Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1475357)

No. More likely, it's poorly written legislation. Legislators are so busy trying to close up the loopholes to catch the real bad guys that they forget that their laws might have unintended consequences.

The worst part is that a legislator who wants to brings common sense back to his state's criminal code will be accused by opponents as being soft on crime, a charge that the generally uninformed electorate will definitely find persuasive -- especially if any changes to the existing law allow child molesters to go free without serving what the public perceives to be a fair sentence.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1475368)

I think u are right about the poorly written part...in the beginning when all this was going down, the prosecutor took advantage of the law to get Genarlow put away in the first place....I will have to find the article that discussed that point.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1475371)

I'm not sure I totally blame the prosecutor here. Wilson may be a bit of a martyr, but he was prosecuted fully within the law. The prosecutor may be doing the public a greater service by literally forcing the legislature to reexamine this really poorly written law. While Wilson may be in prison, perhaps his stay there will forestall the likelihood of future injustices such as his.

I'm sure that must be a pretty pathetic consolation to someone in prison, but sometimes, society needs a martyr. If there's any justice in the world, there will be a lot of public (financial) support for Mr. Wilson whenever he's released so that he can go on and get an education, etc.

Also, if I were an activist, I'd be putting pressure on the governor for a pardon. The governor's failing to do so thus far, in my eyes, tells me that enough pressure hasn't been put on him.

Originally Posted by Kevlar281 (Post 1473538)

The other side of the coin...

1. Genarlow Wilson was charged with rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation.

2. Wilson engaged in intercourse with the 17-year-old after she was passed out drunk and high on drugs and encouraged the others to join him. The 17-year-old that accused the young men of rape and has never recanted. The 17-year-old was locked in the bathroom in between the sex acts and this resulted in a "false imprisonment" conviction for one of the men involved that evening.

3. There were six men with 40 prior arrests among them in a hotel room with a semi-conscious girl and a minor. One of the men impregnated a 12-year-old while awaiting trial and has since been convicted of statutory rape. Five of the six men pled guilty to the lesser charge of child molestation instead of aggravated child molestation. All are serving time.

4. Wilson refused the plea bargain and was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers. The sentence for his crimes is a harsh, but mandatory, 10 years in prison.

Originally Posted by Coramoor (Post 1475399)

It's sort of funny how people forget what a scumbag this kid is and only listen to what the media is spoon feeding them.

This guy is not a good or wrongly convicted person. Hell, ten years is too light.

Originally Posted by Coramoor (Post 1475399)

It's sort of funny how people forget what a scumbag this kid is and only listen to what the media is spoon feeding them.

This guy is not a good or wrongly convicted person. Hell, ten years is too light.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1475468)

RC:

I think you'd agree with me that a prosecutor shouldn't try to punish someone for charges which he can't find evidence for with lesser charges that prosecutor can prove.

There are reasons we have rules of evidence -- to protect the innocent from unfounded allegations and give him an opportunity to confront his accuser.

Also, this country (in theory) has a presumption of innocence for the accused. This ought to be respected.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1475417)

"Convicted of a jury of his peers" doesn't hold up, because he was convicted on a technicality, and the jurors have been interviewed post-verdict and noted they did not expect the sentence he got.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1475417)

He's not on trial for his associations, nor should he be.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1475417)

To my knowledge, he has never been convicted of sexing up a passed-out 17 year old - only of the (consensual) oral sex.

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 1475523)

Is this the guy who videotaped the whole thing?