Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Georgia Supreme Court Sides With Genarlow Wilson
Four months after a judge threw out his sentence and Georgia's attorney general appealed that decision, Genarlow Wilson has been freed.
The Supreme Court of Georgia ordered Friday that Genarlow Wilson be released from prison, ruling that his sentence for a teen sex conviction was cruel and unusual punishment.
The decision was split 4-3.
A refresher on Wilson's "crime":
Wilson had been convicted of molestation for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party. He was 17 at the time. Wilson was convicted under a Georgia statute (since revised) that, strangely, would have resulted in only a misdemeanor charge had Wilson and the girl engaged in vaginal sex.
More reason on the case.
|10.26.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Well that's a blessing anyway.
Shouldn't this have been a no brainer? What's with the split
decision? What's with this case to begin with? What sort of
asswhipes are running things in GA?
|10.26.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Don't you people realize that "oral sex" is just a euphemism for SODOMY! It's a crime against God and nature! Yahweh nuked a whole city for it! Sodomites should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
|10.26.07 @ 10:40AM|#
This took far, far, far too long. Congrats to Genarlow's attorneys for continuing this fight for so long.
John The Conqueroo|10.26.07 @ 10:42AM|#
I had consensual oral sex with a 14 year old when I was 16. It's
kind of creepy to consider that fact at age 32, but, for pete's
sake, we were both kids.
It's insane how some people are willing to categorize people like
this as "sex offenders," as if what they did is as bad as the
actions of actual rapists and pedophiles.
|10.26.07 @ 10:43AM|#
This was my first topic i commented on here a
reason.com
I'm pretty happy ... but dissappointed in the spread of the
decision (4-3)
stephen the goldberger|10.26.07 @ 10:49AM|#
outstanding. fucking ridiculous that he lost two years of his life though.
Lord Jubjub|10.26.07 @ 10:51AM|#
The minority opinion is that the crime was committed under the
old law and any subsequent legislative action cannot have any
effect on the gravity of crime that Wilson committed. Therefore the
original sentence should stand.
The majority opinion held that because the legislature reduced the
gravity of the crime, therefore the original sentence is to be
considered excessive.
|10.26.07 @ 11:01AM|#
You know that this ruling strikes me as out of line with how the "conservatives" on the US Supreme Court have ruled recently on 8th Amendment Cases. As I read them (look at the case on the 3 strikes law for example) no sentence is cruel and unusual based on the amount of time given, only if the punishment is "cruel and unusual" in the sense of whipping and such does it violate the 8th in their view. I know that recently a Cato fellow argued in a book for a judicial activism contra to conservative "restraint" theories, and this case would certainly be a dividing ground for the two theories...
Fluffy|10.26.07 @ 11:11AM|#
I would tend to think that there is a 14th Amendment issue here,
too, since the statute as it used to be written was a thinly-veiled
attempt to criminalize juvenile homosexual activity more severely
than juvenile heterosexual activity.
And didn't the SCOTUS make that a no-no a few years back? Not that
I want to see another test case, because Roberts probably is
itching to overturn.
|10.26.07 @ 11:11AM|#
J sub D | October 26, 2007, 10:39am | #
Don't you people realize that "oral sex" is just a euphemism for SODOMY! It's a crime against God and nature! Yahweh nuked a whole city for it! Sodomites should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
Should he be stoned to death or do you prefer burning at the
stake?
|10.26.07 @ 11:19AM|#
WTF is going on with these types of rulings. As a society I believe that we should not criminalize relatively normal adolescent behavior. I'm sure that race was a major factor in this case. Genarlow was black and the girl was white. I don't recall anyone in my high school going to jail for having sex with their girlfriends.
|10.26.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Aresen I hope you realize J sub D was being sarcastic. Maybe you are being sarcastic though and if so I rescind my comment.
|10.26.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Should he be stoned to death or do you prefer burning at the
stake?
