NEWS: Justice is Served, “Conservatives” are Pissed

POLITICS: Justice is Served, “Conservatives” are Pissed

Those of you following the Genarlow Wilson case in Georgia over the past two years know the general gist of this shocking story. For those that havenÂ’t, hereÂ’s a quick refresher:

After his conviction, WilsonÂ’s attorneys spent the next two and a half years trying to secure his release. They used legal channels (which were thwarted each time by Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, whose single-minded determination to keep Wilson in prison has made him seem like a tremendous asshole), but also made appeals to the legislature and the press on behalf of their client. The press picked it up and ran with it. Because Wilson was a promising prep athlete and the story seemed so sensational, ESPN.com even did an lengthy piece on it. Presidential candidates and political pundits made statements in support of WilsonÂ’s cause.

The good news for Wilson is that all of that attention has finally paid off.

WilsonÂ’s release has been hailed as a long overdue triumph of justice and humanity.

EveryoneÂ’s happy now, right? Even Tightassed A.G. Baker said he would respect the decision of the court and hoped it would put the issue to rest. We can move on, and Wilson can pursue his dream of a college education. Huzzah!

In the immortal words of Lee Corso: Not so fast, my friend. Judicial “Conservatives” and “strict constructionists” (which is a fancy name for people who think the Constitution is not a living document and should be interpreted only by its meaning in 1789) are pretty pissed off. Not because they necessarily want Wilson to rot in jail for his youthful transgression, but because they’d rather the court system not do their jobs.

Let me explain: In April of 2006, largely in response to the negative press that the state had generated for their draconian laws and how they affected Wilson, the Georgia state legislature amended their child molestation law to insert a “Romeo and Juliet” provision. The provision made an exception where if the “assailant” was less than four years older than the “victim” and the sex was consensual, the crime would be treated as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. But when they enacted the law, they specifically declined to make the law apply retroactively. In other words, all future 17-year-olds who get hummers from 15-year-olds aren’t going to see jail time, but Wilson is shit out of luck because he blew his wad before the legislature blew theirs.

So, how did the Georgia Supreme Court manage to free Wilson last Friday? According to some commentators, they engaged in *gasp* judicial activism! The horror!

Oooh, heady stuff from the Editorial Board at the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The law says this and therefore that. Simple, right?

As with most everything else that judicial conservatives and “strict constructionists” rant about, they’re wrong here as well. Let’s actually read the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court, shall we? Did they overturn Wilson’s appeal on the basis of the Georgia legislature’s new law? No, they didn’t. Rather, they overturned it because it was cruel and unusual and a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 8th Amendment. In making that determination, they looked to the reasons why the Legislature made the change, not the text of the change itself.

In other words, whether a sentence violates the 8th Amendment is an entirely separate question than whether the sentence should be applied retroactively. That question can be informed by the actions of the legislature, but it is (by its very nature) a question for the Courts and the Courts alone to decide.

The guys at the AJC are none too pleased at that, either.

Well, there’s a ton of relevance to the question of what other jurisdictions do in this situation, of course. The words “cruel” and “unusual” are intentionally vague. When they were inserted into the Constitution it was intended that judges would consider them through the lens of current societal standards. It’s impossible to truly determine what those societal standards are without looking at the rest of the fucking society. It’s not rocket science here, people.

In short, this case and the reaction to it by judicial conservatives demonstrate how blindingly wrong the strict constructionist movement is. The law is supposed to have a human element to it. There is supposed to be some room to maneuver within constitutional boundaries. The Georgia Supreme Court understands this. ItÂ’s a shame not everyone does.

Didn't the DA, at some point, release the video and create the possibility that he could be prosecuted for child-porn?

Joe Pesci of course is mostly remembered as Tommy from Goodfellas, but he had one really good line as a bum in a pretty bland movie called With Honors where he takes on a "strict constructionist" professor at Harvard (played by Gore Vidal, if I'm not mistaken): "The founding fathes were great because they knew what all great men know: that they didn't know everything."

Yes, let's keep the law exactly as it was in the late 18th Century; after all, the world's still pretty much the same place now, isn't it?

Their prevailing opinion is that this is strictly about interpreting law? That's the law and that's that? Funny, I have a hard time seeing a child of the upper class going through that predicament.

Ron Paul 2008!

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread will now hit 10+ pages.

thats fucked.
So she was 15. (imo she's not a child anymore but according to the government, you're a child until you're 18)
He's 17, which made him a child because he was not yet 18.
Two "children" have consensual oral sex and he gets the charge?
(not to mention that the punishment is fucking ridiculous)
Why didn't she get charged if in fact she was the one blowing him?
So the age of consent is 16 in Georgia. What if two 15 year olds have consensual sex? What would the crime be then?
So what happened..the camera man showed his friends at school his footage? The girl caught wind of it and decided to press charges and say that he forced her to suck his dick publicly at a party? Riiiight. Who doesn't notice someone filming them blowing someone?!

Why the hell wasn't this new law retroactive? What happens to the young people stuck with a bullshit conviction and will be sitting in jail for the next 5 years or so because of it? Oh? The court didn't want to clear up all the red tape? Imo this is going to be another classic example where the court gets sued for injustice by young people sitting in jail based on the Wilson vs. dumbgirl case.

This case is, for me, having grown up in an integrated city, glaringly saturated with good old-fashioned Southern racial hospitality. It means absolutely everything that the only reason this kid was prosecuted was because he's black.

I'm sorry, but seeing as he's only going to be in the race for what, two more months, I've gotta get it all in now while he lasts.

imho the only Southerners that ARE racist are backwards old people, those victimized by racism themselves, or young people raised by backwards racist parents, but there's always exceptions.

This is a very strange response because on the surface it seems like you might know how to read, but then your fingers betray you.

what did i miss, exactly?

p.s. don't hate simply because we don't agree on all subjects broached on this website. As I've read up on the TOS, personal attacks aren't very well tolerated.

in a case like this, she doesn't have to press charges. Instead if someone views the tape and wants to put him in jail the State goes after him. It probably came out as part of the rape case from the other 17 year old.
What is funny is that not too many years before this there was that huge syphilis outbreak in Rockdale county, GA involving many under 16 year old girls and over 16 year old boys. Yet because the majority of the people involved were affluent white kids, no one went to jail for that.

yes, he did release the videotape. in fact, he showed the videotape as a tactic to persuade certain members of the legislature to vote against the retro activity of the "romeo and juliet" provisions of the new law.

I thought it was the girl's parents who pressed charges, but I might be misremembering.

And yeah, one of the reasons this was such a big deal was because she was a white girl. Again, if I'm remembering correctly.

(<--- link)

And what the hell does that bolded phrase mean? You believe that people who are victimized by racism are racist? What?

As you mention, the age of consent in Georgia is 16. Therefore under Georgia's definition she was a child but he was not. Agreed, though, totally fucking ridiculous.

Eek... i guess i should go to jail. My Ex-husband (the father of my two daughters) was 14 years old when i started dating him... i was 19. We got married when i was 20 and he was 16... had our first daughter when i was 21 and he was 16. Ofcourse its not quite as frowned upon when the girl is older now is it?

But maybe i just like em young... my current love is 22 and i am 27....

I can't believe that didn't work out.

When comedians attack.

I knew I should have gone to parties when I was in high school. Damned social phobias!!!

If I had a 14 year old child (which I will in a year and a bit) who was sexually active with a 19 year old, regardless of gender, that 19-year-old would be getting charged.
But that's the parent in me coming out.

But mooommm, I love her!

You know the Dave Chappelle (sp?) show skit where he talks about old black men being the most racist people he's ever met? I think that's the type of thing she's talking about. However, I'm not sure how she'd be aware of it, since one of the points he makes is how well they hide it. I dunno.

The people who recorded it should have been prosecuted for child pornography!