blue69

Cedars, Nice to see you jump back in. Seems like there has been some positive movement in this case since our last conversations. The bottom-line in this case is that there was an overzealous prosecutor who was intent on putting these boys in jail. He believed (and still does) that they raped the 17 year old girl. That is why he wanted to make sure they did jail time. He knew that rape cases can be iffy, especially when the 17 year old's friends weren't supporting her. The other girl’s testimonies didn't help the case at all. The prosecutor (McDade) used this little known charge to pressure the boys to take plea deals. Genarlow refused believing himself to not be guilty. The 15 year old girl in the case has never cooperated with the police. Her mother has also been involved and believes her daughter had much to do with this as the boys. They have both supported Genarlow's attempts to be freed. The victim here doesn't feel like a criminal victim. Hmmm. People may not agree with the moral conduct of these young men and women. They (like A LOT) of teenagers have obviously made a poor decision. So this prosecutor was proven wrong in court of a rape charge. But he uses his belief in this as to his stubbornness to deal with Genarlow on what should have never been more than a misdemeanor. It is interesting that although they (the prosecutors) acknowledge the sentence is too stiff they refuse to step in and correct it. The assistant DA (Barker) has been quoted "We didn't want him to get the 10 years." They offered Wilson a plea deal for 5 years and life time registration as sex offender. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate. Seriously? He thinks this? WOW! "We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it." These prosecutors are completely overzealous. They lost their case for rape but because they still believe in that charge or because of pride, they will use any other means to punish Genarlow. These men probably truly believe they are serving justice. That is what is scary. Now the General Attorney (Ed Baker) has stepped in with another appeal. This time the prosecution is appealing. Unbelievable. The AG even stated that it's not his job to interpret laws only follow them as they are written. Prosecutorial Discretion? Hmmm. Only when it pleases them. Even though he has spent 27 months in prison, a term they believe was to long, they are still going to make sure he serves that sentence. Of course they are now saying they are offering "Another" plea deal. And it will be Genarlow's fault if he doesn't accept that plea. WOW. These men are truly blind to justice. Fortunately the Superior Court Judge in Genarlow Wilson's appeal put it best, “If this Court, or any court, cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish: Justice being served in a fair and equal manner.” Here is hoping the judicial system will prevail!!!!! Blue

Thanks. I didn't take it personally (not much). Interesting article written by Sherry Colb at CNN.com/LAW. (Opinions & Analysis) It provides some better insight to this discussion. Not sure I am convinced this is racially motivated but there some interesting opinions. It is nice to see this case garnering so much attention. Obviously not everyone is convinced it is a simple matter. I wonder how many people agree / disagree with this conviction. I wish I had a vote that mattered in GA. But that would require living there. Blue

I did enjoy the discussion. I try to approach any debate or discussion with an opportunity to learn. I have learned a bit with this discussion. Always good. Interesting if you think of me as a BHL...LOL... if you only knew. Enjoy and hope to cross paths (discussions) again.

You make my point exactly. You keep stating the 17 year old was a victim. How do you know she was too drunk? The jury saw the film. They saw the activities and said "no rape". No taken advantage of little missy. You keep going back to the alleged rape of the 17 year old. Keep in mind the 15 year old who participated in the oral activity with Genralow testified the act was consensual and that she was a willing participant. She refused to testify for the prosecution. Why must you keep going back to a punishment for the activites with the 17 year old girl when the jury dismissed that? It was the activity with the consenting 15 year old that got him in prison. Not the activities involving a camera and sexual intercourse with the 17 year old. But yet that is what the charge and conviction was. There was not more to it than that. The charges attempted up for the "other" activities you focus on did not result in convictions. Only the blowjob. I guess we are at a crossroads if I dismiss the other activities as relevant and you cannot. I do agree with your last paragraph. Hopefully there can be some eduction taken by other teenagers. (I am a pessimist on that tho). I do always pray that a positive can somehow be taken from negative situations. Your last sentence is true as well. Juries are certainly fickle. You can't expect them to bail you out on anything.

Genralow was convicted of a felony. The law has been changed since then. Cedar, You keep going back to the "alleged" rape. The point is that he was NOT-convicted of rape. You can take a few sentences from a news article about the girl "appearing" out if it or intoxicated. That same article also stated that her friends were with her, they testified that she was a willing participant. So let's not keep trying Genralow for a rape that the jury agreed didn't happen. If the jury had found him guilty of rape. Then they could have tacked on 100 years for all I care. The point is that he wasn't convicted of rape. The evidence didn't support a rape. It supported a consensual act among minors. The only "charge" left is for the oral sex with a 15 year old. That is what he is doing time for. The law was poorly written and poorly applied in this case. It may have been a technicality for them in order to secure a conviction of any type. This is where I have a problem with the application of the law. They couldn't secure a conviction for a rape of the 17 year old female. They charge the 17 year old as an adult to get a technical conviction of Child Molestation charge. I ask you again to look past the "events" of the evening. You may not agree, may not like, or even be morally outraged at the sexual activity of teenagers. This doesn't equate to a teenager being sent away for 10 years. Think about it. The lawmakers changed the law after this conviction. They realized the law was being misapplied. If you take the other events out of this situation what do you end up with? If a teenage girl (15 years old) had performed felatio on her 17 year old boyfriend and someone had witnessed it and reported it to police. That 17 year old could have been sent to prison for 10 years. Or he could have succomed to an overzealous prosecutor and become a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Is that right? Get past the other sexual activity. Get past the alleged rape. Focus on the single charge and conviction. thanks

Cedar, Sorry... one more thing. Did you read why the justices upheld the conviction? They are a screwy bunch in what they stated. If it was so clear why couldn't they get a majority on that one? I aim at the moral character of those in power.