Well, burning at the stake is "cruel and unusual" punishment, so
I'll have to go with stoning. Biblical precedent and all.
|10.26.07 @ 11:30AM|#
james-
The girl was black, the guy was black, the prosecutor was black. No
racial angle here.
|10.26.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Well, burning at the stake is "cruel and unusual"
punishment
If your legislature has Medieval attitudes, what's wrong with
Medieval punishments?
ATL|10.26.07 @ 11:44AM|#
"J sub D" - quit citing some story-book about a magical man who lives in the sky. This here is real life, way to go Georgia!
|10.26.07 @ 11:53AM|#
J sub D has a sick, twisted sense of humor.
Thank you, Aresen. That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all
day!
|10.26.07 @ 11:54AM|#
I am so happy to hear this news. It is impossible to say that justice was served when a talented academic student has had 2 years of his life taken away from him because of a typical adolecent mis-step. As a mother of 4 teenagers I can say with authority that kids at this age do alot of bone-headed things, not matter what we do as parents. And as for J sub D's comment if Yaweh wants to strike this kid down with fire and brimstone from heaven or "nuke" him, let God do it, It is not the State of Georgia's job.
correction|10.26.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Um, DA is white.
http://www.celebratedouglascounty.com/cgi-bin/MySQLdb?VIEW=/officials/view_off.txt&cdept=203&official=District%20Attorney%20David%20McDade
|10.26.07 @ 11:58AM|#
I thought the case was brought by Georgia's attorney general. At the least the attempt to have Wilson's conviction stand.
|10.26.07 @ 12:01PM|#
This is a miscarriage of justice. He is clearly a predator and should be locked up for good for endangering the morals of the child he was with. No one under 18 should be doing this, and if they are caught, the male should be punished for this aberant behaviour. God demands that the sinners be punished severely, in the bible they stoned people for this kind of thing, which is the morally just punishment.
|10.26.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Jim Bob wrote: You will be baked. Then there will be
cake.
Cake or Deeeeeeeeeath?
Juanita|10.26.07 @ 12:02PM|#
And as for J sub D's comment if Yaweh wants to strike this
kid down with fire and brimstone from heaven or "nuke" him, let God
do it, It is not the State of Georgia's job.
It is up to the government to carry out the punishments that God
demands, we are a christian nation.
|10.26.07 @ 12:03PM|#
He should have castorated...so he can never victimize another
girl again.
He IS A PREDATOR...and very ANTI-JESUS
|10.26.07 @ 12:08PM|#
juanita you have to be less obvious with your snark when it's to over the top we can tell that your trolling. LOL
|10.26.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Juanita's snark is sadly representative of a portion of the population (esp of Georgia). I'm sure my family's opinion on the matter wouldn't be too far off from that.
violent_k|10.26.07 @ 12:15PM|#
in the bible they stoned people for this kind of
thing
Fine. I'll go get stoned. Happy now?
|10.26.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Wilson was convicted under a Georgia statute (since revised)
that, strangely, would have resulted in only a misdemeanor charge
had Wilson and the girl engaged in vaginal sex.
How is that strange? The law was intended to punish such acts to
the degree of their unnaturalness, not their pleasurableness. God
intended teenagers to have sex for procreation, not recreation.
TeX Metaphont|10.26.07 @ 12:18PM|#
The recurring strategy hereabouts (H&R) of using other submitters' names as a method for ridiculing said submitter oughta stop. While it may be funny, it's also dishonest and cowardly.
|10.26.07 @ 12:25PM|#
How is that strange? The law was intended to punish such
acts to the degree of their unnaturalness, not their
pleasurableness. God intended teenagers to have sex for
procreation, not recreation.
By this logic, there should be harsher punishments for having
protected sex
|10.26.07 @ 12:26PM|#
We really needed H. L. Mencken for this. Those motherfucking
Puritans who tried to ruin this kid's life need to be skewered as
only the Sage of Baltimore could.
