hank
11-11-2007, 10:22 PM
I want to apologize up front if this is a repost. I searched but have pity on an old man with terrible search skills.
I want to hear your opinions about Genarlo Wilson and the recent decision of my State (GA) Supreme Court overturning his statutory rape conviction. Here is a linik to the opinion.
http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1481.pdf
I think it would be best if you read it before opining, but I understand that legal opinions are dense and not for the faint of heart. I'll objectively summarize it and then welcome your comments.
Genarlo was 17 when he graduated and he went to a graduation party. While there he filmed himself having oral and ******l *** with a minor who may have been intoxicated (maybe even unconscious for some parts) at the time. After the party the video gets out and Genarlo gets arrested for what is essentially statutory rape. There were other guys involved and they all pleaded to lesser offenses and got light sentences.
Genarlo lived with his grandmother and a niece and refused to plead guilty because to do so would have meant he couldn't live with his grandmother and niece because he would have been a *** offender. The Douglas County DA is a real hardass and he prosecutes him and gets a conviction. (I should mention that Genarlo is black, the DA was white, and the jury was racially diverse.)
Genarlo goes to jail - real state penitentiary time - and while there the GA legislature changes the law under which he was convicted to make his crime a misdemeanor with no *** registry registration requirement. Had Genarlo been convicted under the revised statute he would not have been a felon and could have lived with his niece.
The legislature when it changed the statute expressly refused to make it retroactive. That means that Genarlo's sentence was still good and his status as a felon was not changed. The legislative history is very clear that they considered making it retroactive (which would have essentially freed Genarlo), considered Genarlo's case, and refused to do so. The legislature also expressly stated that the new reduced sentence cannot be interpreted to make the old sentence cruel and unusual.
Various legal entites get involved and appeal his sentence on various grounds, all of which are denied. Finally someone appeals and says his punishment is cruel and unusual. This appeal is heard and Genarlo is freed.
The basis for the decision is that GA should not be able to ciminalize this behavior. Justice Sears (who I have met and is an honorable female justice) basically says that all 15 year olds are giving blowjobs to 17 year olds and it is ridiculous to criminalize that behavior. She analyzes several state's laws for this offense, analyzes GA law for similar and more egregious offenses, and concludes that Genarlo's sentence is overly tough and not indicative of the crime. She overturns the sentence.
I won't opine about that decision now, but want to hear your thoughts. Is this the right decision? Should we criminalize Genarlo's behavior? Is it OK for this court to disregard the legislative mandate? Please try to support your opinion. Let's try to avoid a lot of judge bashing. Sears is a smart, convicted justice who felt she was doing what was required under the constitution. Regardless of whether you agree or not let's not sully her. We can disagree but let's not sling mud.
Have at it.
hank
I want to hear your opinions about Genarlo Wilson and the recent decision of my State (GA) Supreme Court overturning his statutory rape conviction. Here is a linik to the opinion.
http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1481.pdf
I think it would be best if you read it before opining, but I understand that legal opinions are dense and not for the faint of heart. I'll objectively summarize it and then welcome your comments.
Genarlo was 17 when he graduated and he went to a graduation party. While there he filmed himself having oral and ******l *** with a minor who may have been intoxicated (maybe even unconscious for some parts) at the time. After the party the video gets out and Genarlo gets arrested for what is essentially statutory rape. There were other guys involved and they all pleaded to lesser offenses and got light sentences.
Genarlo lived with his grandmother and a niece and refused to plead guilty because to do so would have meant he couldn't live with his grandmother and niece because he would have been a *** offender. The Douglas County DA is a real hardass and he prosecutes him and gets a conviction. (I should mention that Genarlo is black, the DA was white, and the jury was racially diverse.)
Genarlo goes to jail - real state penitentiary time - and while there the GA legislature changes the law under which he was convicted to make his crime a misdemeanor with no *** registry registration requirement. Had Genarlo been convicted under the revised statute he would not have been a felon and could have lived with his niece.
The legislature when it changed the statute expressly refused to make it retroactive. That means that Genarlo's sentence was still good and his status as a felon was not changed. The legislative history is very clear that they considered making it retroactive (which would have essentially freed Genarlo), considered Genarlo's case, and refused to do so. The legislature also expressly stated that the new reduced sentence cannot be interpreted to make the old sentence cruel and unusual.
Various legal entites get involved and appeal his sentence on various grounds, all of which are denied. Finally someone appeals and says his punishment is cruel and unusual. This appeal is heard and Genarlo is freed.
The basis for the decision is that GA should not be able to ciminalize this behavior. Justice Sears (who I have met and is an honorable female justice) basically says that all 15 year olds are giving blowjobs to 17 year olds and it is ridiculous to criminalize that behavior. She analyzes several state's laws for this offense, analyzes GA law for similar and more egregious offenses, and concludes that Genarlo's sentence is overly tough and not indicative of the crime. She overturns the sentence.
I won't opine about that decision now, but want to hear your thoughts. Is this the right decision? Should we criminalize Genarlo's behavior? Is it OK for this court to disregard the legislative mandate? Please try to support your opinion. Let's try to avoid a lot of judge bashing. Sears is a smart, convicted justice who felt she was doing what was required under the constitution. Regardless of whether you agree or not let's not sully her. We can disagree but let's not sling mud.
Have at it.
hank