GA Supreme Court Orders Genarlow Wilson Freed!!!

It’s about damned time:

Georgia’s Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a young man who has been imprisoned for more than two years for having consensual oral sex with another teenager.

The court ruled 4-3 that Genarlow Wilson’s 10-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.

Prior IMBD articles on Genarlow Wilson are located here and here

Advertisements

117 thoughts on “GA Supreme Court Orders Genarlow Wilson Freed!!!

  1. Nope. And he still is labelled a “sex offender” for the rest of his life.

    And has served 2 years of what has now been reduced to a 12-month sentence.

  2. The court’s decision was 4-3???!!!??? It doesn’t get much closer than that.

    What is going on in this country? Why wasn’t it unanimous?

  3. Does it matter, as long as he was freed? Believe it or not Ted, a judge is supposed to decide cases based on the law. It’s conceivable that three of the justices could have believed he should have been released, but felt the law left them no recourse to do so.

  4. I think it matters a lot. I mean, sure it’s a great relief that he was freed, but the fact that the decision was so close means that almost half of the judges were wrong. One vote the other way and the guy would have been completely screwed.

  5. In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in Perez v. Lippold that the state’s ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Which meant that three justices thought the state legislature had the right to prohibit marriages between “a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.”

    So, I think we need to put all of this into perspective. There’s always resistance to social change, whether you’re talking about age of consent, marriage, labor rights, or anything else. And what seems like a no-brainer to us might be exceedingly torturous for a judge (probably from a different generation and social background) to grasp. However, there’s always hope.

    This is why I love John Paul Stevens, BTW. The man is ancient (and still has bowtie, for heavens’ sake). Yet, he’s probably more open to change than any of the senior citizens I personally know. He was practicing law when that 1948 interracial marriage decision was handed down. Consider his positions on gay rights and such today, and I think you’d agree that’s an incredible personal evolution for someone from era.

  6. It just seems like a no-brainer that a 17-year old does not deserve 10 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15-year old.

  7. Well, Ted, it’s not legally “consensual.” That’s the whole point.

    By definition, a minor under the age of consent does not have the capability to offer consent. Some states have laws that allow two teenagers of similar age to “experiment”, but that’s the exception rather than the rule.

    I agree with the court majority in concluding that 10 years would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But the age of consent is an important bulwark against child predators. And if I were a lawmaker, I would certainly vote against lowering it to 15. Sexual relations between a 15 year old and an adult is highly inappropriate. Even with a difference of only 5-10 years, there’s usually a huge disparity in wealth, authority, and educational development that makes it an (abuse of) power situation.

  8. But there has got to be some flexibility in these laws to allow for common sense. A 17-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old is not a child predator and everybody knows it.

    Yet somewhere along the line, someone was able to fuck with the system enough to get this kid a 10 year sentence–more years than some actual rapists receive–and rational reasonable individuals weren’t able to do a thing about it. If it weren’t for the fact that “the state” got so bent out of shape because the sentence was reduced that they brought the case to the Supreme Court (to make sure that this dangerous threat to society remained for the entire 10 years), he’d never have had his case heard at all!

    That same Supreme Court refused the defendant’s request for an appeal of his conviction and sentence, yet they had no problem hearing the state’s contention that the lower court had no business making the kid’s sentence less obscene. That part does my head in as well. They won’t hear a plea for mercy but they’ll answer a cry for blood?

    Somewhere, someone has got to be able to look at the facts of an individual case and put a stop to these ludicrous, insane, unfair and unjust situations. It’s like what happened with the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Or the Jena 6 case. These cases take on a life of their own and seemingly can’t be stopped.

    At a certain point, no one listens or responds to reason. Everyone associated with the system behaves as though there’s no problem–everything is working as it is supposed to. Even though the public, the media and with this case even the jurors know that something is not right.

    Is there no one who, when when it becomes obvious that someone is getting screwed by the court system or a racist or opportunistic prosecutor, can put the brakes on the process and snap everyone involved back to reality? Seriously, it just seems to happen far too often and it’s time for some common sense to take precedence over procedure.

  9. Fear not Ted. Georgia has changed the law to prevent this sort of situation from happening again.

    John makes a good point by the way. In a nation of laws, what is “right” is not always the same as “lawful” – and that I would bet you is where the 4-3 divide in this decision comes from.

    Oh, and I love John Paul Stevens. I love him so very much I wish him an early retirement so he can get the rest he so deserves… (that was sarcasm, btw…)

  10. Ted, I understand your passion, and I respect it. But I think the truism that “democracy is the the worst form of government ever tried…except for all the others” holds.

    The legislature can step in and change the law to allow exempt teenagers of similar age, either for the future or (if they want to be really helpful) retroactively. The governor could pardon the indivdual involved, if s(he) believes there was a serious miscarriage of justice.

    Of course, that’s assuming they’re not racist, bigoted, or opportunistic themselves. The system is only as good as the people, I’m afraid. If the people are rotten to the core, it all breaks down. I’m sure those who favor Old Testement or Sharia law comfort themselves with the fact that they have a consistent “rule of law” too.

    That’s why we need more than a legal system to have a vibrant democracy. We need an active and functional civil society where opposing views are heard and the people are well-informed. There’s more to the West’s success than having a bunch of elections and majoritarianism (as recent events in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestianian Territories illustrates all too clearly).

  11. It just makes no sense to me that as a society we would allow these situations to exist.

    If everyone observing can see quite plainly that someone is being destroyed by the system when clearly that person has not done anything that would make them deserving of such extreme measures, yet the entire process continues through to completion anyway because one prosecutor says so, then something is terribly wrong.

    That’s why I would prefer more emphasis on being “right” over being “lawful,” if those are the only two options available. Each case should be looked at through the lens of what would be the right thing to do and what the benefit to society would be rather than being enslaved to a process that has no conscience.

    The whole idea that we can’t put a stop to something like this because it is technically considered “lawful”–even though it is clearly immoral–is absolutely insane. If this is truly the best form of government ever tried, then you would think that we should be able to find a solution to something as outrageous–and obviously wrong–as this.

  12. But Ted, the definition of the “right” thing is always open to interpretation. That’s why we are a nation of laws, so that we keep as closely as possible to a common, well defined frame of reference. Yes, that gets cumbersome, and leads to a lot of legalese and judicial wrangling, but it also makes sure that justice stays (at least reasonably) blind.

    Keep in mind, some of the justices that voted to release Mr. Wilson, may not have wanted to do so on a purely personal basis, but felt the law required it. There’s a reason Justice carries a sword, and it’s double-edged…

  13. There’s a reason Justice carries a sword, and it’s double-edged…

    That paints an interesting picture, but it still means that some people will get steamrolled by a system that is completely unyielding even in the face of reason. Justice is as open to interpretation as right is.

    Can you say that sentencing a 17-year-old to 10 years in prison because a 15-year-old willingly gave him some head is just? Is justice served by ignoring reason and robbing a promising young man of 2 years of his life, putting him at physical risk in prison and marring his record forever?

    I don’t know this gets resolved, but I do know that in order to find a solution we must first understand that one needs to be found.

  14. As a wise man once said: the law (or justice) is reason free from passion. You’re thinking passionately about the situation. Not necessarily a bad thing, we are human after all, but it will more often lead to a bad decision than following the rule of law – even when that rule is harsh.

    As far as a “resolution” – it was understood that one was needed and the legislature acted. The law has been changed and this type of situation will not occur again.

  15. That’s why I would prefer more emphasis on being “right” over being “lawful”

    The problem with that, Ted, is just who gets to decide what’s “right” and what’s “lawful.” Trust me, I understand the sentiment–after all, I’ve been pushing for Genarlow’s release for about a year now–but I don’t want Pat Buchanan deciding what’s “right.”

  16. I’m talking about allowing for reason and common sense to have an influence on court proceedings rather than the current situation where the system is simply an irrational slave to procedure.

    I’m not suggesting anarchy–simply an safety valve in situations such as this where the prosecutor, the court and the law itself seem to be more of a thug than the defendant.

    I’ll remind you again–this kid was completely out of options. If the state had not gone to the Supreme Court to try to make sure the kid was thoroughly screwed by getting a somewhat favorable ruling of the lower court overturned, he would still be sitting in jail. The Supreme Court had refused to allow the defendant to bring his case before it.

    Every sane person in the real world KNEW that the punishment he’d been sentenced to was completely unreasonable and unfair. Yet because of how the system is currently set up, it didn’t make a bit of difference that the public, the jurors, the guy who wrote the law under which the kid was convicted, the media–all these masses of people–knew that he was being screwed and that the courts were wrong.

    The only ones with any say in the matter are the prosecutors (who have their own questionable agendas) and the judges (who are slaves to the current system and seemingly can’t be bothered to do the right thing).

    I don’t think any one person should get to decide what’s right, but I also don’t think that one person (prosecutor, judge–whoever) should get to destroy a 17-year-old’s life with such a blatantly unreasonable prosecution and prison sentence. And I don’t think it’s fair that after his unjust conviction, the unfairly prosecuted individual’s only avenue to rectify the situation is dependent on the whim of a higher court, who may or may not decide to hear his case. If they feel like it. If it won’t make them look bad. If they can fit it into their calendar before they go into recess…

    It’s just fucked…

  17. I’ll remind you again–this kid was completely out of options.

    Umm, I don’t think I need any reminding, ted. I’ve been advocating his release for about a year now.

    However imperfect our system is, though, it’s the best one available. And it wasn’t, as you say, one person who got to destroy Genarlow’s life–it was a tandem operation by many people who each had their own agendas (NDT vehemently disagrees with me on this whole thing, btw). Fortunately Genarlow did have an option: his family and friends and other right-minded folks advocating in lieu of Genarlow himself, taking this to the media, to the people, and thanks to our right to freedom of expression, more than just the “official” version of this story was told. It took a long time, but the wrong has been righted.

    Frankly, in a world full of imperfect people it’s insane to expect perfection. We can only try to do our best, and press others to do more. Which is why this has been such a high profile case: the public knew better than those “in charge,” and worked on Genarlow’s behalf.

  18. Amen Jamie. The last thing anyone wants is a judicial process that can be changed to try and fit the facts of every case. We all play by the same rules – that’s just. Sometimes it isn’t “fair” but it is just.

  19. Indeed I do disagree.

    And why should become much more obvious when the “having consensual oral sex with another teenager” is fleshed out a bit.

    Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.

    Later in the evening, a 17-year-old girl began to have sex with the young men, first in the bathroom, then on the bed. Genarlow is captured on tape appearing to have sex with the girl from behind. Her hand is clearly visible on the floor supporting herself. Witnesses said she was a willing participant.

    The next morning, the girl awoke in a stupor, wearing nothing but her socks. She called her mother and said she had been raped. Police came to the room after sunrise and took the revelers in for questioning. Genarlow had already gone home — he didn’t want to miss curfew — but the video camera remained.

    On tape, the cops saw a 15-year-old girl, a 10th-grader, performing oral sex on a partygoer and, after finishing with him, turning and performing the act on Genarlow. She was the instigator, according to her mother’s testimony. Problem was, the girl was a year under the age of consent. Local prosecutors called the act aggravated child molestation, following the letter and not the spirit of the law, which was designed to prosecute pedophiles.

    So let’s see. Drugs. Underage drinking. Sex with minors under the age of consent who are under the influence of alcohol and drugs which you gave to them. All on tape, for whatever idiot reason, which is skirting pornography and child-porn laws at best. And, better yet, every last bit of it seems to have been premeditated — except they seem to have forgotten the condoms.

    And next:

    For the next eight months, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, who likes to wear an American flag on his lapel and play to his law-and-order-loving base, dangled plea bargains. The other boys didn’t want to risk a jury, and one by one each took an offer and went to prison, including the other football player arrested, Narada Williams, who accepted five years with the possibility of parole.

    And:

    Barker is quick to point out that he offered Wilson a plea after he’d been found guilty — the first time he has ever done that. Of course, the plea was the same five years he’d offered before the trial — not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. None of the other defendants insisted on a jury trial. Wilson did. He rolled the dice, and he lost. The others, he says, “took their medicine.”

    Ten years is the mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation in Georgia, period. The others were offered and took plea bargains specifically to avoid this. Wilson thought he could beat the rap, and when he failed to do so, started squealing about how unfair it was that he was being held accountable for his crime.

    The outcome is not the police’s fault, not the prosecutor’s fault, not anyone else’s fault. It’s Genarlow’s fault. He chose to be there. He chose to participate. He knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway — and then he chose not to take the plea bargain.

    And, rather than apply the law, the Georgia Supreme Court decided it was just going to ignore it — which now legitimizes the demand of every single child molestor out there that their imprisonment constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment”.

  20. Wilson didn’t, at least to my knowledge, give anyone drugs. Drugs were present, but he didn’t “drug” the fifteen year old, so your statement, “Sex with minors under the age of consent who are under the influence of alcohol and drugs which you gave to them,” is falsely accusatory at best. You make it sound like Wilson was some sort of sexual predator.

    Characterizing Wilson as “a child molester” is irresponsible and ridiculous. Equating a 17-year-old who by all other accounts was a stellar young man to someone ten, twenty, or thirty years older than their victim shows a profound lack of understanding of the crime, a lack of understanding that leads to the installment of laws insufficient to either protect children or successfully punish the actual child molesters preying on them.

    Of course the outcome is the prosecutor’s fault. The time, money and publicity that have been spent on this case could have been used to better effect elsewhere. At the very least this shows a substantial lack of good judgment on the part of the prosecutor.

    “the Georgia Supreme Court decided it was just going to ignore it — which now legitimizes the demand of every single child molester out there that their imprisonment constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment”.”

    That is unmitigated bullshit. The Wilson case is highly specific. Indeed, now that the law has been changed, it’s doubtful that such an incidence could ever arise again.

    I support the rule of law, but laws followed blindly amount to little more than tyranny.

  21. You make it sound like Wilson was some sort of sexual predator.

    Let’s see; rents hotel room, stocks it with booze and dope, invites underage women in, sets up video camera, goes to town.

    Obviously they were just there to read the Bible.

    I’d speculate how the liberals defending Genarlow would have felt about this behavior had he and his buddies been white, but I already know; they threw the book at the Duke lacrosse team.

    Equating a 17-year-old who by all other accounts was a stellar young man to someone ten, twenty, or thirty years older than their victim

    QJ, children are molested by people close to them in age all the time — siblings, their babysitters, etc. It has nothing to do with how much older/younger you are than the victim; it has everything to do with having sex with someone who does not have the ability to consent.

    shows a profound lack of understanding of the crime, a lack of understanding that leads to the installment of laws insufficient to either protect children or successfully punish the actual child molesters preying on them.

    What makes laws insufficient are loopholes. In this case, the rule is simple; anyone who is having sex with a child under the age of consent is molesting them. That is because society has decided that it’s not a good idea for fifteen-year-olds to be having sex because they are unable to understand the consequences of the decision and that people who coerce them or force them to do it should be held fully responsible.

    The new law forces a hilarious situation; it basically says that it’s never molestation as long as you’re close enough in age. Apparently the legal principle is “two wrongs make a right” — and now, thanks to the Georgia Supremes and the Legislature, it is now perfectly legal in Georgia for a seventeen-year-old to molest a fifteen-year-old and not be charged with child molestation because their ages are close enough that it automatically isn’t molestation.

    Of course the outcome is the prosecutor’s fault. The time, money and publicity that have been spent on this case could have been used to better effect elsewhere. At the very least this shows a substantial lack of good judgment on the part of the prosecutor.

    Yes, because God forbid, he actually followed the law and enforced the penalty as written.

  22. NDT, unless I am very much mistaken, Wilson didn’t do those things. He showed up at a New Year’s party and got a blowjob from a fellow classmate. Sorry, you’re painting him as a dastardly mastermind when all he is was an above-average high school student.

    children are molested by people close to them in age all the time

    Perhaps, but the specific type of molester you’re referencing, the “dastardly mastermind”, is clearly not what was happening in this case.

    My point is that, despite your extreme willingness to tar Wilson with an very broad brush, he did not serve these girls a ruffie-colada, he didn’t coerce them into doing anything and he was a scant two years older than one of them. He showed up at a party and got a blowjob from a girl he didn’t know, not because he asked her, not because he forced her, but because it was offered. He even left early because he didn’t want to break curfew. Was it a mistake? Perhaps, but he’s now paid for that in spades. There is no reason to think he poses a credible threat to underage children in the future and to punish him as a hardened sexual offender is a waste of judicial time and penal system resources.

    The law doesn’t say it’s never molestation so long as you’re close enough in age, it says that consensual sex between teenagers is a different kettle of fish than non-consensual sex between teenagers and sex between adults and teens. Furthermore, it points out the judicial misstep of requiring those who got caught in this draconian law to be considered sexual predators for the rest of their lives when they pose nowhere near the same level of risk as someone guilty of rape or actual child molestation.

    If the law is not tempered with mercy then you have bad law. It’s that simple. Gernalow Wilson made a mistake and even he acknowledges that. But the prosecutorial effort expended on him was ridiculously out of proportion to the severity of his quasi-crime.

  23. “Umm, I don’t think I need any reminding, ted. I’ve been advocating his release for about a year now.”

    Don’t get your panties in a twist. The reminder was simply to set up the point I was making. It wasn’t intended as any sort of slight against you.

    However imperfect our system is, though, it’s the best one available.

    So does that mean that we should not make improvements when if we believe that some are needed?

    Sometimes it isn’t “fair” but it is just.

    I don’t understand how you can consider something wrong and unfair yet “just.”

    Wilson thought he could beat the rap, and when he failed to do so, started squealing about how unfair it was that he was being held accountable for his crime.

    NDT, your capacity for warping the truth is truly astounding. Wilson was not trying to simply “beat the rap.” He didn’t want to have the rest of his life ruined by being branded as a child molester, which he clearly was not. So he decided to defend himself against charges that he believed were wrong (which is his right, whether you like it or not) rather than be coerced into taking a lighter (yet still pernicious and unnecessary) sentence by the threats and intimidation of the prosecutor.

    It has nothing to do with how much older/younger you are than the victim; it has everything to do with having sex with someone who does not have the ability to consent.

    So the perpetrator can be younger than the victim, yet you would call it child molestation? That has to be one of the most idiotic claims you’ve made, which is pretty remarkable given some of the absurd contentions you’ve come up with in the past.

    How exactly do you define “ability to consent?” Are you talking about the legal definition of the age of consent or the actual cognitive ability to make a decision? If it’s only the legal definition that counts, then which state’s age of consent is right, since there can be such a wide variance from state-to-state?

    In this case, the rule is simple; anyone who is having sex with a child under the age of consent is molesting them. That is because society has decided that it’s not a good idea for fifteen-year-olds to be having sex because they are unable to understand the consequences of the decision and that people who coerce them or force them to do it should be held fully responsible.

    But somehow they attain the ability to suddenly understand the consequences of their decisions on their 16th birthday? Right. So according to your way of thinking, if a boy turned 16 a month before his girlfriend and they had sex during that month he would be a child molester–no matter how often they had engaged in sex in the past–because the boy had passed the magic threshold which gave him the unique ability to understand the consequences of his decisions while she was still incapable and would only have done it with him under coercion or force.

    Apparently the legal principle is “two wrongs make a right”

    No. The principle is that you don’t destroy the bright future of a promising young man when there’s no reason or benefit for doing so. Do you really think the public interest is served by sending yet another black male into prison at a young age for 10 years thereby ending any hope that he can become a productive member of society? How would that have helped anyone?

  24. Ted, you’re just doing your usual schtick, which is to blame other people for the consequences of bad sexual decisions.

    If Genarlow Wilson didn’t want to ruin his life, he shouldn’t have had sex with a fifteen-year-old girl. It’s just that simple. And since he obviously doesn’t care about the consequences prior to doing it or can’t stop himself from having sex with underage minors, he’s a child molestor.

    And, since you’re going to argue that age-of-consent laws are foolish because they use an arbitrary date threshold, start doing the same for laws regulating voting, driving, purchasing alcohol and cigarettes, mandatory school attendance, ability to sign contracts, and the innumerable other laws that designate by age when a person is allowed to do such things.

    The reason and benefit for enforcing the law is simple; it makes it clear to people who might choose to play with underage minors that there are consequences for their decisions — and it puts people like Genarlow Wilson who are unable to control themselves sexually behind bars where they belong.

    Oh, and QJ, you might want to re-refer to my source:

    He admits he wasn’t perfect. Far from it. He drank. He smoked pot. He’d been sexually active since he was 13. And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year’s Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon. She knew kids whispering usually meant trouble, so she went in and looked those boys up and down.

    “Don’t do anything stupid,” she warned.

    Of course, it makes her boo-hooing about how she’s being punished when her ass let teenagers go drink and smoke weed in a hotel room and have sex with each other without adult supervision anywhere to be found even more ironic.

  25. Oh, honestly. You people, I swear.

    First, to ted, since this is the quickest one to answer:

    So does that mean that we should not make improvements when if we believe that some are needed?

    Not at all, ted. But you didn’t offer any specific improvements, you only pointed out what you saw as problems. Give me specific suggestions that we could implement and I’ll gladly give them an honest consideration. As I said, our system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best one anyone’s come up with, and a far cry better than anything else. And the beauty of our system is that we, as a people, have the ability to change it from within. Our government can evolve if the citizens become involved.

    So if you’ve got some ideas on what specifically could be changed about how this case should have been handled, let us hear them. Okay?

  26. And NDT, you are doing your usual schtick, which is to find fault and wish to demonize and harshly punish any sexual activity that you find distasteful (which would seem to be just about all sexual activity). Is it that you just don’t get any? Or are you this obsessively controlling and neurotically rigid about everything?

    The way you are characterizing Genarlow Wilson is completely the opposite of the description given by his friends, family, teachers, coaches, his attorney, and even his jurors and prison officials. But I suppose you know his dark heart far better than any of those people, huh?

    News flash: high school kids sometimes drink at parties, they sometimes smoke pot and if they are offered a blowjob by a cute girl, most high school boys will accept it no questions asked. None of those things are uncommon. Are you going to lock all of them up for 10 years? There aren’t enough prisons in the world to hold all of the 17-year-olds who have done exactly what Genarlow Wilson did.

    You are such a caricature of a deviant conservative…what an unpleasant, frustrated, bitter, sick, sad little man you must be.

  27. NDT, had this happened in California, North Dakota, or another state where the age of consent is 18, Wilson himself would be classified as a minor and this wouldn’t even have seen trial.

    And trying to portray a girl voluntarily crawling over to perform oral sex as somehow RAPE is inexcusable. Rape is about power, not sex. There was no coercion, no power held over this girl, no intimidation. This young woman is on tape crawling from cock to cock looking for more.

    Funny how with one breath you say Genarlow’s mother should bear some responsibility (as well she should) for letting her teen be unsupervised, yet in the next you say the same teen should be held to an adult standard of responsibility. Make up your mind, please.

    As for your intimation that he was trying to “beat the rap,” that’s an unfair assessment, based entirely on your own feelings of the matter and no evidence. Statements from the case point out that Genarlow didn’t want to have the label “sex offender” hanging over him for the rest of his life, and he thought he’d done nothing wrong, so honestly fought the case.

    As should anyone with one whit of brainpower.

    now, thanks to the Georgia Supremes and the Legislature, it is now perfectly legal in Georgia for a seventeen-year-old to molest a fifteen-year-old and not be charged with child molestation because their ages are close enough that it automatically isn’t molestation.

    Uh, no. It is no longer an automatic felony offense carrying so many years as a penalty. But if one participant wanted to press for RAPE or molestation charges they could still do that–although proving that in this particular case, considering the visible evidence on tape, would be difficult at best. You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s not that he had sex with a 15 year old girl that’s at the heart of this controversy, it’s that he had ORAL sex with her. Had he gotten her pregnant–had they all gang banged the girl–it would’ve been mere misdemeanors all around.

    As to this ludicrous strawman: I’d speculate how the liberals defending Genarlow would have felt about this behavior had he and his buddies been white, but I already know; they threw the book at the Duke lacrosse team.

    Speculate away, but you are the only person in this discussion who has brought race into this. Why is that necessary? I, for one, would feel exactly the same way if he was white.

    It seems to me that you’re making a lot of assumptions here simply because he’s black: that somehow Genarlow preplanned and set all of this up with a purpose. That’s not what the evidence says. The evidence says he had consensual oral sex with a classmate 2 years younger than him. That’s all the evidence says. Yet you make all of these assumptions:

    Let’s see; rents hotel room, stocks it with booze and dope, invites underage women in, sets up video camera, goes to town.

