Talk:Wilson v. State

On "wrongfully convicted people" category

Before I begin, let me state that imprisonment for 10 years is unreasonable and unjustified.

However, I removed the category because in this case, Mr Wilson has definitely violated the law, from a technical point of view. Since the girl is underage, she cannot give consent and that Mr Wilson has definitely violated the law, no matter what. SYSS Mouse 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed convictions is fine. Would have placed it in there if I had known that one existed. MadMaxDog 05:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU try to defend this injustice.Mobrienil 14:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. SYSS Mouse is entitled to his opinion without getting brow-beaten. Also, he is technically quite correct.MadMaxDog 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but you are making things worse, not better. What is needed for this boy is public support, not "well, the letter of the law says..." TO HELL with the letter of the law!

This is an encyclopedia. You are welcome to offer your support, to donate to his legal fund and express your outrage. I have done all of the above. But here, the bare facts are the basis, and they include the fact that his conviction is technically correct. MadMaxDog 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Shut up miss out to get black men.74.195.3.199

???MadMaxDog 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the gravest injustices I have ever heard. The *TEACHER* that had consensual sex with her student got 90 days - this is a travesty and screams of arrogance and pride by the prosecution.

While certainly a travesty, I do not put the onus on the prosecutor - he is supposed to prosecute the laws of his state, and can only to some degree deviate, even if he finds them unfair. It is really a political fault for passing this law, or not amending it, mostly. MadMaxDog 09:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson wasn't wrongfully convicted. He actually broke the law as it was written. The law though isn't fair. The prosecutor does have a choice on whether or not to pursue charges. AfricanAmericanHistorian 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to know if the 15-year-old girl was white--that would explain why the Georgians wanted to lock him up for so long.Bunbury18 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

She was not. See ESPN article. MadMaxDog 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid and probably over some white chick.74.195.3.199

Way to show you haven't read the article. MadMaxDog 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently watching a news special on CNN about this and came here to answer that very same question for myself. I'm sure I'm (we're) not the only one(s). I assumed I'd answer that question directly from the article. Of course, as a minor and technically as a victim, her identity shouldn't be withheld, but maybe her race should be incorporated into this article because it's such a racially charged case. Dialwon 03:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Race may be an issue. The teacher was white and she's out free. This kid is black and he gets 10 years. And there's a level of fear mongering. When I first saw this on TV some guy was going about "we must protect our children" or something to that effect. Come on, we must protect minors... from other minors?! These prudish lawmakers are gonna have to realize that teenagers have sex. That's why we have sex ed in schools to educate them on safe sex practices.... because teens have sex!! For crying outloud this ain't the 1950's (or whatever decade), kids aren't going "Gee golly Mary Anne I think you're super swell. Let's have a sexless repressed relationship until we're married". I don't even believe teens from back then were really like that, despite imagery from popular media depicting the time period. Jigen III 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, it is encyclopedic to point out that he is African-American. This is mentioned for the judge decisions, it should be also used in the initial description. 41.196.176.56 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On prosecutorial discretion

I think it would be proper to at least mention the concerns of many people who have seen this case about the abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion defined as (in Black's Law Dictionary) "A prosecutor's power to choose from the options available in a criminal case, such as filing charges, prosecuting or not prosecuting, plea-bargaining, and recommending a sentence to the court." The prosecutor, knowing that any plea-bargain/admission of guilt carried a lifetime penalty and registration as a sex offender had significant discretion in deciding both the charges he wished to bring or if he wished to bring them. The mention of the Georgia law just repealed in 1998 that allowed 20 years punishment for oral sex between a married couple is a perfect example of prosecutors ignoring dumb laws. I'm sure there were many blowjobs that went unprosecuted in Georgia, just as adultery is not prosecuted though on the books in many states. pkmilitia

Freedom

He's free now. Someone should add that to the article.

He is still in jail. Jackaranga 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does race have to do with it?