-jcr
|10.26.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Or death by cake! Even better.
dhex,
If only I could stop playing that damn game, I might get some work
done. :P
VM|10.26.07 @ 12:28PM|#
it's just that there's a fucking loonie segment of the
population that is so ignorant and afraid about sex and sexuality,
that any time they have opportunity to pretend sex isn't happening,
and that sexuality doesn't exist, they're happy.
poor pathetic people are they. (and since their "god" doesn't
exist, but for their own beliefs, the rest of us shouldn't have
their "god"s morality shoved down our throats)
|10.26.07 @ 12:30PM|#
As disturbing as the fact that this was even a crime, the reasoning of the majority strikes me as particularly unsound and dangerous. I'd prefer it if they had just this is cruel and unusual because it is cruel and unusual. But they seem to rely on the legislature's recent activity in which the legislature specifically looked in to the issue of pardoning those caught under the old rules and declined to offer them relief.
|10.26.07 @ 12:38PM|#
Genarlow was black and the girl was white.
BINGO! We have a winner, all is clear to me now.
|10.26.07 @ 12:40PM|#
So, would this count as the 2nd most expensive blowjob in
history?
I long for the time when a young man in his position was more
scared of the girl's father getting a hold of him, not the
state.
|10.26.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Jaunita, the United States is a diverse country where not everyone is "Christian" I guess you are suggesting thate we should have a Theocracy of some kind? Exactly who's interpretation of Christianity should be imposed on this country? You can't say "based on the bible" because very devout people do not have the same interpretation of it. I guess we should be stoning adulterers and liars in the streets? That is what they do in Iran you know. I say let those with no sin throw the first stone. All people are imperfect and make many mistakes. That is why God is so forgiving. Also I don't understand your logic as to why the "male" should be punished and not the female? She was guilty too. He should be "castrated" because she gave him a blow-job?
VM|10.26.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Cindy Lou -
Juanita is a (probably regular) posing troll.
Note some of the other absolute fucking crazy comments that force
X-ian beliefs on the rest of us.
|10.26.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Warren,
Everybody in the case is black. It was a bunch of black youths who
brought a girl into a hotel and videotaped various sex acts with
her. The lewdness of the incident is probably what accounts for the
lack of support in the black community. A lot easier to support
some kids beat the crap out of some random white guy than stick up
for a bunch of little pervs.
|10.26.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Many of the Blogs say the girl was white. According to "PrimeTime" and Wikipedia the 15-year-old girl was black. Maybe mixed? Not that it should matter.
|10.26.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"Wilson had been convicted of molestation for engaging in
consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve
party. He was 17 at the time"
Can Reason please just tell the whole truth for once? That sentence
makes it sound like this was Romeo and Julliet caught in a car on a
Friday night. The whole story is as follows
[a] group of teenagers rented adjacent rooms at a motel and held a
raucous, unsupervised New Year's Eve party. Among the participants
were 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson, 17-year-old
L.M., and 15-year-old T.C. The next morning, L.M. reported to her
mother that she had been raped. Police were notified, and the motel
rooms were searched. During the search, a video camera and
videocassette tape were found. The tape showed Wilson having sexual
intercourse with an apparently semiconscious L.M.and T.C.
performing oral sex on Wilson. As a result, Wilson was charged with
the rape of L.M. and with the aggravated child molestation of T.C.
Acquitted of the former offense and
convicted of the latter, he was given a mandatory sentence of ten
years imprisonment without possibility of parole."
Under any reasonable moral standard this kid is a dirtbag who took
advantage of a drunken nearly unconscious 17 year old girl and a
committed statutory rape of a 15 year old girl? Did that warrant 10
years? If I were the judge, I would say no. I don't think he
deserved 10 years. But, under the law at the time, that is what he
got. Yes, the law changed but the law was never intended to apply
retro actively. The legislative intent as quoted by the dissent in
this case was
[t]he provisions of this Act shall not affect or abate the status
as a crime of any such act or omission which occurred prior to
the
effective date of the Act repealing, repealing and reenacting, or
amending such law, nor shall the prosecution of such crime be
abated as a result of such repeal, repeal and reenactment, or
amendment. (Emphasis supplied.)
