The following is lines from the story in the AJC.

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.

Their party was captured on a profanity-laden and sexually graphic video filmed by one of the male youths. The video shows Wilson having intercourse with the 17-year-old and receiving oral sex from the 15-year-old. Wilson's appeal was filed in Forsyth because he is being held there in the Burruss Correctional Training Center.

What the story does not say is that both girls were drugged and the 17 old was unconscious. I can not believe that all of you are being fooled into believing this is an innocent little prom date that went a little to far.

He is a rapist and child molestor, and all of you are making him out to be the victim. I cant possibly begin to imagine what the parents of the two girls are feeling right now. I bet they dont feel like justice is being served.

Judicial Activism, there you have it!

Rep. Davis,

If he's a rapist and child molester, then why wasn't he convicted? Judicial Activism?

Paul, he was and so was all of his buddies. 10 years, remember?

But a judge just let him out.

He is a rapist and child molestor, and all of you are making him out to be the victim.

AMEN!

Representative Davis, if he is all you say why did the legislature change the law the following year?

Trust the conviction based on the law you changed but do not trust the acquittal based on laws still on the books?

Rep. Davis, you are a servant of the people. Why do you continue to further urban legend?

He is a rapist...

Strange...I remember him being ACQUITTED of that charge.

and child molestor...

No, sir. This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual.

Paul, he was and so was all of his buddies. 10 years, remember?

His friends, which you and Eric Johnson seem to be fixated on, took plea deals (which Wilson was offered, but because of the sex offender tag he refused...I don't blame him).

What he did was stupid...no disagreement, but the punishment did not fit his actions by any means.

Can't help but jump in on this one...... Several months ago there was an article in which one of the victims of this party stated that to make him out to be a "good" boy who used poor judgement was a crock. That he actually was an arrogant jock at school with all the negative connotations that go with the label.

I know that we live in different times than I was raised in, but the kind of amateur porn flick that he starred in turns my stomach. It is the sort of thing that is glorified by a society that embraces rap and hip-hop and aspires to an anything goes lifestyle... Women (in this case girls) exist as sexual toys for the pleasure of men (boys). It is a sad commentary of out times. Shame on all of them. Most of all shame on the parents who let this happen.

No, sir. This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual.

My understanding of the case is that at the time of the act, sexual acts with anyone under the age of 16 was illegal.

I don't care what the age difference was. If the law said under 16 was off limits, then it's off limits. Therefore, if the law calls him a child molestor, consensual or not, so be it.

Now, should he be released? I think so...by now. If the law says he has to be registered as a sex offender, then someone needs to give him a Bic & a book to bear down on. By the law, he is/was a sex offender.

No Danny, the law said anyone who had committed sodomy i.e. anal or oral contact on someone younger than 15 was guilty of aggravated child molestation. No exception for age difference or any kind of consent. That's why the legislature, including Rep. Davis changed the law to address this vaguery the next year.

The irony is that if he had actually had intercourse with the girl, he would not have been charged with child molestation.

And it is exactly this type of confusion that Rep Davis wants to continue to foster.

[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/index.html[\URL]

From the link: "Georgia law at the time made such an action a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and listing on the sex offender registry."

Now, I hate to believe CNN on this one, but if memory serves the age was 16, not 15.

griftdrift, age difference under the old law, right or wrong, was irrelevant.

But I'm pretty sure that the age was 16. If you can show me legal proof that the law at the time was 15, not 16, my opinion on the matter would sway.

Until I see proof, I think he deserved to do some time & he should have to register, at least under the text of the old law.

Jason and Gift,

You are both being ignorant to the facts and are splitting hairs with this kid. He is the scum of the earth and you treat him as if he did no wrong. There is a video of him dragging a limp body from one room to another and then having intercourse with that limp body after passing around a 15 old girl for his buddies.

He had a trial and he lost. Do you think the jury did not know what the minimum sentence was? Yet you guys want to talk about a Romeo and Juliet clause that might or moght not have even been invoked in this case. The prosecutor might have taken another angle or charge to prosecute this criminal.

There was a lot of things he did not get convicted of that he did that night (drugs and alcohol delinquency of a minor, etc..., he was 17 remember). I think he got lucky not to get all of the charges as convictions especially the rape!

So lets put it all out in the open. Do you think he is a criminal at all? Or just a innocent teenager that was in the wrong place at the wrong time? What kind of sentence should he have gotten? What do you think the purpose of the video was for?

