Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > February > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USRumblings of boycott from the sports world
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When sportswriters in Philadelphia encourage protests on the steps of the state Capitol in Atlanta, an issue has reached critical mass. Outside of Georgia, anyway.
Sunday’s editions of the Philadelphia Inquirer took note of a blog entry authored by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks.
Cuban declared that he was boycotting Georgia - save for a March 25 meeting between his team and the Atlanta Hawks - until the state freed 20-year-old Genarlow Wilson.
Wilson is the star football player from a Douglas County high school, who at age 17, had consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. A jury convicted him of aggravated child molestation, and a judge sentenced him to the maximum 10 years in prison. Wilson was one of six arrested after a night of partying.
Over the winter, Wilson has become a national cause celebre in the sports world. ESPN in particular has given the case much attention.
Many have drawn parallels between Wilson’s case and that of Marcus Dixon, an 18-year-old from Rome who spent 15 months in prison after being convicted of aggravated child molestation and statutory rape before the Georgia Supreme Court overturned his sentence.
“Genarlow Wilson was sentenced to 10 years in jail for doing something every 17-year old I knew, including me, tried to do. He is two years into this nightmare that only makes the state of Georgia a poster child for mistrust in government,” Cuban wrote. “There is no chance I do business in the state of Georgia beyond the commitment the Mavs have to play the Hawks until Genarlow is out of jail.”
But the sportswriter in Philadelphia noted that - except for the Mavs - the team owner has few other business interests in Georgia, making his threat rather empty.
“To the point, why not have the Mavs boycott the Hawks game to show how serious he was about standing up for Wilson?” the writer wrote. “To our surprise, Cuban e-mailed back that he’d ‘look into it.’”
Not that it’s likely to happen, discipline being so strict in the NBA. However, the paper had some other suggestions: “Have the players on both teams donate their game check amounts to help Wilson’s family pay its numerous legal bills. Have them go to the Georgia State House together before the game to show public solidarity for Wilson.”
State Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur) has dropped S.B. 37, a measure that would allow Wilson’s sentence to be shortened or suspended by a judge.
Talk about this amongst yourselves. We’ll pick out the most thoughtful responses and wrap them into separate posting late this afternoon.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By A Voter
February 5, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Of course there is an assumption in your posting that perhaps is worthy of debate.
Can a 15 year old consent to sexual contact of any kind?
What about a 14 year old, a 13 year old?
Policy demands that a line be drawn somewhere. In Georgia it happens to be the line between 15 and 16. I also believe this individual was given the benefit of a defense and the presumption of innocence and access to a court to have his case heard before a jury.
Is the sentence a fair one?
I assume the legislature passed a bill authorizing such a sentence and/or the elected judge that heard his case imposed the sentence as required by the law.
So where exactly does the blame lie here?
What should our policy on “consenual” sexual conduct involving a 15 year old be?
I wish the same amount of column space would be devoted to these questions…
By CMS
February 5, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
I read the article posted on ESPN last week and was apalled! In part because it was the first time I heard about this case as it obviously did not receive much local coverage. There is a short video clip that blurs out the action, but one can get a general idea of what is going on.
At the end of the day statutory rape laws are necessary as they protect the innocent from predators. But they do not take into account girls who are too fast for their own good. (That’s another can of worms by itself). I agree with Cuban’s sentiments as justice has not been served to Wilson in the state of Georgia. (Even the “victim’s mother says he is not guilty.)And for ABC Networks to shine a national light on this makes me wonder if there has been some back slapping on Captial Hill to ensure a local media quickly sweeps this under the rug.
By DebbieDoRight
February 5, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
The LAW is unjust!!! Anyone who has a teenager or a preteen had better BEWARE!! Basically the law was set up to stop ADULT predators from preying on our children; however they forgot to include the Romeo and Julier proviso. How would you like it if your 17 year old DAUGHTER went to jail for having consensual sex with her 15 or 15 year old boyfriend? It’s time for Georgia to stop being the laughing stock of the US and tighten up all these loopholes in our laws.
By DebbieDoRight
February 5, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
The LAW is unjust!!! Anyone who has a teenager or a preteen had better BEWARE!! Basically the law was set up to stop ADULT predators from preying on our children; however they forgot to include the Romeo and Juliette proviso. How would you like it if your 17 year old DAUGHTER went to jail for having consensual sex with her 15 or 16 year old boyfriend? It’s time for Georgia to stop being the laughing stock of the US and tighten up all these loopholes in our laws.
By connie
February 5, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
You need to read the whole story from the beginning. The sex was not consensual. The jury convicted him of a lesser offense but that was not the testimony. The girl was coerced.
