Blog for Democracy

The shifting of blame in Georgia

There’s a lot of opinions on Attorney General Thurbert Baker’s appeal of the Genarlow Wilson’s case.

– a petition to boot Baker on Huffington post

– Savannah News editiorial board saying Baker was wrong

– there’s like 727 news article posted on the Internet.

Putting aside the emotional side of the case, Baker did the right thing because:

Monroe County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wilson’s order struck Genarlow Wilson’s original sentence, and then purportedly went on to sentence Wilson to a misdemeanor. The law in Georgia is clear that while a habeas court may grant habeas relief, there is absolutely no authority for a habeas court to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court, in this case, the Superior Court of Douglas County.

What if another judge in Georgia decided to just change someone’s sentence regardless of another court’s ruling? What if a judge decided to lengthen someone’s sentence based on their own viewpoint. Let’s understand that WE ARE IN GEORGIA. It is not like the courts have a history of fairness.

The Wilson case has set many legal precedents in Georgia and across the country. But is it fair to place all the blame on Attorney General Thurbert Baker? What about the slacker ass legislators that failed to make the new law retroactive to include Wilson?

It seems like everyone is all on board to boot one man, Thurbert Baker, instead of targeting the larger group of legislators that could have written a bill to retroactively include Wilson.

Attorney General Baker’s job is to protect all Georgia citizens and so we are told this same mantra from our legislators. If anyone failed Genarlow Wilson, it is Georgia legislators, it is not Attorney General Thurbert Baker.

I am truly sorry that Genarlow and his family have to endure this legal hell but the blame should fall on the shoulders of Georgia’s legislators and not AG Baker.

just my 2 cents…

Posted

in

by

Ataru Atlanta

Tags:

Comments

39 responses to “The shifting of blame in Georgia”

  1. allison Avatar
    allison

    Mouth of the South,

    You mentioned other males who have pled guilty to the same crime. While you may in fact be correct, when one pleads guilty to an offense or lessor offense, one waives the right to appeal. Wilson did not accept a plea deal, he was convicted by a jury.

  2. allison Avatar
    allison

    Mouth of the South,

    Rape is rape, it does not matter the age of the the purpertrator or victim is. In fact, I get ticked off every time a see a charge of Statutory Rape when it should be Forcible Rape. I apologize if my words were misrepresented or misinterpreted. I am referring to Consensual acts, not forcible ones.

  3. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    agreeance with Catherine

  4. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    There are degrees of culpability here, however. The definition of minority may seem to be an arbitrary line, but its recognized in our culture as one of the steps toward adulthood. The further one is along the line to adulthood, the more responsibility society gives them. Society establishes the legal spectrum of adulthood, and then is subsequently affected by it. The victim here was a minor, and thus deserves protection. There is a huge power gap between a 17 year old male and a 15 year old female, especially if the male is a football star and surrounded by five of his friends. In this sexual contract the power was not even; there is certainly a case for duress.

    You want to treat 15 year olds as adults? Fine, but then you are really going to see some heinous results.

    But regardless, why are we so focused on Gernarlow Wilson? There were other males who pled guilty to the same crime. Do we treat sex offenders overly harshly, yeah, but that’s not just Genarlow.

    Could it be because he’s a football player?

  5. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    I find this whole controversy to be indicative of many things in todays culture.

    It’s as if someone has to be “to blame” for this unfortunate series of events. When, in fact, I think it really was a series of mistakes that when piled on top of each other ended up where we are today.

    Should the participants have been drinking? No. They were all under age.

    Should the boys have engaged in sexual activity with girls who had been drinking? No.

    Should the girls have engaged in sexual activity with boys who had been drinking? No.

    Should anyone have videotaped their activities? Probably not.

    But, really, from what I’ve read and heard, there really is no single culprit here. There is no one to truly “blame”.

  6. Smitty Avatar
    Smitty

    “the ‚Äúdehumanization‚Äù of these drunk women” – women??? they were 15 and 17 year olds. give me a break! Progreader, you can’t sell your type of ice cream on a hot day.

