The Georgia Supreme Court Sides With Genarlow Wilson
David Weigel | October 26, 2007, 10:24am
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.John | October 26, 2007, 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.
whit | October 27, 2007, 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.
