PopBitch, Paris Hilton and Genarlow Wilson
I don’t usually like PopBitch - it is scurrilous rumour-mongering. However, they make a valid point, as they sometimes do, in their latest bulletin on a 17-year old black man sentenced to ten years in jail for consensual oral sex with a fifteen year old. Do please read.
Black day for justiceParis Hilton
* Drifted through a variety of private schools. Left with few qualifications.
* Home sex video made when 19 brought global fame.
* Caught on camera enjoying what appears to be gak and weed.
* A series of DUI arrests and driving while on probation lead to 23 days in jail.
* Released by LA sheriff after three days. Now back in a correctional facility but still able to call TV presenters with her story.
* Found God on the day her agents sacked her.Genarlow Wilson
* Star athlete and honours student in Georgia.
* Convicted of consensual oral sex, aged 17, with a 15 year-old girl, at a New Year’s Eve party.
* 10 year prison sentence, plus lifetime on sex offenders’ register.
* This week US judge overturned the ruling, after he’d served two years.
* Ex-President Jimmy Carter has written to Georgia’s attorney-general to question whether his treatment was racially motivated.
* Georgia’s attorney-general appeals against new ruling, Genarlow is still in jail.FYI: As the law stands, Wilson cannot return to his own family if released, as he has an 8 year-old sister and he would be forbidden contact.
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/update.htmlFYI 2: In Georgia until 1998 oral sex even between husband and wife was punishable by 20 years in prison.
To say that teenagers messing around deserves ten years is ‘cruel and unusual‘; to say that and then allow someone drink-driving - inherently dangerous - to be given half their sentence for good behaviour before entering prison and considering allowing part of the sentence to be served in a palatial mansion is grossly unfair even before considerations of wealth and race are taken into account. All this in a country which is supposed to be the home of the free.
xD.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Are you suggesting rape is a less serious crime than drunk-driving?
Obviously not. Rape should be taken extremely seriously and that’s what the boy has, correctly, been convicted of. That’s why the real question isn’t about freedom, or process - Jimmy Carter aside, but about the nature of statutory rape.
I think the obvious problems in this case support factoring in age difference in whether sex with someone underage is necessarily statutory rape.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Good post Dave- and good comment Matt. I think the comment by Matt points to the problem in the law- and there is a problem in a law which condemns the 17 year old for oral sex with a fifteen year old when both were consenting and honestly that treats drink driving as a joke offence- Paris Hilton has received a joke punishment- I’d like to see the law reformed on the 17 year old and strengthened on Miss Hilton.
But lets throw something else into teh mix isn’t it strange that whilst Republican grandees go up to ask President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstructed justice, nobody is asking the Presidnet to pardon this boy- (that may be to be fair because he only has the power to pardon for federal offences- Edmund?) but there should be a move to pardon this boy for what looks like a incident which shows that the law needs reform in this particular so that a seventeen year old having oral sex with a fifteen year old doesn’t become statutory rape.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Matt,
I am not suggesting that rape is less serious that drunk-driving. I am suggesting that this was not rape, that drunk driving is serious and that Ms Hilton’s lot in life means she receives a much easier deal than Mr Wilson.
Do please look over the webpage that I link to. If the difference had been one day - if he had turned sixteen that day and she was fifteen years, three hundred and sixty-four days old, it would be clearly ridiculous to sentence him to a decade in prison. I would say that the same applies here. Matt Towery, who introduced the legislation that has applied here, has said it is a miscarriage of justice for the boy to have been tried, let alone convicted, under this law.
The jury, when sitting, were not told that a guilty verdict would have resulted in a ten-year sentence. Had they done so, they might well have invoked the right of a jury to nullify a verdict that is correct to the letter of the law but not the spirit or, indeed, ignore a woefully bad law. Given, Matt, that you are a conservative and that this principle goes back to the 1600s, I’d have expected you to support, particularly as its point is to stop overly powerful executives influencing judiciaries to enforce its morality on others.
I disagree with you if you believe this, but I can understand why you might think consensual oral sex between a fifteen year old girl and a seventeen year old boy should be a crime. Surely, though, a decade behind bars is a little extreme?
xD.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
The outcome of this case will surely be decided within a week or two at the latest. But, beyond the minimum sentence issue, at hand, a larger question exists: what will Genarlow Wilson do to benefit others from his experience? Certainly, his sentence and incarceration has caused a law to be changed. One could say that is good. But beyond that, Genarlow is an example of a simple, yet profound, principle: Every choice has a consequence.
As former inmate from Federal prison, today I share with business executives and young people that simple message: Every choice has a consequence. http://www.chuckgallagher.com And, while I am extraordinarily sympathetic to Mr. Wilson’s plight, his example has helped other young people evaluate the power of their seemingly simple choices. As the founder of the Choices Foundation, perhaps Genarlow would consider stepping up and helping others understand the power of choice.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your post. I do like your take that it is important to recognise the consequences that actions bring. In this case, however, the consequences are wholly disproportionate. My concern is that this brings the law as a whole into disrepute as it shows that it is not applied evenly, making it very hard to make a judgment as to the consequences an action will cause.
As I say, I do like the message you promote - really enjoyed your site - but I find it a little utilitarian, and act-utilitarian at that. There are some things you do because they are, a priori, morally right (which can extend to civil disobedience - not that I think Mr Wilson’s case is an example).
There is also a question of fatalism; it is necessary to challenge the way things are, and not merely blithely ‘accept the consequences’.
There are also some actions that have delayed or diffuse consequences - failing to recycle, for instance. Without having heard your presentation, it’s hard to say whether you’re using an appeal to enlightened self-interest or a moral argument about consequences themselves.
Going back to the utility point, I do approve of what your organisation does as I’m sure it makes a positive difference on the ground and the message is, I think, a good one.
xD.