The 2nd sentence in the article reads; "An African-American, his conviction for participating in an act of receptive oral sex from a 15 year old girl at a New Year’s Eve party in 2003 has been highly contentious, as Wilson was only 17 at the time, and because it is uncontested that the act was consensual."

This seems like an awfully unusual place to mention the fact that he is African-American, almost as if the editor was implying that race played a factor in the conviction. His race should either be mentioned within a better context or removed from mention altogether.159.116.54.138 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Race was the only reason why he had to go to prison. It was a shameless act by the racist jury to sentence him to jail for no crime. IP198 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The jury does not sentence, but it cannot be denied that race played a part in this case. --CliffC 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter certainly thought so, as do others, so it merits a mention in the article. Richard75 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we include a fair-use image of Wilson from a news source. It displays the issue with no chance of a poor context, and adds a bit to the article in the conventional way as well. Any objections? Can we pull one off AP or CNN or do we have to be more careful? --Kizor 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a photo as long as you're not suggesting that it substitute for a clear statement of his race. --CliffC 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a clear statement of his race. --Kizor 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In cases like this where race is so clearly a factor, there is every reason to state the subject's race straight out in plain English. What's the objection? We shouldn't be turning articles into some sort of guess-my-race parlour game. --CliffC 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A non-free image of this fellow wouldn't work (replaceable). We need either a PD mug shot or a GFDL-compatible photo. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange error ?

In the following sentence is there an error ? The "aggravated" nature of the charge refers to sodomy (oral sex) rather than a mere "immoral or indecent act. Sodomy is not the same as oral sex, is that phrase claiming they are the same thing I don't understand. Jackaranga 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um I was just reading Sodomy Law, I understand better now. I must admit I am rather surprised, I thought Americans would understand that there is a major difference in between oral sex and anal sex. Although I guess it is mainly a law to stop homosexual men from having any form of sex. Just seems strange as I have never associated the two in my mind. Jackaranga 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase one fag I know, it also fails to account for the creativity of homosexuals. :P --Kizor 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "sodomy" comes from "the sin of Sodom", a biblical reference, and in this context can mean anything other than straightforward male-female genital coupling for the purpose of procreation. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Race of Georgia Supreme Court justices

I do not want to get into a whole thing here about what role race may or may not have played in the original conviction. It is irrelevant to this question.

That said, a sentence in this article reads: The case was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court; the court denied to hear the case on a 4-3 decision, with four white judges voting against hearing the case and three black judges voting in favor. This was mentioned in the ESPN article, but I question its relevance here. There is no evidence that this has anything to do with race (indeed, 2 of the black justices changed their votes the next time this case came before them) and this is mere insinuation on the part of the ESPN writer. Now, the ESPN article clearly has a slant: The writer is trying to convince readers that Wilson should be freed, and that's fine for ESPN to do. But Wikipedia must remain neutral and this "fact" is not, unless someone has proof it does matter. (Perhaps we could also note that Democratic appointees voted 4-2 while the Republican one sided with Wilson; or maybe that the two women on the court were split while the men voted 3-2 to deny -- these are similarly irrelevant by any objective test.)