    There absolutely no evidence for even one of the clauses in that sentence. And I don’t know about where you live, but you can’t rent a hotel room here unless you’re over 18. Nor buy booze (21).

    I could say more, but QJ’s pretty much done it for me.

  28. I fail to see what new light that sheds on anything, NDT. Also nothing in that laundry list in any way relates to the evening in question. If we’re going to start convicting people of crimes on the basis of unrelated things they’ve done in the past, then I think we’re all in a great deal of trouble.

    Wilson himself admits he made a mistake, that he’s not perfect. The question isn’t did he make a mistake. The question is does it make good judicial sense to treat a young man, barely of legal age himself, as a hardened, life-long, felony sex offender because he got his knob gobbed voluntarily by someone two years younger than him? How does this serve the public good in any way, shape or form? I suppose you might argue the public good has been served because a stupid, out-dated and draconian law has been rewritten to more accurately reflect reality, but why should Wilson be sacrificed for that?

    You’re clearly sacrificing the spirit of the law in this case, which is to protect against pedophiles, something Wilson clearly isn’t, in favor of abusing its letter. What exactly do you have against this young man?

    When you show me evidence that Wilson specifically drugged an unknowing 15 year old or tied her down, wedged open her mouth and poured alcohol down her throat and then shoved his dick in, then you can characterize Wilson as an egregious child molester you seem to so desperately want him to be. Until then, he was just a teenager, with all that entails, dealing with a system that seems to have bent over backwards to treat him like he was some sort of red-level threat to the public at large.

  29. NDT, whenever you bring up race, it tends to follow a set pattern:

    1. You provide a laundry list of prior offences commited by the minority defendant or alleged victim beyond the scope of the current discussion.

    2. You make some off-handed comment about race (that seems innocent enough at first, but upon further inspection always insinuates that everyone else is anti-white).

    3. You claim that you’re only interested in upholding the rule of law, which coincidentally means the toughest possible outcome for the minority defendant or alleged victim.

    4. And then you ask the rest of us: would we have as much sympathy or mercy for a white defendant or alleged victim.

    I would suggest that this schema does little to help your cause. Indeed, it reinforces certain negative stereotypes that I would think you’d prefer to not highlight.

  30. News flash: high school kids sometimes drink at parties, they sometimes smoke pot and if they are offered a blowjob by a cute girl, most high school boys will accept it no questions asked. None of those things are uncommon.

    All of them are illegal.

    So, Ted, do you REALLY oppose underage drinking, sex, and drug use? Or are you just hypocritically “supporting” the laws but working to undermine and block their enforcement?

    And personally, I think your championing of your right to get minors drunk, to give them drugs, and then to have sex with them without penalty says far more about what you consider “normal” sexual behavior — and makes me feel better about being called “deviant” and “repressed” by the likes of you.

    And trying to portray a girl voluntarily crawling over to perform oral sex as somehow RAPE is inexcusable. Rape is about power, not sex. There was no coercion, no power held over this girl, no intimidation. This young woman is on tape crawling from cock to cock looking for more.

    You know, Jamie, many kiddie-porn makers and child molestors have tried that “they agreed to it” excuse.

    Courts have uniformly found that, if you are under the age of consent, sex with you is not consensual whether you asked for it or not.

    Like with Ted, do you REALLY oppose underage drinking, sex, and drug use? Or are you just hypocritically “supporting” the laws but working to undermine and block their enforcement?

    Funny how with one breath you say Genarlow’s mother should bear some responsibility (as well she should) for letting her teen be unsupervised, yet in the next you say the same teen should be held to an adult standard of responsibility. Make up your mind, please.

    Easy. Genarlow is an adult when it comes to sex and not when it comes to drinking, drug use, or anything else. That is his mother’s responsibility.

    And personally, I have no problem with throwing her in prison for child endangerment — as has happened to other parents who decided to abdicate their responsibility and allow their children to drink and carry out other illegal activities unsupervised.

    It seems to me that you’re making a lot of assumptions here simply because he’s black: that somehow Genarlow preplanned and set all of this up with a purpose.

    Or just reading the article I referenced.

    And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year’s Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon.

    And:

    Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.

    Next, to QJ:

    I fail to see what new light that sheds on anything, NDT.

    What it shows is that he planned the event. You were claiming he just showed up out of the blue.

    The question isn’t did he make a mistake.

    Well, according to Ted and Jamie, he didn’t make a mistake because that’s what teenagers do — or, as you said later in your post, “a teenager, with all that entails”.

    The law in Georgia is perfectly explicit and sensible; have sex with an underage minor, and you are a sex offender. That is because any act of the sort is taking advantage of someone who does not have the emotional or intellectual capability to make an informed choice and understand the consequences of their decision.

    And the reason punishment serves the public good, especially in a case like this, is because it makes it obvious that people are serious. A law not enforced is a law ignored.

    And finally, to John:

    I would suggest that this schema does little to help your cause. Indeed, it reinforces certain negative stereotypes that I would think you’d prefer to not highlight.

    Oh, don’t worry, I’ve been called a racist before. It’s codespeak for “I can’t refute your argument, so I’m going to try to tear you down personally”.

    And the Duke lacrosse case in comparison is wholly instructive — because it shows how liberals will accuse white men of crimes without a shred of evidence, but whine and scream that a black man like Genarlow is innocent and shouldn’t be punished even when it is caught on tape. They whine that previous misbehavior shouldn’t count when it’s a black man, but recite a litany of previous crimes when it’s white men. They scream “she asked for it” when a black man fools around with a fifteen-year-old, but whine “she was raped” when a black hooker accuses white men.

    And it’s those liberals who call me “racist”. Right.

  31. Wow. That’s a lot of words with no substance to just stomp your foot and pout and say, “nuh-uh.”

    You know, Jamie, many kiddie-porn makers and child molestors have tried that “they agreed to it” excuse.

    You can keep trying to make this an argument about kiddie-porn, but it’s not. It’s about unjust sentencing for oral sex vs. intercourse. It’s about a 15 yr old and a 17 yr old. Not a 22 year old and a 13 year old, or worse. In my book, and most sane people’s, you’re not an adult until you’re 18.

    Courts have uniformly found that, if you are under the age of consent, sex with you is not consensual whether you asked for it or not.

    Courts have not identified a uniform age of consent, and have left it to the states. However the Federal age of consent for most instances in the USA is 18, under which Genarlow Wilson would be a minor as well.

    Just can’t see the forest for the trees, can ya?

    Like with Ted, do you REALLY oppose underage drinking, sex, and drug use? Or are you just hypocritically “supporting” the laws but working to undermine and block their enforcement?

    Folks, that would be NDT’s own form of “codespeak” for “I can’t refute your argument so I’m going to try to tear you down personally.” Pot, kettle.

    You know damned well that I work to change laws through legal means when I feel that’s the right thing to do. Keep trying to ascribe your partisan, asenine motives to me. I dare ya.

    Easy. Genarlow is an adult when it comes to sex and not when it comes to drinking, drug use, or anything else. That is his mother’s responsibility.

    Arbitrary much? No court in the land would agree to that particular disbursement of responsibility.

    Well, according to Ted and Jamie, he didn’t make a mistake because that’s what teenagers do.

    Now you’re blatently LYING. I NEVER said that. In both previous articles I specifically stated that he used poor judgement. But the punishment must fit the crime.

    As for your last statements: none of the people that could be included in the “they” you refer to are here having this discussion, are they? Resorting to generalizations about “liberals” is just plain weak. And as a multi-racial American I find your implications disgusting. I suppose I’ve never criticized a black man, either, right? Don’t be absurd.

  32. What it shows is that he planned the event. You were claiming he just showed up out of the blue.

    I still feel the article is closer to my interpretation than your “dastardly mastermind” image of Wilson sitting around with his crew, throwing back 40s and wondering aloud, “Awight, how’s we gonna get some kiddies so fucked up that they’ll suck our dicks this New Years cause we do love us some underaged hos!”

    Regardless of what Wilson and his friends were whispering about in his room that night, it proves nothing in regards to your completely unsubstantiated theory that Wilson was in any way responsible for providing any alcohol that was there, any narcotics that were there or pre-meditatively force feeding it to anyone.

    The law in Georgia is perfectly explicit and sensible; have sex with an underage minor, and you are a sex offender

    No, the law was not sensible because it treated a 17 year old who got a blow job from a consenting 15 year old the same way as it treated a 55 year old who sodomized an 9 year old. If you can’t see how that is not “sensible” under the ideals of American jurisprudence then there’s really no point to any of this.

    the reason punishment serves the public good, especially in a case like this, is because it makes it obvious that people are serious

    Except those serious people changed the law. And serious about what? Was there some doubt that people in Georgia were serious about pedophilia and heartily against it? Again, this nonsense just cheapens actual cases of pedophilia which this clearly wasn’t.

    A law not enforced is a law ignored.

    A easily digestible, yet utterly pointless, bon mot. Sort of like when parents tell children, “I said no because I said so.” So, NDT, you’re basically more than willing to view the government as a parent when it suits your point of view?

    Laws are ignored all the time for a multitude of reasons. Laws are also unequally enforced for a whole different multitude of reasons. And yet, the sun continues to rise, as a whole society continues to function and 15 year old girls give blow jobs to 17 year old boys. Laws are not truth, morality or even justice. They are the general outlines that give shape to the generally agreed upon structure of a particular society. They must be treated as guidelines tempered with specific situations or else you have either a stagnant society or a society ripe for the rise of fascism.

    The question becomes, why was this law so, intensely and viciously applied, contrary to its spirit, against Wilson? Four out of seven GA supreme court justices couldn’t answer that question, so Wilson is free.

    And frankly, NDT, the “you’re only calling me names because you don’t have anything else” line of defense doesn’t wash because, as has been pointed out, you’re the one who brought race into this and did so in a wholly tangential way because YOU couldn’t resist the opportunity to get racial, partisan and entirely off topic.

  33. Now you’re blatently LYING. I NEVER said that. In both previous articles I specifically stated that he used poor judgement.

    Which you then proceeded to contradict, as in the first article:

    Do you honestly expect a teenage boy to say NO to a girl that’s almost his age? If you do, contact me about some bridges I need to sell.

    And:

    Where NO ONE except a prosecutor with an attitude wants this boy to serve the best years of his life behind bars for what seems like a common teenage act!

    If you think it was a bad thing, stop equivocating for why it was OK for him to do it.

    Courts have not identified a uniform age of consent, and have left it to the states. However the Federal age of consent for most instances in the USA is 18, under which Genarlow Wilson would be a minor as well.

    So your argument is that Genarlow should not be held responsible because he is a minor — but you’ve been arguing that the girl SHOULD be held responsible because she “consented” to have sex, and she’s even younger than he is.

    Problem is, Jamie, Genarlow obviously can’t stop himself from having sex with underage minors. Why should he be walking the streets? Why shouldn’t he be labeled as a sex offender?

    Resorting to generalizations about “liberals” is just plain weak. And as a multi-racial American I find your implications disgusting.

    Only because I disagree with you. As John’s post claiming I am a racist and Ted’s post claiming I am a sex pervert make clear, you have no trouble with people making implications — and with a lot less in the way of facts than I provided.

    And on to QJ:

    I still feel the article is closer to my interpretation

    Of course — because you started with the theory that Genarlow is completely innocent and merely have been ignoring any reality that says otherwise.

    No, the law was not sensible because it treated a 17 year old who got a blow job from a consenting 15 year old the same way as it treated a 55 year old who sodomized an 9 year old.

    Except, under the law, there is no such thing as a “consenting 15-year-old”.

    Furthermore, Genarlow Wilson could have avoided the whole problem completely by controlling his sexual urges.

    Since he obviously can’t and won’t, the full force of the law should apply against him, and he should be labeled a sex offender — because until he can control himself sexually and stop making excuses, he is one.

  34. Of course — because you started with the theory that Genarlow is completely innocent and merely have been ignoring any reality that says otherwise.

    And when you just blatantly start lying, it’s a signal to the rest of us that you are out of arguments.

