Update on Genarlow Wilson

[The Yankee]

Well, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist....Newt Gingrich is from Georgia and led the charge against Clinton...so this was Clinton's fault! [/sarcasm]

But this case really brought out the worst in people. I remember hearing some on TV calling this guy a rapist and this and that. And others were calling him a saint. He seems to be neither. Georgia's law either made no room for sentencing discretion or this guy was the example to everyone else in the state with the harshness of the crime. I think we can agree that if a 60-year old did that with an 8-year old, we'd likely want him put away for ten years. But not so with this case, most of us, anyway.

 

[The Yankee]

She can to another minor.

AFAIK, a 17-year old in Georgia wouldn't be treated as a minor if he is of the age of consent in that state. Still, many states would either give a less harsh sentence or not even bother with the age gap being that close.

 

[JollyRoger]

Getting out of a 10 year sentence after only serving 2 years? Does this kid think he's Paris Hilton or Scooter Libby?

 

[ironduck]

Getting out of a 10 year sentence after only serving 2 years? Does this kid think he's Paris Hilton or Scooter Libby?

Hey! Can't the president pardon before the end of his term? If so, why not pardon cases such as this one? Of course I'd never expect Bush to do that, but if a president is going to pardon, these cases would be the ones making sense to act on..

 

[JollyRoger]

Hey! Can't the president pardon before the end of his term? If so, why not pardon cases such as this one? Of course I'd never expect Bush to do that, but if a president is going to pardon, these cases would be the ones making sense to act on..

Current guidelines, which Bush has claimed he will follow recommend a pardon only after the person has served his sentence. A modern pardon merely acts to wipe the criminal slate clean after a convicted criminal has served his sentence, not usually to spring a convicted criminal free from incarceration. Thus Bush would have to flip flop on a claimed course of action were he to pardon this prisoner, the Border patrol agents, Scooter Libby, or anybody else currently serving time.

 

[IglooDame]

Current guidelines, which Bush has claimed he will follow recommend a pardon only after the person has served his sentence. A modern pardon merely acts to wipe the criminal slate clean after a convicted criminal has served his sentence, not usually to spring a convicted criminal free from incarceration. Thus Bush would have to flip flop on a claimed course of action were he to pardon this prisoner, the Border patrol agents, Scooter Libby, or anybody else currently serving time.

And of course Bush flip-flopping on a claimed course of action would be inconceivable...

 

[ironduck]

Current guidelines, which Bush has claimed he will follow recommend a pardon only after the person has served his sentence.

What does the pardon do then? Clear the penalty record so it has no stains? Presidential pardons are high profile so it doesn't seem like that would make a practical difference.

 

[Mark1031]

Now you know why we have more people in prision than any other Western Country. We put teenagers in jail for consensual sex. The goal is to only have virgins running the country.

Then of course there is the heinous pedophile teacher who didn't cover up porn pop-ups fast enough and some 7th graders saw porn . That's good for 20yrs in the slammer.

And there is the mother who bought some beer for her sons 16th BD party here. 2 yrs (I think it was 8 at first) in the slammer. It should be more because alcohol and teenagers might lead to sex.

We are really having a crime wave. I'd really like to put these prosecutors behind bars.

Will we be the only civilization in history to go extinct because we are so disgusted by sex that we will fail to reproduce?

 

[JollyRoger]

What does the pardon do then? Clear the penalty record so it has no stains? Presidential pardons are high profile so it doesn't seem like that would make a practical difference.

That's basically all it does when the current guidelines are followed.

 

[MobBoss]

Now you know why we have more people in prision than any other Western Country. We put teenagers in jail for consensual sex. The goal is to only have virgins running the country.

Child rape isnt funny. And I for one dont think adults should be having sex with minors. Remember, minors cannot consent to sex.

We are really having a crime wave. I'd really like to put these prosecutors behind bars.

Actually, there is a very large problem with adults having sex with minors. It is just appalling to see teachers having sexual relationships with their own underage students. It is a much larger problem than you think.