Does anyone have any rationale for leaving this in, or should I remove it tomorrow? --SuperNova |T|C| 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"But Wikipedia must remain neutral and this 'fact' is not, unless someone has proof it does matter." I have not heard of a non-neutral fact before. Let the facts stand, including Wilson's own race. It's Wikipedia's job to lay out the facts in a neutral manner, not to omit those that don't conform to someone's personal worldview. Anyone who thinks race is not a factor here is deceiving himself, or has never lived in Georgia, or indeed in the United States. --CliffC 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which most of us haven't. --Kizor 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to make the racial aspect clear. --CliffC 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cliff, do you honestly think the Supreme Court ruled based on race? As I said, I don't want to get into the original trial, juries sometimes do, unfortunately, factor in race. But the Supreme Court should be above that, and indeed, the fact that the second S.C. vote went 6-1 (with the two black men siding with the State) should indicate a valid legal reason to deny the appeal. As I pointed out previously, choosing to list race of judges rather than sex or party affiliation is not a neutral choice of facts (that's the key, the choosing of the facts rather than the facts themselves) unless you have an unbiased source that indicates why this fact is important and those are not. We don't; we only have one clearly-biased ESPN writer and, I guess, your "personal worldview". What evidence do you have otherwise that race had ANY impact in the Supreme Court's finding? --SuperNova |T|C| 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cliff, do you honestly think the Supreme Court ruled based on race?" I see no reason to believe that the Supreme Court is somehow free from the prejudices that other humans have. They are not superhuman or above fault. Race is usually a factor in America, and to ignore it would be fatuous. 70.186.172.75 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Race is usually a factor in America" -- it's fine for you to believe that, but without more evidence to back it up, all you have is an opinion. Opinion should not guide objective content decisions in Wikipedia. Other than your opinion, there is no substantive evidence that race played more than a trivial part in this case. On a daily basis, the Court approves and denies motions from appelants of all races; the attorney general opposing Wilson's appeal is himself black. The race issue is merely a distraction from the serious legal issues at play, and to dwell on it further is truly fatuous. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) I hope it is clear to everyone here that it's the Georgia Supreme Court we're talking about. Some of the writing above seems to reflect the exceptional level of respect normally paid to the United States Supreme Court.

(2) Besides the "serious legal issues at play", presumably a reference to the anti-sodomy laws, there are the serious issues of justice and race. Race is a factor in America, that's a fact not an opinion, just look around you or do some reading for "evidence". There's a good read at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070110.html , an excerpt:

"Whatever role religion or other commitments of the Georgia electorate may have played in the criminalization of victimless sexual conduct and/or drug offenses, we cannot overlook the role of race. The fact that Genarlow Wilson, a promising young man who had no prior criminal record, is African-American, should be neither ignored nor considered irrelevant to the definition of "sin" as crime. Historically, the ideology of white supremacy has included a firm belief that black people are morally inferior to white people. Racist legislators and their constituents justified laws against miscegenation (interracial coupling) on the basis of God's desire to keep whites separate from the other, "inferior," races and viewed "mixing" as contaminating the purity of whites. It may accordingly be no accident that so many of the people spending time in prison for drug crimes, the most commonly prosecuted "sin" in the U.S., are African-Americans."

I don't think there's much more I can say. --CliffC 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(I won't indent this because the last few paragraphs are too far over... this is in reply to the ongoing discussion, though.) CliffC: (1) I understand that this is the Georgia court, but I see no more reason to ascribe racist attitudes to this group. They were all appointed by governors and elected by the state's voters. Perhaps the most racist attitude I've seen in awhile is the claim that the justices, white and black, voted on this case based on race rather than legal issues. Once again, the fact that two black justices switched their votes should be evidence to the contrary; Genarlow Wilson was just as black the second time his case came up. Please explain why the votes changed if race was the determiner.

(2) The "serious legal issues at play" I referred to are not anti-sodomy laws (which were thrown out by the Ga Supreme Court nearly 10 years ago, and then by the US Supreme Court a few years later). The issue I'm most concerned with is whether a law that the Legislature chose to not make retroactive can then be retroactively applied by the courts. That's also the primary reason Atty. Gen. Baker, a black man, is appealing the case further: He does not want to have to deal with the thousands of felons that will appeal their convictions as well.

As for the "evidence" you posted, it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. It is one woman's opinion, not a legal treatise, and has as much to do with her opposition to drug laws as it does with Wilson. It would not be a citable source (other than to say, "law professor Sherry Colb believes...") and has no bearing on this discussion.

Again, if you can find a reliable, neutral source that says the Supreme Court's decision was based on or related to race, and explains the later 6-1 decision, please let me know. Otherwise, I don't see why this discussion continues. --SuperNova |T|C| 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Senate Bill 37

(Duae Quartunciae 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) I have just edited the article relating to a bipartisan attempt by legislators to introduce a bill that would free Wilson. The article originally said that the bill failed. In fact, the bill is still in progress through the legislature. I presume it was referring to Senate Bill 37, which would allow the courts to revise sentences in cases specifically tailored to match Genarlow Wilson's case. The matter of registration as a sex offender is apparently not covered in the bill. My main source of information is the my5th blog, started up by Wilson's lawyers, and the page on the bill itself, at Senate Bill 37. The relevant my5th article is Why You Really Must Know the Law. I'm not sure if I should have linked to that in the article or not. This is my first Wikipedia edit; I have looked over the guidelines and I think I did it all correctly.