The law was never intended to undo prior convictions. The question
becomes should the court have made an exception to the obvious
intent of the legislature for this kid? Was this case so egregious
as to justify that? If it really were a Romeo and Juliet case, I
would say absolutely yes. But that is not what it was. I would have
let him rot in jail.
I understand where some people would not have. But I really wish
Reason would give the entire set of facts instead of misleading
parts of the story.
|10.26.07 @ 1:31PM|#
I don't know what the best course is to correct the wrong done to the kid, but allowing laws to be applied retroactively shouldn't be it.
|10.26.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Right result, wrong reasoning.
The majority was probably reluctant to state that this sentence
was, in fact, crual and unusual, because that would open the
floodgates for other appeals.
So they cobbled together a bogus pretext under the new statute, in
plain contravention of its terms.
Its a shame they didn't have the balls to just apply the
Constitutional protections straight out. If that lays the
groundwork for more commuted sentences, so be it.
Joshua Holmes|10.26.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Under any reasonable moral standard this kid is a dirtbag
who took advantage of a drunken nearly unconscious 17 year old girl
and a committed statutory rape of a 15 year old girl?
Statutory rape? This wasn't a 40 year-old priest getting a blowjob
from a 13 year-old altar boy, it was a high school junior having
sex with a high school freshman. You can call it super ultra happy
ninja rape and punish it with drawing and quartering, if you want,
but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
|10.26.07 @ 1:34PM|#
I don't know what the best course is to correct the wrong
done to the kid, but allowing laws to be applied retroactively
shouldn't be it.
The question of when and how laws and court decisions should be
applied retroactively is kind of an obsession of mine.
Applying relief retroactively is generally fine. Its applying new
prohibitions and penalties retroactively that is the real
no-no.
ed|10.26.07 @ 1:37PM|#
No no no. Genarlow (if that is indeed his real name) is a Mexican Indian. The "girl" was actually an adult midget from Saipan. The prosecutor: yep, a bot!
|10.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"""Applying relief retroactively is generally fine. Its applying
new prohibitions and penalties retroactively that is the real
no-no."""
That's a one sided way to look at it. I'm a goose and gander
person. If the convicted can benefit from reto law application, the
State should be able to also. There are other ways to apply relief.
The governor could have commuted the sentence for example.
Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the Constitution, at a federal
level. I would be curious as to what the state Constitution says.
I'll look it up later.
|10.26.07 @ 1:46PM|#
"Statutory rape? This wasn't a 40 year-old priest getting a
blowjob from a 13 year-old altar boy, it was a high school junior
having sex with a high school freshman. You can call it super ultra
happy ninja rape and punish it with drawing and quartering, if you
want, but that doesn't mean it's wrong."
A group of older boys getting a 15 year old drunk and taking
advantage of her is wrong. It isn't 10 years in prison wrong but it
is wrong. It wasn't just the 15 year old. It was also the 17 year
old that was in and out of conscousness that he also had sex with.
Under the harsh light of the law, this kid got what was coming to
him. Now in the aftermath of that he comes and begs for mercy and
asks the court to ignore the law in the name of justice. That is
perfectly fine. Courts should be able to lessen the impact of the
law in the name of justice. But if this is about justice, not the
letter of the law, then you need to look at the whole set of facts.
What pisses me off about Reason in this case is they never give the
whole set of facts. They make it sound like it was just a junior
getting a blowjob from a freshman. That is not the whole story. I
don't see anything about Wilson that illicits one ounce of sympathy
in this case. He didn't deserve 10 years but he sure as hell
deserved two or three.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.26.07 @ 1:47PM|#
As a mother of 4 teenagers I can say with authority that
kids at this age do alot of bone-headed things, not matter what we
do as parents.
Since when is getting a blow job "bone headed"?
|10.26.07 @ 1:51PM|#
"Since when is getting a blow job "bone headed"?"
