Judge: No 10-year sentence for teen sex

[dannyboy]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case)

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago



A Georgia judge ordered the release Monday of a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The state attorney general, however, said he would appeal.

The judge in his ruling Monday threw out Genarlow Wilson's 10-year sentence and amended it to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served.

Under the ruling, Wilson, who has been behind bars for more than two years, would be released and would not be required to register as a sex offender.

"If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner," wrote Judge Thomas H. Wilson, no relation to Genarlow Wilson.

Wilson's original sentence, for aggravated child molestation, was widely criticized on the grounds it was grossly disproportionate to the crime. State lawmakers later passed a law to close the loophole that led to the 10-year term.

"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.

Wilson's defense lawyers were ecstatic as the ruling came in. But lawyer B.J. Bernstein later announced that the attorney general's office had filed notice of appeal, which she believes it meant to put a stop to Wilson's immediate release.

She said she plans to look into filing a bond to release him while the appeal is pending.

"It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now," she said. "In essence the attorney general is saying, 'Keep Genarlow Wilson in prison for 10 years and keep him on the sex offender registry.'"

The attorney general's office did not immediately comment.

A Georgia Department of Corrections spokeswoman said the agency cannot take any action regarding Wilson nor comment on his case until it receives a copy of the judge's order. Wilson's lawyers said they expected to talk with prison officials in the afternoon.

When the judge's order arrived Monday morning, Wilson's lawyers had applauded and hugged his mother, who wiped away tears.

"I just feel like a miracle happened," said Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett.

A jury had found Wilson, an honor student, guilty in 2005 of aggravated child molestation for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl during a 2003 New Year's Eve party involving alcohol and marijuana. Although the sex act was consensual, it was illegal under Georgia law.

Wilson was also charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with a 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury.

Several influential people, including former President Jimmy Carter, stepped forward to support Wilson.

[gwar469]

i sure hope the appeal doesn't go through. this guy had no reason to be put in jail. and when the state passes a law to nullify the law he was put away on, you know something is wrong. what was wrong was not making the law retroactive and releasing the guy earlier. i don't get that part at all. who did this kid piss off?

truth be told, how many of us guys on here would be in jail if we were prosecuted the same way? i know i got a BJ or two while I was back in high school, and especially from someone under the age of 17. yes, oral sex is a crime in indiana. :mad:

[markalot]

Perhaps a picture brings some context?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/vt1.1510.wilson.ap.jpg

In Georgia, go figure. :rolleyes: Now I wonder if it was a white girl.

[silentpaul]

yes, oral sex is a crime in indiana. :mad:
Thanks to blue laws, any sex at all on Sundays is a crime in Massachusetts.

We've got more criminals than Australia.

[skidminix]

Wilson's defense lawyers were ecstatic as the ruling came in. But lawyer B.J. Bernstein later announced that the attorney general's office had filed notice of appeal, which she believes it meant to put a stop to Wilson's immediate release.
I wonder if Ms. Bernstein gets all the oral sex cases. :p

[markalot]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html

Appeal blocks release.

And it's the front page story at CNN.com AND fox news.

[wileE]

Ruin a man's life for oral sex? Ridiculous.

[ICONOCLAST420]

Perhaps a picture brings some context?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/vt1.1510.wilson.ap.jpg

In Georgia, go figure. :rolleyes: Now I wonder if it was a white girl.
That was the first thing to go through my mind as I was reading the story.

[classicgrrl]

Ruin a man's life for oral sex? Ridiculous.

his last name isn't Clinton isn't?

[juggles]

Perhaps a picture brings some context?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/vt1.1510.wilson.ap.jpg

In Georgia, go figure. :rolleyes: Now I wonder if it was a white girl.
I'm not positive, but I seem to remember that the girl is black.

At any rate, perpetuating racist stereotypes about the South is sure to help matters.

[the happy prole]

You know why he got the ten year sentence? He wouldn't plea bargain because any guilty charge would have put him on the sexual offender list and he didn't want to not be able to live at home or visit his sister.

oh, he's not in jail for statutory rape, or even child molestation but aggravated child molestation. But the sexual offender registry laws aren't stupid in any way, and only Duke lacrosse players get screwed because the PC-police have it out for rich white kids. :rolleyes:

[DLDude]

I hate the south

[markalot]

You know why he got the ten year sentence? He wouldn't plea bargain because any guilty charge would have put him on the sexual offender list and he didn't want to not be able to live at home or visit his sister.

oh, he's not in jail for statutory rape, or even child molestation but aggravated child molestation. But the sexual offender registry laws aren't stupid in any way, and only Duke lacrosse players get screwed because the PC-police have it out for rich white kids. :rolleyes:


And only white girls make the front page.

But the sexual offender registry laws aren't stupid in any way


You tell us most here aren't able to make a decent argument, then you give us this? I like the sexual offender registry, this guy is not a sexual offender.

[dannyboy]

You tell us most here aren't able to make a decent argument, then you give us this? I like the sexual offender registry, this guy is not a sexual offender.
Yeah, but how many other people ARE on sexual offender registries for similar transgressions that they shouldn't be on there for? All we see is that they are a sex offender and naturally assume the worst.

[markalot]

Yeah, but how many other people ARE on sexual offender registries for similar transgressions that they shouldn't be on there for? All we see is that they are a sex offender and naturally assume the worst.

Only sexual offenders should be on the registry. If you're worried about laws being improperly applied because someone undeserving has been convicted then we might as well release everyone.

I would be for having the registries detail the crimes and reasons people are on it if you think that would help. Also keep in mind that the law was fixed in this case, but no one cared about this poor kid. We have to fix this stupidity that has invaded the legal system.

[markalot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex_case_24;_ylt=AjWQ6tV0XCqS1XXx.PTRsS8E1vAI

[emmanuellewis]

jesus, this is pretty ridiculous:

At the time of his crime, Wilson would have faced just one year in prison if he had sexual intercourse with the girl. The "Romeo and Juliet" exception in Georgia law also would have allowed him to avoid the sex offender registry.

[the happy prole]

no one cared about this poor kid.

Even now they're making moves to try and keep him behind bars. Which is why the sexual offender registry won't work.

If they were to examine things more closely and find a rule that makes sense, then I wouldn't be opposed to the sexual offender registry. Although pretty much if they did that there wouldn't BE a sexual offender registry.

But since no one-- especially the proponents of the registry and including yourself-- has any inclination at all to take a deeper look at these things, it'll continue to be shit.

What makes you think this guy isn't a threat to the public at large while a dude who exposes himself or jacks off in a public place is? Remember, no stats or recidivism rates because no one cares about those.

[markalot]

Well, in my dumb ass simple mind, wanting to fuck a girl 2 years your junior is normal while jacking off to porn in a public library is not, or at best shows an incredible lack of judgment.

No law or the enforcement of any law is perfect, but declaring something useless because the enforcement or application is flawed is not a valid point in my opinion.

I already said I would like to see the exact reason someone is on the registry so I can make up my own mind, so saying I don't care is not accurate.

[dannyboy]

Well, in my dumb ass simple mind, wanting to fuck a girl 2 years your junior is normal while jacking off to porn in a public library is not, or at best shows an incredible lack of judgment.

No law or the enforcement of any law is perfect, but declaring something useless because the enforcement or application is flawed is not a valid point in my opinion.

I already said I would like to see the exact reason someone is on the registry so I can make up my own mind, so saying I don't care is not accurate.
But is a lack of judgment worth getting your life fucked over?...especially just under some guise of keeping everyone else safe? The whole point of the registries is to allow the government to make up your mind for you as to who is a threat and who isn't under some sweeping blanket of coverage. Keep in mind that this is after a sentence has been served and supposedly the debt to society paid back. I'm calling a spade a spade, it's a scarlet letter and nothing more. It's society projecting it's own sexual shame upon these perpertrators. We don't have these registries for any other type of offense, recidivism rates being equal or more.

[the happy prole]

I already said I would like to see the exact reason someone is on the registry so I can make up my own mind, so saying I don't care is not accurate.

You could find out right now with pretty minimal effort, but do you?

Look, you're essentially making your decision on whether in your personal view someone is "normal" or perhaps "not a scumbag." So it's not and never has been an issue of public safety or a subject of debate for you.

I've pointed out the danger of this way of thinking to you, and in fact some states do not extend their "Romeo and Juliet" laws to "Romeo and Romeo" because their citizens think gays aren't "normal." And they're going to tell you the same thing you tell me-- they know normal when they see it, and they don't much care what happens to deviants.

[markalot]

Laws are decided by society, as is 'normal'. Are you saying we should use something else to decide what is right and wrong? The religious right has great disdain for the majority deciding right from wrong and would rather use the bible. What's your goal here?

My goal is to get deviants off the street and if that's not possible get them registered. Period. I've never been against improving the laws so that non-deviants aren't registered. We might have differing opinions of deviant behavior, society works like that.

[dannyboy]

deviant n. a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior


What specifically makes deviant behavior a threat?