Oh, "This girl was no more a child than him. She was fifteen, he was seventeen, that is a two year difference. He is not a child predator and the act was consensual." I guess your saying she is at fault. She brought it on herself, right? I bet she bought all the drugs and alcohol for all the older boys?

Come on lets get real. He is a criminal and deserves everything he got and more!

The law says under the age of 16 and it is a separate law from statutory rape statues which makes it confusing. Statuatory rape law already had so called "romeo and juliet" provisions to address consensual acts between teens of near age. This section of the law did not.

You can see the law here and the reason why the jury had no choice. Which also led to the reason the legislature changed it the following year. A fact some legislators continue to fail to address.

Steve, he did have a trial and he was acquitted of rape...please acknowledge that before you tell someone that they are being ignorant of the facts. Unless, of course, you are saying that by us pointing out that he was acquitted of that charge is just "splitting hairs."

Do you think he is a criminal at all?

Yes, he broke the law...but it was a law that was poorly written. He caused have just had sex with her and received the misdemeanor sentence. Does he deserve to be labeled as a sex offender? No.

I guess your saying she is at fault. She brought it on herself, right? I bet she bought all the drugs and alcohol for all the older boys?

Wow, thanks for putting words in my mouth and further distorting the facts.

She did consent to the act, I believe she even testified to that during his trial.

Before we have anymore debate, I want you, Rep. Davis, to acknowledge that Genarlow Wilson was acquitted of rape. If you can't do that...then there is no point trying to have conversation with someone who isn't being honest.

Yes, Rep. Davis, let's get real.

As a maker of laws I would think you would know that in Georgia it is illegal to inform the jury of possible sentencing prior to the verdict. Are you accusing this jury of misconduct?

More importantly, you keep talking about this tape. Have you seen the tape?

I haven't followed this story very closely, but everything I've heard lately makes it sound like some young hookers set up a Boy Scout. Is there really a "video of him dragging a limp body from one room to another and then having intercourse with that limp body"?

From the CNN video:

Juror: "With the spirit of the law, he was not guilty...With the letter of the law, based on what we were told, he was guilty."

The law per CNN, but not verbatim:

If a person committing an orally sexual act with a person under the age of 16, they are guilty of aggravated child molestation. 10 years mandatory.

"but it was a law that was poorly written"

Now, are we a nation of laws or men (oops, people, have to be PC)?

Poorly written? Yes. Was it the law? Yes. Did that poorly written law have a mandatory sentence? Yes. Was he guilty of a crime? Yes.

Sorry, hit Post rather than Preview.

Does the fact that he was black & hooking up with a white girl matter? Yes. Would he be in this situation if the girl were black? No.

He's guilty of what used to be a crime. Now, since the law has changed, should he face the sentence of an outdated law? I'm no lawyer, but my opinion is no. But if the law says otherwise, get that boy a pen & mark the X where he has to sign up as a sex offender.

Also, whatever happened to the little skank? Did she get in trouble for drugs, alcohol, or whatever they were on? I don't think that she's guiltless in this matter.

You can argue the legalities all you want.... address the following: (from my post and an angry women whose daughter was the victim of a date rape) " It is the sort of thing that is glorified by a society that embraces rap and hip-hop and aspires to an anything goes lifestyle... Women (in this case girls) exist as sexual toys for the pleasure of men (boys)."

If this is the sort of behavior you condone in a "loving relationship" ie public sex of any sort with his "girlfriend" then you are no better than he and part of the problem!!!!!!!

Danny, no one is questioning that was the law at the time and that was how he had to be sentenced. In fact that is EXACTLY why the law was changed the following year. The legislature had already tied up the loophole in the statutory rape laws by inserting Romeo and Juliet provisions but they had not in this law.

Dutch, no one is portraying the story as such. Even folks like Jason and myself have said repeatedly what happened was incredibly stupid. But if we are going to start locking up teenagers for ten years for being stupid, then we need a lot more jails.

And the only people who are saying things like the "victims" were unconscious or drugged or dragged through rooms are people like Eric Johnson and Steve Davis. The jury who saw the video tape said no such thing and in fact acquitted on the charge of rape.

If this is the sort of behavior you condone in a "loving relationship" ie public sex of any sort with his "girlfriend" then you are no better than he and part of the problem!!!!!!!

I don't condone it. I said he was a criminal, but he has served more than his time and it is time to move on. But since you and Steve Davis like to put words in my mouth...then whatever you say.

OK, I may have overstated what I heard, but only slightly based on the people I heard on the news today. The term "little skank" is something I've read right here on this thread.