  35. Exactly, QJ. This has become pointless. NDT is incapable of looking at this situation rationally because he cannot see past his innumerable sexual hang-ups. And the fact that it involved a virile strapping young black buck just makes it that much more infuriating for him.

    The more we refute his simple-minded belligerent hardline puritanical stance, the more entrenched he gets. We all know he’s wrong–that’s enough for me.

  36. And when you just blatantly start lying, it’s a signal to the rest of us that you are out of arguments.

    Um, not quite, QJ.

    You see, you were the one who tried to argue that Genarlow had never planned anything at all, that he just showed up out of the blue.

    And then, when I provide linked and referenced evidence to the contrary, you get all hissy and accuse me of “lying”.

    You see, that’s because you don’t really think what Genarlow did is wrong. None of you do.

    You think, as Ted put it, that it’s a “sexual hang-up” to oppose having sex with an underage minor.

    You think it’s “puritanical” to be against teenagers drinking, doing drugs, and filming sex acts, all without adult supervision.

    You mouth platitudes about “bad judgment” and “mistakes”, but in the next sentence, you try to argue that that’s what all teenagers do, so it’s really OK.

    And again, you haven’t explained why Genarlow Wilson, who has openly admitted he can’t control his sexual urges so he shouldn’t be held responsible for them, shouldn’t b

  37. So anyway, Ted, why are you encouraging teenagers to have unprotected sex?

    ‘Cause it looks like your “virile strapping young black buck” was f*cking around without a condom.

    The fact that people like you encourage teenagers to have sex is exactly why we have statistics like these.

    But at least they don’t have any “sexual hang-ups”, right?

  38. [You see, that’s because you don’t really think what Genarlow did is wrong. None of you do.]

    Thank you very much for that insightful bit of psycho analysis, Doctor NDT. But had you paid any attention to our commentary on the Georgia Supreme Court, you might’ve noticed that we were not in agreement at all. You might’ve also noticed that nobody here mentioned partisanship or race before you decided to make a civilized discussion about legal philosophy into the Drug War, Duke University, AIDS Policy, Hookers, Video Cameras, Liberals, White Victimization, God, and Child Abuse. That’s quite a feat of non-sequitur morphology, even for a professional. Thank you very much for that too.

  39. Oh and don’t forget how I promote the black arts, support the destruction of family values, encourage prepubescent group sex with space aliens and hate the troops.

    I mean, if you’re going to continue trying to warp things I’ve said into support for whatever bizarre left-wing conspiracy that pops into your deviant little mind you might as well go all the way with it. *yawn* You’re boring me now.

  40. I do think what Genarlow did was wrong, I didn’t question that. I questioned the punishment.

    And Ted, “sex with space aliens”? I knew you’d be voting for Kucinich! 🙂

  41. I mean, if you’re going to continue trying to warp things I’ve said into support for whatever bizarre left-wing conspiracy that pops into your deviant little mind you might as well go all the way with it.

    Naah, I think I’ll just stick with the obvious evidence that you think anyone who’s against minors drinking, doing drugs, and having unprotected sex is “repressed” and just needs to get over their “sexual hangups”.

    Because watching someone who whines and cries about how people aren’t doing enough to stop the spread of HIV promote and push the one thing that effectively spreads it best is just too sweet.

    You might’ve also noticed that nobody here mentioned partisanship or race before you decided to make a civilized discussion about legal philosophy into the Drug War, Duke University, AIDS Policy, Hookers, Video Cameras, Liberals, White Victimization, God, and Child Abuse.

    What we have here, John, is a seventeen-year-old having unprotected sex with multiple women, at least one of them an underage minor, and videotaping it, all while providing alcohol, drugs, and whatnot to himself and said women at a party that he and his friends specifically planned.

    And of course, how do you and the press try to spin it?

    Georgia’s Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release of a young man who has been imprisoned for more than two years for having consensual oral sex with another teenager.

    No mention of age. No mention of videotaping the sex acts. No mention of drugs and alcohol. No mention of premeditation. No mention of unprotected sex. No mention of multiple sex incidents.

    Furthermore, this is not the first time he had done such things — and, according to the legal precedent set by liberals such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all of whom screamed that the Duke lacrosse team members should be punished more because they had a previous reputation, that means he should be punished more.

    And finally, the charge of “racism” is neatly averted by the fact that the prosecutor himself is black. Indeed, I would posit that the reason the prosecutor is being so harsh is because he lives there, is part of the community, and knows full well what kind of person Genarlow Wilson is.

    What I did was to point out the whole picture — rather than the sanitized version you were using.

    I do think what Genarlow did was wrong, I didn’t question that. I questioned the punishment.

    Two problems with that, QC.

    One, he could have avoided the harshest punishment by taking the plea bargain, instead of demanding a jury trial where there was evidence on videotape of him committing the crime.

    Two, he could have avoided punishment at all by not committing the crime. But, since he obviously lacks the ability to stop himself from having sex with underage minors, he needs to be treated as someone who cannot stop themselves from having sex with underage minors.

  42. Look, I’m just to the right of the government of Singapore when it comes to crime and punishment. No one is denying that Wilson committed a crime. It was the punishment that was in question. The Georgia Supreme Court said: “Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children…” That’s the crux of the issue. There was a 2 year difference in their age, and that was the point of most of the opposition to the punishment. There is no practical difference between 17 and 15. Even the man that authored the law that put Wilson in prison denounced the sentence, and so did some members of the jury that found him guilty. That’s why the law was amended to make sexual relations between teens close in age merely a misdemeanor. There were many people in Georgia on both ends of the political spectrum that thought the law was misapplied in this case. Law is not perfect nor infallible and when it is found to be wrong it should be corrected. The people in Georgia thought it was wrong and our representatives and courts corrected the flaw.

  43. Like I said, QC, let’s see; rents hotel room, stocks it with booze and dope, invites underage women in, sets up video camera, goes to town.

    I’d say that’s pretty darn culpable, wouldn’t you?

    Furthermore, the irony of the reaction is immense; despite the blabbering that “society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity”, they’ve effectively removed the penalties for someone doing it, as has the Georgia Legislature, and thus facilitated the process.

    And then, let the hand-wringing commence over why, WHY, the Genarlow Wilsons of the world, who can’t stop themselves from having sex with anything that moves, are spreading HIV like wildfire.

  44. Like I said, QC, let’s see; rents hotel room, stocks it with booze and dope, invites underage women in, sets up video camera, goes to town.

    Yep, all bad stuff. But still not even close to deserving 10 years of prison. I am for putting away people in prison and throwing away the key, and perhaps this individual did deserve prison time (depending on, say, any prior criminal record). I see the garbage that people get away with here and elsewhere, when the crimes and actions are worse and more hurtful, and by ADULTS, and get no jail time. I’d love to see the NJ politicians who got arrested in the latest sting get 10 years of prison (they deserve it). And in my view, Ted Haggard’s behavior was worse and more criminal than Genarlow Wilson. When is he going to start his ten year sentence?

    I’m glad that I was never as stupid as Wilson’s actions were. But if I was given a preposterous “plea” deal of five years, I would have asked for a jury trial as well.

  45. Because watching someone who whines and cries about how people aren’t doing enough to stop the spread of HIV promote and push the one thing that effectively spreads it best is just too sweet.

    OK, you weaselly freak, I challenge you to point out one instance where I either a) “whined and cried” about how much isn’t being done to stop the spread of HIV or b) “push[ed]” the “one thing” that spreads HIV.

    To be clear: stating that underage males are unlikely to turn down a blowjob from a cute girl or pointing out that many of them participate in drinking, smoking pot and sex at parties where it is available does not qualify as “pushing” or “promoting” those activities. They are statements of fact.

    To qualify as promotion, I would have had to say that underage males should not turn down a blowjob and must participate in drinking, smoking pot and sex. Do you understand the difference now, you moron?

    Should they be discouraged? Yes. Should there be penalties for engaging in the activities? Definitely. Should the penalty include years spent in state prison? Absolutely not. It’s an insane notion.

    And the reason I believe you are a closet deviant with severe sexual hang-ups is not because you stand against underage sex. It’s because every time a subject comes up that includes sexuality, you take the most extreme position you can find against it and rail for the most severe penalties possible, regardless of context or circumstances.

    And if conservatives have taught me anything, it’s that the person who is most vociferously opposed to a certain sexual proclivity is likely the person most into it. And since you are so strident and rigid with regard to any discussion involving sex, it makes me shudder to think what you are probably into.

  46. I think you’re underestimating the resilence of our system, Ted. While it’s certainly not perfect, it has an incredible capacity to adapt and change.

    Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved towards adopting a more rigorous standard for judging the appropriateness of particularly harsh sentences. Although it might seem self-evident to us that 10 years is ‘too much’ in this case, the Supreme Court has never actually laid out any clear criterion for deciding what constitutes ‘too much.’

    Anthony Kennedy started a trend to re-evaluate this ambiguity (with his speech to the ABA a few years ago). He believes the United States must “consider the values that we share with a wider civilization” – a quote which he has used again and again and again in the last decade. Certainly, such a sweeping statement is still not very clear. But it implies that he thinks judges should consider the evolution of other liberal democracies in determining the constitutionality of certain punishments. Most of their courts are derived from the same principles as our courts, after all. The premise is democracies can always learn from other democracies.

    Of course, Scalia and Thomas are fighting this approach tooth-and-nail, but thus far, Kennedy seems to control the cards. Just as it was the “O’Connor Court” during the Rehnquist years, it seems like it will be the “Kennedy Court” during the Roberts years.

    If the trend holds, I think there might be some changes in the future that will make extreme cases like this far less common. And, as others have stated, the legislative branch might act as well, if public sentiment turns against a particular punishment.

  47. Like I said, QC, let’s see; rents hotel room, stocks it with booze and dope, invites underage women in, sets up video camera, goes to town.

    I just love how you make up stuff and call it “facts.” Show me proof that GENARLOW did any of that. All you can prove is that he was there.

    But you can’t argue the actual FACTS because they don’t fit your desired conclusion.

  48. First, Pat:

    “I see the garbage that people get away with here and elsewhere, when the crimes and actions are worse and more hurtful, and by ADULTS, and get no jail time.”

    So you’re against leniency and in favor of the maximum punishment…..but in this case, you’re arguing for leniency and AGAINST the maximum punishment.

    Choose one.

    “OK, you weaselly freak, I challenge you to point out one instance where I either a) “whined and cried” about how much isn’t being done to stop the spread of HIV or b) “push[ed]” the “one thing” that spreads HIV.”

    My personal favorite: your attempt to blame Ronald Reagan for the spread of HIV when confronted with statistics about its spread among gays as compared to less-promiscuous populations.

    “To qualify as promotion, I would have had to say that underage males should not turn down a blowjob and must participate in drinking, smoking pot and sex. ”

    Or you could have called people who said they SHOULD turn down and SHOULD NOT participate “repressed”, and insisted that it is normal for teenagers to do such things.

    The day I will believe you are actually against such things, Ted, is when you criticize teenagers who do participate in such things with the same ferocity that you do people who criticize teenagers for participating in such things.

    “And since you are so strident and rigid with regard to any discussion involving sex, it makes me shudder to think what you are probably into.”

    This actually serves a useful purpose, Ted; the more you rail about me and make generalizations about “conservatives”, the more hypocritical it makes the silence of those who have criticized me for making generalizations.

    Personally, I think it’s because you have confused homosexuality with a complete absence of sexual responsibility and an inability to stop yourself from having unprotected and promiscuous sex; therefore, you think that you must defend any case of unprotected and promiscuous sex that comes up.

    And finally to Jamie:

    “I just love how you make up stuff and call it “facts.” Show me proof that GENARLOW did any of that. ”

    You must have missed the article I cited above, especially this section:

    “And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year’s Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon.”

    And:

    “Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.”

    Even that whitewashed story — remember how I pointed out previously that they used an unfair comparison to “prove” that the prosecutor was a racist? — couldn’t manage to spruce THAT up.

  49. Planning a New Year’s Eve party is a far cry from intent to commit child abuse. You’ve submitted nothing that proves young Mr Wilson is guilty of conspiring to rape girls, spread HIV, or produce pornography. Are we supposed to believe that your wildly imaginative conclusions are reasonable because that’s what “they” do? (whoever “they” happen to be, at the moment – you seem to use the term to stand-in for any and all members of the opposition)

    Look, nobody denies that Wilson exercised bad judgment, and he has been punished for it. But it’s certainly not worth 10 years in prison, which is more jail time than most manslaughter convictions. Moreover, to suggest that a misguided teenager is some sort of nafarious supervillian or monster is a stretch at best.

