Jump to content
Science Forums

Genarlow Wilson get 10 year for BJ


Rebiu

Recommended Posts

Detailed account of the crime:

 

Atlanta Magazine - Why Is Genarlow Wilson in Prison?

 

He should have taken the plea deal offered.

I dont understand why more charges were not filed. Taking video of a minor is illegal in every state I am aware of.

 

Tough lesson to learn, but he was offered a deal that would have removed the long term effects and he knew there was video of the encounter.

 

Ick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should have taken the plea deal offered.

 

Why? His right to fight his case would be taken away. Now he has a right to appeal. And a lifetime registration as a sex offender is basically asking for trouble anyway.

 

I am shocked at the inhumanity of the treatment of the offender in this matter. They are condemning a kid to hell for something that should be dealt with in a completely different way. Community service would be more appropriate IMHO. If a rape is proved, then prison, perhaps, but 10 years? It's pure revenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? His right to fight his case would be taken away. Now he has a right to appeal. And a lifetime registration as a sex offender is basically asking for trouble anyway.

 

I am shocked at the inhumanity of the treatment of the offender in this matter. They are condemning a kid to hell for something that should be dealt with in a completely different way. Community service would be more appropriate IMHO. If a rape is proved, then prison, perhaps, but 10 years? It's pure revenge.

 

Simply put, the evidence was filmed. Regardless of whether you think the law is fair or not, it is the law in Georgia. This was explained to Genarlow and he thought everyone picked for his jury would come to the same conclusion as he did.

 

This is also the aspect of taking a plea vs fighting something in court. Georgia is well known throughout the country for being very harsh when you find yourself in front of a judge or jury. Everyone most certainly does have a right to a trial, but that is not always the best decision made.

 

 

A 17 year old who is getting ready to take his SATs should have enough common sense to think "hey this could be bad". I dont care if he didnt know the penalty was as harsh as it was, filming minors in sex acts has been a crime as long as this person has been alive. Too bad he didnt play the marytr when the cameras were rolling and push the girl away saying "no, dont come near me, ya skank". A 17 year old does have some responsiblity no matter what the testosterone is doing. As far as him not knowing she was 15, then he wouldnt have known if she was 14 or 13..... he didnt care.... Ick, ick, ick.

 

Its not about revenge, it is mandatory minimums when someone is convicted of a particular crime. He knew what he was facing when he decided to fight the charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detailed account of the crime:

 

Atlanta Magazine - Why Is Genarlow Wilson in Prison?

 

He should have taken the plea deal offered.

I dont understand why more charges were not filed. Taking video of a minor is illegal in every state I am aware of.

Must mean that this boy did not do those thing. The girl seems to have been at least a coplicite in this orgy if not more so. "There was no ill will, no malice, no intent to commit a crime. After all, Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys.

As for Tracy, she did not drink or smoke that night, but willingly performed oral sex on several of the guys, practically one after the other, as the telltale videotape showed. Tracy had not wanted to press charges and was as surprised as the boys that police showed up at the hotel that New Year’s morning. At no point did anyone at the party discuss their ages. They were all peers."

 

Tough lesson to learn, but he was offered a deal that would have removed the long term effects and he knew there was video of the encounter.

 

Ick.

Your position is that ten years for recieving oral sex is okay because he was offered a plea bargain? It is a bit of a strawman to say the least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, the evidence was filmed. Regardless of whether you think the law is fair or not, it is the law in Georgia. This was explained to Genarlow and he thought everyone picked for his jury would come to the same conclusion as he did.

 

A 17 year old who is getting ready to take his SATs should have enough common sense to think "hey this could be bad". I dont care if he didnt know the penalty was as harsh as it was, filming minors in sex acts has been a crime as long as this person has been alive. Too bad he didnt play the marytr when the cameras were rolling and push the girl away saying "no, dont come near me, ya skank". A 17 year old does have some responsiblity no matter what the testosterone is doing. As far as him not knowing she was 15, then he wouldnt have known if she was 14 or 13..... he didnt care.... Ick, ick, ick.

 

Its not about revenge, it is mandatory minimums when someone is convicted of a particular crime. He knew what he was facing when he decided to fight the charges.

It is about bad laws and the abuse of the legal system. Nobody is disputing the existence of the law and his violation of it. Laws are not absolute they are interpreted and applied by Judges and Juries. This decision is not justice. Until 1998 Georgia had a law that sentenced a husband and wife to 20 year for oral sex. Did you support that law as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Your position is that ten years for recieving oral sex is okay because he was offered a plea bargain? It is a bit of a strawman to say the least."

 

No. My position is you dont have sex with 15 year olds (and worse yet, on film) or you best be man enough to admit when you get caught . The law will go after you to the fullest extent, and mr. cool got caught fair and square. Its not a strawman, its the law and he knew what he would face when he chose to go infront of a jury and refused the plea deal.

 

He should have kept his junk in his pants and he wouldnt be singing the blues now. He got his 15 minutes of fame.

 

In Georgia, it doesnt matter that Tracy didnt want to press charges, in Georgia, shes not old enough to give her consent. Any 17 year old (who is a lifelong resident of that state as I understand it) should be well aware of the laws there, if not, thats his own fault.

 

Wanna be a movie star? The sheer stupidity of this guy amazes me. Who exactly did he think was gonna be on the jury?

 

It is about bad laws and the abuse of the legal system.

 

If it stops one filming of group sex with a bunch of minors in the future, its done well enough for me. Especially in the age of cell cams, web cams, etc.

 

If it makes one highschool football/soccer/lacrosse/hockey/basketball person just say no, its good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphically shows the danger of "zero tolerance" policies. The legislature has rewritten the law as a result of this trial, but this kid is caught in a system that does not allow any of the legal entities to consider extenuating circumstances. His best hope at this point is for the governor to step in and grand a pardon.

 

Life is not fair, especially when it is handed out "fairly".

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My position is you dont have sex with 15 year olds (and worse yet, on film) or you best be man enough to admit when you get caught . The law will go after you to the fullest extent, and mr. cool got caught fair and square. Its not a strawman, its the law and he knew what he would face when he chose to go infront of a jury and refused the plea deal.
They changed the law genius.

Wanna be a movie star? The sheer stupidity of this guy amazes me. Who exactly did he think was gonna be on the jury?

You seem a bit slow so I will say it again. He was not convicted for filming a 15 year old having sex. He was not convicted for filming a 15 year old having sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphically shows the danger of "zero tolerance" policies. The legislature has rewritten the law as a result of this trial, but this kid is caught in a system that does not allow any of the legal entities to consider extenuating circumstances. His best hope at this point is for the governor to step in and grand a pardon.

 

Life is not fair, especially when it is handed out "fairly".

 

Bill

Some people seem to want justice in a can. I wonder how much of these laws came from republican hostility to "ativist judges".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphically shows the danger of "zero tolerance" policies.

 

That was my opinion, as well. It does not matter which ever way we discuss the crime, if the sentence is mandatory. It leaves no power to the "people", and places all power in the hands of written text. It is fundamentalism.

 

While I respect the laws of Georgia state in general, I am not in favor of a juidiciary system where no reason is used during sentencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I don't generally get involved in political affairs. Do I think the law was probably unjust? Probably, I haven't read the full article and I didn't sit on that jury. This kid went to trial and turned down a plea deal for the reason that he didn't feel that what he did was wrong. It was obvious that the law stated otherwise. Thus he chose to take his sentence and appeal to the highest court that in the end the law was unjust and get his sentence overturned. In the meantime, unless a judge grants him bail while waiting for an appeal (which isn't likely for any one receiving a sex offender label) he will have to sit in jail until his time comes to have his case considered.