Well it depends on the circumstances. If she is drunk and really
young, you are probably a bonehead for it happening.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.26.07 @ 1:52PM|#
You can call it super ultra happy ninja rape
I saw a movie like that once.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|10.26.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Under the harsh light of the law, this kid got what was
coming to him.
Wow. I almost forgot why I put you on the ignore filter.
Back to filter with you!
ed|10.26.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Since when is getting a blow job "bone headed?
To be fair, it does involve a bone.
Fluffy|10.26.07 @ 1:57PM|#
John, the defendant in question was acquitted outright in the
case of the older girl, so we should properly ignore every element
of your argument that relies on that aspect of the case.
I also will reiterate that there are other grounds here for
dismissal, namely equal protection grounds. The law in question as
it originally existed was obviously designed to give a pass to
heterosexuals who humped in the back seat of Dad's Chevy by
defining it as a misdemeanor, while holding out severe felony
penalties for "sodomy", in order to cater to the redneck terror of
"gay initiation". All homosexual sexual activity between teenagers
straddling the age of consent was made into a felony by the
legislature, while heterosexual sexual activity was not. Recent
case law would seem to indicate that the legislature isn't allowed
to do this. The defense doesn't appear to have proceeded on these
grounds, but they certainly could have.
|10.26.07 @ 2:10PM|#
You can call it super ultra happy ninja rape
I'm pretty sure that probably is a real title of some manga.
|10.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Also I don't understand your logic as to why the "male"
should be punished and not the female? She was guilty
too.
The law says under 18 is rape, a child under 18 doesn't have the
mental capacity to consent to sex, he had sex with a girl under 18,
so he is guilty, the fact that he is also under 18 is irevalent to
the law, he should be tried as an adult.
He should be "castrated" because she gave him a
blow-job?
Yes, to protect other children in the future form this predator.
It's the best way to prevent recividism.
|10.26.07 @ 2:36PM|#
(and since their "god" doesn't exist, but for their own
beliefs, the rest of us shouldn't have their "god"s morality shoved
down our throats)
VM, their god's morality doesn't allow shoving things down people's
throats.
|10.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#
"""The law says under 18 is rape, a child under 18 doesn't have
the mental capacity to consent to sex, he had sex with a girl under
18, so he is guilty, """
I'm willing to bet that the age of consent in Georgia is less than
18.
God sez a girl is ready to have children when she starts dropping
eggs.
|10.26.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Since when is getting a blow job "bone headed?
To be fair, it does involve a bone
... being shoved in a head, in an act known as "boning" or "giving
head". Seems like an accurate description to me.
Alice Bowie|10.26.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Yea TrickyVic,
But the Pope and Bible and the Priest (who appear to have a higher
authority than god) sez a girl can ONLY have kids once
married.
Just Like god hates homos...but apparently, his spokes persons
(Priests who molest little boys) don't seem to agree
Les|10.26.07 @ 2:59PM|#
He didn't deserve 10 years but he sure as hell deserved two
or three.
Holy Hell, man, get a hold of yourself. Two or three years for
WHAT? For having consensual oral sex with another teenager? That's
just too Sharia-esque for my freedom-loving tastes!
It isn't 10 years in prison wrong but it is wrong.
It's not 10 minutes in prison wrong, John. Not in a free
country.
Juanita|10.26.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Holy Hell, man, get a hold of yourself. Two or three years
for WHAT? For having consensual oral sex with another teenager?
That's just too Sharia-esque for my freedom-loving tastes!
She was under 18, therefore it is not consensual,
she is not capable of consenting. He deserved life in prison, 10
years is a mere slap on the wrist.
Jane|10.26.07 @ 3:04PM|#
His release is just one more example of how the hierarchical patriarcy controls the country. When any man does something wrong to any woman, all women suffer, therefore all men are guilty and all men should be punished.
VM|10.26.07 @ 3:11PM|#
okay. Jane and Juanita posted at 3:04. I had always thought they
were one in the same.