You can't have consensual sex when the other party is unconscious. It’s not possible. If he did that, a ten year sentence sounds reasonable to me.

You can't have consensual sex when the other party is unconscious. It’s not possible. If he did that, a ten year sentence sounds reasonable to me.

He was acquitted of that charge. A jury, of his peers, acquitted him of that charge. The ten years had to do with oral sex with the 15 year old.

If it had been my 15-year old daughter, drugged and "making the rounds," the police and judge and jury would be the least of those boys's concerns.

That is where I stand on the issue. MY law is far more direct and offers no appeals.

If he'd listened to Chingy - he clearly says in one of his rap songs "no footage while I ram her" - he wouldn't be in this situation.

Seriously, I don't condone his actions but sometimes common sense needs to be used instead of following the letter of the law.

Also, the attorney general just needs to let it go. He'll be out of office because of this incident.

So, they sentanced this kid to ten years in prison for getting a drunken blow job at a party...

Yeah, Steve...sure sounds like the "scum of the earth" to me.

Maybe we can go back to the laws that ban blow jobs. Would that be better?

no one is questioning that was the law at the time and that was how he had to be sentenced.

Well, you were yesterday until it was shown that your assessment of the law was inaccurate.

My GOD people; do you need to know what color her panties were and if she shaved that area too???? If you all think you could/would have handled it differently then run for office! Remember, it takes a majority to change or inact a law. This is America, remember. ANY and every rule/law has room for error. Do we want to be a society that finds the one error and chastise the creator for letting that error happen or do we do the absolute best that we can and build on that? Remember, we're not even all the same political party so we're going to have differences on what is right or wrong. I don't know about you, but I'm not perfect and I do make a mistake or two and try to learn from it. So, what you're trying to say is that if you and your partner had consentual sex and wore a condom - oops it breaks - and there is a pregnancy; hmmm I'm guessing you wouldn't want to pay child support because you didn't intend for her to get pregnant?????

WHAT?!?!?!

I never implied any such thing!

All I have ever said is the case exposed the previous law had a heinous flaw. One the legislature chose to fix the following session.

If anyone goes back and re-reads our conversation it will see that you were confused about the law, i.e. age limits and sexual contact vs sodomy, and I politely tried to clarify the difference.

My last comment was directed at Danny.

Danny: "My understanding of the case is that at the time of the act, sexual acts with anyone under the age of 16 was illegal."

griftdrift: "No Danny, the law said anyone who had committed sodomy i.e. anal or oral contact on someone younger than 15 was guilty of aggravated child molestation"

Danny: "I'm pretty sure that the age was 16. If you can show me legal proof that the law at the time was 15, not 16, my opinion on the matter would sway"

griftdrift: "The law says under the age of 16"

I'm going to steal your words, while "politely" pointing out that it was YOU who were confused.

If anyone goes back and re-reads our conversation it will see that you were confused about the law, i.e. age limits and sexual contact vs sodomy, and I politely tried to clarify the difference.

Was it a bad law that deserved to be corrected? Yes. I think he should be released by now. But, the law at the time specified 10 years. Since it's been changed, I believe so should his sentence.

What I don't buy is the apologists saying what a good boy he was. "Scum of the earth?" Overboard for sure. Criminal? If the shoe fits...

Since the race card has been played, let me clarify my position: I don't care what color the skin of anyone involved was, white, black or purple with polka dots. Actually, the parents of all six kids probably are the ones that belong in jail for allowing their spawn to grow up without decent limits. The girl is not without blame either and her parents must look to their control, or lack thereof and inability to instill any sense of decency.

I hate it when people (not just Classical Jazz but many people) mention race, there is always the purple, green, blue etc. thrown in - after they use black and white.

Just use black and white - don't make up races. I know people are trying to prove they are not racist by throwing a purple in there, but stop being so damn PC. It's just one of those things I hate (like the use of the term 'scrip' instead of prescription).

Danny,

You said "sexual acts", I pointed out there were two different standards for intercourse and sodomy.

I saw I did make a typo on the age in my first post but I corrected that to the correct age following your statement.

And I am the one confused?

Regarding my "sexual acts" comment, I thought it was more appropriate to say that rather than spelling out BLOW JOB or ANAL SEX. I was attempting to not be graphic because that's not the point of my argument. I haven't disputed your claim on that because I believed it to be true.

But, your comment about your being wrong on a specfic point of the case, was not a typo. You were incorrect & then corrected. I suggest you look above where I told you that it was under 16, and only later you conceded the fact, not because of a typo, but because you were wrong.