The bill is certainly not still in progress, as the 2007 Legislative session adjourned months ago. All bills on the table at that time are now dead. However, thank you for your addition and noting it here, and I hope you will continue to edit Wikipedia. --SuperNova |T|C| 04:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not dead, surely. It just has to wait to the next session. This seems to be the implication both of the my5th blog and of the page on the bill itself. Your revision to the main article (that it failed to pass) is technically correct, but possibly misleading. The bill was not even considered, as the session adjourned before it could be tabled. I'm not at all sure of the procedures, or of when sessions occur; so I have not attempted any further edit. But I'd be inclined to alter "The bill did not pass the 2007 session of the General Assembly, which adjourned in April 2007." to read "The 2007 session of the General Assembly was adjourned in April 2007, before the bill could be considered." Perhaps. What do you think? And thanks for the encouragement! (Duae Quartunciae 07:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)) Addendum... The difference is too slight to matter. On reflection, I am content to see it left as you have given it. Thanks. (Duae Quartunciae 07:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

(Note: I actually wrote this as you were writing your addendum. I felt I should go ahead and post it and let you decide how to proceed from there.)

Fair enough. I think we are actually both correct. This particular bill, SB 37, is done; its lifespan was the 2007 session and it failed to pass before the session ended (as you mention, it never even came to a vote). However, someone could introduce a similar or even identical bill in the next session (which begins in January '08); in fact, if the judicial system does release Wilson by then, I imagine such a bill will be proposed. I think your proposed revision would be fine and perhaps more clear than mine, and I would have no problem with you making it. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I will go ahead and do that. I will also try and provide a citation that directly refers to the bill in question. I have found a press release from Senator Emanuel Jones, given shortly after the end of the session, which refers directly to the matter. Should be up soon! (Duae Quartunciae 07:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Done. I have also abbreviated the text a bit and removed a now redundant reference to the EPSN article. Emanuel Jones' press release seems to cover the whole matter sufficiently well. (Duae Quartunciae 08:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the good work! Emanuel Jones is probably the best source anyway since he was a major sponsor of the bill. --SuperNova |T|C| 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"Judge Thomas H. Wilson that Genarlow Wilson's punishment be declared cruel and unusual"

Judge Wilson orders release of sex offender Wilson? Smells wrong.

The perverse acts of this convicted sex offender clearly merits his conviction. Else, he hadn't been convicted by the American legal system. Barry Boster 18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry Boster - Your opinion is irrelevant to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to report facts. If you wish to express it, there are numerous venues (other than this site) where you may express them. --SuperNova |T|C| 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry -- "Merits conviction else he wouldn't have been convicted"?? What do you think the purpose of the appellant apparatus of any (let alone American) legal system is? SmallRepair 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sex Offender Status"

From the article - "Had Wilson had intercourse with the 15-year-old and not received oral sex from her, he would have been subject to up to 12-month penalty (statutory rape), with no sex offender status, instead of the 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 16-6-3 and 16-6-4)"

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but individuals who are found guilty of statutory rape are still recorded in the National Sex Offender Registry, and would therefore still receive "sex offender status". (Go to FamilyWatchdog for more information about the registry). Just wanted to clear that up, so people don't read it and then go around statutorily raping other people and think that they won't receive "sex offender status".

I modified the sentence to read:

Had the two teenagers had intercourse without oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor, punishable up to 12-months, with no sex offender status, instead of the 10-year minimum term that the judge gave him.

and used a New York times citation vs. using the Georgia statutes. The latter is not allowed as they require an expert to interpret them -- not only as plain text, but as they are actually applied in the State of Georgia -- i.e., an attorney. Instead, Wikipedia requires sources. SmallRepair 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He may not have deserved 10 years, but he's still a sex offender.

