OT: Genarlow Wilson is Free!

[Johnnybravo4]

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/sto...age_tab_newstab

Thank GOD!

[coachx]

That is Hawks related how ?

[Johnnybravo4]

That is why it is OT dumbazz

[coachx]

Never seen a political article posted in here unless it had some relation sports.

There are forums for that.

Why do you revert name calling? Grow up and take a chill pill.

Over time does not mean you can post political articles in basketball forums. I'm not the moderator, just my opinion.

If one person does this and gets away with it other people will too.

I come here for basketball news to escpape the real world. Political post lead to more post on political opinions. This board does not need to go there. There is enough bickering on just basketball, lets not bring other stuff to the Atlanta Hawks Forum too.

[Johnnybravo4]

It is sports related, he was one of the highest rated recruits his senior year in H.S. Besides its a national story. If H.S. had been around during the Kennedy assassination you'd kill someone because they made a thread announcing it.

God I hate message board Nazis.

[TroyMcClure]

Quote:

---

I come here for basketball news to escpape the real world. Political post lead to more post on political opinions. This board does not need to go there. There is enough bickering on just basketball, lets not bring other stuff to the Atlanta Hawks Forum too.

---

Dude. This is not a political post. Besides, I've seen a few from you. If you don't know what OT means(it's off topic, not overtime) you shouldn't respond.

Perhaps you don't want to talk because your spouse from what I remember is a prosecutor? Possibly part of the team that put this KID in jail? Forgive me if I'm wrong but...seriously man, he was just posting a POSITIVE story. This is in no way political. There are not two sides to this. They were both minors, only a few years apart and it was consentual.

Anyway, AtLaS and Ex are the thread police.

Anyway...totally happy for the kid. I hope he's not too angry and can go to college and put this behind him. Whether or not sports are in his future, it's very nice to see that freedom is.

Hey JB, just put this stuff in the lounge so coachx's day won't be ruined.

[coachx]

Any time I ever brought up what lawyers had told me it was in direct regards to sports related topics such as: the crime wave at all star weekend in Las Vegas, business relations in China and its effenct on Yi when 95% of the board were drooling over Yi, the Hawks ownership battle, or the Michael Vick criminal case.

If you want to group his thread with those above it would fit a Simphson's Cartoon Character's perspective. Like your perspective that another coach would have taken the Hawks to playoffs without Chillz and JJ for the last 5 weeks of the season.

I just don't go post a an article for some kid in jail who played high school sports. Since he played high school sports I guess you can really reach and call that sports related if you want to reach that far.

Oh, well. I don't really care. Post what ever you want, its not my job to moderate. I 'm leaving for Jacksonville now. Go DAWGS !

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Any time I ever brought up what lawyers had told me it was in direct regards to sports related topics such as: the crime wave at all star weekend in Las Vegas, business relations in China and its effenct on Yi when 95% of the board were drooling over Yi, the Hawks ownership battle, or the Michael Vick criminal case.

If you want to group his thread with those above it would fit a Simphson's Cartoon Character's perspective. Like your perspective that another coach would have taken the Hawks to playoffs without Chillz and JJ for the last 5 weeks of the season.

I just don't go post a an article for some kid in jail who played high school sports. Since he played high school sports I guess you can really reach and call that sports related if you want to reach that far.

Oh, well. I don't really care. Post what ever you want, its not my job to moderate. I 'm leaving for Jacksonville now. Go DAWGS !

---

Please have a lot of cocktails!

[coachx]

---

Dude. This is not a political post. Besides, I've seen a few from you. If you don't know what OT means(it's off topic, not overtime) you shouldn't respond.

---

Sorry I don't know teenage text messaging short hand. I do know basketball abbreviations. This being a basketball forum and all............

There was alot of debate on the news with this. The NAACP and the lady lawyer who is alwayse on Nancy Grace were protesting (moe like screaming daily) for the kid......It is definately a politial issue.