[markalot]

What doesn't make it a threat?

If you could show me clear scientific evidence that showed only certain forms of deviant sexual behavior led to future problems do you think I would be for or against changing laws to account for it?

Focus on what I'm saying, not what people are saying I'm saying. Right now, in my opinion, you can't tell in advance, and I'm not for locking up people who haven't committed a crime yet. Jerk off in the library, get tagged a deviant. And then we discussed degrees of a crime and I was for that too. So jerk off is the lowest level deviant, child molester is the highest.

Provide evidence that jerking off in the library is normal and I'll change my opinion. Show me the thousands of people on a sexual registry for doing nothing more than jerking off in a library and I'll change my opinion.

[the happy prole]

If you could show me clear scientific evidence that showed only certain forms of deviant sexual behavior led to future problems do you think I would be for or against changing laws to account for it?

I think you wouldn't give a shit. Because you've said so over and over.

[gwar469]

so..........

any word on the appeal yet?

[markalot]

I think you wouldn't give a shit. Because you've said so over and over.

Ok troll, so you're done here and I'm sure we all, those of us who can't debate anyway, appreciate it.

[the happy prole]

You asked:

If you could show me clear scientific evidence that showed only certain forms of deviant sexual behavior led to future problems do you think I would be for or against changing laws to account for it?
-----

You answered:

You keep thinking it matters to me what the rate of repeat offenders is but it does not.

I don't care about the r word. I have said time and time and time again that I don't care because the risk of just one doing it again is too much and these worthless scums don't matter anyway.

That's a circular argument that assumes that I care about repeat offenses, which I do not.

I'm killing them for revenge.

I have this feeling that they are worthless or not worth trying to rehabilitate. This is not saying that it can't be done but rather that I don't think it's worth it.

Finally, I'm not interested in the percent that would commit another or repeat the same crime. If a person commits the crime once that's enough to remove them from society.

[juggles]

I hate the south
Yeah, those racist southern bastards. Take the attorney general who's pushing this case. He hates black people. You can see it in his eyes.

http://www.state.ga.us/ago/images/baker.jpg

[markalot]

Prole,

there was a point to your post that you might have left out? How does this relate to weather or not I think someone committed a sexual offense or HOW we might improve the designation of a sexual offense?

I'll state it a different way, though I suspect you're looking to win, not understand.

We identify people who commit sexual offenses, we lock them up forever or kill them.

And then you go but but but only a few sexual offenders ever repeat, and then I go I don't care. Do it once and you're gone, bye bye, see ya later.

Now you somehow connect this with who we identify as a sexual offender and try and claim I want them all locked up when in fact I've gone out of my way to identify cases where people have been tagged as a sexual offender who do not deserve it. The two points are disconnected and bare no relation to me.

It's beyond my simple mind why I should not want a sexual predator registry because the justice system isn't perfect. How about we get rid of jails and sentences all together because some innocents have been sent to jail?

Finally, just to be sure you haven't forgotten, the library jerk off goes to jail unless you can prove one of two things to me. 1. There is no relation between jerking off in a public place to sexually deviant behavior, or 2. This guy did not have access to a private shower stall at least once a week.

Masturbation ain't rocket science.

[the happy prole]

I don't want to make this a race issue, and I strongly agree with your general point. Blaming the South for this is not productive.

But it's easily possible for black people to be racist against blacks or to act in what could be viewed as racist ways because there are greater forces and influences at work.

[the happy prole]

Finally, just to be sure you haven't forgotten, the library jerk off goes to jail unless you can prove one of two things to me. 1. There is no relation between jerking off in a public place to sexually deviant behavior, or 2. This guy did not have access to a private shower stall at least once a week.

Masturbation ain't rocket science.

Just in case you haven't forgotten, you gave the library jerk off the death sentence.

I'm not really interested in proving anything to you. First off, I could give a shit about "deviant behavior." I care about the past and future harm that those actions cause. Second, I don't care whether he had access to a private shower stall or not. See sentence above.

This dude was Homecoming King, and Honor Student, and a local football star. I'm sure he could have gotten a BJ from someone above the age of consent. For that matter, it probably wouldn't have been the greatest hardship in the world for him to practice abstinence.

Lastly, I shouldn't have to prove anything to you. Since we're talking about crime and a man's liberty, the accepted rules here in the US mean that you should prove to me that jerking off in public leads to rape. If masturbation ain't rocket science it shouldn't be that hard for you to do.

And people aren't angered by the religious right's viewpoint because they are the minority. They're mad because they don't think that any group-- no matter how many members they have-- should be able to just label people as sinners, deviants, whathaveyou and dismiss them. The way things work (or at least used to) here in the US is that neither deviant behavior nor deviant "status" is not a crime. Behavior that causes too much harm to others is a crime-- whether deviant or not.

The phrases you use, the way you've addressed those with opposing views, the view you have of "scumbag" or "deviant" vs "normal," the approach you've taken from the get-go lead me to believe that you really aren't all that interested in discussing the issue as a matter of policy rather than morality.

So no, I'm not really debating or discussing this with you. I'm sorry to say, but I'm trying to make you look bad in an attempt to maybe help others who might have a more objective approach to this.

[markalot]

So no, I'm not really debating or discussing this with you. I'm sorry to say, but I'm trying to make you look bad in an attempt to maybe help others who might have a more objective approach to this.

You need to try harder. I think the only person you've made look bad is yourself, first with that no one here can debate crap and now admitting you don't care about discussing this with me and are only trying to make me look bad. Maybe add to that the fact you think people here can benefit from your awesome educational techniques.

I don't think anyone here needs help making themselves look bad. :p

[the happy prole]

ah well, a loser is me.

[juggles]

I don't want to make this a race issue, and I strongly agree with your general point. Blaming the South for this is not productive.

But it's easily possible for black people to be racist against blacks or to act in what could be viewed as racist ways because there are greater forces and influences at work.


I agree. My point was just that there seemed to be some knee-jerking and stereotyping going on that I found distasteful.

[DLDude]

Hey now, black OR white...




I hate the south

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Three reasons to release this kid IMMEDIATELY:

#1) you can be certain that if this kid were from a wealthy &/or influencial (famous/political/etc) family then he would have been released LONG AGO

#2) he was 17 at the time of the offense, right? he was a minor, & I really detest the whole "try her/him as an adult" trend that has been occuring over the past few decades. 17 AINT NO ADULT! & no minor should ever be given a 10yr sentence for anything, PERIOD! If we don't make exceptions for doling out rights & privileges then we shouldn't make exceptions when it comes to responsibility & punishment either. I strongly believe that society has a moral obligation to do everything in its power to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, while with adults a judgement call should be made as to whether rehabilitation is worth the resources required (or even possible).

#3) it's just consenual oral sex w/ only a 2yr age difference - DAMN!

[dannyboy]

Three reasons to release this kid IMMEDIATELY:

#1) you can be certain that if this kid were from a wealthy &/or influencial (famous/political/etc) family then he would have been released LONG AGO

#2) he was 17 at the time of the offense, right? he was a minor, & I really detest the whole "try her/him as an adult" trend that has been occuring over the past few decades. 17 AINT NO ADULT! & no minor should ever be given a 10yr sentence for anything, PERIOD! If we don't make exceptions for doling out rights & privileges then we shouldn't make exceptions when it comes to responsibility & punishment either. I strongly believe that society has a moral obligation to do everything in its power to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, while with adults a judgement call should be made as to whether rehabilitation is worth the resources required (or even possible).

#3) it's just consenual oral sex w/ only a 2yr age difference - DAMN!
Know why the AG is making such an issue out of it? ...same reason as this. (http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=47343)

[juggles]

I'm thinking more and more about prosecutors these days. There's this guy. There's Nifong with the Duke rape case. I just heard a story on NPR about a guy who was recently released in New Jersey after spending something like 17 years in jail. DNA evidence exonorated him but the prosecutor still wanted to try him again until their star witness recanted his testimony, saying he was coerced by investigators and coached by the original prosecutor.

About 20 years ago, the Commonwealth Attorney for Kentucky spoke to a class I was in. He was very excited about capital punishment. At the time, Kentucky hadn't executed anyone since the death penalty was reinstated and he was chomping at the bit to give it a go. He was basically Hannibal Lecter with a law degree and the backing of the state. Scared the shit out of me.

Perhaps we need to start rethinking the role of prosecutors in the justice system or at least have a serious talk about the ethics of the position and who is overseeing them.

[the happy prole]

The prosecutor in the Elisa Kelly case recommended a 90 day sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. I really can't see how he's responsible for the judge ignoring his recommendation and ordering 8 years.

The prosecutor in this case is perhaps a little less clean, but he still offered a plea bargain which Wilson refused to accept because he didn't want to end up on the sexual offender registry. The prosecutor had no leeway about that-- you get convicted for rape or child molestation and you go on the list. The sentence Wilson got was the minimum mandatory, and given the way the law was written he was without a doubt guilty.

