10 years in prison for oral sex

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2007/06/11/0611wilson.html

Wilson was originally charged with raping a 17-year-old at a party on New Year's Eve of 2003, but he was acquitted. He was ultimately found guilty of aggravated child molestation involving the 15-year-old girl. Four other male youths at the party pleaded guilty to child molestation of the 15-year-old and sexual battery of the 17-year-old. A fifth pleaded guilty to false imprisonment.
 
I guess I'm wondering what happened in the jury room. Jury's often make compromises in reaching a verdict. Due to sentencing guidelines is it possible that they found him guilty of this charge as a compromise. They seemed to think he deserved a 10 year sentence.

I think it's misleading to say this is just about consensual oral sex.
 
redkat said:
I guess I'm wondering what happened in the jury room. Jury's often make compromises in reaching a verdict. Due to sentencing guidelines is it possible that they found him guilty of this charge as a compromise. They seemed to think he deserved a 10 year sentence.

I think it's misleading to say this is just about consensual oral sex.

First of all no one pleaded to rape, they pleaded to battery. They all got the molestation or statuatory convictions because the one girl was a minor, that charge is automatic, I can't see how that's a compromise. The jury found that the other wasn't rape.

The big WTF, is the fact that there can be a 10 year sentence for statuatory rape, that seems ridiculous. So what is misleading?
 
redkat said:
I guess I'm wondering what happened in the jury room. Jury's often make compromises in reaching a verdict. Due to sentencing guidelines is it possible that they found him guilty of this charge as a compromise. They seemed to think he deserved a 10 year sentence.

I think it's misleading to say this is just about consensual oral sex.

The jury did not know about the 10 year mandatory sentence until after they had reached their verdict. And they have spoken out about how unfair they feel the sentence was.
 
Didn't we just discuss this in the "dribbling vomit" thread? The 17 year old gangbang girl was drunk, therefore she can't give consent...hence rape. For whatever reason he got off on that charge, but was found guilty of the lesser one, the one involving the 15 year old (maybe the jury felt some sympathy for him). The other 5 guys copped out, this guy rolled the dice & went to trial. And lost.

And everybody feels sorry for him. :(
 
I meant misleading thinking this was about consensual oral sex between a teenage couple. I'm in favor of changing the statutory rape laws or at least allowing discretion when used. He took part in something much worse that night.

After reading more details of what happened that night i have a hard time thinking of him as a victim as he has been portrayed so often by the media.

When I said pled to the rape I meant the original charge was rape and they pled to the lesser.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


How drunk was she? How are you sure she was drunk?

Obviously the jury didn't think so :shrug:

BVS I saw a piece on ESPN about this case, and I forget if they actually interviewed member(s) of the jury or just had quotes from them, but I distinctly recall that they found him guilty of the statutory rape charge as a compromise. I don't recall if they were divided on whether or not the gang rape actually happened, or if they assumed he'd do less time with a conviction for statutory rape and so chose to convict him on that charge. Then they realized the conviction carried that 10-year sentence.

Do you honestly think he was innocent of the gang rape charges? Doesn't the fact that the other guys copped out raise questions? I realize the jury cleared him on that one so legally he's 100% innocent, but if we're speaking in absolutes then conversely he committed a crime that carries a 10 year term, he ought to do the 10.
 
CTU2fan said:


Do you honestly think he was innocent of the gang rape charges? Doesn't the fact that the other guys copped out raise questions?
No, I've never fell into that type of thinking. I've seen enough to know people will do a lot of things out of desperation especially when they are young and naive. THERE IS A LOT OF GRAY IN THIS CASE. When there is a lot of gray pleas are often the way to go, especially if you can't afford a good lawyer and you don't want your name dragged through the mudd.

The jury saw videotape, why couldn't they find it rape?

CTU2fan said:

I realize the jury cleared him on that one so legally he's 100% innocent, but if we're speaking in absolutes then conversely he committed a crime that carries a 10 year term, he ought to do the 10.

Wrong. The question isn't now if he committed a crime or not, it's if that crime should be punishable by 10 years? Do you realize how many of us in interference would have probably been guilty of this crime at one time or another? I know we didn't all wait till the age of consent(18 in my state), and I know many probably had boyfriends or girlfriend's who may have been a few months younger at that time. I would have had fallen in to that category for 6 months, if my girlfriend's parents didn't like me for any reason I'd been screwed...
 
Well after reading more about it I have doubts about this situation too, but the legal/jury system did what it did and that's how it goes. He may have taken part in something worse but as far as what he ended up charged with he didn't in the eyes of the law. There's speculation that the prosecutor keeps persuing this because he's angry that he didn't take the plea. That's just plain wrong. Prosecutors can go way over the line just like defense attorneys can.
 
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/06/13/0614metwilson.html

Genarlow Wilson should never have been criminally charged and imprisoned for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party more than three years ago, the girl's mother says.

Veda Cannon said the sex between her daughter, Wilson and four other teens was consensual and regrets she didn't ask prosecutors not to charge them.
A bond hearing was set for July 5 for Genarlow Wilson, who is serving a 10-year term.

"I felt like Douglas County was trying to make an example out of these boys," Cannon, 39, of Douglasville, asserted Tuesday in what she said was her first interview about the case. "They should have been made to pay for their actions, but not to this severity," she said.

In a strange twist Wednesday, Cannon scrambled to soften some of Tuesday's comments following a visit to her home from a Douglas County prosecutor who had learned of her interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Responding to Cannon's assertions, county prosecutors said they suspect Cannon is bending to pressure from people supporting the defendants, an assertion she denied.

