Redstate

And the press is back to its usual. If it makes conservatives bleed it leads.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

FROM TIMES STORY: Marshall S. Guest, a spokesman for Mr. Johnson, defended the senator’s position, saying: “His line of thought is that we’ve already visited this instance once. If we were to go back, there would be hundreds of these cases that could be reopened, and there are victims in all of those cases.”

Why do you think he said that, instead of "because we saw a tape that shows..."? Why give a response that allows an opponent to act "puzzled"? In fact, why NOT give a response that depicts an opponent as an apologist for rapists?

I drank homemade beer on my 21st birthday, and I understand that prisoners who don't mind the taste of toilet have the same option. Enjoy, Mr. Wilson.

The real classic was Wilson's lawyer talking about the tape and how the jury REALLY! didn't mean to send Wilson away for ten years. If there is a YouTube or Fox clip out there it should be posted, I have to earn a living today and just don't have time to look for it.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

They are leaving out the fact that the 17 year old had had consensual sex earlier in the evening and then, after being filled up with booze and drugs, passed out. They are leaving out the fact that the 17 year old, after passing out, was held down so all seven guys could aggressively have sex with her. They are also leaving out the fact that Mr. Wilson, just like the other seven young men, was given the option to plead and he refused. They are also leaving out the 40 prior convictions that these seven young men had between them -- including St. Genarlow.

A few questions:

1. When you write "the 17 year old" is that a typo? Did you mean the 15 year old girl or is this referring to someone else?

2. If a woman or girl is passed out and has to held down for guys to have sex with her, then that's NOT consensual. Something does not add up here. If there's video of Genarlow having sex with her after she had passed out, why no rape charge?

3. Does it really matter to Genarlow's case how many convictions the other guys have had?

IMO, it's ridiculous for a 17 year old to receive a 10-year sentance for a consensual blow job from a 15 year old. If there's more to the story (like rape as you imply), then he should be tried and sentanced, if found guilty, for that.

This guy should be out of jail. 10 years for getting a bj?? Give me a break. Reguardless if the girl had been drinking, or anyone if that matter. It's Wrong.

There's also a girl in the Georgia prison system that's 17, who gave a bj to a 15 year old boy. She's in prison for 10 years, just like this guy. It's WRONG.

I'm sorry but we don't live in a Puritan soceity, much to the shergrin of a lot of so-called "conservatives".

Genarlow had no prior convictions.The seven men, including Genarlow, technically had 40 prior convicitions between them, but Genarlow had none of those convictions.

The jury aquited Genarlow on all charges against the 17 yr old girl. Every single one. Even after the video.

The did convict him of the oral sex with the 15yr old girl. Under Georgia law, he has a minimum sentence of 10yrs for his actions with the 15yr old girl. He is not in prison for anything that has to do with the 17yr old girl.

If he would have pleaded guilty, he would have been doing time in prison for crimes that he ultimately was aqquited of.

The position of the person arguing the state's case on O'Reilly was that the jury wasn't going to convict on all charges, but felt he had something coming. So they convicted him on the charge of having sex with a minor and dropped the forcible rape (that being as part of having sex with someone too intoxicated to resist). That doesn't mean he was innocent of the act, and it doesn't mean he wasn't acting in concert with the forcible rapists (as is clearly evident in the tape). This wasn't apparently, a case where the girl waited a while, then 'discovered' later she was raped. When released, she went immediately to her mother and from there directly to the police to file rape charges.

O'Reilly certainly didn't rail against the conviction (as is implied in the posting). In fact, he made a comparison of this case to that of "a cop killer in Philadelphia" (Mumia Abu Jamal) as an example of the press trying to 'undo' a justice that had been done.

Based on other accounts, among them --
http://www.atlantamagazine.com/article.php?id=158 --

-- it doesn't sound like Erick has characterized Wilson's actions and history accurately.

Erick--
"They are leaving out the fact that the 17 year old had had consensual sex earlier in the evening and then, after being filled up with booze and drugs, passed out. They are leaving out the fact that the 17 year old, after passing out, was held down so all seven guys could aggressively have sex with her."

As has been pointed out, Wilson was not convicted of any crime involving the 17 year old.

Erick--
"They are also leaving out the fact that Mr. Wilson, just like the other seven young men, was given the option to plead and he refused."