 

He had a choice and this was his choice. The act of taping the crime, simply means it is an open and shut case. The law was clear. It was also clearly broken. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Sentencing is up to the judge or the jury. The crime called for 10 years and that's what they handed down.

 

In America, if you feel a law is unjust your only recourse is civil disobedience. That means that you have to break the law and be sentenced in order to fight the legality of the law in a higher court. You cannot just make the claim of unconstitutionality and file a petition with the supreme court. You must follow the process.

Occasionally the process moves along rapidly and judges determine that there is a need to pass the case up the chain. In cases like this where there is precedent (sex offenses involving minors), generally the cases take years of appeals before they have a chance at reaching a higher court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They changed the law genius. You seem a bit slow so I will say it again. He was not convicted for filming a 15 year old having sex. He was not convicted for filming a 15 year old having sex.

 

I know they changed the law, I read the links I post. Doesnt matter, changed laws are usually not pro-rated back to offenders who were busted under the existing laws (but the legislature has that option).

 

I also read the case of (firstNameForgotten) Dixon, which was the person they recommended changing the law for. Not much on the web about that case, but its in snopes.com. Seems to me from reading the piece on snopes, a rapist got away with it. Too bad they changed the law. Open season on the youth in Georgia, as if 17 year olds cant be predators.....

 

 

The point of the "movie star" comment was he gave them the evidence to convict. No candid camera in that room. No SURPRISE!! Too bad its child porn or we would have gotten to see it on courtTV. Does that help you understand the point I was making?

 

I know they werent charged with child porn, though they should have been. I made that distinction in an earlier post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it stops one filming of group sex with a bunch of minors in the future, its done well enough for me. Especially in the age of cell cams, web cams, etc.

 

If it makes one highschool football/soccer/lacrosse/hockey/basketball person just say no, its good enough for me.

 

I must say you come forth as an extreme fundamentalist with your views in this matter, Cedars. I'm surprised at your hostility. You gladly support a mandatory sentence which basically condemns a 17-year old to become a criminal, in exchange for this?

 

You live in a society where marketers are free to play on what I would consider fuzzy borders to child pornography and you're smirking when a 17-year old films a 15-year old and is publicly condemned for it. I must say I am stunned. Is this the good fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gladly support a mandatory sentence which basically condemns a 17-year old to become a criminal, in exchange for this?

 

You live in a society where marketers are free to play on what I would consider fuzzy borders to child pornography and you're smirking when a 17-year old films a 15-year old and is publicly condemned for it. I must say I am stunned. Is this the good fight?

 

Your marketing example is a red-herring and I am surprized at its use here considering european marketing is much more sexual than american advertising. There is no fuzzy border about sex acts with minors being filmed.

 

That 17 year old was a criminal under many aspects of the law, he was only charged with a portion of the offenses committed that night. Dont forget the whole reason this was brought to the attention of the police was another 15 year old girl reported rape at this same place, involving a whole bunch of people engaged in sexual acts with girls who were 15.

 

Sorry Tormod, but I had boyfriends who were older than me and they made damn sure I was at the age of consent before anything that could even be imagined as sexual contact occured. And by that, if they didnt believe me (baby face), no way did they put themselves in a position to be accused of such a serious crime, until they found out exactly how old I was, even by going as far asking one of my parents. They were RESPONSIBLE for their actions. They KNEW what the law required of them before participating in any 'free love'. One was convinced the age of consent was higher in this state than it was, rather than argue over it, I just waited until he was satisfied that I met that requirement.

 

Its not about fundamentalism, its because I take sexual explotation of minors seriously. Is this the good fight? I am not holding these characters any more responsible than I hold the people wanting to go out with my own kid, and is no higher than the standards I held the people who I dated and partied with. You have kids if I remember right. Would you rather the creep walk than face a penalty for the crime committed against your own? Are you really gonna tell your daughter or your sister that, "Its ok, its better that the person who took advantage of you goes free?"

 

Smirking over this? I dont think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...