I don't think I've seen a more emotionally charged and biased entry on Wikipedia. While the case is notable for the severity of the 10 year sentence (and the fact that it is a twisted law, set up specifically to penalise gay men) the fact remains that this 17 year old man allowed a drunken 15 year old child to perform felatio on him. He and his friends obviousdly thought this was cool at the time, but it's still paedophilia and he deserves to be punished for this.

All this "poor martyr" business really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The law is the law, and 15 year old underage girls do not deserve to be taken advantage of by gangs of out of control boys, regardless how drunk they are. Having a child perform felatio on you is no more acceptable simply because it's done willingly - it's simply plain wrong. And it doesn't matter if the guy is 17, 37 or 67, or whether he's black or white.

This case is just another example of girls being abused as sex objects by "sportsmen" who have been thoroughly spoiled by school and family, and allowed to think that there is one law for them and another for the rest of us. Who cares if the guy was a promising footballer? That was part of his problem - he thought the rest of the world was there simply to satisfy his own needs.

The case is noteworthy for the controversy it has caused, and for the severity of the sentence - but all the bleeding heart stuff doesn't belong here. The guy, like Gary Glitter and Jonathan King, is a convicted child molester. This isn't the place to debate the rights and wrongs. Just stick to the facts, people.

The law distinguishes between 17 and 37 and 67. These "Romeo and Juliet" statutes are implemented to make the distinction of sexual activities between minors and sexual activities between a minor and an adult (vs. pedophilia which is the crime of prepubescent sexual activity). This distinction was implemented in the Georgia statutes and, according to the bill's sponsor, the intent was not to exclude oral sex from its scope.

As for "this 'poor martyr' business really doesn't belong on Wikipedia", the article is written with sources -- i.e., the article doesn't state that Wilson is a martyr but that so-and-so says that the circumstances are unjust, properly sourced balanced with opinions that disagree such as Attorney General Baker and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue -- precisely following the main tenets of Wikipedia, even if you personally find it clear that is is "simply plain wrong".

If you have particular concerns about bias, please give examples on the talk page, suggesting changes to the text and requesting consensus. New editors are always welcome as long as they follow the basic tenets of Wikipedia of NPOV, NOR, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Please sign your comments -- just add four tildes at the end and Wikipedia will fill in the rest. Thanks! SmallRepair 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor and I do not sign my comments unless I am altering a main article (which I rarely do). But thank you for your concern, anyway. My comments (above) stand. When boys are "men" enough to video themselves having sex with a child, they really shouldn't be surprised when they end up behind bars. But as I said, the case is notable both for its controversy and for the severity of the sentence. Here on Wiki we just need be mindful that we are not a campaigning forum (for or against) when it comes to issues as volatile as this. Neutrality is all.

That is quite true. And thanks for using Wikipedia for sharing your personal viewpoints which are not relevant to the article. You may want to consider blogs or usenet in the future. The article itself is neutral and attributed and addresses legal issues that conflict with your POV.

You may, as a veteran editor, want to refresh your memory with the WP guideline: Wikipedia:Signatures. But, reviewing your past contributions, I do see that you do never sign. Possibly a good course of action. SmallRepair 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another Wikipedia self-appointed expert throws a strop...

This, I'm afraid is one of the things you need to deal with on this site - other people actually may have differing views to you. Of course, you can dress up your sense of grievance by citing Wiki rules, but actually your real beef is about someone disagreeing with you. Unfortunately for you, this site is not YOUR personal blog, or your own little bit of Usenet, so you'll just have to get used to the fact that other people can contribute too. So, please, do stop trying to bully other people off. And as for signing things... well, an IP address or a made up name like Smallrepair - what really is the difference?

