Teen Jailed On Underage Sex Rap Is Free

Georgia Supreme Court Deems 10-Year Sentence "Cruel And Unusual Punishment"

(CBS/AP)  A former high school football star given 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with another teenager was freed Friday by Georgia's highest court, which ruled that his sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Genarlow Wilson's case led to widespread protests of racism and heavy handed justice. Wilson and the girl - both black - were only two years apart.

"I never gave up hope in our judicial system, and I never gave up hope in all the prayers people sent out for us," Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett, told reporters.

Wilson, 21, offered advice to other teens: "They should be very hesitant before they join certain crowds and make certain decisions."

In its 4-3 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court noted that state lawmakers later scrapped the law that required a minimum 10-year prison term.

That change, the court said, represented "a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."

The justices also said Wilson's sentence made "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment," and his crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children."

After he was imprisoned, Wilson became the subject of prominent editorials and national news broadcasts. His sentence was denounced even by members of the jury that convicted him and the author of the 1995 law that put him behind bars.

Wilson, a former honor student and homecoming king, was convicted of aggravated child molestation following a 2003 New Year's Eve party in a hotel room where he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Wilson, who was 17 at the time, was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party.

State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he hopes Friday's ruling puts "an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case."

The man who prosecuted Wilson, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, said he disagreed with the decision, but he respects the court "as the final arbiter."

Wilson's supporters were jubilant.

"It's been a long time coming," said Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat. "Each day that this young man spent in prison was a day too long."

Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who is visiting Georgia this week, called for an end to mandatory minimum prison sentences.

The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower-court ruling that said the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively.

The high court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state's appeal of a judge's decision to reduce Wilson's sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice."

State lawmakers announced they had raised $4,000 toward a scholarship fund for Wilson, and Jackson promised another $5,000 from the Rainbow/PUSH organization.

[michellem99-2009]

toldyouso21, amen..yer list..Yer right on about names too..My dad named me Barbara Ann M.He hates Michelle and will not call me thats AS he did not name me that so he calls me me my birth name..That poor kid..how is it said and bullying..
Back to yer list. I add to yer list.
7. Clean out our back yerds not not their yards aroad.
8.Charity begins at home first before it is given abroad..Take care of us Americans here in our Nation not others..They will take as long as America gracous holds out her paw to them over seas who are not not grateful..
My foster mothers taught us to care but it is not right to force other nations to see it the way America does..We are taught not to bully...I see it as a form of bully..

[sandzz-2009]

"The "age of consent" is an arbitrary age established by various government agencies.

The age 18 is totally irrelevant to the "age of consent."

Don''''t give up your McJob, you have no future in the legal profession. Your arguments are nonsensical.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:20 PM : Oct 27, 2007"

You have absolutely no clue, 18, generally, IS THE AGE WHEN ONE CAN CONSENT BECAUSE THE STATE VESTS THEM WITH THAT POWER. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? It is apparent that your IQ is borderline 75, however, please understand this simple concept. That to consent one needs to have the capacity to consent and that capacity is vested by the statutory scheme in an individual upon reaching the age of 18, except for your family members and those with IQs similar to yours. Why is it that difficult to understand this? For instance those with IQs similar to yours, below 75, cannot consent because the state does not grant them that power, therefore, contracts made with these unfortunates are generally unenforceable against them. Likewise, those that have not reached the statutory prescribed age, in this instance and in most states, 18, cannot consent because they lack that power. THATS WHY USUALLY THEY GET SLAPPED WITH STATUTORY RAPE, even if both actors were willing participants. Now do you understand or will you again demonstrate your IQ level?

[sandzz-2009]

Buying liquor has nothing to do with having the ability to consent. In fact it is a limitation on ADULTS. If you mean to imply that 21 is the age of adulthood you are just plain wrong. A person turns an adult, in most states, upon reaching the age of 18. The peculiar governing body is free to restrict certain classes from certain acts, i.e. the purchase of alcohol. But that has little, or no bearing, on the issue of w/e that individual is an adult.

