"Outrageous Injustice"

Parent Cafe
61

<p>I’m amazed at how little attention this story got. Yes, it was covered by the major media outlets, but the public reaction was muted and it’s been a back page story. Very few Americans know the name Genarlow Wilson, but everyone knows all about the Jena 6 and the Duke lacrosse players. Was it because he had a bad PR man?</p>

<p>LINK: <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Now watch the Attorney General write a book about this…</p>

62

<p>What a delight to watch Genarlow in the arms of his mother and little sister! I think, at 21, he can still paly college ball, though I suspect it will probably be a Div III school that picks him up.</p>

<p>I know the other atty in Genarlow’s atty’s firm. They are a small firm of empassioned women whose hearts are consistently in the right place. I am pleased to see this finally play out as it should have quite some time ago.</p>

63

<p>jym626 – kudos to those attorneys.</p>

64

<p>Thanks, katliamom. Agreed. BJ and Sherry are dedicated folks. They give attorneys a GOOD name!</p>

65

<p>thank goodness, makes you wonder about egos and such to keep this kid in jail</p>

66

<p>There are many problems with the Ga. Supreme Court’s decision. Although the Court said that the sentence was cruel and unusual, it based that decision on the fact that the legislature changed the law the following year. The reality is that the Court made the new legislation retroactive (a big no, no). The Court simply disregarded precedent and reached the decision it wanted. </p>

<p>Another problem (although it is a stretch and a big stretch at that) is that the Court did not examine the case under Lawrence v. Texas. Although Lawrence v. Texas U.S. Supreme court said that the decision did not apply to others than adults, I think the principles should. If a 15 year old girl can have an abortion on demand because of her right of privacy etc. I fail to see how she can be denied the right to engage in oral sex. </p>

<p>Another problem with the case is how juries decide cases. Wilson also had sex that night with a semi-conscious 17 year old girl. He was charged with rape and it is pretty clear that having sex with an intoxicated girl is rape. The jury likely did not want to destroy his life by sentencing him to a very long time in prison, so they acquited him on the rape of the 17 year old girl and got him with child molestation charge which had a tough punishment butnot as tough as rape. If the jury had known Wilson would get out of prison after only two years, I suspect they would have convicted him of raping the 17 year old girl. Of course, I am speculating, but I suspect that is what happened. Juries do it all the time.</p>

<p>I don’t have any problem with the outcome of this case. In fact, I think two years in prison is adequate punishment for raping the 17 year old. I just have a problem with the Court’s analysis in this case.</p>

67

<p>Just to clarify, razorsharp- she was 15, he was 17 at the time of the incident. I heard BJ say on the news this morning that the issues that contributed to the delays in his release were related to potential loopholes in the law. They didn’t want decisions re: Genarlow’s release to be misconstrued and used in other legal wranglings to release any true sexual predators. So it took a lot of back and forth to get the specifics worked out that let Genarlow go free and keep sex offenders who preyed on minors incarcerated.</p>

68

<p>

wow, that is really interesting. Was there evidence of this? Was it introduced in the oral sex trial? Obviously it is speculation now, but I can inderstand why changes in laws cannot be retroactive.</p>

69

<p>Unfortunately, Alice, if memory serves me correctly, the boys were stupid enough to film some of their escapades.</p>

70

<p>

He was acquitted of the charge, therefore under the law, he is not guilty of rape. There were most likely extenuating circumstances. </p>

<p>Took them long enough. I’m curious, though, as to why this took so long.</p>

71

<p>snoopy-
read post 67.</p>

72

<p>

<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?[/url]”>http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Wilson had sexual intercourse with a 17 year old girl and also had oral sex with a 15 year old girl that night. If the 17 year old was intoxicated, then Wilson raped her. I don’t know for sure since obviously I have not seen the tape or heard the evidence, but I strongly suspect the jury lumped the two girls together and decided to punish Wilson based on the charge against the 15 year old.</p>