Will we be the only civilization in history to go extinct because we are so disgusted by sex that we will fail to reproduce?

Uhm....I am guessing not.

As for the updated story, the entire thing could have been corrected had the state congress made a clause in the new law to cover prior cases. If they had done that he would have been released some time ago.

 

[Masquerouge]

Child rape isnt funny. And I for one dont think adults should be having sex with minors. Remember, minors cannot consent to sex.

I'm fine with that as long as there is, in the law, an age difference required for the sexual act to be illegal. Otherwise you'll end up putting in jail 18-year-and-a-day-old people who had sex with 17-year-and-364-day-old people., and that's basically counter-productive - and the exact opposite of what laws protecting minors are all about.

 

[IglooDame]

Child rape isnt funny. And I for one dont think adults should be having sex with minors. Remember, minors cannot consent to sex.

Masque beat me to it. Are you claiming this case is about child rape?

Actually, there is a very large problem with adults having sex with minors. It is just appalling to see teachers having sexual relationships with their own underage students. It is a much larger problem than you think.

I agree that it is appalling, but just how much larger is it?

As for the updated story, the entire thing could have been corrected had the state congress made a clause in the new law to cover prior cases. If they had done that he would have been released some time ago.

And why do you think the prosecutor is filing an appeal?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm fine with that as long as there is, in the law, an age difference required for the sexual act to be illegal. Otherwise you'll end up putting in jail 18-year-and-a-day-old people who had sex with 17-year-and-364-day-old people., and that's basically counter-productive - and the exact opposite of what laws protecting minors are all about.

Most state laws do have such considerations made into their law and indeed thats what the law in this case was changed to. I am not so much concerned with kids that are within 2 years of age of one another....but I dont think an 18 or 19 year old should be having sex with a 14 or 15 year old. To me, thats child rape.

 

[MobBoss]

Masque beat me to it. Are you claiming this case is about child rape?

As the state law defined it at the time, yes. The state law was changed, but had no provision to exempt previous cases based upon that law.

I agree that it is appalling, but just how much larger is it?

Fairly significant. For example, just in my small area of influence, I see about 3-4 such cases every 6 months.

And why do you think the prosecutor is filing an appeal?

I had not read that they are, but if they are, the reason is simple. There is just simply not a provision under the current law for the judge to make such a ruling, no matter how fair you regard his decision to be. The current law gives no provision to include offenders under the old law any relief. The issue could very likely go to the state supreme court to decide if the current law is constitutional as it is current written.

 

[Mark1031]

Child rape isnt funny. And I for one dont think adults should be having sex with minors. Remember, minors cannot consent to sex.

Actually, there is a very large problem with adults having sex with minors. It is just appalling to see teachers having sexual relationships with their own underage students. It is a much larger problem than you think.
.

I am very much aware of this. I am the father of 3 daughters and was somewhat surprised at the number of registered sex offenders in SD. I clicked on the pictures of a few and they all looked to be in their 40s or 50s not 17!

You are the one that trivializes the issue by conflating a 17 and a 15 yr old with a 40 and 8 yr old! Why can't this society just have some freaking common sense.

 

[warpus]

As the state law defined it at the time, yes. The state law was changed, but had no provision to exempt previous cases based upon that law.

But do you define it as child rape? I think that was the question.

 

[Mark1031]

I had not read that they are, but if they are, the reason is simple. There is just simply not a provision under the current law for the judge to make such a ruling, no matter how fair you regard his decision to be. The current law gives no provision to include offenders under the old law any relief. The issue could very likely go to the state supreme court to decide if the current law is constitutional as it is current written.

I consider what this prosecutor did to be a crime. He basically kidnapped and destroyed a basically good (but horny) kid. Prosecutors don’t have to prosecute every case they, are supposed to use discretion. This kid didn’t want to take a plea like his friends because he didn’t want to be a freaking sex offender for the rest of his life. I’m sure his the prosecutors ego was offended so he threw the book at him and snookered a bunch of lemming jurors into believing they had no choice but to follow the law as written.