  50. Or you could have called people who said they SHOULD turn down and SHOULD NOT participate “repressed”, and insisted that it is normal for teenagers to do such things.

    Oh, I see…so because I don’t scream for unreasonably harsh prison sentences for people who engage in sexual activity like you do, I am therefore not only advocating child sexual abuse but also defending unprotected and promiscuous sex.

    And because I bring up the shocking number of conservatives who’ve been busted engaging in the very sexual acts that they’ve built careers out of demonizing and criminalizing and draw parallels your obsession with harshly punishing anyone linked to situations involving sexuality, I obviously have no sense of sexual responsibility and I am unable to stop myself from having unprotected and promiscuous sex.

    Gee, that doesn’t sound like your position is so completely irrational that you haul out hoary right-wing stereotypes in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the inherent stupidity and weakness of your argument. Not at all!

    How about we return to reality for a moment? I’ll put aside the blatant homophobia of your remarks to inform you that only a borderline-retarded idiot would conclude that because I disagree with your contention that Wilson deserves a 10-year prison sentence for his actions, then I must be a promiscuous sexually-compulsive and -irresponsible rape and pedophilia advocate.

    You’ve had your head stuck up your own ass for so long that you cannot understand the concept that everything in this world is not black-and-white, either/or and good vs. evil. I’m sure it makes it much simpler for you to live your life without considering the gray areas, since that way you don’t have to tax your brain or examine your conscience, but don’t expect others to be as intellectually lazy.

    As for most of the rest of us, we prefer to live in this century and to consider the nuances and subtleties of a situation when deciding what is fair or reasonable. Sure, it takes longer and tends to complicate things at times, but it is far more preferable to handing our fates over to the ham-fisted, simple-minded, vindictive, unsympathetic and repressive likes of you.

    My personal favorite: your attempt to blame Ronald Reagan for the spread of HIV when confronted with statistics about its spread among gays as compared to less-promiscuous populations.

    Glad you enjoyed it, but as usual you are mischaracterizing my position. That being said, it still doesn’t qualify as either “whining” or “crying” nor does it “push the one thing that spreads HIV” (as though only one thing spreads HIV anyway).

    Once again, you defend your weak positions with lies, distractions, mischaracterizations and exaggerations.

  51. “And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year’s Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon.”

    Circumstantial evidence that he was planning a party. At best. Not all the conclusions you pole vaulted into.

    And as to this: the more you rail about me and make generalizations about “conservatives”, the more hypocritical it makes the silence of those who have criticized me for making generalizations.

    Sometimes you can be such a flaming martyr. You were attempting to paint everyone who disagreed with you as a screaming liberal. KevinQC’s a conservative, and he agrees with me on the issue, thereby proving the flaw in your assertion that it’s all about screaming liberals who want to let a child molester go free. Ted’s ranting about conservatives, however, was tangential to the issue, and you seemed to be countering it well enough. Apples and oranges, dear boy.

  52. So you’re against leniency and in favor of the maximum punishment…..but in this case, you’re arguing for leniency and AGAINST the maximum punishment.

    Choose one.

    NDT, why on earth would I have to be limited to such a silly narrow choice? The simple fact is that 10 years for what Wilson did is extreme. As such, why should I favor a completely unreasonable and unfair form of justice? And now we also see that the Georgia legislature saw how asinine the sentence was.

    I’m for maximum sentences when the punishment fits the crime. I’m not when the maximum sentence does not. I was against ANY jail time for any two consensual adults having sex, which is now, finally, in the 21st century no longer a crime.

    As for Reagan, since you mentioned it. First, those who engaged in irresponsible behavior when the knowledge of contracting HIV was out there are responsible for their actions, not Reagan. No argument there. But when AIDS was first becoming public, and when Reagan could have provided leadership like he has done for other things, he punted and punted and punted…

    For the record, I do believe that teenagers should not have sex. Heck, I also believe that people, adults or children, shouldn’t consume any tobacco products. I’m against ten year sentences for those things though.

  53. My “ranting,” as you so elegantly phrased it, was not really about conservatives per se.

    I brought up recent examples of conservatives railing against certain sexual proclivities because there’s an interesting parallel to NDT’s continual expression of his disturbing desire to harshly punish anyone with a sex drive and demonize anyone who dares to challenge him about it.

    Those particular hypocrites were busted doing precisely the sexual activity they condemned. So I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out that NDT lives in a similar glass house.

    Tangential? Perhaps, but intriguing nonetheless.

  54. “You’ve submitted nothing that proves young Mr Wilson is guilty of conspiring to rape girls, spread HIV, or produce pornography.”

    So you are expecting me to believe that this honor student and model citizen was 1) not aware that underage drinking, drug use, sex with minors, and videotaping the process are all illegal — and that having unprotected sex spreads HIV — and 2) planned a party that managed to break all of these?

    Look, nobody denies that Wilson exercised bad judgment, and he has been punished for it.

    Oh, I think a lot of people are in denial over this, especially the fact that Wilson obviously is incapable of stopping himself from having sex with underage minors and having unprotected sex at all.

    Next up:

    “Circumstantial evidence that he was planning a party. At best. ”

    Again, Jamie:

    “And a month or so after that final playoff game, he and some buddies were plotting a New Year’s Eve bash. His mama heard them whispering in his bedroom that afternoon.”

    Bit more than circumstantial.

    “NDT, why on earth would I have to be limited to such a silly narrow choice?”

    Because, Pat, what you are bemoaning is what happens when leniency is not only freely granted, but expected. Genarlow thought he would get off easy because no one ever held him accountable; hence his irresponsible behavior.

  55. Again, NDT, all it proves is that he and his buddies toyed with the idea of a party–not that they planned any of the enumerated accusations you made. PROOF is how we apply the law, not “seems obvious to me” crap.

  56. Genarlow thought he would get off easy because no one ever held him accountable.

    See? Right there–there you go again with your assumptions that you have no earthly way of knowing are true or not. . . but because you have a hard-on for prosecuting this kid, you try to slip it in as a fact.

  57. NDT, you’re missing the point. What you’re arguing is like saying a wifebeater is being “lenient” because he “only” assaulted his wife one time as opposed to ten times today.

    Yes, I do expect that unfair and unjust sentences are eliminated. And in this case, it also appears the state of Georgia agrees with this sentiment.

  58. “Again, NDT, all it proves is that he and his buddies toyed with the idea of a party–not that they planned any of the enumerated accusations you made.”

    Mhm.

    “Genarlow Wilson and his friends checked into the Days Inn right off Interstate 20. At some point in the night, according to court documents and evidence presented at trial, some girls came over to party with them. Bourbon and marijuana were consumed. One of the young men turned on a video camera.”

    Of course, all this happened completely magically without any planning or premeditation — because every hotel room is automatically available to seventeen-year-olds, stocked with alcohol, drugs, and underage women, and equipped with a video camera for recording the event for posterity.

    The problem here is, Jamie, the more that is known about the situation, the less sympathetic Genarlow Wilson becomes — which is why, for example, you never mentioned any of these things, and neither does your article.

    “but because you have a hard-on for prosecuting this kid”

    Oh yes, I and the prosecutor are the villains here — for insisting a person who drank illegally, who used drugs illegally, and who had unprotected sex with numerous individuals, including at least one minor, be punished to the full extent of the law.

    And that leads us to Pat:

    “What you’re arguing is like saying a wifebeater is being “lenient” because he “only” assaulted his wife one time as opposed to ten times today.”

    No; what I am saying is that you cannot whine about other peoples’ sentences being too light and not providing sufficient punishment when you are doing your darndest to lighten and remove punishment for another’s.

  59. “NDT’s continual expression of his disturbing desire to harshly punish anyone with a sex drive”

    So, Ted, you contradict yourself again and state that having sex with underage minors is all part of a normal “sex drive”.

    And that’s where this comes in:

    “You’ve had your head stuck up your own ass for so long that you cannot understand the concept that everything in this world is not black-and-white, either/or and good vs. evil.”

    That’s called “rationalization”, Ted.

    Sort of like how you argue that sex with an underage minor is OK because “she consented to it”.

    Just as you rationalize Genarlow’s having unprotected sex, using drugs, and drinking by claiming it’s something normal and common among teenagers.

    And just as you rationalize unprotected sex and irresponsible behavior among gays by blaming Ronald Reagan for causing the AIDS epidemic.

    The reason you do that, of course, Ted, is because it sidesteps the question of whether or not your behavior is right or wrong; by blaming others or by pointing at others, you absolve yourself of having to take any responsibility for your actions.

    Pity HIV doesn’t blame-shift and instead stays neatly with the person who bears the final responsibility for their actions.

  60. NDT, if you want to live in a society where we jail people based on assumptions and appearances, rather than proof, then you live in the wrong country.

    Try Iran. China. Russia.

    Because your arguments are typical of jailers there as well.

    What makes OUR legal system the best in the world is the presumption of innocence. Which, to me, is the Christian thing to do–presume innocence.

    Pity you don’t realize that, either. You are unfailing in your defense of titularly “religious” organizations against anything you perceive as “liberal,” yet show no compassion.

    I don’t make the assumptions you do. And they’re entirely not germane (sp?) in any case. The fact is that this case was about an unfair discrepancy in sentencing guidelines. The fact is that the Georgia Legislature agreed with that fact enough to pass remedial legislation.

    One can assume that the legislature deliberately neglected to make it retroactive and apply to Genarlow, or one can assume that they just thought it obvious that it would be applied retroactively. Either way it’s an assumption. The FACT is that they realized it was unjust and unfair to sentence romeo-juliet cases more harshly for oral sex than vaginal intercourse. No matter how much you would like this to be about societal problems at large, it’s not.

  61. So, Ted, you contradict yourself again and state that having sex with underage minors is all part of a normal “sex drive”.

    No, you idiot, I was referring to your overall desire to harshly punish anyone associated with any situation having to do with sexuality, not this specific incident. You’ve shown this particular fetish of yours time and time again with comments you’ve made here and elsewhere.

    You are under the delusion that only your views of sexuality are decent and anyone who does not follow your strict moral guidelines deserves to suffer. The problem is that your view of sexuality came over on The Mayflower.

    You don’t believe that sex is healthy, that one’s sexuality is something to be proud of and to celebrate–you see it as dirty and shameful and a sickness. You see sexuality as a weakness that has to be controlled and locked away. You’ve transferred your own confusion and struggles with sexuality onto the rest of humanity. You are miserably puritanical.

    That’s called “rationalization”, Ted.

    No, it’s called having a sophisticated, intellectual and mature understanding that not every question has a simple yes-or-no answer. The fact that you cannot grasp that concept shows that it is pointless to try and have an adult conversation with you.

    One last thing–I know you think that anyone who doesn’t believe that sex is dirty and shameful as you do must be infected with HIV. But, as is so often the case, you are dead wrong. I do not have HIV, and I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that I do.

  62. “Which, to me, is the Christian thing to do–presume innocence.”

    Oh, I see; you don’t want “Christian values” in law, except when you can invoke them as a reason for ignoring it.

    “You are unfailing in your defense of titularly “religious” organizations against anything you perceive as “liberal,” yet show no compassion.”

    In the cases of crime, Jamie, I tend to be much more generous with my compassion toward the victim, rather than the perpetrator.

    In this case, we have a fifteen-year-old girl, who in any case is not old enough or intellectually mature enough to understand the consequences of what she is doing and who probably was drunk and under the influence of drugs, crawling around on the floor like an animal, desperately going from cock to cock of the popular football players and stars — and all of this being taped for their future amusement.

    That is close to the most disgusting and degrading things I have ever heard described. And to demonstrate how clueless and spoiled Genarlow Wilson is, he whines and cries in a courtroom about how he would never do anything like that to his sister, when there is video evidence that he was more than willing to do it to someone else’s sister/daughter/cousin/niece — and he has his lawyers and shameless defenders trying to argue that it’s OK because “she asked for it”.

    This is not a “romeo-juliet” case in any sense of the word. There was no love or commitment involved in this at all; it was a case of a bunch of irresponsible teenagers gang-banging as much tail as they could in the most unsafe fashion possible while under the influence of illegal drink and drugs and wholly without adult supervision.