    I would love to see you volunteer some of your time at a rape crisis center. Then you could spout your almighty definition on rape and consensual sex to all those women who “regret their sexual experiences while intoxicated.”

  7. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    There are clearly still a lot of screwed up ideas out there about rape and sex. Thanks for ably demonstrating some of them, ProgReader.

  8. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    ProgReader,

    I think you are way off base here. We, as a society, have decided on ages of majority to decide whether or not someone has the capacity to make a decision and be responsible for the repercussions of that decision. Beneath a certain age, persons (minors) are not fully responsible for their actions (there is sort of a sliding scale in tort law based on age, we may get into that later.) We have agreed on that. In a sexual relationship involving someone who is consider and adult (Wilson), and a minor (the girl) the adult bears the responsibility of the act. A minor CANNOT consent because they lack competence. It is completely ineffective. Your ideas of “sexual regret” smack of misogyny or worse.

    There is a difference in power and perception in sexual acts like this. Move away from the whole Republican legislature gambit and think of what occurred here to the people involved.

    Genarlow Wilson was charged and convicted of “Aggravated Child Molestation”. The name sounds worse than the conduct described actually is, but he could have been (and perhaps was) charged with more than that. If he had a hand in the videotaping there are child pornography charges that could have been brought, for instance. My point here is that everyone agrees the law had too stiff a penalty, but this is still criminal behavior, and as much as we cry foul for overzealous prosecution, the DA’s office could have made even more of this than they did.

  9. indie_rock_elitist Avatar
    indie_rock_elitist

    Id say its ok to say that this girl was at least violated in a more profound way because of the video taping.

    there is very little difference between this and a ggw video.

  10. ProgReader1 Avatar
    ProgReader1

    Dehumanized…??????? Puhleeezzzzze !!!

    This case blatantly describes the inherent inequality society’s response to individuals who regret their sexual experiences while intoxicated.

    Everyone got drunk on their own. Everyone should have been required to responsible for their participation in the process.

    If a woman gets intoxicated and then regrets her consensual sexual experience then she can say she was raped as a way of reclaiming her reputation.

    If a man gets intoxicated and then regrets his consensual sexual experience then it is “too bad, so sad” and he just has to deal with it.

    These boys are paying dearly for the girls regret of their sexual irresponsibility. Everyone there was drunk. (Of course, I’m getting all my information from the new stories).

    There may have been many non-criminal repercussions for the tape. I doubt anyone is shown in the video in a flattering way. This is NOT something they would have shown their grandchildren. The reputations of everyone in the video have already been damaged.

    What makes society think that these boys would not have regretted their actions on videotape? Of course, now we know they do !!!

    Didn’t Eric Johnson give the videotape to Neal Boortz ?

    How many legislators have a copy of this tape at their homes ?

    These same people who pretend to care about the “dehumanization” of these drunk women seem to have some issues of their own.

  11. Smitty Avatar
    Smitty

    Tim lest not forget that Genarlow and his buddies videotaped their actions. It is not like he was busted in a car with steamy windows. Genarlow and his buddies decided to dehumanize and exploit a 15 year old girl.

    Does anyone care that this girl’s life and self-esteem may be ruined because some teenage boys violated and disrespected her for their enjoyment?

    Regardless if the act was consensual or not…I am damn sure that the girl did not give approval for them to tape her.

    So I guess it was the girl’s fault that she was too intoxicated to say “no” to the videotaping but apparently coherent enough to say “yes” to giving a BJ? I got your violin and swan song for Genarlow.

  12. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    MOTS, you’re missing the word “consensual” or is it “consentual”. Oh well, either way, rape & consentual sex. BIG difference. Unless you’ve read some account different than mine, this was consentual and he still got convicted.

    Heard these same sort of stories from the Dekalb DA myself in person, but luckily in most cases the DA works out the lawsuit between the parties in consentual cases, instead this Douglas DA asshat took it as a crusade to get a teenager jailed for getting BJ.