The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case dropped all the charges. Maybe he should have dropped them earlier but whatever damage was done to the defendants was because they were tried through the media, not through the courts. If it weren't for the press coverage, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

There are plenty of lousy prosecutors out there, but honestly I wouldn't count these guys among them. At worst, they are a symptom and not the cause.

[dannyboy]

I think too many prosecutors (and judges for that matter) are motivated more by politics than real justice.

[juggles]

The prosecutor in the Elisa Kelly case recommended a 90 day sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. I really can't see how he's responsible for the judge ignoring his recommendation and ordering 8 years.

The prosecutor in this case is perhaps a little less clean, but he still offered a plea bargain which Wilson refused to accept because he didn't want to end up on the sexual offender registry. The prosecutor had no leeway about that-- you get convicted for rape or child molestation and you go on the list. The sentence Wilson got was the minimum mandatory, and given the way the law was written he was without a doubt guilty.

The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case dropped all the charges. Maybe he should have dropped them earlier but whatever damage was done to the defendants was because they were tried through the media, not through the courts. If it weren't for the press coverage, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

There are plenty of lousy prosecutors out there, but honestly I wouldn't count these guys among them. At worst, they are a symptom and not the cause.

Nifong and the guy in New Jersey both intended to go to trial after DNA evidence should have exonerated the accused. The press was certainly a big part of the problem in the Duke case, but I never heard Nifong say "No comment." That is, he seemed perfectly happy to vilify them in the press rather than wait to get to court. In both examples, they only dropped their cases after they had completely fallen apart and they were made to look like fools for continuing with them.

I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be a number of examples of irrational decision making by people who are allegedly representing the interests of the state. I'm wondering why and what can be done about it.

[juggles]

I think too many prosecutors (and judges for that matter) are motivated more by politics than real justice.

I think this is a big part of the problem. Not sure how to solve it. When we elect them, we get Nifong. When we appoint them, we get Alberto Gonzalez.

[rcc94]

The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case dropped all the charges. Maybe he should have dropped them earlier but whatever damage was done to the defendants was because they were tried through the media, not through the courts. If it weren't for the press coverage, it wouldn't have been a big deal.
Just to clarify, the initial prosecutor was Nifong, who the state bar is currently having a disciplinary hearing against. The case was taken over by the state attorney general's office, which dropped the charges against the players, declaring them innocent.

[the happy prole]

The thing about Nifong is that for all his assholery legal justice prevailed in the end. The main damage done to those players was via the press. It doesn't excuse Nifong but ultimately the legal system worked and innocent people didn't get punished. Nifong looks like a fool and won't get re-elected, and now he's facing disciplinary charges to boot. The system didn't work perfectly, but it did work.

As a state official, the prosecutor has a duty to observe justice and fairness and not just win or pursue a case-- no question. But ultimately, they are not supposed to be totally fair. They present one side of the case, the defense presents the other. The facts in many cases don't clearly favor one side or the other, or if they do they could change as the case proceeds.

I think it's risky to mess with prosecutor discretion. I have no problem with the fact that their job is political; I think it should be. If the governor tells you to go out and enforce sodomy laws against homosexuals, that's what you should do. It's the voice of the people, and your job is to represent them. You are an executive branch official.

It's the judge's duty, as a judiciary branch official to say "Hey, I don't care what the majority think, or what you think. It's not right." They should be somewhat "activist" or they aren't doing their job. I don't even know what an activist judge is, to tell you the truth. They're either right or wrong, activism has nothing to do with it.

If the system is working right, an overly aggressive prosecutor doesn't do much except waste the taxpayer's money and pursue bad policy. Not good, but it's an executive branch situation and the solution is that you go out and elect some better prosecutors, AG's, governors, and Presidents. It's not a problem with the legal system.

If incompetent or non-objective judges are hired for political reasons then the legal system is screwed. The judiciary branch is no longer independent and the entire system of checks and balances is out of whack.

The American public seems to have their priorities in reverse. No one bats an eye when Supreme Court justices are questioned and appointed based on whether they personally feel about abortion, or when a huge number of federal justices are appointed en masse because they're conservative. But Alberto Gonzalez dismiss a few attorneys who are executive officials and clearly serve at the whim of the President and we're calling for criminal sanctions.

[Homsar]

Perhaps a picture brings some context?


In Georgia, go figure. :rolleyes: Now I wonder if it was a white girl.
Gee that was necessary.

[berzerker]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html

Appeal blocks release.

And it's the front page story at CNN.com AND fox news.

All the guy was looking for was a little release in the first place... ;)