    (Or, in other words, the same thing that the Duke lacrosse team members were accused of doing to an of-age paid prostitute — with far less proof — and the same race-baiters who are screaming that Genarlow was punished too harshly were demanding that these men be put away for far longer.)

    In short, my sympathies lie with the underage and intoxicated black women who were treated like whores by a bunch of immature and scheming teenagers who thought they were above the law. And I stand part and parcel with the prosecutor who evidently thought it was high time that the laws be enforced and that those teenagers be held accountable for exactly what they did.

  63. Oh, I see; you don’t want “Christian values” in law, except when you can invoke them as a reason for ignoring it.

    You are just the master of the logical fallacy, aren’t you? No, I don’t want “Christian values” as law, but I encourage them as the guiding compass when making laws, and when applying them. The spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.

    I know, that’s another concept you just don’t get.

    I tend to be much more generous with my compassion toward the victim, rather than the perpetrator.

    Right. Keep telling yourself that. The fact is that this crime did not rise to the level of punishment applied, and you’re the only one who can’t understand that. Physician, heal thyself.

    and the same race-baiters who are screaming that Genarlow was punished too harshly were demanding that these men be put away for far longer.)

    Now I know you’re not lumping me in with Al Sharpton.

  64. “You don’t believe that sex is healthy, that one’s sexuality is something to be proud of and to celebrate–you see it as dirty and shameful and a sickness. ”

    Do you think dressing up two-year-old children in fetish wear and taking them to a sex fair is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think that making unwelcome lewd and sexual comments to people is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think having promiscuous unprotected sex with multiple individuals is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think having sex with underage minors is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Because every single one of those has been explained as a part of “gay sexuality” — and if you criticize or oppose them in the least, you are claiming that it’s “dirty and shameful and a sickness”, which you claim is evil, puritanical, and wrong.

    “You see sexuality as a weakness that has to be controlled and locked away.”

    Damn straight — because if you don’t, you end up in situations like Genarlow Wilson’s where you can’t stop yourself from having sex with an underage minor.

    You act as though actively controlling, managing, and being able to lock your sexual needs out of your decision-making process is a BAD thing, Ted.

    “No, it’s called having a sophisticated, intellectual and mature understanding that not every question has a simple yes-or-no answer.”

    Of course it doesn’t, Ted.

    Because leftist gays like yourself need to be able to claim you’re against underage sex one minute and then flip-flop the next when it’s Genarlow Wilson having it.

    Because leftist gays like yourself need to rail against promiscuity one minute and then call doing that “repressive” the next minute when a conservative gay does.

    That’s neither sophisticated, intellectual, or mature; it’s a six-year-old’s egocentric worldview that refuses to accept that there is a right or wrong and whose only rule is their own self-indulgence.

  65. “No, I don’t want “Christian values” as law, but I encourage them as the guiding compass when making laws, and when applying them.”

    And I repeat myself; so you want them only when it’s convenient, and to ignore them at will.

    “The fact is that this crime did not rise to the level of punishment applied, and you’re the only one who can’t understand that. ”

    That’s because I tend to have far less sympathy for people who can’t control their sexual desires, who have sex with underage minors, who deliberately break drug and alcohol laws, and who gangbang without protection multiple women, then try to claim “romeo-juliet” statutes as some sort of protection.

    Call it a weakness.

  66. Usually when NDT starts kindly making up my arguments for me, thus rendering me entirely superfluous to the argument he’s having, I take it as a tacit acknowledgment that he understands my time is important and I can do better things with it than point out his logical fallacies. So I just walk away.

    This statement, however, I found interesting enough to comment on: In short, my sympathies lie with the underage and intoxicated black women who were treated like whores by a bunch of immature and scheming teenagers who thought they were above the law.

    One of the women in question, the one who alleges rape, was herself, in fact, 17, the same age as Wilson. As her rape charges were dismissed, one can conclude that legal evidence shows no one forced her to go to the room, no one forced her to drink while being underage, no one forced her to have sex and no one prevented her from leaving at any time. Yet, even though she’s the same age as Wilson, she’s somehow less culpable than him for her actions and more deserving of “sympathy”.

    The other young lady is really the crux of the matter. While one’s interpretation of her crawling around on the floor, actively looking for another dick to suck is, I suppose, open to interpretation, I find it interesting that her underage sexual shenanigans are a cause for sympathy while Wilson “being sexually active since age 13” is damning evidence against him, that somehow she was unable to provide consent but Wilson was and that consent can be used against him now, four years later, since he turned 17

    All I can conclude from this is that NDT’s “sympathies” are capriciously Contrarian at best and subtly malicious at worst, showing a certain misogynistic bent (“women clearly aren’t capable of being as in control of their actions as men”) and a generalized fear of black men. I have no way of knowing where upon that progression the actual point lies, but I feel certain those are the endpoints.

  67. That is of course, QJ, because you assume that, had the ages of Genarlow and the underage minor in question been reversed, my sympathies would not have been.

    Quite the contrary. Underage sex is underage sex, and the law makes it clear that the person over the age of consent is the responsible party. And if you want to find the seventeen-year-old that was having sex with the thirteen-year-old Genarlow, please bring her or him forward, and I’ll be happy to throw the book at her or him too.

    As for the seventeen-year-old, you’ll note I didn’t specifically mention her, mainly because I agree with you; it was her series of choices that led to her problem, and she is old enough by law to make such choices.

    Meanwhile, I find it amusing that I am being accused of misogyny because I don’t accuse an underage minor of being a slut and racism because I don’t accept the behavior of Genarlow, etc. as being in any way normal or expected among black teenagers.

    What that leads me to believe is that both “misogynist” and “racist” have nothing to do with my actual beliefs, but are more on the order of verbal cudgels meant to force compliance.

  68. Mm, but only one of those “black women” (your own word choice and one can only assume that you are referring to the two black women in this specific case…only one of which could actually be vaguely classified as a “woman” under your logic…and not underage “black women” in general) with whom your sympathies lie was underage. So it would seem if your argument was truthfully and accurately presented, your sympathies wouldn’t lie with “women” but with only the underage girl.

    And what you appear to be saying is that underage sex between underage children is okay. So,using your logic, that would mean a boy of 14 forcibly raping a girl of 13 is okay because no one was over the age of consent.

    Actually, I accused you of nothing, although I’m sure it strokes your persecution complex to no end to imply that I did. I simply stated the end points implied by your argument and said you lie somewhere between them. Push yourself to whichever end you like, much as you just did.

  69. “And what you appear to be saying is that underage sex between underage children is okay. So,using your logic, that would mean a boy of 14 forcibly raping a girl of 13 is okay because no one was over the age of consent.”

    I think you have me confused with someone else.

    “NDT, had this happened in California, North Dakota, or another state where the age of consent is 18, Wilson himself would be classified as a minor and this wouldn’t even have seen trial.”

    “There was a 2 year difference in their age, and that was the point of most of the opposition to the punishment. There is no practical difference between 17 and 15.”

    Of course it would not be OK. It would still be rape.

    And as far as underage sex between underage children being OK, my response is this; two kids caught having “consensual” underage sex should both be punished, because they are equally culpable. But in this case, there clearly was someone over the age of consent, and as such, the responsibility falls on them to prevent the sexual act.

    “I simply stated the end points implied by your argument and said you lie somewhere between them.”

    Which has the neat effect of making me a misogynist and a racist no matter where I fall, since those are the established “endpoints”.

    What this boils down to is that, if you hold a black man responsible to the full extent of the law for having sex with an underage minor because “she asked for it”, you’re a racist and a misogynist.

    Or, in other words, if I don’t call the underage minor a slut who asked for it and let the man off because he’s black, I hate women and am anti-black male.

    Again, do those words really mean anything? Or are you just used to screaming them at anyone who disagrees with you and watching them cave?

  70. And I repeat myself; so you want them only when it’s convenient, and to ignore them at will.

    Trust me–we can see that you repeat yourself. Because you consistently fail to get the point. And talking with you at this point is, as QJ said, superfluous. You consistently ignore requests for proof and substitute snippets of circumstance from articles hoping we’re not smart enough to see the difference.

    Keep railing if you wish. My point’s been made, and you keep making it clearer the more you write.

  71. No; what I am saying is that you cannot whine about other peoples’ sentences being too light and not providing sufficient punishment when you are doing your darndest to lighten and remove punishment for another’s.

    Actually, NDT, what I “whine” about is justice. When persons who clearly deserve 10 years of prison get off with a slap of the wrist, I see that as an injustice. When persons are sentenced to 10 years of prison for committing no crime or a crime that deserves far less or no punishment, I see that as an injustice. If that’s whining, so be it. In fact, I contend you feel the same way.

    Before Lawrence v. Texas, it was a crime for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sex. Now let me ask you this. While you lived in Texas before the Supreme Court decision, if and when you had sex, did you call the police immediately afterwards demanding that you are your partner be punished to the maximum extent of the law? Or did you see the law as an injustice and felt you deserved no criminal punishment at all, and not reported your criminally illegal conduct? If it’s the former (or you chose to not engage in any sex until sodomy laws were taken off the books), then you are at least not being hypocritical in pointing out what you perceive to be an inconsistency on my part. But I suspect it was the latter. That being the case, then we agree that a person who committed a crime, but is unfairly and unjustly punished is wrong.

    So the part we disagree then is that you believe that Genarlow Wilson’s ten year sentence was fair and just and I believe it was grossly unfair and unjust. And can we agree to not make the disagreement any more than that. In other words, my disagreement should not be construed that I favor coddling criminals, because that couldn’t be further than the truth.

  72. “While you lived in Texas before the Supreme Court decision, if and when you had sex, did you call the police immediately afterwards demanding that you are your partner be punished to the maximum extent of the law?”

    The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says specifically that I am protected from having to do anything of the sort.

    “Or did you see the law as an injustice and felt you deserved no criminal punishment at all, and not reported your criminally illegal conduct?”

    What I did, Pat, was to take a calculated risk. I knew full well that I could be arrested and I accepted that fact, including the punishment. But I am not compelled by law to incriminate myself, and oddly enough, it never came up as an issue.

    Then again, I wasn’t throwing gangbang parties with underage minors, serving alcohol and drugs, and videotaping the whole process.

  73. Then again, I wasn’t throwing gangbang parties with underage minors, serving alcohol and drugs, and videotaping the whole process.

    Prove it.

    Because there’s as much proof that Genarlow Wilson did those things as there is that you did.

  74. I think Pat’s on to something and perhaps this all boils down to clarity.

    NDT, it appears to me that you are generally making a two-fold argument. The first part of your argument is the strictly legal: Did Gernalow Wilson break Georgia state law by having oral sex performed on him by a minor, thus resulting in a charge of (not rape, just to be clear) aggravated child molestation? That’s pretty hard to argue against and, to my understanding, most people in this thread aren’t. They are arguing that the law Wilson broke is outdated, draconian, silly even. These stances might be seen as valid arguments, even, as the law has been subsequently changed. They are even arguing that it’s application in this case seems oddly focused for the level of damage done in this situation, but arguments that the law wasn’t broke are few and far between. There seems to be general agreement that Wilson did something wrong and did break the law. As Pat pointed out, while the law may be as inappropriate as the law that made sexual relations between consenting male adults in the privacy of their own homes in Texas illegal prior to 2003, it was still nevertheless the law and anyone who actually did engage in sexual relations between two men while it was in effect is guilty of breaking it. Ideally, one does not break the law and then agitate for its change. This comes off, at best, as self-serving.

    The second part of your argument, the one people seem to be having trouble with and the one I’m certainly having an issue with, is about character. While Wilson may have broke the law, and therefore some sort of punishment should be requisite, your determined fervor to paint Wilson as some sort of slavering, hardened pedophile is shocking and inexplicable given the evidence presented. Not even the prosecution that was intent on keeping Wilson behind bars attempted to portray him or his actions as anything so hideous as a master manipulator who’s only goal that night was to force himself on an underage girl and, somehow, spread HIV. Partly, you may have taken this extreme stance because you’ve been painted into a corner. You’ve certainly used it to justify Wilson’s sentence for his crime.