  13. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    Alayton,

    “Tim, I’m with you on the no crime idea. (Although, technically Wilson did commit a crime, unfortunately)Highschoolers, regardless of consent status, should not be punished criminally for this type of consensual sexual behavior, even if it is intercourse.”

    This is what I hear you to say: Tim, I agree there was no crime (Even though Wilson committed a crime). Consent does not matter, consensual sex is okay.

    Are you aware that words have meaning?

    Are you suggesting that a rape perpetrated by a 17 year old is not a crime?

    I should remind you that Wilson was in fact charged with rape but was acquitted from another event at the same party on the same day.

  14. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    I don’t want to belabor the particulars of the Georgia laws on sexual assault any more than we already have. (But believe me–I could!) What I meant was perhaps some in the legislature who didn’t read the whole statute before voting on it may not have seen how sodomy was defined and therefore may not have realized they were punishing oral sex with teenagers much more harshly than sexual intercourse with teenagers.

    I don’t think there’s “new” standing to challenge the conviction or sentence as cruel and unusual due to the change in the law, but the fact that the legislature saw fit to right the injustice created by the old law and specifically reduced the charge down to a misdemeanor in this situation would certainly factor into the 8th am. analysis. However, the law had already been changed when the GA Sup Ct issued its ruling, and that change factored into the court’s analysis, so I don’t think the amendment of the statute grants Wilson any new standing to challenge his conviction. Plus he has to exhaust all state post-conviction remedies available before he can file a federal habeas petition that would potentially put it before the U.S. Supremes (but probably not until his sentence is nearly up, given how slowly all the various appeals will go.)

    The GA Sup. Ct. may have the chance to rule on the issue again as the appeal from the Monroe Cty judge’s decision winds its way through the appeals process, but the standard of review is I believe a little different for a state habeas petition than for a challenge to the original conviction or sentence. At least I know it is in federal court, so probably state court too.

  15. allison Avatar
    allison

    Tim, I’m with you on the no crime idea. (Although, technically Wilson did commit a crime, unfortunately)Highschoolers, regardless of consent status, should not be punished criminally for this type of consensual sexual behavior, even if it is intercourse.

    I am not advocating teen sex, but punishing students even for a year is ridiculous. The criminal statute is probably something the parents forget to talk to their 16 year old about dating their 15 year old classmate anyways.

    I guess because our legislatures can’t “get it up” they have to punish high school students because they can.

  16. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    Sodomy as defined is sexual contact with the anus or mouth.

    A couple of speculative thoughts, certainly the old moral argument of the “unnatural” sex is probably there. But I would bet its treated as a separate issue from intercourse because some sort of oral touching is more common in child molestation cases.

    Also on the question of did he do it. Yes, he did it and under the old law was correctly sentenced. It is that very pervesion of justice that cause the outrage and the change in the law.

    But here is a question for the legal eagles. Since the leg changed the law is there new standing for the Supreme Court of Georgia to review the case under the “cruel and unusual” provision? Keep in mind ours is almost a carbon copy of the U.S. 8th.

  17. Drew Avatar
    Drew

    I very much doubt that the legislature was as concerned with the health and well-being of teenagers as they were with punishing TEH UNNACHRUL SEX!!!!11!!.

    IMHO, of course.

  18. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    I agree with all of the above, but perhaps they were concerned with the power differential and thought that was what should really be punished.

    As in, a 15 year olds often speak of wanting to have sex, but not often of wanting to give head, so perhaps the legislature was looking the degree of consent.

  19. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    In terms of risk of physical injury or pregnancy (not to mention the dreaded loss of virginity for those concerned with that sort of thing), I would think intercourse would be seen as the more “serious” offense. But it is certainly possible that there was some confusion over what “sodomy” actually encompasses…

  20. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    Perhaps that it is intentional, that oral sex should be punished at a higher level than intercourse. The argument can certainly be made that it deserves higher punishment, though I disagree with many of the tenets.