"Never once did she ever ask us not to prosecute this case," said Douglas County Assistant District Attorney Eddie Barker, who worked closely with Cannon during the case. "Where was she at when all of this was going on? Why is she just now telling you this three years later?"

A bizarre series of events occurred Wednesday morning after Douglas prosecutors learned Cannon was speaking to the press. Cannon said Barker and a colleague soon showed up at her home with an audio recorder to discuss her comments to the AJC.

In a subsequent interview with the AJC, she raised concerns that she was being misquoted.

After that conversation, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade disclosed his office had taped Cannon's conversation with the AJC.
 
http://news.aol.com/#20071026110309990001

Georgia's highest court orders the release of Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. The 4-3 ruling says the sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

the poll there shows 91% agree with the decision :up:
 
That's completely outrageous! :mad: This clearly wasn't an act of pedophilia, as both parties were consenting and there was only a two year difference.

It's sad that, in America, you can go to jail for having sex with your girlfriend. Sad, but true.
 
are we forgetting that a 15 year old white girl can not legally consent to have sex

therefore this white girl was raped

that's the law
 
deep said:
are we forgetting that a 15 year old white girl can not legally consent to have sex

therefore this white girl was raped

that's the law

So if a 17 year old is dating a 15 year old, and they have sex, it's pedophilia? I'm sorry, but that's crazy.
 
either we are a nation of laws

or we are not

this is just one more example of "judicial activism"



it is not "cruel or unusual" to imprison a black rapist

it is not what "the founders" intended
 
I'm curious where all the folks championing Wilson as some kind of victim would draw the line. What if he was 18 and she 15? What if they were 17 & 14? What about 16 and 14, or 18 and 16? What's OK, and what's not?

Deep I know your posts were sarcasm, but aren't we a nation of laws? Basically the defense in all of this was "what he did wasn't that bad", and I guess in the grand scheme of things it wasn't, but the law is the law...except in this case, where apparently it wasn't. Honestly my thought on this is the same as my thought on lots of things...you broke the law, and got caught. It sucks, but that's the way it is. People do excessive time all over the country (every non-violent drug offender, for example). Why is this kid so special? Why should he get a pass?
 
The point is that NOBODY should be doing excessive time disproportiante to the crime. It isn't just about this one case - at least not for me it isn't.

Take those non-violent drug offenders you brought up as an example - there are people who did pot and got caught in the 60s who are STILL in prison today for it. Is that not completely ridiculous?

Or, recently, there was a mother who served alcoholic beverages to her 16 year old son and his friends of the same age(or thereabouts) at his 16th birthday party. She is now serving a 2-year sentence in prison, and her son has subsequently dropped out of high school because of it because he couldn't take all the attention he was getting for it. It is outrageous. In this incident, nobody got in a car under the influence - the mother collected car keys to make sure nobody left during the night and required everyone to spend the night at the house - nobody got hurt under the influence, it was just a mother serving alcohol to these teenagers so that she could supervise it rather than them getting it through other means. If anything this is MORE responsible. And she's serving jail time for it.

It's not just about this one Wilson case, imo. It's about judges making examples of people who have commited minor crimes by giving them excessive sentences merely to put another notch in their belt. Judges are politicians too.
 
Last edited:
I havent read thro all the posts.......but wouldnt the girl have commited a crime also if the guy had? Think about it...she was the one who comitted the act....the guy was the recipient.:huh:
 
deep said:
are we forgetting that a 15 year old white girl can not legally consent to have sex

therefore this white girl was raped

that's the law

Out of curiosity...whats the law for 15 yr old black girls? Is it in some way different?
 
gman said:
I havent read thro all the posts.......but wouldnt the girl have commited a crime also if the guy had? Think about it...she was the one who comitted the act....the guy was the recipient.:huh:

But she was a minor therefore the law says she must have been coerced. Hence why it's called statuatory rape.
 
CTU2fan said:
Honestly my thought on this is the same as my thought on lots of things...you broke the law, and got caught. It sucks, but that's the way it is. People do excessive time all over the country (every non-violent drug offender, for example). Why is this kid so special? Why should he get a pass?
If I understood the articles I read correctly, the majority opinion of the GA Supreme Court in releasing Wilson last week was that changes made in GA law subsequent to (and partly in response to) Wilson's initial conviction--which reduced most consensual sex acts between teenagers, one or both of whom are below the age of consent, to misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in prison with no sex offender registration--reflected a significant enough shift in societal attitudes towards consensual sex between teenagers as to justify deeming Wilson's original 10-year sentence "cruel and unusual punishment," even though the new law itself couldn't be applied retroactively to his case.
deep said:
are we forgetting that a 15 year old white girl can not legally consent to have sex
She was black--I'm not sure why you keep saying that. The DA's (public) justification all along for pursuing the aggravated child molestation charge--minimum 10-year-penalty, at least at the time--was that "if I or this office had turned our heads and looked the other way when these two young ladies and their families cried out for help, I would have justifiably been accused of putting a deaf ear to African-American victims" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 5, 2007).

I think a case could be made that a white boy committing the same offenses wouldn't have received such stiff charges (Jimmy Carter argued as much in a complaint to GA's Attorney General late last spring). And it did apparently happen at some point that one of the major news outlets erroneously reported that the girl was white, which caused some media confusion. Legally, however, there was no confusion about that particular detail.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Lets say the pair of them held up a store, and she did the robbing....what would be the outcome? Would she still walk free?

Not a very good analogy...

If she was holding up a store there would be witnesses and they could gauge if there was any coersion.

But the law sees that no one under the age of consent is "adult" enough to make the decision of having sex on their own.
 
^ Besides, depending on how heinous the crime in question was, teens can potentially be tried as adults. It's been known to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom