Here is the original story we posted on this website back in mid August, 2007:
Genarlow Wilson was a 17 year old star athlete and honors student in 2003 when he attended a New Year's Eve
Party in Douglasville, Georgia and had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. He was found guilty of felony child
molestation and sentenced to 10 years in prison. This case sparked public outrage, and as a result, Georgia
lawmakers changed the law which now makes consensual sex between teens a misdemeanor. However, it was
not retroactive, so Wilson remains behind bars.
A judge overturned Wilson's case and he was going to be set free...until Georgia Attorney General Thurbert
Baker announced he would appeal that decision which effectively keeps Wilson in jail.
Baker said he filed the appeal to resolve "clearly erroneous legal issues," saying that the judge did not have the
authority "to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court."
Genarlow Wilson was a 17 year old star athlete and honors student in 2003 when he attended a New Year's Eve
Party in Douglasville, Georgia and had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl. He was found guilty of felony child
molestation and sentenced to 10 years in prison. This case sparked public outrage, and as a result, Georgia
lawmakers changed the law which now makes consensual sex between teens a misdemeanor. However, it was
not retroactive, so Wilson remains behind bars.
A judge overturned Wilson's case and he was going to be set free...until Georgia Attorney General Thurbert
Baker announced he would appeal that decision which effectively keeps Wilson in jail.
Baker said he filed the appeal to resolve "clearly erroneous legal issues," saying that the judge did not have the
authority "to reduce or modify the judgment of the trial court."
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Genarlow Wilson 17 Year Old Sentenced to Mandatory Minimum of 10 years in Prison for Sex With a 15 year old |
released from the Al Burrus Correction Training Center in Forsyth, Georgia. New York Times |
OUR OPINION:
By Maureen Downey
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/02/07
During the Georgia Supreme Court hearing on the Genarlow
Wilson case, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears asked a pertinent
question:
"Where is the justice?"
Georgians may soon learn the answer to that question. The high
court is expected to rule this month on whether Wilson's 10-year
sentence for oral sex with a willing younger teen constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment.
Wilson was convicted of engaging in oral sex with a classmate at a
wild 2003 New Year's Eve party in Douglasville; he was 17, the girl
was 15. That age difference allowed prosecutors to charge Wilson
with aggravated child molestation, which by a temporary quirk in
Georgia law at the time carried a mandatory 10-year sentence that
cannot be commuted by the parole board or the governor.
A year after Wilson's conviction in 2005, the Legislature changed
the rules for sex acts between consenting teens by passing what's
known as the "Romeo and Juliet" provision. Under that law, an act
of oral sex between Wilson and the younger teen would be a
misdemeanor punishable by no more than 12 months in jail.
However, lawmakers didn't apply the change retroactively.
The case has since become an international blot on Georgia's
legal system. Reputations have been sullied, communities divided
and a young man locked behind bars for two-and-a-half years so
far.
No one believes that Wilson, now 21, belongs in prison any longer,
even the prosecutors in Douglas County who put him there. Their
initial objective had been to convict Wilson on a rape charge for an
act of sexual intercourse with another girl at the party, a 17-year-old
who later contended that she had been too inebriated to consent to
sex.
Jurors, however, exonerated Wilson of that charge. But given the
facts of the case and the wording of state law at the time, they felt
compelled to convict him on the charge of aggravated child
molestation because of the age difference of the two teens.
Wilson has been offered a plea bargain that would release him
from jail, an offer that still stands. However, he has rejected that
option because under state law he would still be categorized as a
sex offender, with serious consequences for his future.
As a result, Wilson sits in the Burruss Correctional Training Center
in Monroe County and waits for the Supreme Court's verdict. A
lower court has already ruled in his favor, concluding that a
mandatory 10-year term constituted cruel and unusual punishment
for a relatively minor crime.
"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for
what is now classified as a misdemeanor . . . and will spend eight
more years in prison is a grave miscarriage of justice," Monroe
County Superior Court Thomas Wilson ruled.
The case could have ended there, but Attorney General Thurbert
Baker chose to appeal the judge's ruling to the Supreme Court. At a
hearing in July, some justices seemed to be struggling with how to
reconcile existing case law —- which says 10 years is not a
shocking sentence for such a crime —- with their clear discomfort
over Wilson's fate.
"Today, that crime is a misdemeanor," said Sears, asking again,
"Where is the justice?"
"That is not for the habeas court to determine," responded Senior
Assistant Attorney General Paula K. Smith. She argued that Wilson
was convicted under the old law and must suffer the punishment in
effect then, regardless of the Legislature's subsequent
downgrading of the punishment.
The state's contention that the court has no choice but to uphold
the previous law struck another justice as unreasonable.
"Should we do that at the expense of fundamental fairness?" asked
Justice Robert Benham.
The answer, Your Honor, is that you must not.
—- Maureen Downey, for the editorial board (mdowney@ajc.com)
WILSON CASE TIMELINE
Dec. 31, 2003: A group of teens holds an unchaperoned New
Year's Eve party in a Douglasville hotel, where Wilson, then 17,
engages in oral sex with a 15-year-old classmate and sexual
intercourse with a 17-year-old.
Feb. 25, 2005: Wilson is acquitted of rape, but is convicted of
aggravated child molestation for the oral sex with the younger teen
and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
July 1, 2006: The so-called "Romeo and Juliet" provision becomes
the law in Georgia, which makes consensual oral sex between
teens only a misdemeanor, punishable by 12 months in jail.
Dec. 15, 2006: The Georgia Supreme Court rejects Wilson's
motion to reconsider his sentence in light of the change in the law.
Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein writes, ". . . while I am very
sympathetic to Wilson's argument regarding the injustice of
sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no
criminal history to ten years in prison without parole ... this Court is
bound by the Legislature's determination that young persons in
Wilson's situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment
now accorded to identical behavior."
March 27, 2007: The state Senate adjourns without taking up bill
that could have freed Wilson from prison.
June 6, 2007: Habeas hearing in Monroe County Georgia seeks
Wilson's immediate release from prison on constitutional grounds.
July 20, 2007: Georgia Supreme Court hears oral arguments on
the Wilson case and says decision likely in September.
October 26, 2007 - Georgia Supreme Court hands down decision
saying Genarlow Wilson should be released immediately from
prison, agreeing 4 to 3 with the judge's decision to release him.
By Maureen Downey
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/02/07
During the Georgia Supreme Court hearing on the Genarlow
Wilson case, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears asked a pertinent
question:
"Where is the justice?"
Georgians may soon learn the answer to that question. The high
court is expected to rule this month on whether Wilson's 10-year
sentence for oral sex with a willing younger teen constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment.
Wilson was convicted of engaging in oral sex with a classmate at a
wild 2003 New Year's Eve party in Douglasville; he was 17, the girl
was 15. That age difference allowed prosecutors to charge Wilson
with aggravated child molestation, which by a temporary quirk in
Georgia law at the time carried a mandatory 10-year sentence that
cannot be commuted by the parole board or the governor.
A year after Wilson's conviction in 2005, the Legislature changed
the rules for sex acts between consenting teens by passing what's
known as the "Romeo and Juliet" provision. Under that law, an act
of oral sex between Wilson and the younger teen would be a
misdemeanor punishable by no more than 12 months in jail.
However, lawmakers didn't apply the change retroactively.
The case has since become an international blot on Georgia's
legal system. Reputations have been sullied, communities divided
and a young man locked behind bars for two-and-a-half years so
far.
No one believes that Wilson, now 21, belongs in prison any longer,
even the prosecutors in Douglas County who put him there. Their
initial objective had been to convict Wilson on a rape charge for an
act of sexual intercourse with another girl at the party, a 17-year-old
who later contended that she had been too inebriated to consent to
sex.
Jurors, however, exonerated Wilson of that charge. But given the
facts of the case and the wording of state law at the time, they felt
compelled to convict him on the charge of aggravated child
molestation because of the age difference of the two teens.
Wilson has been offered a plea bargain that would release him
from jail, an offer that still stands. However, he has rejected that
option because under state law he would still be categorized as a
sex offender, with serious consequences for his future.
As a result, Wilson sits in the Burruss Correctional Training Center
in Monroe County and waits for the Supreme Court's verdict. A
lower court has already ruled in his favor, concluding that a
mandatory 10-year term constituted cruel and unusual punishment
for a relatively minor crime.
"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for
what is now classified as a misdemeanor . . . and will spend eight
more years in prison is a grave miscarriage of justice," Monroe
County Superior Court Thomas Wilson ruled.
The case could have ended there, but Attorney General Thurbert
Baker chose to appeal the judge's ruling to the Supreme Court. At a
hearing in July, some justices seemed to be struggling with how to
reconcile existing case law —- which says 10 years is not a
shocking sentence for such a crime —- with their clear discomfort
over Wilson's fate.
"Today, that crime is a misdemeanor," said Sears, asking again,
"Where is the justice?"
"That is not for the habeas court to determine," responded Senior
Assistant Attorney General Paula K. Smith. She argued that Wilson
was convicted under the old law and must suffer the punishment in
effect then, regardless of the Legislature's subsequent
downgrading of the punishment.
The state's contention that the court has no choice but to uphold
the previous law struck another justice as unreasonable.
"Should we do that at the expense of fundamental fairness?" asked
Justice Robert Benham.
The answer, Your Honor, is that you must not.
—- Maureen Downey, for the editorial board (mdowney@ajc.com)
WILSON CASE TIMELINE
Dec. 31, 2003: A group of teens holds an unchaperoned New
Year's Eve party in a Douglasville hotel, where Wilson, then 17,
engages in oral sex with a 15-year-old classmate and sexual
intercourse with a 17-year-old.
Feb. 25, 2005: Wilson is acquitted of rape, but is convicted of
aggravated child molestation for the oral sex with the younger teen
and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
July 1, 2006: The so-called "Romeo and Juliet" provision becomes
the law in Georgia, which makes consensual oral sex between
teens only a misdemeanor, punishable by 12 months in jail.
Dec. 15, 2006: The Georgia Supreme Court rejects Wilson's
motion to reconsider his sentence in light of the change in the law.
Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein writes, ". . . while I am very
sympathetic to Wilson's argument regarding the injustice of
sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no
criminal history to ten years in prison without parole ... this Court is
bound by the Legislature's determination that young persons in
Wilson's situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment
now accorded to identical behavior."
March 27, 2007: The state Senate adjourns without taking up bill
that could have freed Wilson from prison.
June 6, 2007: Habeas hearing in Monroe County Georgia seeks
Wilson's immediate release from prison on constitutional grounds.
July 20, 2007: Georgia Supreme Court hears oral arguments on
the Wilson case and says decision likely in September.
October 26, 2007 - Georgia Supreme Court hands down decision
saying Genarlow Wilson should be released immediately from
prison, agreeing 4 to 3 with the judge's decision to release him.
Genarlow is FINALLY FREE! |
| Here is the original press release from the Georgia Supreme Court: CLICK HERE FOR PRESS RELEASE |
SENTENCE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
Wilson was sentenced to the mandatory minimum
of 10 years in prison with no chance of parole,
followed by registration as a sex offender. The law
was amended July 1, 2006 making conduct such as
Wilson’s a misdemeanor. However the law was not
retroactive, so did not apply to Wilson.
In today’s 48-page opinion, Chief Justice Leah
Ward Sears wrote for the majority, noting that the
changes in the law “represent a seismic shift in the
legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between
two willing teenage participants” and “reflect a
decision by the people of this State that the severe
felony punishment and sex offender registration
imposed on Wilson make no measurable
contribution to acceptable goals of punishment.”
we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not
rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on
protecting children from premature sexual activity,
children and that, for the law to punish Wilson as it
would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh
punishment of ten years in prison without the
possibility of probation or parole, appears to be
grossly disproportionate to his crime,” the opinion
says. Joining in the majority were Presiding Justice
protecting children from premature sexual activity,
Carol Hunstein, Justice Robert Benham and Justice
Hugh Thompson.
Justice George Carley, writing for the dissent,
points out that the Georgia legislature “specifically
addressed the issue of retroactive application” with
a “clear and unambiguous provision,” stating that
the amendment was not to be applied retroactively.
“[T]he General Assembly expressly stated that in
no event was the 2006 amendment to affect or
abate the status as a crime of any act or omission
which occurred prior to its effective date,” the
dissent says. Wilson’s sentence cannot be deemed
cruel and unusual “because the General Assembly
made the express decision that he cannot benefit
from the subsequent legislative determination to
reduce the sentence for commission of that crime
from felony to misdemeanor status.”
The dissent calls today’s decision “rare because of
its unprecedented disregard for the General
Assembly’s constitutional authority to make express
provision against the giving of retroactive effect to
its legislative lessening of the punishment for
criminal offenses.” Furthermore, “any and all
defendants who were ever convicted of aggravated
child molestation and sentenced for a felony under
circumstances similar to Wilson are, as a matter of
law, entitled to be completely discharged from
lawful custody even though the General Assembly
expressly provided that their status as convicted
felons would not be affected by the very statute
upon which the majority relies to free them.” Joining
in the dissent were Justice Harris Hines and Justice
Harold Melton.
The majority emphasizes that it is not applying the
2006 amendment retroactively, but rather is
factoring it into its determination that Wilson’s
punishment is cruel and unusual. Citing Fleming v.
Zant, the majority notes that under the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a sentence is
considered cruel and unusual if it “is grossly out of
proportion to the severity of the crime.” “Moreover,”
the majority says, “whether ‘a particular punishment
is cruel and unusual is not a static concept, but
instead changes in recognition of the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society.’ Legislative enactments are the
clearest and best evidence of a society’s evolving
standard of decency and of how contemporary
society views a particular punishment.”
The majority opinion points out that this Court
rarely overturns a sentence on cruel and unusual
grounds. But twice before, it did so following a
legislative change. In Fleming, the Supreme Court
ruled that the execution of mentally retarded
offenders constituted cruel and unusual
punishment, even though when Fleming was first
given the death penalty, there was no such
prohibition against it. The Georgia legislature did
not add that prohibition until later in 1988. Similarly,
in Dawson v. State, this Court held that death by
electrocution was cruel and unusual following the
legislature’s amendment that replaced electrocution
with lethal injection. “We noted that this amendment
constituted a significant change in the law and that
it represented a shifting societal consensus on
electrocution and constituted clear and objective
evidence that our contemporary society
condemned this method of punishment,” the
majority writes.
The dissent argues that Fleming and Dawson do
not apply here because in the relevant legislation in
those cases, the legislature did not clearly prohibit
applying the laws retroactively.
The majority opinion cites differences between the
Wilson case and its earlier decision in a similar
case, Widner v. State. Widner was 18 when he had
consensual oral sex with a 14-year-old, and he too
was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In that case,
the Supreme Court ruled against Widner, saying
his sentence “does not unconstitutionally shock the
conscience.” However, the majority finds that the
2006 amendment would not have applied to Widner
because he does not satisfy the statutory
requirement that he be “no more than four years
older than the victim.”
In its cruel and unusual analysis, the majority
compares Wilson’s sentence with sentences for
other crimes in Georgia, as well as sentences
imposed in other states for the same conduct. “A
review of other jurisdictions reveals that most states
either would not punish Wilson’s conduct at all or
would, like Georgia now, punish it as a
misdemeanor,” the majority writes. It found no state
with a minimum 10-year prison sentence and no
parole.
The majority does find that the Monroe County
habeas court erred in re-sentencing Wilson for a
misdemeanor crime that didn’t exist when the
conduct in question occurred. The
proper response is for the habeas court “to set
aside Wilson’s sentence and to discharge Wilson
from custody,” the opinion says.
The Supreme Court unanimously holds that Wilson
was properly denied bail as he awaited the
outcome of the appeal.
Wilson was sentenced to the mandatory minimum
of 10 years in prison with no chance of parole,
followed by registration as a sex offender. The law
was amended July 1, 2006 making conduct such as
Wilson’s a misdemeanor. However the law was not
retroactive, so did not apply to Wilson.
In today’s 48-page opinion, Chief Justice Leah
Ward Sears wrote for the majority, noting that the
changes in the law “represent a seismic shift in the
legislature’s view of the gravity of oral sex between
two willing teenage participants” and “reflect a
decision by the people of this State that the severe
felony punishment and sex offender registration
imposed on Wilson make no measurable
contribution to acceptable goals of punishment.”
we must acknowledge that Wilson’s crime does not
rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on
protecting children from premature sexual activity,
children and that, for the law to punish Wilson as it
would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh
punishment of ten years in prison without the
possibility of probation or parole, appears to be
grossly disproportionate to his crime,” the opinion
says. Joining in the majority were Presiding Justice
protecting children from premature sexual activity,
Carol Hunstein, Justice Robert Benham and Justice
Hugh Thompson.
Justice George Carley, writing for the dissent,
points out that the Georgia legislature “specifically
addressed the issue of retroactive application” with
a “clear and unambiguous provision,” stating that
the amendment was not to be applied retroactively.
“[T]he General Assembly expressly stated that in
no event was the 2006 amendment to affect or
abate the status as a crime of any act or omission
which occurred prior to its effective date,” the
dissent says. Wilson’s sentence cannot be deemed
cruel and unusual “because the General Assembly
made the express decision that he cannot benefit
from the subsequent legislative determination to
reduce the sentence for commission of that crime
from felony to misdemeanor status.”
The dissent calls today’s decision “rare because of
its unprecedented disregard for the General
Assembly’s constitutional authority to make express
provision against the giving of retroactive effect to
its legislative lessening of the punishment for
criminal offenses.” Furthermore, “any and all
defendants who were ever convicted of aggravated
child molestation and sentenced for a felony under
circumstances similar to Wilson are, as a matter of
law, entitled to be completely discharged from
lawful custody even though the General Assembly
expressly provided that their status as convicted
felons would not be affected by the very statute
upon which the majority relies to free them.” Joining
in the dissent were Justice Harris Hines and Justice
Harold Melton.
The majority emphasizes that it is not applying the
2006 amendment retroactively, but rather is
factoring it into its determination that Wilson’s
punishment is cruel and unusual. Citing Fleming v.
Zant, the majority notes that under the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a sentence is
considered cruel and unusual if it “is grossly out of
proportion to the severity of the crime.” “Moreover,”
the majority says, “whether ‘a particular punishment
is cruel and unusual is not a static concept, but
instead changes in recognition of the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society.’ Legislative enactments are the
clearest and best evidence of a society’s evolving
standard of decency and of how contemporary
society views a particular punishment.”
The majority opinion points out that this Court
rarely overturns a sentence on cruel and unusual
grounds. But twice before, it did so following a
legislative change. In Fleming, the Supreme Court
ruled that the execution of mentally retarded
offenders constituted cruel and unusual
punishment, even though when Fleming was first
given the death penalty, there was no such
prohibition against it. The Georgia legislature did
not add that prohibition until later in 1988. Similarly,
in Dawson v. State, this Court held that death by
electrocution was cruel and unusual following the
legislature’s amendment that replaced electrocution
with lethal injection. “We noted that this amendment
constituted a significant change in the law and that
it represented a shifting societal consensus on
electrocution and constituted clear and objective
evidence that our contemporary society
condemned this method of punishment,” the
majority writes.
The dissent argues that Fleming and Dawson do
not apply here because in the relevant legislation in
those cases, the legislature did not clearly prohibit
applying the laws retroactively.
The majority opinion cites differences between the
Wilson case and its earlier decision in a similar
case, Widner v. State. Widner was 18 when he had
consensual oral sex with a 14-year-old, and he too
was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In that case,
the Supreme Court ruled against Widner, saying
his sentence “does not unconstitutionally shock the
conscience.” However, the majority finds that the
2006 amendment would not have applied to Widner
because he does not satisfy the statutory
requirement that he be “no more than four years
older than the victim.”
In its cruel and unusual analysis, the majority
compares Wilson’s sentence with sentences for
other crimes in Georgia, as well as sentences
imposed in other states for the same conduct. “A
review of other jurisdictions reveals that most states
either would not punish Wilson’s conduct at all or
would, like Georgia now, punish it as a
misdemeanor,” the majority writes. It found no state
with a minimum 10-year prison sentence and no
parole.
The majority does find that the Monroe County
habeas court erred in re-sentencing Wilson for a
misdemeanor crime that didn’t exist when the
conduct in question occurred. The
proper response is for the habeas court “to set
aside Wilson’s sentence and to discharge Wilson
from custody,” the opinion says.
The Supreme Court unanimously holds that Wilson
was properly denied bail as he awaited the
outcome of the appeal.
| "I plan on succeeding in life." |
| Genarlow harbors no ill will against the people who kept him imprisoned. Instead he says he just wants to go on with life, and go to college. His major, he says, will be Sociology, since he feels he has already lived it! |
| Eagle Photo by Doug Domedion |