Let me let you into a little secret. It's through the fact that different people contribute to these articles, with their hard edges rubbing against each other, acknowledging that there are always different viewpoints, that we reach a consensus about what we might eventually call the truth. That's the greatest facet of Wikipedia. Getting personal and disparaging (as you did above) with someone who disagrees with you not only breaks the Wiki rules you are so happy to quote when it suits you, but it serve no other purpose other than to undermine your own perceived NPOV. So please, less of the sneering...

Yes, I realize that "Just stick to the facts, people" was your idea of civil discourse. I welcome conflicting views -- you are correct that is what makes WP great. However, a discussion that goes like: "And it doesn't matter if the guy is 17, 37 or 67", I respond, "In fact (attributable), the law does make that distinction. You respond, "I stand by my comment." This does not advance the quality of the article but instead is your statement of opinion which, in fact, has no place in the article. I invite you to make a productive contribution to the article by, as requested, specifically highlighting statements and suggesting changes or adding in attributable additions to the article. Using the talk page as a soapbox is, in fact, not Wikipedia policy. I apologize for any comments that I made that were uncivil. Barring any positive discussions, this will be my last word on the subject. Thanks. SmallRepair 22:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And I sincerely apologise too for any unnecessary friction - but if you look at some of the comments and entries at the top of this discussion page, perhaps you'll appreciate the need I felt to add some balancing comments at the bottom. I came to this article via the Daily Telegraph (UK) newspaper, who ran a story on it (8th July 2007), and was - quite frankly - surprised at just how much it read like a campaigning website rather than a true Wiki article. Now I stress: that is only my opinion, and that is why I added to the discussion page only and would not dream of altering the article itself - which, as you point out, is extremely well sourced. You are completely correct about using Wiki as a soapbox, but sometimes the discussion pages - when the subject is a contemporary, controversial issue - need to convey the conflicting opinions which lurk behind the final consensus on what any given article should say.

Yeah -- I can understand your motivations. I hadn't yet read most of the previous discussions. I'm not the author of the article just a recent editor. I regret getting so prickly and high and mighty. SmallRepair 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He did not let "a drunken 15 year old" do anything. He was suspected of raping the 17 year old woman because she was intoxicated. The video tape showed her on the bathroom floor and acting irregular. The same video shows the 15 year old declaring that she hadn't anything to drink that night. Facts are good: get some.Jkister 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a fact - he's a convicted sex offender. Deal with it.

Jkister is dealing with your (82.12.121.252) misstatement of facts, which is productive. Please note from the banner up top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wilson v. State of Georgia article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Please be civil in your discussion. Although you appear to be resistant to guidance on the matter, "Any post made to user talk pages, article talk pages, or other discussion pages should be signed."  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be dragged into arguments with people who clearly have axes to grind - Jkister's tone (and yours) make it clear where you stand. Just clarifying a fact that seems to have been a bit lost on this discussion page. Namely that Wilson is currently a convicted sex offender.

Age of Wilson?

It is implied that Wilson was a teenager at time of incident, I do not see his actual age. It seems relevant whether he himself is above or below age of consent.

74.1.240.242 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From the article lede:

Wilson had been convicted of aggravated child molestation because, at the age of seventeen, he had engaged in oral sex with a willing fifteen-year-old at a New Year's Eve party.

His age is the crux of the controversy. If Wilson had been an adult then this controversy would not have arisen. Many states have "Romeo and Juliet" provisions for sex between minors. This can take several forms:

• An outright "close in age" exemption
• A statutory legal defense available for mitigating purposes
• Different levels of punishment.

In the case of Georgia, lawmakers made sexual relations between minors punishable as a misdemeanor with a possible sentence of up to one year. They neglected to include "oral sex" in this provision and so Wilson was sentenced to a minimum of ten years. That is the controversy that is raised by the advocates for Wilson. Georgia lawmakers, in the meantime, fixed this error (an error according to the original author of the bill) but intentionally did not make it retroactive. SmallRepair 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

67.175.179.166I think we need to watch out for the overuse of the word "African American". Unless we are positive they are decendents of Africa, I don't think we should be using that word. 67.175.179.166