*head explodes
|10.26.07 @ 3:18PM|#
VM,
The trick is to have two browsers open to comment on the thread,
type in both your comments, click Submit...
|10.26.07 @ 3:42PM|#
It's cooler if you can get the same minute on your comments,
though.
/ mutters "Dork" to self and saunters off
VM|10.26.07 @ 3:46PM|#
so there.
oh. wait.
/wails. sobs. tears down Shawn Cassidy poster from the
ceiling.*
|10.26.07 @ 4:54PM|#
That's a one sided way to look at it.
Do you think a Governor or the President should be able to pardon
or commute sentences? If so, do you think they should also be able
to increase someone sentence?
Seriously, nobody's rights are violated by giving somebody relief
from punishment, but adding offenses (or punishment) after the fact
is a violation of rule of law.
|10.26.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Les, you rock.
I am so glad I took a breather from work and checked H&R. This
injustice ending makes my damn day.
|10.26.07 @ 5:34PM|#
John,
A group of older boys getting a 15 year old drunk and taking
advantage of her is wrong.
Given that the boys were also drunk, would not their judgment be as
impaired as the girls? Why do the girls get victim status here? If
"passed out" instead of "semi-conscious=drunk" then we've got an
issue of consent. But given that the boys were also drinking, don't
they get a pass on doing things they might otherwise not have done?
Why/how are you convinced that the girls did not intend to get
drunk and get laid? That is a behavior that both teenage boys and
teenage girls engage in.
Getting girls drunk and "taking advantage"... these are real social
problems and can cross the line to actual rape, but to call this a
case of "aggravated child molestation" given the situation seems
nothing short of unjust.
Earl|10.26.07 @ 5:53PM|#
"WTF is going on with these types of rulings. As a society I
believe that we should not criminalize relatively normal adolescent
behavior. I'm sure that race was a major factor in this case.
Genarlow was black and the girl was white. I don't recall anyone in
my high school going to jail for having sex with their
girlfriends."
The problem arose because the idiot shot a video.
Skip|10.26.07 @ 6:00PM|#
"I understand where some people would not have. But I really
wish Reason would give the entire set of facts instead of
misleading parts of the story."
Welcome to Weigel World.
M|10.26.07 @ 10:16PM|#
@VM and whoever else cares: Posting twice (or more times) within
59 seconds in a single browser window will also get you the same
minute calibrated on your post, so long as your posts don't
straddle the minute-mark.
But isn't it obvious to anyone else that "Juanita" et some
alae/ii are the tracks of probably multiple jesters here,
whether or not they post consistently under other aliases? And I'm
kinda new at H&R and not as smart as many of y'all.
|10.26.07 @ 11:05PM|#
Given that Atlanta is the home of the MLK Center, a lot of civil
rights activists, and a fair number of race warlords as well, I
have to wonder why this was not the big issue instead of the
Jena6.
There was some outcry from the civil rights community, but the
effort seemed half hearted -- especially when you consider some of
the half-baked reasons given for starting marches in the
past.
Seems out of place, but keep in mind that Wilson was getting it
from a white girl. Having lived in the South for my entire life, I
can tell you that even though it is sometimes a badge of honor
among black males to get it on with a white girl, crossing to the
other side is viewed dimly by blacks in the south. More
specifically, black women hate the idea of a black man with a white
woman.
I may be wrong, but from my vantage point here in Georgia, I don't
think that the case was entirely racially motivated on the part of
politicians. Racial politics in Georgia is not what it used to be.
Instead, I think the whole thing was mostly an attempt to pander to
the religious zealots. And, of course, it did not hurt that Wilson
is black.
Whatever the motivation was, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue is a
total pussy for not pardoning Genarlow Wilson.
BTR
VM|10.27.07 @ 9:04AM|#
M:
prob'ly - like EDDIE, Rick Santorum's Dog, Jean Bart, "Highnumber"
(what's up with that group?) etc. :)
|10.27.07 @ 10:50AM|#
From a legal point of view, the arguments of the minority are
sound, and the arguments of the majority are VERY weak. The
legislature DEFINITELY DID NOT want the revised law to apply to
Genarlow Wilson, and said so when the law was passed. This is
clearly a case where the majority judges were making the law rather
than following the law.
And clearly, the majority judges did the right thing. Not all laws
are just. That's one of the main reasons we have judges -- to
correct injustice.
|10.27.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Does anyone but me think that it's kind of funny that Wilson's lawyer is named BJ Bernstein?
|10.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#
"Not all laws are just. That's one of the main reasons we have
judges -- to correct injustice."
no. judges are supposed to rule when laws are unconstitutional,
etc. part of the rule of law is accepting that simply BAD and
UNJUST law IS constitutional and similarly many good laws can't be
passed because they might be unconstitutional.
the issue here isn't "was the sentence excessive" (clearly it was)
or is the law stupid and arbitrary (clearly it is) but was there a
violation of the federal constitution?
dumb scotus decisions aside, there is no constitutional right to
sodomy, oral sex, or whatever. SHOULD THERE BE? imo, yes. but there
isn't.
i am well aware that recent case law has established a "right" to
various sexual acts (texas sodomy case) but that's just judicial
activism. is the RESULT good? yes. is the CAUSE good? yes. should
states pass laws against oral sex, or whatever? of course NOT. but
state rights matter, and the constitution matters.
just because i think its a travesty that genarlow was imprisoned
doesn't mean i think the solution to injustice is scotus review and
newfound constitutional rights.
fwiw, the laws regarding sexual contact between minors varies
GREATLY from state to state (states rights).
i used to live in hawaii. at the time it was perfectly legal for a
50 yr old to have sex with a 14 yr old (but 13 yr old would be a
felony).
that exact same act would get you 20 yrs in most states.
some states have a age differential thang (like WA state) where a
15 yr old and a 16 yr old can schtup, but a 15 yr old and a 20 yr
old would be illegal.
again, states rights.
age of consent laws are necessarily arbitrary.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.27.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Well now there's a BLOW for freedom.
But I really wish Reason would give the entire set of facts
instead of misleading parts of the story.
Absolutely agree.
Texan|10.27.07 @ 6:42PM|#
The law here in Texas used to say that if you were within 2
years of age, and the act was consentual, then there was no crime.
Yeah, that Georgia law sounds like the old sodomy laws, which were
different from the old fornication laws.
BTY, what is the biblical punsihment for aborting a child?.....
There are a LOT of females in this nation, that are going to have
to pay, that is, according to the standards that --some-- have laid
down here by those that have aked for this teen to be struck down
by God..... :)
|10.27.07 @ 6:55PM|#
I love strict constructionists (see below). Any fool can see
that judges use the Constitution o rule every day on issues the
Framers could never have imagined (e.g., the Internet, television,
etc.) If the Constitution can be expanded to include (rightfully
and legally sound) decision on the modern and commercial, there is
absolutely no reason it cannot be expanded to include things like
sodomy, oral sex and same-sex (and inter-racial) marriage.
It seems ridiculous to have to keep pointing out that judges like
Scalia are the real judicial radicals afoot, but I guess people
will always try to keep putting forth these myths about original
intent because, like Rush Limbaugh, they appear to make sense until
to apply a bit of reading and reason to them.
WHIT: "no. judges are supposed to rule when laws are
unconstitutional, etc. part of the rule of law is accepting that
simply BAD and UNJUST law IS constitutional and similarly many good
laws can't be passed because they might be unconstitutional.
the issue here isn't "was the sentence excessive" (clearly it was)
or is the law stupid and arbitrary (clearly it is) but was there a
violation of the federal constitution?
dumb scotus decisions aside, there is no constitutional right to
sodomy, oral sex, or whatever. SHOULD THERE BE? imo, yes. but there
isn't."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245