jury as a last resort against unfair laws can refuse to find the person guilty; there is no legal consequence to this. Prosecuters screen out people who know this so they follow the script.
Hell no, I'd vote to acquit the guy in a second.

From Wikipedia:

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what is the law or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict than officials who may be unduly influenced. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers[1] affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

“ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

 

[crypto6]

The prosecutor has been known to follow the letter of the law. Though I think the same, Mr. Wilson should have not gone to jail. If you say he should be labeled as a sex offender, then you have to also abide by Georgia law and sentence him to jail. The original judge should have used common sense and reduced sentence to something less harsh. Myself? I would have given him 5 years probation and labeled him as a sex offender. Still kinda harsh to label him, but if you bend for one, you set a nasty sliding scale for some defense attorney in the future.

gman: See the above. The jury should have stepped in here. That's what they are there for.

Crypto6

 

[Summerskye1]

Good point, crypto6, but IMO jury nullification is less likely to occur (and is therefore not a sufficient means of protest against unjust sentencing laws) when the jurors are completely unaware of, and cannot be instructed on, the possible penalties attached to a given crime.

From what I understand, the jurors in the Wilson case were aghast to learn that the penalty for this offense would be 10 years.

I don't know the laws in GA, but where I live (IIRC), the lawyers are not permitted to say anything in front of a jury that would reveal the exact nature of the punishment for a given crime. They can only argue for or against "punishment" for the defendant in a general sense (again, IIRC). There is no death penalty in my state, so jurors do not play a role in fixing punishment.

 

[crypto6]

Good point, crypto6, but IMO jury nullification is less likely to occur (and is therefore not a sufficient means of protest against unjust sentencing laws) when the jurors are completely unaware of, and cannot be instructed on, the possible penalties attached to a given crime.

From what I understand, the jurors in the Wilson case were aghast to learn that the penalty for this offense would be 10 years.

I don't know the laws in GA, but where I live (IIRC), the lawyers are not permitted to say anything in front of a jury that would reveal the exact nature of the punishment for a given crime. They can only argue for or against "punishment" for the defendant in a general sense (again, IIRC). There is no death penalty in my state, so jurors do not play a role in fixing punishment.

Excellent point. It's like the court system is forcing you to make a grave decision without sufficient information, basically a drone for what one side or the other puts in your mouth.

Does anyone know whether the GA (or any other state)court involved prohibits you from asking the penalties or getting them from the state's laws once you are sworn in?

Crypto6

 

[southcitymom]

The jury as a last resort against unfair laws can refuse to find the person guilty; there is no legal consequence to this. Prosecuters screen out people who know this so they follow the script.
Hell no, I'd vote to acquit the guy in a second.

From Wikipedia:

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what is the law or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict than officials who may be unduly influenced. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers[1] affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

“ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

That's terrific, crypto - and not something I had ever heard of. I do know in this case, the jury has said - pretty unanimously - that they never would have dished out a guilty verdict had the known what the penalty was going to be. Jurors should have that information if they are going to fully exercise this right.

 

[southcitymom]

Good point, crypto6, but IMO jury nullification is less likely to occur (and is therefore not a sufficient means of protest against unjust sentencing laws) when the jurors are completely unaware of, and cannot be instructed on, the possible penalties attached to a given crime.

From what I understand, the jurors in the Wilson case were aghast to learn that the penalty for this offense would be 10 years.

I don't know the laws in GA, but where I live (IIRC), the lawyers are not permitted to say anything in front of a jury that would reveal the exact nature of the punishment for a given crime. They can only argue for or against "punishment" for the defendant in a general sense (again, IIRC). There is no death penalty in my state, so jurors do not play a role in fixing punishment.

Exactly what I was trying to say before I read this excellent post, summerskye.

 

[crypto6]

That's terrific, crypto - and not something I had ever heard of. I do know in this case, the jury has said - pretty unanimously - that they never would have dished out a guilty verdict had the known what the penalty was going to be. Jurors should have that information if they are going to fully exercise this right.

Now that you know about it, your chances of being on a jury have plummeted if asked about it on a juror interview. Tough moral question as to whether you tell counsels whether you are familiar with the concept.

Crypto6