By War Eagle
February 5, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
Typical-the law is unjust when it pertains to you. Laws are made to stop boys and their testosterone from impregnating girls through the coersion of “i bought you a nice dinner, now put out.” What ever happened to concluding a date with a kiss and not sex? Unjust? Is it unjust like the no beer on Sunday law? Or is it a “way he was brought up law?” Was he convicted of having sex while being black? Or, was he really convicted under the interpretation of an outstanding law? That’s why it is called dating and not fornicating. You go out on a date and not out on a fornicate.
By DebbieDoRight
February 5, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Laws are made to stop boys and their testosterone from impregnating girls through the coersion of “i bought you a nice dinner, now put out
You must’ve graduate from a Georgia public school. READ THE ARTICLE that is referenced or bettet yet, GOOGLE the case and see what it says. The “young lady” INITIATED the sex!!! and all the “young ladies” involved initiated the sex acts in the hotel room. So why isn’t anyone throwing THEM in jail?
By DebbieDoRight
February 5, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
Connie: Excerpt from Atlanta Magazine (girls names changed, etc):
After all, Michelle had arrived at the party tipsy; she’d been drinking Hennessy cognac that afternoon even before the party began. She voluntarily continued to drink and smoke with them. She had packed a bag, obviously with the intention of spending the night. She had also reportedly flirted relentlessly with the guys, including her old high school track buddy Genarlow. And more importantly, even Michelle’s own girlfriend, Natasha*, who’d also been at the party, told investigators that she had never heard Michelle say “no” to the guys.
As for Tracy, she did not drink or smoke that night, but willingly performed oral sex on several of the guys, practically one after the other, as the telltale videotape showed. Tracy had not wanted to press charges and was as surprised as the boys that police showed up at the hotel that New Year’s morning. At no point did anyone at the party discuss their ages. They were all peers.
Sounds “consensual” to me.
By DebbieDoRight
February 5, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Some key points you need to consider:
1.The jury found him not guilty of rape - that’s because the night had been videotaped and it was clear to all that he had not raped anyone.
He did not argue that he had not participated in oral sex; he argued that he had not molested a child.
The prosecutors in Douglas County were biased in their unilateral lynching of Wilson case in point:
*At the time that Genarlow’s trial was underway, just down the hall in the same courthouse, Douglas County Judge Robert James Baker was hearing the case of Alexander High School English teacher and cheering coach Kari McCarley. The 27-year-old was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male student who attended the school where she worked. She was sentenced to three years probation and 90 days in jail.
Another Douglas County Case:
In the case of 26-year-old George Tsimpides, First Offender status was extended in a sex crime. Tsimpides received 20 days in jail after he pleaded guilty to luring a 15-year-old girl he’d met on the Internet to Arbor Place Mall with the intention of engaging in sex with her.
And that fine, upstanding DA who prosecuted Wilson, what does HIS background look like? Let’s see…:
The D.A. himself has not been immune to sexual misconduct charges. In 1995, two female employees who worked in his office claimed McDade sexually harassed them, creating a “hostile work environment.”
But he wants to imprison a then 17 yo kid for sexual misconduct?!? Please!! Can anyone say HYPOCRITE?
By John
February 5, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this
Too bad ESPN distorted and twisted the facts of the Wilson case in much the same way HBO twisted facts of the Dixon case. In both cases, the defendants clearly were guilty of criminal conduct and plainly were in the wrong.
By SusieHomeMaker
February 5, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this
John: I wish I can get a glimpse into YOUR past — I wonder how “clean” it will be…….
It’s only distorted when you’re looking at it with skewered vision.
By Truth Filter
February 5, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this
I don’t think anyone is arguing that what Wilson did wasn’t wrong. They are arguing that the punishment was too harsh — at least that’s what I’m getting out of it.
10 years seems harsh for a kid who had sex with a kid two years younger than him. It was an bad choice — but probably not one that should essentially ruin his life!
By UGA75
February 5, 2007 11:33 PM | Link to this
There is no question something is wrong with the law when consentual sex, even though it is technically illegal, is punished more harshly than drug dealers and murderers. Everyone has heard of the teen sex parties that go on, but you don’t hear of many arrest taking place. The Law for the state of GA and the rest of the nation should take into consideration the age difference between the parties. A man having sex with a teen or heaven forbid a pre-teen is a violation of law and decency. That was the intention of the law, but two kids separated by 1, 2,or 3 years shouldn’t face the same penalty if the sex was consentual. a more realistic penalty would have been probation and then a harsher punishment if the actions of the offender become habitual in nature.
What happened was a youthful indiscretion, it deserves a similar punishment.