I will give you a little background on the story. In 2003, Genarlow Wilson was a 17-year-old high school senior convicted on child molestation charges for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old female classmate. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison by the state of Georgia. After serving nearly three years, he was released early due to what that state admitted had been â€œcruel and unusual punishment.â€
The actual law case (HUMPHREY v. WILSON., Wilson v. The State.Â Nos.â€‚S07A1481, S07A1606. â€” October 26, 2007) stated the following:
Because Weems was decided on direct appeal, and the present case stems from Wilsonâ€™s habeas petition, we cannot direct the trial court to set aside the judgment and to dismiss the proceedings against Wilson. Instead, the corresponding and appropriate habeas relief would be for the habeas court to set aside Wilsonâ€™s sentence and to discharge Wilson from custody.
In other words, Wilson filed a writ of habeas corpus, not a direct appeal from conviction, therefore his conviction was NOT overturned. Rather, he was released. Ebony.com ran a piece on Genarlow Wilson. The former headline (changed after an outcry by the Ebony readership) asserted that â€œ[Wilson] is no child molester and never was.â€ Well, the video tape, trial documents and his release decision say otherwise. Even if the young girl in question consented, that assumes that a young girl who is drunk and surrounded by horny teenage boys in line to get sexual services can reasonably consent. I think not.
Below is a letter I wrote detailing my disapproval of the article:
I am seriously, seriously disappointed in your recent coverage of Genarlow Wilson. Even the title is problematic: â€œFrom Notorious to Glorious.â€ You are literally glorifying a rapist.
As a law student, itâ€™s clear to me that Wilson was not innocent because his sentence was never overturned. He was released because the judge felt that 10 years was too long to serve in jail for that type of crime, when he would only have gotten 12 months if the act was intercourse instead of oral sex. Still, the fact remains that under any interpretation of the statute at that time, he was guilty
Statutory rape IS actual rape. As a woman, I resent any attempt to gloss over that truth. Statutory rape laws are in place because the state has an interest in, and a duty to protect children. At the time Wilson was convicted the definition of â€œchildâ€ included a young girl who was 15 years old. It doesnâ€™t matter that she was flirtatious. It doesnâ€™t matter that she didnâ€™t say no (if that was, in fact, the case). It doesnâ€™t matter that she was six months away from her birthday, making Wilson only 1.5 years older than her. Under the law, she was a child. Beyond that, she was drunk! This article implies that because the girl may have been fast, and was certainly intoxicated, that she no longer deserves the protection of the law. Somehow, she has victimized Wilson by not acting in a completely chaste manner. When are we going to expect more from our black men? When are we going to expect them to act with nobility, integrity and restraint in the face of temptation? This article simply reinforces the thought process that any woman or young girl who dares to display anything less than â€œlady-likeâ€ behavior is somehow asking for it
[Fear image via Shutterstock]