Cedar, A 17 year old girl was the one who called her parents about being "possibly" raped. They called the police. Genralow was charged with raping the 17 year old girl and the child molestation was charged for the oral sex he received by the 15 year old. Both were taped. The jury saw the tape that involved both. They determined there was no rape. I will agree with you about the federal juristiction about the pornography and it's definition. Those are good points. My point is that although technically a law was broken the DA shouldn't have used the Child Molestation charge as a way to force a plea bargain. The DA threatened them with that charge in order to secure a conviction. They knew any rape case was very iffy. They chose to try and apply pressure based on the less applicable charge of child molestation. I don't feel the DA made a very moral choice in pursuing the charge. If they believed the girl was raped that should have been the focus. When they lost that they used the Child Molestation charge as their backup. To me that is/was wrong. You are a bit inconsistent with calling someone a minor one minute and then calling them men. If they are under age 18 they are minors. Why charge them as men? What would the penalty of a child molestation charge have been for someone charged as a minor? If Genralow was charged as a dumb teenager (minor) would he be serving 10 years? Good discussion though. Thanks. :eek:

Can there be a center? When you blow a breath of air on a cold day, where is the center? Why does or would the universe expand equally? Why would it spread out evenly?

Cedar, Not sure what is makes you hostile towards any sexually based charges against men. The jury "Did" watch the tape. They did determine that the sexual activities were consensual. That is why they did not convict on any rape charges. Whether you find what any boy or girl did was morally objectionable is irrelevant. Consensual sex isn't and shouldn't be a crime. The point is that during the short time this law was in affect many young men (under 18) were breaking the law. Only a select few were actually prosecuted. The law has since been changed. The same as previous GA laws that outlawed having numerous other consenual sexual activities even between a married man and his wife. The law was stupid and shouldn't have been applied here. Again Genralow was not convicted of any other charge. As to the Child Pornography. Technically Genralow was a minor who performed in the video himself. Unless he was the one recording the events he couldn't be charged. He would have been a "victim" of that as well. That is why they didn't pursue that specific charge. The jury did convict the child molestation because it was a matter of fact in how the law was explained to them. They were given no other details. This wasn't a case of an adult abusing a child. This is one legal minor with another legal minor. With regards to jury nullifications: See one of the problems I have here is that the only the select portion of the judicial system is educated with how it works. Law Enforcement is allowed to charge or not charge a defendant. Prosecutors are allowed to pursue or not pursue. Judges are allowed to allow or disallow. Jurors are left in the dark. They do not know or not informed of their true value in the system. Jury Nullifications are a part of the process the same way that Plea Bargains are allowed by prosecutors (a whole different debate could get launched on that one). It is a tool that is necessary for checks and balances. That is why those jurist should be educated on how they are allowed to work within the current system. They provide a necessary balance with overzealous prosecutors and judges. More of my 2 cents.

Cedar... your postings crack me up. I think the basic message that most people post here is that the charge and conviction of Genarlow for Child Molestation is a joke. One legal minor charged as an adult for actions with another minor. This charge (and conviction) is what is crazy. He was never convicted of rape. He wasn't convicted of child pornography. He was convicted of any other crime. His crime very plain and simple is receiving a blow job from a 15 year old. He was 17. Maybe the letter of the law dictates this sentence and charge. Unfortunately for him the law changed AFTER his conviction. This means people (lawmakers) did realize that this law was stupid. The original author of the law stated that this wasn't the intended result of the law. The supreme court jesters couldn't make this right. The prosecutors are content with themselves. You (and others like you) want to continue to condemn this young man for his choice of activities. You might want to go after all the other sexual deviants in this world. The whole group sex activity is completely irrelevant. Look at the bottomline. Forget about the scenario. He was charged, convicted and sentenced for receiving a blowjob from a girl 2 years his junior. 2 years!! By all rights he could have been charged as a minor. Instead he was charged as an adult. Why? When prosecutors are given discretion with what to charge and what not to charge you get inconsistency. When you have laws being applied inconsitently you create this type of mess. Cedar I wish you would get off your high moral horse and recognize this entire situation for what it really is. You sound like an educated person. Stick some common sense in your thought process and you might be brilliant! Everyone goes off about all sorts of other things related to this. Stick to the point. What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? What is he doing time for? Is that right? Peace.

Hello.