73

<p>“The jury likely did not want to destroy his life by sentencing him to a very long time in prison, so they acquited him on the rape of the 17 year old girl and got him with child molestation charge which had a tough punishment butnot as tough as rape. If the jury had known Wilson would get out of prison after only two years, I suspect they would have convicted him of raping the 17 year old girl. Of course, I am speculating, but I suspect that is what happened. Juries do it all the time.” - razorsharp</p>

<hr>

<p>Of course you are speculating razorsharp…and once again, not exactly getting it right.</p>

<p>The facts are the jurors had no idea that the required penalty for the child molestation charge was a mandatory 10 year sentence. Many of these jurors were interviewed after handing down the verdict and THEN being informed they had just sent this young man to jail for 10 years…and they were literally distraught that their verdict had such inappropriate and dire consequences. A little more on the jurors’ state of mind…</p>

<p>From ABC News:
“Moments later, back in the jury room, jurors were told for the first time that the conviction came with a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years in prison. In addition, Wilson would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.”</p>

<p>From AccessNorthGeorgia:
"Among those who hope Wilson is released is Marie Manigault, the forewoman of the jury that put him in jail. She said that after jurors learned that Wilson would face a mandatory 10-year sentence, there was ‘mayhem in the jury room.’</p>

<p>“‘We were in tears. There was screaming. People were knocking their heads against the wall,’ she said.”</p>

<p>From ABC News regarding the 17 year old:
"Wilson maintained his innocence. ‘I know that it was consensual,’ he told “Primetime.” ‘I wouldn’t went on with the acts if it wasn’t consensual. I’m not that kind of person. No means no.’ </p>

<p>Five of the boys accepted plea deals, but Wilson – the only one without a police record – held out. ‘I knew Genarlow’s state of mind,’ said his attorney, Michael Mann. ‘He wasn’t going to prison willingly. He wasn’t going to plea to something in his mind he didn’t do.’ </p>

<p>He stood trial in February 2005 for five days. And at first, the jury’s deliberations moved swiftly. Jurors voted to acquit Wilson of raping the 17-year-old. </p>

<p>‘I mean it wasn’t even an hour,’ said jury forewoman Marie Manigault. ‘We immediately saw the tape for what it was. We went back and saw it again and saw what actually happened and everybody immediately said not guilty.’</p>

74

<p>

Oh, sorry. Skimming isn’t my forte.</p>

75

<p>Here is another perspective. Possibly a more accurate one.</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/062407/opinion_20070624035.shtml[/url]”>http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/062407/opinion_20070624035.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Everything other than the jury’s verdict suggest Wilson raped the semiconscous 17 year old. I think he was lucky he only got two years in jail.</p>

76

<p>razor,
I think you’re lucky you have an online screen name to hide behind. </p>

<p>I suppose if I were to suggest you were blatantly racist because I follow enough threads where you post to be able to safely say that I’d be called ridiculous and angry and just pulling the race card, right? Yeah, I know…it’s just different sides posting opposing views, that’s all? Nobody is supposed to see you for what you really are cause we’re all blind. You’re no racist, you’re a prophet :0</p>

77

<p>“Everything other than the jury’s verdict” </p>

<p>hmmm, darn that thar jury system</p>

78

<p>

I certainly would not fear someone like you. What is your full name and address? Or do you wish to hide behind your screen name?</p>

<p>I have not mentioned race once in this post because I don’t think race is relevant. You have. What does that say about you?</p>

<p>According to another poster, the jury forewoman said they didn’t want to convict Wilson but felt that he engaged in behavior that technially met the crime. That sound like the jury is doing it’s job and not looking at race.</p>

79

<p>

Are you quoting O.J. Simpson?</p>

80

<p>I had not noticed you before datdude, but it looks like you focus quite a bit of your time on race. You even started a thread entitled Does “bad neighborhood” mean “black neighborhood?” I didn’t post in that thread because it didn’t interest me. Maybe you should stop thinking about race all the time. Believe it or not, race really does not matter.</p>