The guy broke the law. He went to jail because of that. Was it the proper thing to do, going to jail for getting a BLOW JOB from a 15 yr old? I don't think so either. But no matter how bad the law was, it was the law.

Now, what type of club are you going to pick up next to beat a proverbial "dead horse?"

If it wasn't a typo then why did I link to a post I wrote months before where I showed the law said under 16.

But no matter how bad the law was, it was the law.

That is where the 8th Amendment argument comes in. Was the punishment proportional to the crime? Was it cruel and unusual? I happen to believe that Wilson's attorney has a point.

But he should have accepted the deal he was offered by the state.

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

So let me get this straight. What you are saying, & I'm being serious here, is that you were trying to be more specific when I said "sexual acts" because I didn't feel the need to be explicit. At that time you were specifying the actual reasons for the conviction, not the age, hence the typo?

If so, I can accept that. I wasn't arguing BLOW JOBS or ANAL SEX, I was arguing about the age.

I can see where the misunderstanding came from, with both of us. After that then, other than I'm glad he did some time, I guess there's no disagreement on our positions here. Would that be a correct assessment?

I think that's correct. I was focusing on the difference in the two statutes and the difference under law, not explicitness, of intercourse and sodomy.

In the middle of that my mind got muddled between the age of the girl and the age requirement in the law.

I've never claimed he wasn't sentenced correctly. My only position is the sentencing exposed a heinous injustice in the previous law which the legislators chose to change but chose to not apply retroactively to Wilson.

I think we actually agree on the essentials.

Time to jump in here after 40 posts.

Wilson is guilty as no consent can be given in GA under the age of 16. How much clearer can that be. All this claptrap about "consent" is smoke and mirrors to try and spring this guy from jail. Secondly, he has had repeated opportunities to plea bargin his way out of jail as all his cohorts did and has refused, instead wanting to beat the system. Well, the system is in place for a reason and Genarlow is still in jail for a reason. And I agree with Larry earlier, if it had been my daughter, he wouldnt have made it to jail. Bigger problems would have awaited other than the judge and jury. But almost certainly the girls didnt have fathers at home to guide them in their teen years. Another casualty of the welfare system.

Senator,

Are you suggesting you would have murdered Wilson for allowing your 15 year old daughter to give him a blow job?

And what the hell does this case have to do with the "welfare state?"

Decaturguy, I just don't like you.

Senator,

We are clouding the issue no more than you and your colleagues when you bring up the rape charge, a charge which he was, in fact, acquitted of.

I don't disagree agree that he should have been punished. But even the General Assembly saw the error of the loophole in the old law and fixed it. It does constitute a violation of the Constitution and the judge correctly called it.

Jason,
Are you implying that since the law has changed that he should be freed? Should changes of law be retroactive? If so, why should we still have lawmakers?

Molly,

I've already laid out my argument. The sentence was out of line with the crime. The legislature saw the problem and corrected it. Because it is not proportionate...then yes, he should be freed and he has served enough time.

Should the change of law been retroactive? You know, I'm not sure.

Lawmakers are subject to errors. The loophole in the previous law being one of them. They are not infallible. We have a Constitution that protects individuals from "cruel and unusual punishment." The law doesn't end with what the Georgia General Assembly passes. If it conflicts with the Constitution of either the state or the United States, then it can be thrown out. That is what happened. Blame the legislature, not the judge.

Decaturguy, I just don't like you.

Thanks, Wildchild.

Thanks Jason. I don't totally agree with you on this, but I see where you're coming from. I'll have to call my legislator and fuss him/her out. :)

MY law is far more direct and offers no appeals. -- Larry

You don't make any laws. You're just some guy who contributes ranting posts to someone else's blog.

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause has no application here. “Unusual” suggests the punishment is out of line with the punishments given to others who committed the same crime. Since everyone got a minimum of 10 years for the same crime (Aggravated Child Molestation) and he got the minimum sentence, there’s no basis for the argument.

Larry,
You're dead right!
.30 worth of lead would have brought this case to a
end.

So much for due process.

Maybe we can just give him a $1,000 scholarship and apologize to him for slavery.

If this is the case...why the hell would he not take that [offer]?

CNN has the answer. While it's true that the criminal history and sex offender status would disappear after his sentence was completed, the offer involved a 15-year sentence, according to Wilson's attorney. Wilson's incarceration might only be 2 years, but he'd potentially face another 13 years on probation, and as a registered sex offender.