I can't figure out what relevance this has to anything. Apparently, our judicial system is (supposed to be) based on whether or not someone pleads, thus sparing the state the annoyance and expense of having to conduct actual trials. Therefore, if you consider (or know) yourself to be innocent of the charges, you should still, out of consideration for the state, plead guilty. A person's offense (real or imagined) doesn't become worse because he or she won't plead guilty.

Erick--
"They are also leaving out the 40 prior convictions that these seven young men had between them -- including St. Genarlow."

Or not. According to the above link, Wilson had no prior record. Surely, his trial and sentence should not be affected by what the others had done.

From "Atlanta Magazine"--
"According to Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, most of the six young men charged in the Douglasville case had been in trouble with the law before..."

"Most of the six" is not all and implies that not all of the other six had prior convictions or "trouble with the law."

Better still, the article says:
"Genarlow, the only teen with no prior run-ins with the law..."

So, apparently, Wilson himself had no record whatsoever.

The "Atlanta Magazine" also quotes Marie Manigault, the jury "forewoman:

Manigault says she feels that prosecutors gave the jury instructions that left them no choice but to convict Genarlow on the aggravated child molestation charge. She says that she and her fellow jurors believed that their verdict had to be unanimous. She says that other options—such as a hung jury—were not thoroughly explained to them.

“It all boils down to the fact that there’s the letter of the law and there’s the spirit of the law,” says Manigault, who claims that she still struggles to make peace with her role in the case and that she could not sleep for months after the verdict. “Under the letter of the law these young men were guilty, but under the spirit of the law they were not guilty,” she says. “Because we were ignorant we sent this child to jail.”

So, maybe the problem with Erick's recounting of this tale is that it isn't accurate. Certainly, the New York Times (and any other publication) should "leave out" information that is inaccurate or misleading. Or not. I guess it depends on one's idea of truth and justice.

is inherently subjective. Notice I said, "what you consider more reasonable." I didn't say, nor imply that the punishment was unreasonable. You seem to imply that such is the case. Others would certainly disagree with you.

And perhaps your analogy is a better one, but it does not disprove my point. You are being asked to make a calculated decision about what is most important, how sure you are of your position, and how much you want to gamble that others will agree with your position. If you decided on the hearing and the adjudicator decided to fine you the full $5k, I don't know that I would want to hear you complain that the process was unjust because the guy next to you, who was also late, got off with only a $2,500 fine because he made the deal.

And no, changing a law does not mean that the status quo ante was "wrong" or "unreasonable." It means that what was reasonable once is no longer desirable. If a community decided to eliminate the laws on disturbing the peace (say by allowing large democtrations in residential areas in the middle of the night), that does not mean that the original restriction was unreasonable. It means that the consensus or majority opinion in the community has changed. Things change - how many laws in the US have been changed, amended or revoked not because there was anything wrong with them but because the people charged with making and implementing the law decided to do things differently?

Personally, I have no problem with there being a 10-year minimmum sentence. I don't however, know the details of the Georgia penal code or the details of exactly what provision of said code the subject here was convicted of violating and what the best way to address the situation is.

Let me see if I have this right?
Some jocks have sex with a too drunk to protest 17 year old and gets a BJ from a willing 15 year old?
The morons make a video tape of the rape of the 17 year old and get offered a plea bargin for the rape and the consensual bj from the 15 year old?
All but one moron take the plea and get a lesser sentence but moron number one goes to trial gets exonerated for the video taped rape of the too drunk to protest 17 year old but gets convicted for the willing bj from the 15 year old? Have I got the facts of the story right??
Let's assume I have.
I hope moron number one enjoys his jail sentence.
I guess he's the football player you hear about who went into prison a tight end and got out a wide receiver!
Do I feel sorry for these morons?
Not in the least.
If I were the parent of either girl,they should consider themselves lucky that the cops got to them before I did.
I hate rapists.

"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"

There are way too many opinions being made without any understanding of the facts. The facts found in the case were
"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 videocamera 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." 631 S.E.2d 391

There is no question that all parties involved that night (including the girls) made huge mistakes. Wilson was charged with the rape of the 17 yr old and acquitted b/c the jury found that the sex was consensual. He was convicted of aggravated child molestation for his actions with the 15 yr old. The law makes it a serious violent felony to engage in any immoral act with a child under 16 that involves sodomy and has a minimum sentence of 10 years. Minors cant consent to sex so it doesnt matter that the 15 yr old was a willing participant.

