Blowing the Case
In what can only be termed as prosecutorial zealousness, a young man let out of jail by a judge's order was immediately sent back to the pokey after the prosecutor vowed to appeal. By all accounts, Genarlow Wilson was a bright, upstanding young man who was at party, got drunk, got high and got head. Normally, two of these would not be a real problem, but he was 17 when this happened and the girl who was on the giving end was all of 15. Then Georgia law called what he did a felony and a judge sentenced him to ten years. In that time, the law changed and sex between minors was downgraded to a misdemeanor punishable to only a fraction of the time. The young man's lawyers appealed and a judge decided to let him out with time served. He was all set to go home when the prosecutor in the case filed a last minute appeal to the ruling and kept him locked away until the appeal could be ruled on. Of course, this kid had his lawyers, some of the jurors, President Carter and a slew of other big names campaigning for him against the sentence.
Wilson got 10 years because the law considered what he did as aggravated sexual assault on a child, so he had to get at least 10 years. Under Georgia law, this act of consensually (we'll get back to this term in a minute) performing a common sexual act was roughly the same if he had done this to a 12 year old. The young woman in question was 15 at the time (19 now) and Wilson was 17 (21 now). Neither the prosecution nor the defense said what happened was anything another than consensual, but the prosecution said it didn't matter since she was under 18 and he was a child molester. The prosecutor wasn't completely wrong in this, but he has taken it to levels beyond necessary in challenging the judge. The law changed, even the jurors agree he's done enough time, he had a chance to back out of this, but instead he decided to disagree with the people who make laws and push it all further than it needs to go. There are all kinds of arguments about age, who can grant consensuality and so forth.
Long time readers will know the opinion on statutory rape, roughly everyone knows it's 18, don't give a damn how old she acts or how it never ruined you, it's still illegal. That being said, he was under 18 as well and can't be held to the same legal standards as an adult. This is the basic premise behind most kinds of laws protecting children from exploitation: they don't know enough about the world, in many ways, to know the difference between a scam and a decent deal, nor their legal recourses should things go wrong. A child cannot give consent since they are not legal entities under the law. Not to buy a house, not to get a credit card, not to buy a house, not to win contests and not much of anything. Someone over 18 trying to get someone under 18 to make a decision about that is not made with assistance of a guardian is considered to be some kind of attempted fraud. But, they were both under 18 and Georgia law was changed to reflect his lack of power in all this as well. So, while there is no way she could have given informed consent, but there, is legally, no way he should have known the law, in the same way an adult should.
He has served three years in prison for getting to third base with a girl younger than he is. Even to my draconian view of child rapists and pedophiles, he should be out now. A judge has said "yeah, this should have been a misdemeanor from the start and he's done enough time for that." Boom, open and shut. He did a crime, he has done time. He did not deserve a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. Mandatory minimums are a bad idea on many fronts, mostly for the reason they don't allow judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing crimes based on circumstance. Sometimes, a person makes a mistake, knows it, shows remorse and should get a lighter sentence, and sometimes, this is all you could nail a person with, but they need to be off the streets. This is why judges have, or should have, discretion at sentencing. Was this a crime? Under the law, yes, it's a crime. Was it as bad as a 26 year old having sex with a 15 year old, or a 19 year old charging people to watch him or her have sex with a 12 year old? Not in the slightest. He was a 17 year old who got drunk and high and made a bad call. That's it. It deserves some punishment, but not 10 years in prison. A judge made a ruling and the prosecutor has to live with it.
Just like when the PATRIOT Act gets struck down.
So it is written, so do I see it.
Wilson got 10 years because the law considered what he did as aggravated sexual assault on a child, so he had to get at least 10 years. Under Georgia law, this act of consensually (we'll get back to this term in a minute) performing a common sexual act was roughly the same if he had done this to a 12 year old. The young woman in question was 15 at the time (19 now) and Wilson was 17 (21 now). Neither the prosecution nor the defense said what happened was anything another than consensual, but the prosecution said it didn't matter since she was under 18 and he was a child molester. The prosecutor wasn't completely wrong in this, but he has taken it to levels beyond necessary in challenging the judge. The law changed, even the jurors agree he's done enough time, he had a chance to back out of this, but instead he decided to disagree with the people who make laws and push it all further than it needs to go. There are all kinds of arguments about age, who can grant consensuality and so forth.
Long time readers will know the opinion on statutory rape, roughly everyone knows it's 18, don't give a damn how old she acts or how it never ruined you, it's still illegal. That being said, he was under 18 as well and can't be held to the same legal standards as an adult. This is the basic premise behind most kinds of laws protecting children from exploitation: they don't know enough about the world, in many ways, to know the difference between a scam and a decent deal, nor their legal recourses should things go wrong. A child cannot give consent since they are not legal entities under the law. Not to buy a house, not to get a credit card, not to buy a house, not to win contests and not much of anything. Someone over 18 trying to get someone under 18 to make a decision about that is not made with assistance of a guardian is considered to be some kind of attempted fraud. But, they were both under 18 and Georgia law was changed to reflect his lack of power in all this as well. So, while there is no way she could have given informed consent, but there, is legally, no way he should have known the law, in the same way an adult should.
He has served three years in prison for getting to third base with a girl younger than he is. Even to my draconian view of child rapists and pedophiles, he should be out now. A judge has said "yeah, this should have been a misdemeanor from the start and he's done enough time for that." Boom, open and shut. He did a crime, he has done time. He did not deserve a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. Mandatory minimums are a bad idea on many fronts, mostly for the reason they don't allow judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing crimes based on circumstance. Sometimes, a person makes a mistake, knows it, shows remorse and should get a lighter sentence, and sometimes, this is all you could nail a person with, but they need to be off the streets. This is why judges have, or should have, discretion at sentencing. Was this a crime? Under the law, yes, it's a crime. Was it as bad as a 26 year old having sex with a 15 year old, or a 19 year old charging people to watch him or her have sex with a 12 year old? Not in the slightest. He was a 17 year old who got drunk and high and made a bad call. That's it. It deserves some punishment, but not 10 years in prison. A judge made a ruling and the prosecutor has to live with it.
Just like when the PATRIOT Act gets struck down.
So it is written, so do I see it.