Home / About Time

About Time

Comments
/
/
/
227 Views

Georgia Supreme Court rules, 4-3, that Genarlow Wilson’s 10-year sentence for receiving a consensual blow-job from a 15 year-old when he was 17 was cruel and unusual punishment.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • 4-3; that is scary. and yes, way past time.

  • 4-3; that is scary. and yes, way past time.

  • Erika Froh

    Christ, 4-3? I can’t believe it was so close. What is wrong with these people?

  • Erika Froh

    Christ, 4-3? I can’t believe it was so close. What is wrong with these people?

  • EJ

    heh:
    “Wilson’s lawyer, B.J. Bernstein…”
    sorry, couldn’t resist.

  • EJ

    heh:
    “Wilson’s lawyer, B.J. Bernstein…”
    sorry, couldn’t resist.

  • Marek

    Who was it that pointed out it was going to be all blowjobs and lollipops once the Dems controlled Congress? That oracle is looking more correct every day…

  • Marek

    Who was it that pointed out it was going to be all blowjobs and lollipops once the Dems controlled Congress? That oracle is looking more correct every day…

  • This ruins all my plans for complaining about how backwards and racist the Georgia Supreme Court is. THANKS A LOT, EVENTS!

  • This ruins all my plans for complaining about how backwards and racist the Georgia Supreme Court is. THANKS A LOT, EVENTS!

  • Christ, 4-3? I can’t believe it was so close. What is wrong with these people?
    Gee, I dunno; perhaps you might want to try reading the opinion? But first, you might want to consider the fact that some judges do not believe that they’re supposed to start by asking “What do I want the outcome to be?” Consider that some judges do not believe that they exist to fix bad things in the world, but only to apply the law.
    Now, one can read the dissent and decide that one isn’t convinced by it. But to say, “I don’t like the result, so there must be something wrong with the judges” simply shows one doesn’t understand our system of government.
    Now, if you want to ask what’s wrong with someone, ask what’s wrong with the legislature for passing the original law. Or what’s wrong with the legislature for changing the law in 2006 in response to this case, but explicitly refusing to make it retroactive. Or ask what’s wrong with the state, for taking this up to the state supreme court. (An appellate court had ruled that Wilson should be released; the state appealed that decision, which is why it got to the supreme court. The state could have simply accepted the decision.)

  • Christ, 4-3? I can’t believe it was so close. What is wrong with these people?
    Gee, I dunno; perhaps you might want to try reading the opinion? But first, you might want to consider the fact that some judges do not believe that they’re supposed to start by asking “What do I want the outcome to be?” Consider that some judges do not believe that they exist to fix bad things in the world, but only to apply the law.
    Now, one can read the dissent and decide that one isn’t convinced by it. But to say, “I don’t like the result, so there must be something wrong with the judges” simply shows one doesn’t understand our system of government.
    Now, if you want to ask what’s wrong with someone, ask what’s wrong with the legislature for passing the original law. Or what’s wrong with the legislature for changing the law in 2006 in response to this case, but explicitly refusing to make it retroactive. Or ask what’s wrong with the state, for taking this up to the state supreme court. (An appellate court had ruled that Wilson should be released; the state appealed that decision, which is why it got to the supreme court. The state could have simply accepted the decision.)

  • rea

    you might want to consider the fact that some judges do not believe that they’re supposed to start by asking “What do I want the outcome to be?”
    There are damn few for whom that is not the first question–judges are human beings after all–but the conscientious judges also take a look at what the law requires.
    Really, my days as an appellate clerk are several decades behind me, but in my experience, the opinion writing process starts after the post-argument conference, with the judge giving the law clerk a list of cases with the letters “A” or “R” beside their names, so quite literally the judges started by asking “what do I want the outcome to be,” and taking a vote on the matter.

  • rea

    you might want to consider the fact that some judges do not believe that they’re supposed to start by asking “What do I want the outcome to be?”
    There are damn few for whom that is not the first question–judges are human beings after all–but the conscientious judges also take a look at what the law requires.
    Really, my days as an appellate clerk are several decades behind me, but in my experience, the opinion writing process starts after the post-argument conference, with the judge giving the law clerk a list of cases with the letters “A” or “R” beside their names, so quite literally the judges started by asking “what do I want the outcome to be,” and taking a vote on the matter.

  • ACS

    This is a legal correct decision that equitably blows. Four others were convicted of participating in a gang-rape caught on the same video. Whatever else happened, this kid stood by and cheered on a gang rape while getting a blowjob from someone else.
    While that may not officially be an aggravating factor, it sure as hell means that I don’t have to be happy about it.
    — ACS

  • ACS

    This is a legal correct decision that equitably blows. Four others were convicted of participating in a gang-rape caught on the same video. Whatever else happened, this kid stood by and cheered on a gang rape while getting a blowjob from someone else.
    While that may not officially be an aggravating factor, it sure as hell means that I don’t have to be happy about it.
    — ACS

It is main inner container footer text