Comments on: A house divided — on Genarlow Wilson

By: Chuck Gallagher

Chuck Gallagher — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:31:24 +0000

No one is exempt from the law and the law does not discriminate based on age. Yet, young people are often misguided into believing that they can get by without getting caught. In fact, recent studies, concerning the ethical attitudes of youth, indicates that the majority of young people would make unethical choices if they felt they could â€œget aheadâ€ as a result. Success at all costs seems to be a common theme.

As former inmate from Federal prison, today I share with business executives and young people that simple message: Every choice has a consequence.

I am pleased beyond belief that Genarlow is now getting the taste of freedom again. Genarlow’s plight, 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.

After all…Every Choice has a Consequence.

By: Dale

Dale — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:16:15 +0000

‘Closet’ would mean they cloak their true intentions in other language, the famous “code” language we hear.

I have no doubt there are bigots and racists in our government

By: Some Other Mike

Some Other Mike — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:04:43 +0000

Dale, there isn’t a whole lot of ‘closet’ about this one, although I think the most recent appeal was more about defending the plantation system than anything else.

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:03:55 +0000

“Thatâ€™s an inflammatory exaggeration” — Yeah, Johnson you amateur, leave that to the professional journalists and commentors on CreativeLoafing.com hahaha

Let me show you how a professional journalist does it…..

“a black Democrat who does little to protect Georgians but will do anything to appease the neo-Confederate Republicans” Anything, John? Really? Kill his own child? Licking Cartman’s balls? You said anything.

“Republican neo-Confederates who long for the days of white sheets and all-white juries” – because any Republican who doesn’t agree with Sugg and the CL staff has to be a closet racist wishing to put Blacks back in their “place” and there can’t be any Democrats who would wear the robe and hood (unless they are the Senior Democrat from West Virginia hahah).

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:01:15 +0000

Neo-Confederate? Now were going to get all confused when someone is called a neo-con. Maybe Neo-Con for new Conservatives and Neo-Conf for new Confedrate. Perhaps, neo-Conifer for those who belive that pine trees are a good thing.

By: John Sugg

John Sugg — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:10 +0000

If the girl was retarded, she wouldn’t have the capacity to give consent. And I’m still waiting for any evidence that “hundreds” of sexual predators will be released by the Supreme Court’s ruling. That’s an inflammatory exaggeration, unworthy of anyone hold high office. But it’s also in character.

Oh, I forgot to mention that since you claim three justices on you side, I claim four. That’s a winning hand for me.

By: Some Other Mike

Some Other Mike — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:36:38 +0000

(Assuming the above posts are actually from Senator Johnson…) I’d like to know something: When you were showing off that tape in support of the “legislative intent” you’ve mentioned, were you showing the full tape, parts of the tape, or an edited tape?

By: Eric Johnson

Eric Johnson — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:29:24 +0000

I’ll name one – remember the “gang rape” of the mentally retarded girl in Cobb County a few years back. Several of those boys can now appeal since they fall into the 3 year window and the girl “consented”. And I believe the case that the Supremes upheld last year similar to GW involved a white boy. Go figure. Where was YOUR outrage? I’m outta here….

By: John Sugg

John Sugg — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:29:34 +0000

Well, Eric, a lot of what Wooten writes is tinged with the same neo-Confederate bias as you exhibit. The author of the bill, Matt Towery, A REPUBLICAN, said his intent was never to exact such a harsh penalty for teens. As has been reported in many publications, the fact that the bill that was passed containing such a penalty has been described as a “mistake” and an “oversight.” Only the most cruel legislature would have corrected that mistake and not made it retroactive. But this was just a black kid — and Republicans are never at a loss to crank up the old racist imagery of black men engaging in wanton sex. I’d bet you and Wooten would have been mute if this was a son of a prominent family from Buckhead.

The courts have always had the power and responsibility to set aside grossly unfair and unjust penalties. By your way of thinking, judges would have “activist” for overturning Jim Crow laws. And you’d have protested them, I’m sure.

Consider your rhetoric: “The Supreme Court has opened the door for the release of hundreds of sexual predators.” Oh, who else does this ruling impact? Can you cite the cases? As far as I can tell, it’s a universe of one. If other teens are in jail for such unjust periods of time, I haven’t read of them I don’t think they exist, but if they do, and if the circumstances are similar to Wilson’s (consensual), they too should be released. The appropriate penalty — what the legislature passed to correct its error — is on the books.

Throwing out statements like that, unless you can back it up, is irresponsible and nothing but demagoguery.

By: Eric Johnson

Eric Johnson — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:43:46 +0000

Here are the facts: There were two girls involved. One charged the guys with rape. (Yes, they were acquitted.) Several plead guilty, including “false imprisonment” of the 17 year old. The minor girl appeared to provide oral sex consensually, but is 6 upperclassmen in a room with 1 young girl intimidating? Did she feel like she had a choice?

Genarlow Wilson is free. I am glad. But he remains a convicted felon for aggravated child molestation. His life has changed. So has the lives of the two girls. It is a sad, sad story.

Last year, the legislature decided that a mandatory 10 year sentence was too harsh and changed it. I voted for it. But we specifically declined to make it retroactive.

The Georgia Supreme Court – by a 1 vote margin – overturned clear legislative intent. They cited shifting community standards. Is the death penalty next to go? This is not their job. And, while you clearly agree with their decision, it is a dangerous precendent. You would be screaming bloody murder if a “conservative” court overturned a “liberal” law because they put their personal preference above those who write the laws.

At least acknowledge that somebody can disagree with this decision without being a racist. Please. Is Jim Wooten? Is Justice Harold Melton?