Tim Worstall

Genarlow Wilson

Not sure how many over here will know of the case of Genarlow Wilson. Remember it? No?

It’s one of the more absurd cases of American jurisprudence. Genarlow certainly broke the law: Wilson had, when 17, consensual sex with a 15 year old.

The Genarlow Wilson case
has been making the rounds in the blogosphere as an example of a
breakdown of justice. For those of you who don’t know, Wilson, a
17-year old boy with good grades and no prior police record, was
convicted of aggravated child molestation for receiving consensual oral
sex from a 15-year old girl. He received a mandatory 10-year prison
sentence, plus lifetime registration as a sexual predator. A frustrated
Georgia Supreme Court upheld the ruling, finding no legal reason why
the sentence could be overturned.

Ten years? Oh, one more point you might want to add: Genarlow is black.

Fast forward to today:

For a brief moment, it looked like Wilson was going to go free. A district judge ruled that his 10 year sentence was a violation of cruel and unusual punishment. But, unbelievably, the prosecutor state has announced an appeal, thus keeping Wilson in prison for the time being.

Yes, really, he has to stay in jail while the appeal is heard, despite the resentencing:

A Georgia judge voided a ten-year sentence Monday for Genarlow Wilson
for having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.

Instead
the judge gave him a 12-month misdemeanor sentence with credit for time
he already has served. The judge also ruled that Wilson doesn’t need to
be registered as a sex offender.

Monore County Superior Court
Judge Thomas Wilson, no relation, wrote in his order "The fact that
Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now
classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court,
will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of
justice."

The state is likely to appeal the ruling from Monroe
County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson. Wilson already has served
more than 27 months.

As regular readers will know, I’m generally a fan, a booster, of at least certain parts of the US system. I’m not of other parts of it and the puritanical attitude towards sex is one of them.

Seriously, 10 years for getting a blow job?

In

8 responses

  1. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    So, you consider that being against 15 yo girls giving blow jobs is being “puritanical” ?
    Tim adds: I consider sentencing a 17 year old to 10 years for receiving one puritanical, yes.

    Reply
  2. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    Mandatory minimum sentences = politicians determining justice. We rightly get upset when politicians hop on to any public prejudice and tell us we can’t drink, or bring up our kids the way we choose, receive the education we want, eat the food we like, travel where we want. It is even more important to eliminate politicians from any role in the justice system.
    Elected prosecutors = politicians entwined in the justice system. This is bad (see above). It is worse, because they will twist and lie and cheat in order to avoid losing face, for example refusing DNA tests that they know will prove innocence.

    Reply
  3. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Ian said “So, you consider that being against 15 yo girls giving blow jobs is being “puritanical” ?”
    My questionn to you would be when has prohibition ever stopped adolescents (or adults) indulging their desires? it goes agaainst the grain of human nature and simply serves to criminalise consenting rational indivduals.
    If more 15 years old girls in the UK gave blow jobs and stopped there we wouldn’t have the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe.

    Reply
  4. windowlicker Avatar
    windowlicker

    Hate to break it to you, Kay, but we elect politicians to, you know, make the law, including mandatory minimum sentences. Don’t like it? Vote for someone else.
    Tim, out of interest, what would be your opinion if feisty young Genarlow were 27? Or 37? Or 57?
    Tim adds: Most places the law does indeed make those sorts of distinctions. The definitions of statutory rape change dependent upon both the age of the youngest and the age gap between them. Seems sensible to me.

    Reply
  5. Matthew Mullen Avatar
    Matthew Mullen

    I think this whole case is absolutely ridiculous. To believe that this poor kid deserves to be in jail for even a minute is to believe that all teenagers should be put in jail for having intercourse. Although it was technically against the law, the fact that his crime is now a misdemeanor proves that the Georgia court system admits to giving him an unfair sentence. With the state’s appeal to keep him in prison is beyond reason.
    Just look at how happy his mother was when she thought her innocent son would be freed:
    http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/394735?c_id=mam
    Although there isn’t any evidence to support the following claim, I am almost positive that this would not have happened if the color of the kid’s skin weren’t black.

    Reply
  6. ZT Avatar
    ZT

    The law was poorly drafted. It was intended to protect young girls from older sexual predators, but didn’t allow an exception for teenagers having sex. It has since been amended so that it no longer applies when there are only a few years difference in the age of the parties.
    All police and prosecutors in the world have the same (unofficial) motto: ‘We never make mistakes’. That’s why they’re still fighting to keep this person in jail.

    Reply
  7. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Lord on High! Half my school would have been in jail if such a law had been applied where I went to school. Absolutely insane and really quite upsetting.
    That said, maybe the sexual activities of my peers weren’t representative, I did after all grow up in Essex.

    Reply
  8. Georgian Avatar
    Georgian

    I agree that the sentence is too harsh for consensual oral sex between teens only 2 years apart. However, consider the context of this case: 5 guys and 2 girls drunk and stoned in a one-room hotel room (I am guessing the 17-year-old guys gave the girls the booze and drugs); one 17-year-old girl claimed she was gang raped (although Genarlow was acquitted of rape, apparently he did nothing to stop any rape that occurred, if a rape did occur – if nothing else, a bunch of guys had sex with the same impaired girl in sequence, in front of each other); the impaired 15-year-old gave all 5 guys blow jobs in sequence, in front of each other; it was all videotaped; 4 of the guys had numerous prior arrests. I have seen no statements from either girl in support of him. He was not a choir boy and made some very poor decisions. I think there should be at least some repercussions and I am sure the prosecution considered all of these circumstances when prosecuting the case. Oh – and the girls were black, as is the Attorney General who is trying to enforce the original 10-year sentence. That said, I do think 10 years and sex offender registration is inappropriate for consensual oral sex between two teenagers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading