I have heard of this case before, but haven't given it much attention before now. Genarlow Wilson was 17 years old when he was convicted of being a molester after having received oral relations from a 15 year old girl. Upon his sentencing, the state changed the law due to his case to lessen the punishment. Oddly enough, the state's attorney general has argued that Genarlow Wilson should not be freed or have his case lessened as it would potentially affect other cases. So, under his reasoning, we should incarcerate someone unjustifiably because it would be used to potentially free others. Interesting that he took that route of argument as opposed to the specific facts of Wilson's case.

CNN article on court appeal, most recent.

Older article on Wilson's conviction.

Judge overturns Wilson's conviction

Wilson's Petition For a Writ of Certiorari


Questions for debate:

1.)Does Wilson's 10 year punishment constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment? What legal authority do you base this on?

2.)Should the law have been changed, or does a 10 year sentence for his crime fit the bill?

3.)Does the attorney general's argument that Wilson's case will affect others a valid argument that should be seriously entertained?

4.)Upon what grounds should Wilson's appeal be denied?

I'll make this short and sweet. Sure- there should be laws against having sex with minors.
However, how truly influential can a 17 year old boy be over a 15 year old girl?

Frankly, the judge should be beaten with a stick and whoever prosecuted should have their right to practice revoked.

I'll never understand our nation's inability to use common sense in these cases. If they wanted to make a point, give the kid community service. Have him pick up trash or something else that won't ruin his hopes of college or some other career in productive American society. Time behind bars creates more criminals than any other venue (in my opinion) in the US. It teaches people that you can make ____ dollars selling crack, stealing cars, etc while working at the Gap in college pays $8.50/hr.

10 years? GOOD LORD. 10 days is probably too much.

I get the idea that we don't want 15 year old girls getting seduced by 30 year old men, or heck 25 year old men for that matter. The man is really a sicko for doing it and it probably causes long term damage for the girl. Ok. That makes sense.

But a 17 or 18 year old kid getting jail time for something like this? Good Lord.

No disrespect to your line of questions nebraska29 but the important parts of this case need to be brought out.

Wilson is black. The girl is white. The act was on video. This happened in Georgia.

The law as written really isn't intended for "this crime". It for actual child molesters who should be put away forever.

This kid got railroaded and we all know why. This article from ESPN spells it out as clearly as any other.

3.)Does the attorney general's argument that Wilson's case will affect others a valid argument that should be seriously entertained?

This is pure and simple CYA by the AG. He should be fired, disbarred, and jailed.

I wish cases like this one, this one, and this one generated as much sympathy and outrage as the Wilson case. Women, specifically black women, truly occupy the bottom of the rung.

This isn't the only ridiculous case where one teenager is charged with the sexual assault/molestation/crime of another consensual teenager, but just as blacks only make up 13% of total drug users and 35% of all drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and serve prison sentences 74% of the time (link), race probably plays a factor in this case. So what if it affects other cases? Consensual sex between underage participants can't violate the integrity of either party, no matter how adults feel about virginal property rights and interracial sex.

A little detail you might need to know: This case involved a young white girl giving a hummer on school grounds to a black football star, and having it recorded on video. It absolutely shocked the community, and validated the fears that resulted in the law in question being enacted in the first place.

This is really not the correct circumstance for a criminal prosecution, but I think you can understand why everyone was so stunned and hoped this prosecution might slow down our cultural slide into youthful video porn and debauchery.

Carry on.

I have no idea why any community thinks prosecuting minors consenting to sex acts is going to stop our cultural slide. So some adults found out there is such a thing as a hummer? I'm sure they're thankful to Wilson for having heard of it and promptly tried it out for themselves. The absence of evidence shouldn't be less shocking if you're shocked that it goes on at all.

The state could outlaw sex on school grounds if it already hasn't and include an appropriate punishment for consensual sex. Whatever the community's real "interests" are regarding society, prosecuting Wilson for something he didn't do, molest two girls, is unjustifiable. If you are worried about youthful porn and debauchery you don't release the goddamn video of the act. The concerned community wants to have it both ways. So much for the district attorney prosecuting a molestation case.

According to the DA, he had to release the video under FOIA. Listen, I am familiar with the law and the area and was giving you a local perspective. Don't shoot the messenger.

I'm somewhat familiar with FOIA and no one, including the press, can get a copy of a "child pornography" video. If there is an exemption in Georgia's FOIA and/or their supreme court's interpretation is different it shows the state was/is screwed up in more than just prosecuting underage consensual sex as a felony.


Mission accomplished, messenger. Your local area's perspective is still screwed. I don't have to shoot you to criticize it.

Questions for debate:

1.)Does Wilson's 10 year punishment constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment? What legal authority do you base this on?
No, it does not. If anything, a 10 year punishment for a 85 year old man would be "cruel and unusual". Labelling him as a sex offender for the rest of his life is C&U, 10 years certainly seems excessive, but not "cruel and unusual."

2.)Should the law have been changed, or does a 10 year sentence for his crime fit the bill?
Changing the law is reasonable. In retrospect, the law was poorly written.

3.)Does the attorney general's argument that Wilson's case will affect others a valid argument that should be seriously entertained?
Yes, especially since there are other avenues for Wilson. Wilson's challenge, if successful, will either overturn or weaken the law completely. It will establish a problematic precedent

4.)Upon what grounds should Wilson's appeal be denied?
On the grounds that a 10 year sentence is not C&U, and on the grounds that a legitimate sentence cannot be retroactively changed by the legislature, either positively or negatively.

The Georgia governor should show some simple leadership here: commute/pardon Wilson, i.e. reduce it to a misdemeanor w/o any sex offender baggage.

If what you say is true quick, it sort of puts a new spin on things.

There is a shrill contingency on the board, whose member have argued over a number of threads, that racism is basically a thing of the past.

This statement, if the messenger is on target, calls that position into question.

Apart from the video, how does the messenger read the tealeaves? If the male were not Black, would this even be in the news?

No, no, no. If the male were not black he wouldn't have gotten 10 years. THAT'S why it's in the news. This is so clearly so afoul of reality even ESPN gets its.

Actually here (to make an absurd situation even MORE absurd) the difficulty here was not a law, but the absence of a law. In case you didn't know this little factoid, it really descends the whole case into the tragic-farce realm:

The black 17 year old ONLY received a 10 year sentence because he did NOT have sex with the girl. Yes thats right, the two of them stopped at Oral, and did NOT have actual sex, thus the sentence. Had the 17-year old actually HAD sex with the 15-year old, he would have been given a FAR lesser sentence, if any sentence at all.


The law in the jurisdiction gives an exemption to child-sex prosecution if two minors are close in age, but that law spelled out only penetrative sex, and did not specify oral sex. Thus, as the couple didn't have full sex, that exemption didn't apply, and thus 10 years in prison.

The fact that, with full knowledge of this absurd loophole, the prosecution still stands, makes the people upholding the decision, and trying to block overturning it, contemptible. Furthermore one can't even claim this is some backlash to moral outrage of the community, considering the community had already decided on an exemption for full sex in such a case. Or does 'the community' consider oral sex so much WORSE than penetrative sex?

I am tempted to agree, I cannot imagine how race could NOT be a factor in this situation.