Thanks for telling me what I should and should not do, mom.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

It is sports related, he was one of the highest rated recruits his senior year in H.S. Besides its a national story. If H.S. had been around during the Kennedy assassination you'd kill someone because they made a thread announcing it.

God I hate message board Nazis.

---

Comparing this to the Kennedy assination now.....only in your little world.

[Swatguy]

The best news I heard in months.

[coachx]

My apologies for blowing my top.

I see this story is even on the espn home page.

I was out of line. In the future I will not let simple name calling get me so amped up.

Hope both of you have a good weekend.

[scottt]

Now that all the hand wringing is over about who is sorry and who should take a chill pill -- the reasoning in this decision is so laughably bad that it should not pass for a Judicial opinion. While I certainly agree that a 10 yr mandatory minimum for sex amongst teens is clearly excessive, that is not the issue. At some point, the people acting thru their reps get to say what the law is. All the Supreme Court did was say that the people were wrong. They talk about some "consensus" that this sentence is cruel and unusual -- but that statement is provably wrong. There is no such consensus. The legislature had several opportunities to change this law and they never did.

My point is not that Genarlow Wilson should remain in prison. My point is simply that a consensus of 4 lawyers

(the decision was 4-3) was able to completely disregard the will of the people as expressed thru their elected officials. This is dangerous. What is there were a very conservative court? Do we want them to disregard laws they may not agree with? I think not.

thanx for listening. these are my thoughts. i am a lawyer and I find this stuff interesting.

Oh, and just to make this post germane to this site-- Go Hawks.

[Swatguy]

Quote:

---

Now that all the hand wringing is over about who is sorry and who should take a chill pill -- the reasoning in this decision is so laughably bad that it should not pass for a Judicial opinion. While I certainly agree that a 10 yr mandatory minimum for sex amongst teens is clearly excessive, that is not the issue. At some point, the people acting thru their reps get to say what the law is. All the Supreme Court did was say that the people were wrong. They talk about some "consensus" that this sentence is cruel and unusual -- but that statement is provably wrong. There is no such consensus. The legislature had several opportunities to change this law and they never did.

My point is not that Genarlow Wilson should remain in prison. My point is simply that a consensus of 4 lawyers

(the decision was 4-3) was able to completely disregard the will of the people as expressed thru their elected officials. This is dangerous. What is there were a very conservative court? Do we want them to disregard laws they may not agree with? I think not.

thanx for listening. these are my thoughts. i am a lawyer and I find this stuff interesting.

Oh, and just to make this post germane to this site-- Go Hawks.

---

Moses had Aaron

I KNOW you Gotta have a Proof Reader.

[bfwolf]

But Scottt, the legislature did change the law, they just didn't do so retroactively. In my mind, changing the law acknowledges that the punishment was wrong and doesn't fit the crime. It therefore seems very reasonable to me for the Supreme Court to say that the punishment is cruel and unusual, as even the Georgia legislature thinks so now.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Now that all the hand wringing is over about who is sorry and who should take a chill pill -- the reasoning in this decision is so laughably bad that it should not pass for a Judicial opinion. While I certainly agree that a 10 yr mandatory minimum for sex amongst teens is clearly excessive, that is not the issue. At some point, the people acting thru their reps get to say what the law is. All the Supreme Court did was say that the people were wrong. They talk about some "consensus" that this sentence is cruel and unusual -- but that statement is provably wrong. There is no such consensus. The legislature had several opportunities to change this law and they never did.

My point is not that Genarlow Wilson should remain in prison. My point is simply that a consensus of 4 lawyers

(the decision was 4-3) was able to completely disregard the will of the people as expressed thru their elected officials. This is dangerous. What is there were a very conservative court? Do we want them to disregard laws they may not agree with? I think not.

thanx for listening. these are my thoughts. i am a lawyer and I find this stuff interesting.

Oh, and just to make this post germane to this site-- Go Hawks.

---

Not only that, but the Court is not bound by the "consensus of the people." The purpose of a Supreme Court, in the vein of Marbury vs. Madison, is to say what the law is. The consensus of the people is what got us Jim Crow laws, 3/5ths compromises, and slavery.

What you want is a democracy. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Representative Republic.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

But Scottt, the legislature did change the law, they just didn't do so retroactively. In my mind, changing the law acknowledges that the punishment was wrong and doesn't fit the crime. It therefore seems very reasonable to me for the Supreme Court to say that the punishment is cruel and unusual, as even the Georgia legislature thinks so now.

---

Simply changing the law doesn't reflect that the legislature believed it to be cruel and unusual. In fact, the fact that the legislature specifically rejected making this retroactive is much more powerful evidence that they did NOT consider it to be cruel and unusual.

The original dissent's warning that this could be used by others convicted under similar circumstances is 100% true. The nature of this holding is such that anyone convicted under similar circumstances under the old law should have grounds to challenge their sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Similar circumstances, though, are probably not easy to find since prosecutors were not in the practice of going after consenting teenagers under this statute. Wilson was targeted in part because the police believed he had actually committed rape and should not get any leniency (he was acquited on the rape charge).

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now that all the hand wringing is over about who is sorry and who should take a chill pill -- the reasoning in this decision is so laughably bad that it should not pass for a Judicial opinion. While I certainly agree that a 10 yr mandatory minimum for sex amongst teens is clearly excessive, that is not the issue. At some point, the people acting thru their reps get to say what the law is. All the Supreme Court did was say that the people were wrong. They talk about some "consensus" that this sentence is cruel and unusual -- but that statement is provably wrong. There is no such consensus. The legislature had several opportunities to change this law and they never did.

My point is not that Genarlow Wilson should remain in prison. My point is simply that a consensus of 4 lawyers

(the decision was 4-3) was able to completely disregard the will of the people as expressed thru their elected officials. This is dangerous. What is there were a very conservative court? Do we want them to disregard laws they may not agree with? I think not.

thanx for listening. these are my thoughts. i am a lawyer and I find this stuff interesting.

Oh, and just to make this post germane to this site-- Go Hawks.

---

Not only that, but the Court is not bound by the "consensus of the people." The purpose of a Supreme Court, in the vein of Marbury vs. Madison, is to say what the law is. The consensus of the people is what got us Jim Crow laws, 3/5ths compromises, and slavery.

What you want is a democracy. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Representative Republic.

---

In fairness to the Court, I don't think they were evaluating this in terms of the consensus of the people. They were evaluating whether the punishment was cruel and unusual. Part of their analysis was looking at the punishment for this conduct in other jurisdictions and in other places it is not punished at all and nowhere is it a 10 year felony like in GA. That isn't dispositive, and the Court certainly didn't say that the GA courts have to follow national trends, but it is something to support the notion that a 10 year sentence without parole for consenual sexual activity between two minor teenagers is cruel and unusual punishment (particularly the "unusual" part).

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

The legislature had several opportunities to change this law and they never did.

---

Bzzt. They did change the law. It just wasn't applied retroactively!

[bfwolf]

If they don't believe it to be cruel and unusual, AHF, then why change it at all? I guess we could split hairs and say that the legislature no longer considers this a felony-worthy crime, but how is that really different from saying that giving somebody 10 years for this crime is cruel and unusual? I mean, it seems to me that if the legislature doesn't think that anybody should get 10 years for this crime anymore, and in fact shouldn't get more than 1 year, that a reasonable person could then deduce that 10 years is in fact cruel and unusual.

The fact that they didn't make it retroactive, from what I can tell, speaks more to some of the personal motives of some of the legislature who thought that Genarlow Wilson's behavior WAS worthy of 10 years even if they didn't want others doing that amount of time for the same crime. This smacks very badly of racism to me, but who knows for sure, right?

In any event, isn't it fair for the court to make the interpretation that the changing of the law means the legislature and thus the people of Georgia believe the punishment is cruel and unusual, and that therefore it is unconstitutional to not apply the change retroactively, whether the legislature/people want to or not?