For instance, most states impose harsh limitations on gun ownership on the class of felons. The limitation does not imply that that class of persons are not adults even for the purposes of purchasing a handgun, it merely restricts that class. The law merely says that these adults cannot purchase guns. Does your feeble mind understand that? And again, the age is anything but arbitrary, the statute is very clear in ALL states on this issue. You seriously have no clue, congrats on your sociology major degree from some online school. You must make mommy and daddy proud.

[sandzz-2009]

"2. The age of consent varies by state and circumstance. The "age of consent" varies with each state and with circumstances. It is entirely arbitrary."

No hillbilly, it is not arbitrary and is pretty clear in the statutory scheme. It says an adult is a person who has attained at least 18 years of age. It does NOT vary by circumstance. One cannot be an adult for one purpose but not another. One is either an adult or not. In this circumstance he was not, nor was the girl. You are right that it MIGHT vary from state to state. But if you were to actually do what I suggested and look things up you would seem an overwhelming consensus of the states choosing 18 to be the magical age.

[sandzz-2009]

"that, since the act was consensual" by toldyouso.

Fine example of people blathering without knowledge of the material facts. The act was NOT consensual because to consent one needs to have the ability to consent. To have that ability one needs to be an adult. That''s why contracts are unenforceable as to minors. The law generally prescribes adulthood to those who reach the age of 18. None of the actors in this case reached that age and therefore could not have consented. Maybe you should actually look things up before opining? At least that way you don''t end up looking foolish.

[sandzz-2009]

"The state Supreme Court did not decide to apply the law retroactively. They did look at the sentence, and deem it cruel and unusual punishment, and not in the interests of justice. That''''s why he''''s free, not because they applied a law retroactively."

They did not apply it retroactively but look to the statute as the primary tool to determine whether the crime is cruel and unusual? The court in essence says that well the revised statute shows these kinds of crimes are now punishable by a misdemeanor and therefore the current sentence is cruel and unusual. How is that NOT applying the rationale and wisdom of a statute retroactively? Without the statute for comparison the argument falls apart.

Besides the crime has to be cruel and unusual at the time the crime is committed. A sentence does not become cruel and unusual after the fact. The legislature is free of course to apply it''s reflection of the community morals retroactively but it specifically chose not to do so here.

[toldyouso21]

Boy paid a big price for a little tail.
Posted by Keithle1 at 09:13 AM : Oct 27, 2007

What tail? The boy appeared to get no puzzy from this girl...all he got was a little "lip service" that is not even real ***--it is just the warm up act.

[toldyouso21]

Think how perverted we have become:

1. We think *** between two teenagers who want is is a crime and one person should go to jail for 10 yrs but the other is just a "victim"

2. We think torturing people who we single out in a war is okay--on the off chance they may be terrorists--but if they aren''t ---well we still think torture is okay--just as long as it is not done to Americans

3. We invade a country based on lies then say we gave the people "freedom" but our freedom was never asked or chosen by the people--which means that we did not offer freedom--we imposed destruction then renamed it freedom (freedom means choice and voluntary)

4. WE invade a people, then get mad when they don''t help us to win our war against them. (they should help us to kick their own azzes?

5. WE ignore the world or call them stupid when they say a war with Iraq is not necessary, then--when our wars go haywire as usual--we want the world to finish fighting it, clean up our mess and give money to it.

6. We say patriotism is everything--then we ignore that and push party over the country.

Talk about perversion--then we wonder why this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[btree50]

There is no way this boy should have been in jail. Its that simple. A reprimand, maybe, but jail no way on earth.

[zeezedzee]

What''s the big deal, President Clinton said, after all, that it wasn''t *** in the first place, so what the heck!

[zeezedzee]

What''s the big deal, President Clinton said, after all, that it wasn''t *** in the first place, so what the heck!

[keithle1]

Boy paid a big price for a little tail.