What is interesting is that if he had sex with the 15 yr old he would only have been guilty of a misdemeanor under GA's statutory rape provision, which downgrades the offense when the victim is less than 3 years younger than the defendant. So basically, kids are taught that oral sex is not the same as "sexual relations" and is no big deal by the President and the media. Then they get a 10 year minimum for following the Presidents lead instead of the slap on the wrist that is given out for actual sex. To me that law is pretty harsh and should be changed.

This post, that is. Right from the sickly mocking title to the fact-challenged character assault on Genarlow Wilson. There is much to be enjoyed about this site but this post sinks near deal-breaker levels.

Why in the world couldn't you have done a base level of research? You could have consulted the online thoughts of an actual law professor you thought highly enough of to put in the site's blog list, Eugene Volokh, from, good grief, two months ago:

The sentence strikes me as unduly harsh even on its own terms, but it seems especially unjustifiable given that:

1. The age of consent in Georgia is 16.

2. In 2006, the Georgia Legislature amended the statute to provide that oral sex between an under-18-year-old and a 13-to-15-year-old is only a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of a year in jail. This revised statute would have thus made the defendant's conduct a misdemeanor had he committed his crime after the statute's enactment, but the statute expressly provided that it wasn't retroactive.

3. Even at the time the act occurred, genital sex between an under-18-year-old and a 14-or-15-year-old was also a misdemeanor.

4. This defendant had no criminal record that would justify an especially long sentence.

Mr Volokh concludes:

The courts seem to have done their job right here, but the legislature didn't, and quite possibly the prosecutors didn't (though I realize that this raises complex questions about prosecutorial obligations). I hope, with Doug Berman (Sentencing Law & Policy), that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles would correct this injustice.

Or perhaps here:

Had Wilson and the 15 year old had sexual intercourse, his maximum sentence -- according to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling in the Marcus Dixon case -- would have been one year.
<...>
At the same time that Wilson was being sentenced to 10 years in prison, down the hall in the courthouse, a 27-year-old high school teacher got a slap on the wrist (probation, 90 days in jail, not prison) for having sexual intercourse with an 16-year-old male student.

Or from ESPN (emphasis mine):

Everyone, including the girl and the prosecution, agreed she initiated the act. But because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.
<...>
He was a good student, with a 3.2 grade point average. He was popular, the school's homecoming king, liked by students and teachers. He never got into any trouble with the law.

You could have simply stated that Wilson, 17, had consensual oral sex with a 15 year old. You might have taken and argued an actual position for why a 15 year old cannot reasonably consent, and for why oral sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old really should be a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years while intercourse is only a misdemeanor. But you chose the way of provocative text and emotionally charged invective, attackign him through unrelated matter like the past history of the other defendants. You didn't have to do this. My hope is that the next time you mount up for assault on your mortal enemies at the NYT, that you take a little more care for the people you might draw up into the fray, who may not be nearly as deserving as your primary target of such poor and public treatment.

On the matter of Wilson itself, I'm fully aware that he isn't blameless and that he did break laws that were on the books - but if society had wanted to teach him a lesson, then society may better have prosecuted him for possession and use of alchohol and marijuana, rather than "child molestation". Evidently the rape charges were bogus - now where in North Carolina have we heard that one before? If people came to their senses and changed the law to better reflect our sense of justice, why not correct the injustice done here? I don't care what the party of the legislators is. Is this just, or is this unjust?

But the real takeaway for me is less about legislators and prosecutors, and more about what an unfortunate example this is for how our most misplaced efforts to legislate morality can have both unjust and immoral end results. It's another data point to demonstrate why keeping laws on the books in the hope that they somehow socially engineer a different kind of behaviour, even though we tell ourselves that we don't really mean for them to be enforced, is a really bad idea.

....is a gross mistatement. If he can get away with that, he could also say he scored with the new born calf in the field, the sheep, and the goat.
Did we raise a generation of animals, or is that just par for the course in Georgia?

...I find it interesting that so many want to excuse the defendant's behavior because he's an athlete. Or, that some want to whine about "republicans picking on black folks". No matter the skin color of the accused, or the victims, and regardless of his sports acumen, what he did was against the law and, more importantly, morally reprehensible. Athletes are, whether they want to be, or not, role models. Sportsmanship should include some semblance of socially acceptable behavior off the field.
He's just lucky the court has him, instead of the families.