    The sticking point is that, either to legal satisfaction or to personal opinion, there has been no evidence offered to justify this portrayal. The article you reference itself doesn’t make this point, the prosecutor in the case, hell-bent for leather on keeping Wilson in jail even after the change in the law, doesn’t make this point, even the fifteen-year-old, to my knowledge, doesn’t make this point. You seem to be the only one intently painting Wilson in this manner. What confuses me and, I would wager, everyone else is simply why? I don’t believe you’re racist, but your arguments certainly have that air about them. While having sympathy for the fifteen-year-old is certainly understandable, I’m unsure why that sympathy must then automatically translate into the worst possible…no, not even possible, simply the worst characterization of Wilson. That’s the leap in logic that you’re making and we’re all shaking our heads at.

    I have a number of counters to present to you, such as how could two underage children be culpable for anything given your previous argument that consent doesn’t exist for anyone under sixteen in Georgia, or how your own logic doesn’t invalidate cases of forced sexual contact between underage children given your previous argument that the Wilson case and the subsequent early release makes all child molestation cases permissible. These are tangential, however, to the central sticking point of this issue: Why do you feel that, despite evidence, despite successful prosecution strategy, despite the victims, Wilson is more of a demon and less of a young man who made a serious error in judgment that led to breaking the law?

  75. “Because there’s as much proof that Genarlow Wilson did those things as there is that you did.”

    (pops in the videotape showing Genarlow Wilson performing multiple sex acts, pulls out the court documents clearly stating that there were underage minors, alcohol, and drugs being used)

    Thank you. Next, please.

    “Why do you feel that, despite evidence, despite successful prosecution strategy, despite the victims, Wilson is more of a demon and less of a young man who made a serious error in judgment that led to breaking the law?”

    Because, QJ, there was not “a” serious error in judgment made here; there were SEVERAL serious errors in judgment, all of which broke the law AND amazingly managed to facilitate the SINGLE “serious error” you mention taking place.

    In my opinion, you are looking at this in the context of a pair of “Romeo and Juliet” teenagers who are in love, who are committed to each other, and who consent to and have sex with each other in private without the influence of peer pressure or any substance sort of thing being punished.

    That wasn’t what was taking place in that hotel room.

    “I have a number of counters to present to you, such as how could two underage children be culpable for anything given your previous argument that consent doesn’t exist for anyone under sixteen in Georgia”

    Simple. Courts have found that children are more than capable of discerning between right and wrong, especially when they have been told not to do something.

    “or how your own logic doesn’t invalidate cases of forced sexual contact between underage children given your previous argument that the Wilson case and the subsequent early release makes all child molestation cases permissible”

    It does make these cases permissible, for a very simple reason; the Genarlow Wilson case makes it clear that underage minors can consent to sex with a person who is over the age of consent, and therefore people who have it with them should not be subject to punishment.

    And, more ironically, in the example you gave, a fourteen-year-old raping a thirteen-year-old could use the Genarlow Wilson exception — they’re within two years of each others’ age, and the thirteen-year-old is fully capable of consenting to sex, so there would be no rape.

    The thing that amuses me the most is that society has no problem with imposing arbitrary rules based on age as a determinant for maturity on things like consenting to medical procedures, signing contracts, driving, drinking, etc., but flips out at the idea of doing the same thing for sex — an activity that lends itself to wholly-irrational behavior.

  76. “Because there’s as much proof that Genarlow Wilson did those things as there is that you did.”

    (pops in the videotape showing Genarlow Wilson performing multiple sex acts, pulls out the court documents clearly stating that there were underage minors, alcohol, and drugs being used)

    Thank you. Next, please.

    Again you repeat yourself without attention to the DETAILS.

    You had said, “I wasn’t throwing gangbang parties with underage minors, serving alcohol and drugs, and videotaping the whole process.”

    Key words in your accusation:

    “throwing”
    “serving”
    “videotaping”

    Transitive verbs with NO PROOF ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that Genarlow Wilson performed them. Was there a tape? Yes. Did HE make it? You can’t prove it. Was there a party? Yes. Did HE throw the party? Again, you can’t prove it. Was there underage drinking? Yes. Did HE supply or serve any of the alcohol? You can’t prove it. IT’S ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS SANS PROOF, MADAME.

    Stop pretending that your assumptions are facts. that simply because Genarlow Wilson was PRESENT that he’s somehow IN CHARGE/RESPONSIBLE for the sum total of the entire event!! He’s responsible for his own actions and no one else’s, and certainly not everyone else’s.

    So thank you.

    Fucking NEXT.
    *sigh*

  77. And we’re back to the Magic Hotel Fairy conjuring up a room, plenty of alcohol and drugs, underage women, and a conveniently-available videocamera that Genarlow Wilson and his buddies just happened to stumble upon…..at which point they were then held hostage, forced to drink and do drugs, then fool around with these women, all on tape.

    Evidently the Magic Hotel Fairy saved them the effort of the “bash” they were planning in Genarlow’s room a few weeks earlier.

    “He’s responsible for his own actions and no one else’s, and certainly not everyone else’s.”

    Ah, but you see, Jamie, he’s not even responsible for his own — since according to him, the girls forced themselves on him and he had no choice but to drink and do drugs, all of it conveniently videotaped.

    All of which is conveniently left out of the articles you cite, probably because it destroys the attempt to portray this as young, pure Romeo enjoying his love and lifetime commitment to underage Juliet and being thrown into a deep dank dungeon for it by a bunch of racist teenager-hating prosecutors.

  78. Because, QJ, there was not “a” serious error in judgment made here; there were SEVERAL serious errors in judgment, all of which broke the law AND amazingly managed to facilitate the SINGLE “serious error” you mention taking place.

    I believe I understand, generally, how you might perceive my resistance to your characterization of Wilson as a “Romeo and Juliet”. I don’t feel that to be the case and if that is what I implied, I apologize. I would welcome an explanation of what I have said that argues these two were star-crossed lovers, as I in no way, shape or form feel there was any sort of love, commitment or deeper sentiment going on in that hotel room than teenagers having sex. I don’t believe that I’ve romanticized it, but if I have, I apologize.

    At the same time, I believe that you’ve miscast Wilson as Don Giovanni based on assumption and an unexplained bias that does not jive with the evidence presented to the court or the case brought about by the prosecution. I still fail to understand why you are cheering Wilson’s consignment to hell.

    This may be as far as it can go, though, with yet another “agree to disagree” because once again we appear to simply have wildly different world views and any additional argument would be pointless.

    And as I said, the rest of it is simply tangential.

  79. “I still fail to understand why you are cheering Wilson’s consignment to hell.”

    Cheering, no.

    But if you expect me to be upset over a young man who is in prison because:

    1) he decided to have sex with an underage minor

    2) he refused to take a plea bargain to reduce the fires of “hell”

    3) he tried to argue in a jury trial that he was innocent when there was incontrovertible evidence of him performing the act in question

    4) he tried to use his underage minor sister as a prop when there was obvious evidence that he had no qualms about sex with underage minors

    you’ll be waiting a while.

    Genarlow made his choices; he can live with the consequences of them.

  80. Hopefully it is now clear to everyone here that it is hopeless to try and convince NDT that Wilson is anything more than a sex-crazed nigger who wanted nothing more than to beat the rap so that he could continue his life’s ambition of raping your children.

    Wilson’s previous history as an upstanding college-bound honor student with no criminal record was obviously a fiendishly clever ruse to hide his true nature–a drooling oversexed child predator with no self-control who haunted elementary school playgrounds with beer, pot and camcorder in hand. And now that he’s out, no child is safe. God help us all.

    Puh-leez

    Congratulations, NDT, you are officially irrelevant.

  81. Ah, Ted, I’m glad you’re back.

    As I said above:

    “You don’t believe that sex is healthy, that one’s sexuality is something to be proud of and to celebrate–you see it as dirty and shameful and a sickness. ”

    Do you think dressing up two-year-old children in fetish wear and taking them to a sex fair is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think that making unwelcome lewd and sexual comments to people is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think having promiscuous unprotected sex with multiple individuals is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Do you think having sex with underage minors is something to be proud of and to celebrate, Ted?

    Because every single one of those has been explained as a part of “gay sexuality” — and if you criticize or oppose them in the least, you are claiming that it’s “dirty and shameful and a sickness”, which you claim is evil, puritanical, and wrong.

    “You see sexuality as a weakness that has to be controlled and locked away.”

    Damn straight — because if you don’t, you end up in situations like Genarlow Wilson’s where you can’t stop yourself from having sex with an underage minor.

    You act as though actively controlling, managing, and being able to lock your sexual needs out of your decision-making process is a BAD thing, Ted.

    “No, it’s called having a sophisticated, intellectual and mature understanding that not every question has a simple yes-or-no answer.”

    Of course it doesn’t, Ted.

    Because leftist gays like yourself need to be able to claim you’re against underage sex one minute and then flip-flop the next when it’s Genarlow Wilson having it.

    Because leftist gays like yourself need to rail against promiscuity one minute and then call doing that “repressive” the next minute when a conservative gay does.

    That’s neither sophisticated, intellectual, or mature; it’s a six-year-old’s egocentric worldview that refuses to accept that there is a right or wrong and whose only rule is their own self-indulgence.

  82. But if you expect me to be upset over a young man who is in prison because

    I do feel a need to point out that Wilson is, in fact, no longer in prison because the Georgia Supreme Court agreed that the sentence was cruel and unusual.

    So, really, case closed.

  83. And as I said above: you are irrelevant.

    There’s no point in debating you because you refuse to allow that you could be wrong. No matter how many people disagree with you, no matter how many different ways it is explained to you, no matter that laws have been changed to rectify the situation, no matter that you are alone in your opinion–you refuse to hear anything that doesn’t support your extremist agenda.

    So feel free to continue ranting that Wilson is a dangerous child-raping psychopath who is moments away from skull-fucking his next underage victim…with each comment you reveal yourself as nothing more than a delusional right-wing ultra-conservative caricature.

  84. Like I said before, Ted: let’s see. Drugs. Underage drinking. Sex with minors under the age of consent who are under the influence of alcohol and drugs which you gave to them. All on tape, for whatever idiot reason, which is skirting pornography and child-porn laws at best. And, better yet, every last bit of it seems to have been premeditated — except they seem to have forgotten the condoms.

    The fact that you allow Genarlow’s skin color to somehow make any of this acceptable and normal teenage behavior and to accept the excuse that he shouldn’t be punished and shouldn’t have to control himself sexually is your problem, not mine.

    And to QC….no good ever came of quoting lines from Joe Diffie videos. 🙂

  85. What I did, Pat, was to take a calculated risk. I knew full well that I could be arrested and I accepted that fact, including the punishment. But I am not compelled by law to incriminate myself, and oddly enough, it never came up as an issue.

    I echo QJ’s points. Additionally, NDT, you made the point that I should always and consistently advocate for maximum sentences for crimes. You committed a crime, but yet you did not advocate the maximum sentence for yourself. Sure, you have a constitutional right to not being compelled to do so, but it also doesn’t prevent you from doing so if you wish. Further, you committed your “criminal” acts well into adulthood. Wilson was not an adult when he “broke” the law. So are you saying Wilson’s actions would be justified if he wasn’t caught, just as it was okay that you were never caught?

    Then again, I wasn’t throwing gangbang parties with underage minors, serving alcohol and drugs, and videotaping the whole process

    The point is that the state of Texas viewed your actions as criminal and perhaps as egregious or more so than Wilson’s actions, yet you failed to report it and insist on the maximum sentence, as you insist that Wilson should have.

    My point is that in 2003, I don’t believe your actions deserved any jail time, and if you were caught, I would be against ANY jail time for you. In 2007, I don’t believe Wilson’s crimes, if any, were anything near deserving of a 10 year sentence. So I am not going to advocate for maximum sentences for unjust laws and prosecution, simply because I believe that those warranting maximum sentences should get it.

    Yet none of you has the balls to tell a gay joke.

    We’ll see about that. 🙂

  86. Notice, Pat, that I NEVER said my actions were justified. I was breaking the law, by my choice, and choosing not to incriminate myself, as is my constitutional right. And had I been caught and successfully prosecuted, it would have been perfectly legitimate to give me the maximum sentence.

    My point is that in 2003, I don’t believe your actions deserved any jail time, and if you were caught, I would be against ANY jail time for you.

    Noble, but unnecessary. I knew full well that what I was doing was against the law, and that if I had been caught, I would have to pay the piper. That’s the risk I took when I made the decision to have sex.