Note: In the US justice system when you are in the jury room you can do whatever you want. You can acquit on stupid unjust prosecutions and you should do just that.

 

[ShannonCT]

An 18 year old having unforced sex with a 16 year old is not child rape, and many states have said as much. Neither is a 17 year old with a 15 year old. A 13 year old with an 11 year old? Well, that's not normal, but is the 13 year old "child-raping" the 11 year old? I'd call it acting out, and recommend counseling, not jail.

I think the judge is absolutely right here and the attorney general absolutely wrong. Allowing this young man to spend one more day in prison would be a grave injustice, and it doesn't matter if the judge is not following the letter of the law. The legislature and people of Georgia have spoken. What happened was not rape.

The really offensive thing about this case is the racial element. There are certainly thousands of other teens that were violating this outdated law, but it's only when a black boy is having sex with a white girl that there is something worth prosecuting. Southern racism rears its ugly head again.

 

[MobBoss]

You are the one that trivializes the issue by conflating a 17 and a 15 yr old with a 40 and 8 yr old! Why can't this society just have some freaking common sense.

Sorry, but that isnt 'trivializing' it in the least. I would say thats actually the opposite of making it trivial.....a sort of hyper-emphasis or hyper-enforcement if you will.

But do you define it as child rape? I think that was the question.

Under the law of Georgia at the time? Yes. Under my rules? Yes. But my opinion is influenced in that I am a dad of three daughters.

I consider what this prosecutor did to be a crime.

Oh please. He prosecuted a case in which the law was very explicit. He enforced the law, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to blame someone, blame the jury who convicted the kid.

Prosecutors don’t have to prosecute every case they, are supposed to use discretion.

No, but they are supposed to prosecute every case they can win. And he won this one.

This kid didn’t want to take a plea like his friends because he didn’t want to be a freaking sex offender for the rest of his life. I’m sure his the prosecutors ego was offended so he threw the book at him and snookered a bunch of lemming jurors into believing they had no choice but to follow the law as written.

Errr. How do you know the jury was a bunch of lemmings? They saw more evidence than you have to go on; perhaps they thought that the kid guilty of the law as it was currently written? Ever consider that? Your premise here is logically false as there is no evidence to suggest this at all.

Note: In the US justice system when you are in the jury room you can do whatever you want. You can acquit on stupid unjust prosecutions and you should do just that.

And the jury didnt do this, so apprently they didnt think the prosection unjust nor stupid.

 

[MobBoss]

An 18 year old having unforced sex with a 16 year old is not child rape, and many states have said as much. Neither is a 17 year old with a 15 year old. A 13 year old with an 11 year old? Well, that's not normal, but is the 13 year old "child-raping" the 11 year old? I'd call it acting out, and recommend counseling, not jail.

I think the 2 year rule ok on its face and have stated as much.

I think the judge is absolutely right here and the attorney general absolutely wrong. Allowing this young man to spend one more day in prison would be a grave injustice, and it doesn't matter if the judge is not following the letter of the law. The legislature and people of Georgia have spoken. What happened was not rape.

Well, you can also look at it this way. The legislation didnt offer relief for former offenders under the new law, therefore, this kid isnt entitled to be released from jail. There was no 'grandfather clause" per se. Ergo, the legislature and people of Georgia have spoken.

The really offensive thing about this case is the racial element. There are certainly thousands of other teens that were violating this outdated law, but it's only when a black boy is having sex with a white girl that there is something worth prosecuting. Southern racism rears its ugly head again.

I think that a huge assumption on your part. Do you have any evidence that there is some sort of racial bias at work here? Any data to indicate that only black youths were punished under this law? If not, then I think a charge of racism out of line in this context. As usual, the race card is a card which is played way too often and with little regard. I see no evidence or allegation that this is the case in this situation.