[toldyouso21]

People should think long and hard about what they name their kids as it can have repercussions later in life and affect their success. (Studies have shown that certain names prevent people from rising in jobs or assuming positions as power and certain other names seem to almost give a boost to a person) Employers and employees respond either negatively or positively to a name and this is psychologically exploited subconcisously.

So before you name your kid: Harriet, Ethel, Beulah May, Sally, Ralph, Horace, Boris or other names with negative connotations--or pronounciations that change with the spelling--and no one knows how to say the name--consider the consequences. From the moment the boy was named Genarlow--he stood a very high chance of having a lot of negativity in his life.

[toldyouso21]

This guy messed up his own life. If he was white he''''d still be in jail. He only received all this special attention because of his color and loudmouth windbags like Sharpton.


Posted by robertkjjj at 10:33 AM : Oct 26, 2007

We all (no matter what race) know THAT is a lie. If the boy was white, no doubt the acquittal for the 17 yr old would have stood and the Prosecution would have declined to charge for the act with the 15 yr old--citing that if the 15 year old wanted to prosecute, she or her parents had to bring charges--and that, since the act was consensual--there would be no more charges.

You should stop--we all know the laws are skewed and NOT in favor of any one of color. The list of preferential treatment is by power (who you know or who knows you and is willing to help you), class (how much money someone has), then gender, then skin color--with blacks being railroaded more than any other group--though lately to be a criminal that is perhaps Muslim is really a bad thing...or maybe
the worst a person could be--a male illegal immigrant that is black, gay, and a Muslim. Yep--that would probably have to be the worst possible combo.

[toldyouso21]

The disturbing thing about the way Jackson operates is he stated that even if she was lying, he wouldn''''t take the scholarship back. Her and her kids deserve to be dirt poor and on the street. That''''s a great message to send to the youngsters of america.Posted by roadking041 at 07:06 AM : Oct 27, 2007


YOu don''t really mean that--not as much as you must HATE the idea of having to support so many people on welfare (currently less than 2.7 million from all races out of 300 million citizens). The boy served 1 year in jail for a consensual act. The real problem is--that Americans are sooo hypocritical about *** that they dare to make a natural act between consenting people a crime. The hideous irony is--that a lot of the complainers and those who claim to want tough *** laws in cases like this often are hypocrites with double standards. Ala Ted Haggert, Vitter, Craig, Swaggert, O''Reilly, Limbaugh, Baker, Foley, etc---Behind the scenes those who complain the loudest are often guilty of truly raping children (even their own) and every other deviant act.

www.armchairsubversive.com No act is too perverse for the so called "Imm"--moral majority.

[susanhelit]

The state Supreme Court did not decide to apply the law retroactively. They did look at the sentence, and deem it cruel and unusual punishment, and not in the interests of justice. That''s why he''s free, not because they applied a law retroactively.

[tmn]

This case serves as a fine example of (original) legislation crafted by pea-brained Puritans! Two teens get together for consentual oral ***, and someone is supposed to serve *10 YEARS* in prison? Thank God for "judicial activism"...and (finally) common sense!

[sandzz-2009]

Whats real funny is the majority of posters who want to opine have little or no knowledge of the subject matter. The revised statute explicitly provided that it ought NOT to be applied retroactively. The majority opinion disregarded that fact and decided to apply the statute retroactively anyway, and not just for Wilson, but for others, and not just those similarly situated but for anyone who was ever convicted of aggravated child molestation prior to the statute''s revision.

In fact, not only are those situated entitled to a hearing but, on this opinion they are entitled to be release from custody. This case serves as a fine example of judicial activism.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by robertkjjj,

And some are born ignorant racists, whose parents don''t have the sense to teach them better.

It is called recidivism, dummy, and it is not restricted to class, gender, or the false concept known as "race".

[susanhelit]

The law is the law - but the person who wrote this law says it was misapplied and inappropriate for this case. Several judges have agreed - this is not the law. The AG was an idiot, and should pay with his job, if not more.