  87. So, by your own admission, your actions were not justified and illegal. But you shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for these crimes because nobody bothered to arrest you. And if the police did their job, you would have invoked your fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself rather than “come clean” any way. And you’re complaining that Wilson’s getting off too easily because of black privilege?

    Hahahahaha. I’m sorry, but…hahahahaha.

    Your humor, as always, is quite on target (intentional or otherwise).

  88. “But you shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for these crimes because nobody bothered to arrest you.”

    But I already did take responsibility, John; it’s hardly my fault that no one arrested me for doing it.

    “And if the police did their job, you would have invoked your fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself rather than “come clean” any way.”

    Of course. Just as Genarlow Wilson did.

    The key difference here is, John, that there was ample evidence WITHOUT Wilson having to incriminate himself in the least to prove that the crimes in question had been committed.

    What you are trying to argue is that Genarlow Wilson shouldn’t be punished for his crimes because, under wholly different circumstances, I wasn’t.

    If you want to extrapolate that outward, your next logical argument is that all prisoners should be freed, since their prosecutor/judge/jury members/arresting officers/whatnot may have committed violations of the law in their lives and not turned themselves in.

    Or you could simply be trying to, instead of dealing honestly with the facts involved in Genarlow’s case, smear the person who is questioning his treatment — just as your fellow liberals tried to smear the prosecutor and judges involved as racists, and as you yourself have tried to smear me as a racist.

    And we are granted some humor as well…..you insisting that a black teenager should not be punished when there is ample evidence of him breaking numerous laws and trying to deny to a court of law that he did it, but you lambasting a white male (me) for committing a crime and not turning himself in to be punished at the maximum sentence.

  89. NDT, you know there is ample evidence that you (and at least one other person) committed a crime in 2003, yet you obstructed “justice” in failing to report it to the police. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government to FORCE you to testify against yourself. But it does not prohibit yourself to WILLINGLY report yourself and testify against yourself. I went to a night court session once, and I’ve seen plenty of people do it. But if you really feel that not reporting yourself is somehow justified, then you were compelled to report that this other individual committed a crime, and you failed to report that as well. If you could not do it publicly, you could have anonymously reported the crime of the other person, so as to not incriminate yourself. Then, of course, he could have incriminated you so as you wouldn’t have to incriminate yourself. Yes, I know my argument is getting absurd. But I think it made my point. In my view, the “crime” you committed and the “crime” Wilson committed could have resulted in unjust punishments.

    As for my “justified” comment, which came out not the way I intended. I wasn’t trying to justify Wilson’s actions. Further, if I felt that he and any other individual committed a crime that was worthy of ten years of prison, then in my view, that person is deserving of ten years of prison time whether they were caught or not.

    Noble, but unnecessary. I knew full well that what I was doing was against the law, and that if I had been caught, I would have to pay the piper. That’s the risk I took when I made the decision to have sex.

    I wasn’t saying it to just be noble. I understand and appreciated the risk that you took, but that wasn’t entirely my point. The fact that, as late as 2003, it was actually still a law, and in my view, was unjust.

  90. For the record, I find sodomy laws absurd. Just as I find sentencing a 17 year old who received oral sex from a 15 year old to ten years imprisonment to be absurd. If I were a lawmaker, those laws would go on the “hit list” of things I’d like to see repealed. If I were a judge, I’d find the implications sufficiently disturbing – whether the defendant is black, white, or Klingon – to at least review the case seriously.

    However, since you claim to respect the sodomy law of the Republic of Texas as entirely justified and legitimate, I think others are entitled to judge you on that basis. As a legal reality, we (“the people”) do not have sufficient evidence to convict you because you lack the courage to turn yourself in, but what you did was reprehensible by YOUR own moral standards. That’s vastly different from saying “I reject the state’s rational basis for this law, and I intend to appeal against it until I’m proven right” (hence, Lawrence v Texas).

    You accepted the rules, you understood the rules, and you broke the rules. The fact that nobody caught you in the act doesn’t change a thing. Now, where’s the acceptance of personal responsibility?

    And yes, I really would like to know if the prosecutors, police, and judges have gotten away with committing the same crimes they enforce. When grand juries indict corrupt officials, it does not overturn the convictions of those already in prison. It’s removes discredited elements from the system to ensure that it maintains the trust of the citizenry.

  91. And again, the dichotomy is interesting; a white male who commits a crime is morally required to incriminate himself and anyone else who was involved and accept the maximum punishment, but a black teenager who commits a crime, with ample evidence that he did it, is not only exempt from incriminating himself and anyone else, but should not accept any punishment at all — and should in fact appeal repeatedly until his punishment is overturned.

  92. NDT, I’m not sure if you are responding to John, me, or both of us.

    For my part, let me make it perfectly clear that my argument, which you clearly disagree with, or I’m not making my point clear enough, has absolutely zero to do with race. I would be making the exact same argument regardless of the race of anyone I discussed in any of my arguments. If you do not believe that is the case, then this argument is over, since I won’t be able to get beyond that point.

    The only reason why I was suggested that you incriminate yourself is that you believe that regardless of whether a law is unjust or not, you believe a person should serve the maximum sentence for violating the law. If I’m incorrect, let me know. In your view, there was ample evidence that Wilson committed a crime. Further, you know for absolute fact that you committed a crime. On the one hand, you are advocating that I should favor a maximum sentence for Wilson despite the fact that I believe a ten year sentence is harsh. On the other hand, you do not advocate that you should have received a maximum sentence. I believe that I am being consistent when I advocate that NEITHER you nor Wilson should receive maximum sentences for your actions, because I found both laws and the sentences unjust. Your saying the only difference why Wilson’s ten year sentence was justified was because there was ample evidence outside without his reporting of the actions, and there is no ample evidence outside of your (and your partner’s) knowledge. If that’s the sticking point, then I’ll agree to disagree, and move on.

    Obviously, we also disagree on the punishment of Wilson. To be honest, I do not know all the details of the case. If I assume your version of the case to be correct, I am actually in more agreement with you than Jamie and the readers. In that case, I believe that a crime was committed, because of the drugs, and using alcohol as an underage. (But then again, I would find the 15 year old girl equally culpable unless she was physically coerced to drink alcohol and/or to give Wilson and others a blowjob). In which case, a jail sentence may have been appropriate, especially if there is a prior criminal record. But I would still find a ten year sentence absurd. If Wilson was say 21* years old or older and your version reflected the events, I would say a ten year sentence would be appropriate.

    *It’s hard to define what age should delineate the degree of the crime, but I believe many states have a four year difference as a standard. And that seems appropriate to me. I also believe that 18 years old should be the age of consent in every state, and I also believe it’s a terrible idea for teens to have sex, raging hormones or not.

  93. If I assume your version of the case to be correct, I am actually in more agreement with you than Jamie and the readers.

    Pat, don’t fall for his one-sided, biased and simplistic version of events. He’s out to promote an agenda and he has presented the story (leaving out relevant facts) solely to support his weak and baseless argument.

    Research the story on your own…there’s a reason why NDT stands alone.

  94. Ted, a couple of things. I wasn’t falling for NDT’s, yours, or anyone else’s version of the events.

    Second, when I don’t carefully proofread a post, funny things may come out of my keyboard. I think everywhere else in my arguments I vehemently disagreed with NDT regarding the punishment. And I said that even IF I thought his version of the events were accurate, I would still believe that a ten year sentence was way too harsh. I did state that Wilson might deserve some jail time depending on other circumstances. It seemed to me that everyone else thought that Wilson didn’t deserve any jail time even if NDT’s version was correct. In that sense, I am closest in agreement with NDT than the other posters are. As with NDT or anyone else promoting an agenda, I’ll decide for myself when appropriate.

    Further, I never stated that I believed NDT’s version of the events. I do make a point that when I disagree with another poster, I try to figure out what the disagreement really is. So sometimes I’ll assume someone’s version of some of the facts, at least temporarily, to see what the disagreement really is. Sometimes I find, by doing that, I’m in more agreement than I originally thought. Other times, like this situation, I find that’s not the case.

    Anyway, now that my hellishly busy week is over, I may have time to check out more details of this story.

  95. “there’s a reason why NDT stands alone.”

    A lot less white liberal guilt.

    I was going to say it’s because you live in San Francisco where God clearly isn’t paying attention. 🙂

  96. Okay, I read through several articles regarding this case. All I can say is un-freaking-believable. As Jamie and others would say, “you can’t make this shit up.” I know that many here had made the point that if Wilson had sexual intercourse with the 15 year old girl (and impregnated her) instead of oral sex, he would have been charged with a misdemeanor and a maximum one year sentence, but I had to see it for myself. Are there really people that brain damaged to come up with something like that and not correct it? How many people, along with the prosecutor, fell off the idiot tree and hit every branch on the way down?

    Some articles mentioned that EVERYONE involved in the case thought the law was unjust, including the prosecutor. But he felt his hands were tied. What tripe. He could only offer a plea deal of five years and not reduce it to a misdemeanor? One of the articles mentioned that a teacher who had sex with a student only received a 90 day sentence. Huh?!? And a 21 year old impregnates a 15 year old, gets charged with a misdemeanor and is allowed to have supervised visits with the victim, until she turns 16, at which point they get married. Huh?!?!?!?

    Despite all the asinine goings on with the prosecutor and Attorney General, Wilson made a stupid error in judgment, and even at 17, has to bear a good part of responsibility for his actions. Also, I am disturbed that he didn’t apologize for videotaping sex with a 15 year old. But his 2 1/2 years in jail is more than what he deserved.

  97. “One of the articles mentioned that a teacher who had sex with a student only received a 90 day sentence. ”

    That would be because the student in question was 16 — well over the age of consent.

    And the 21-year-old was a classic example of a “Romeo and Juliet” case.

  98. ???? WELL over the age of consent? Okay, whatever. I hope the teacher was at least fired and stripped of her license to teach.

    As for the other case, I guess they only had sexual intercourse instead of oral sex. How could it be a “Romeo and Juliet” case. Their age difference is more four years, which (I think) was Georgia law. I know it was at least two years. In any case, because of his age, he was more deserving of a ten year sentence.

    Things that make you go hmmmm.

  99. She was.

    Meanwhile, they were in love, they made the commitment to be married, he asked for continued (supervised) visits, and they had the baby.

    Contrast that with the level of love and commitment Genarlow showed the underage minor and all the other women he had sex with that night, and you will see a bit of the difference.

  100. Some articles mentioned that EVERYONE involved in the case thought the law was unjust, including the prosecutor. But he felt his hands were tied.

    Don’t forget the jury that convicted, Pat. If any case had ever screamed for jury nullification, this one was it.

  101. That’s good to hear regarding the teacher. I still believe she should have spent a good couple of years in jail. I believe that the age of consent should be 18 with a Romeo and Juliet provision.

    Regarding the contrast, sure they are different. The problem is that 15 is considered too young in the state of Georgia. So whether the sex involved was the type that happened with Wilson, or the one that involved the level of “love” and “commitment” with a 15 year old girl and a child predator is extremely suspect to say the very least. So under these circumstances, The 21 year old actions were more egregious than Wilson’s. Deserving of a ten year sentence? Perhaps.

    If Wilson was 21 instead and then we compare the two, the “love” and “commitment” one certainly sounds more romantic and nicer. But I would consider them both child predators. I’d have to flip a coin to see whom I would regard as the more criminal. If the victims were older than 18 than I agree with you about the difference, and one is clearly much more morally acceptable than the other. The victims, however, weren’t even at the age of consent in Georgia, so what ever pretense that led to the sex is morally wrong and criminal because of the ages involved.

    I haven’t read more about that particular case, and don’t plan to. But I would guess that the 15 year old, in as much in her capacity that she would be able to “love” someone romantically, probably did and still does love her assailant. But I have to wonder if the “commitment” that the assailant has had anything to do with the reduction of the sentence and/or a “shotgun.”

  102. QJ, I’m not for jury nullification. The problem is that the prosecutor and judge should have done their job, and they failed utterly miserably. They didn’t, so I wouldn’t have blamed the jury if they nullified a conviction here.

  103. Just because some of us possess the capacity for self-criticism and a sense of historical perspective, does not necessarily mean that we hate ourselves. Likewise, we do not have to defend each other simply because our ancestors happened to come from the same continent. What does that have to do with anything?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s