  21. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    Yeah, one of the quirks of this statute has always been that if he’d had actual consensual intercourse with the 15 year old girl, his sentence for statutory rape would have been far less than the sentence he got for receiving a consensual blowjob from a 15 year old.

  22. CatherineAtlanta Avatar
    CatherineAtlanta

    Bwaaahhhhaaa. Only sodomy?

  23. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    Sorry, I was looking at the proposed version of the change and just found the actual. The actual statute now contains an exception which reads:

    (2) A person convicted of the offense of aggravated child molestation when:

    (A) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age;

    (B) The person convicted of aggravated child molestation is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim; and

    (C) The basis of the charge of aggravated child molestation involves an act of sodomy

    shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall not be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.1.

    But it is still a crime even under the new version of the statute.

    O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4

  24. Sarawaraclara Avatar
    Sarawaraclara

    The law was changed to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence where the perpetrator was no more than 3 years older than the victim, but the offense of aggravated child molestation (O.G.C.A. 16-6-4) is otherwise defined exactly the same as it was before. Genarlow Wilson could still be convicted of that same offense today; his mandatory minimum sentence would simply be 1 year instead of 10 years and it would be a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

  25. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    wait, are you still suggesting he didn’t commit a crime?

  26. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    by the legislature already removing the law and just forgetting to make it retroactive, it should be more than common sense that he wasn’t meant to be charged and convicted of a crap law.

    There should be some allowance for idiotic gap-measures like this that ruin a young man’s life.

  27. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    I am not asking him to do anything – I am just surprised he did not take it.

    Are you saying his actions are not consistent with the elements of the crime he was convicted of? I will look it up if need be, but I think they were. The law itself is f’ed up, agreed, as to punishment, but I think the behavior of his that I have heard described is consistent. Let me know if we have a disagreement on this point and I will do a little research.

  28. Smitty Avatar
    Smitty

    Tim, he did do the crime as the law was so badly written and archaic. The problem is whether the crime deserved a 10 year sentence. and the second problem is whether a judge could randonmly change the imposed sentence.

  29. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    You also forget you’re asking him to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit whether it’s a lesser sentence/charge or not. He still DIDN’T do it.

  30. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    I am not suggesting he should take the plea, but in my experience if someone is in jail and has the opportunity to get out, issues of principle rarely stop someone from accepting a plea that would release him.

  31. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    Look, if the State would offer him misdemeanor Child Molestation (which is what he would be offered if this case happened post July 1, 2006), then yes, he would plead.

    But fuck having to plead to a felony. Then he can’t even have the satisfaction of voting against all these jackasses.

  32. georgianbychoice Avatar
    georgianbychoice

    Rubyduby,

    The news accounts say that the plea deal would not have made him register for the sex offender database once his sentence was finished. Not the best of worlds, but he would not be branded for life.

  33. Rubyduby Avatar
    Rubyduby

    Again, he wouldn’t take the plea deal because he would have to register as a sex offender when he clearly is not one.

    How many times do we have to go over this???

  34. Mouth of the South Avatar
    Mouth of the South

    1) I am surprised he didn’t take the plea deal, I wonder if it was offered fairly.

    2) Baker could leave this alone. I don’t think it has much precedential value if he just leaves it at the Superior court level.

  35. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    very much agreed, I didn’t hear or see one word from our Senate on why there was no action taken before cross-over day to pass Sen. Jones’ bill that would have fixed the problem.

    Wilson’s mother was waiting outside the chamber and left crying…again.

  36. Amber Avatar
    Amber

    Great post, Bernita… you nailed it.

  37. Jules Avatar
    Jules

    psssst: Someone needs to tell Dr. Lowery this, maybe he can go over to Johnson and Davis’s offices instead.

  38. griftdrift Avatar
    griftdrift

    Upon reflection I also agree. This is really a problem the legislature should have fixed. Which makes the actions of Eric Johnson and Steve Davis over the last 24 hours even more repugnant. There is little in this entire episode for Georgia to be proud.

  39. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    Agreed (even though I think all of this is bullshit).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *