By SHAILA DEWAN
ATLANTA, Dec. 18 — Genarlow Wilson, 20, is serving a prison sentence that shocked his jury, elicited charges of racism from critics of the justice system and even acknowledgment by prosecutors and the State Legislature that it is unjust.
He was sentenced to 10 years in prison without parole for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party, an offense that constituted aggravated child molesting, even though Mr. Wilson was 17.
With Mr. Wilson — a football player, honor student and the first homecoming king at Douglas County High School — nearing two years in prison, the Georgia Supreme Court declined last Friday to hear his appeal.
Mr. Wilson, who is black, is trapped in a legal vise intended to ensure severe penalties for child molesters and other sex offenders, navigating a maze of legal technicalities that for him seems to hold nothing but dead ends ...
... On New Year’s Eve in 2003, Mr. Wilson and several friends rented a hotel room for a party at which they planned to have plenty of alcohol, marijuana and sex. One friend, goofing around with a video camera, captured much of the action on videotape. A 17-year-old girl reported after leaving the party that she had been gang raped. The tape showed that she was severely intoxicated...
Point of View
It's impossible to ignore the parallel between this case and the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case. Both involve young students deciding to throw a party. Both involved athletes and honors students. Both cases involved under aged drinking.
Both cases involved consensual attendance by the females. No one was forced to be at the party. Both parties ended up with a gang rape charge being made. Both cases involve charges of racism.
In both cases, extremely poor judgment was shown on the part of all those involved.
The Duke Lacrosse players paid $800.00 for two adult strippers to perform for a group of young men who had been partying since about 2pm.
According to the NYT article above, Genarlow Wilson and his friends apparently had enough money too.
Enough money to rent a hotel room where " ... they planned to have plenty of alcohol, marijuana and sex."
However, that party involved not just booze, but drugs AND pre-planned sex with under aged girls.
What are the differences?
The differences are that the Wilson party involved an alleged gang rape and sexual molestation involving black boys against intoxicated black females.
The Duke party involved an alleged gang rape involving white boys against an impaired black female.
The difference is that there was an immediate community out cry against the Duke lacrosse players.
Outraged Pot bangers, New Black Panthers, student and feminist speakers, and media galore - all protesting the supposed rape of a black female.
Cries for justice against the degradation and victimization of black females by whites rang out loudly across the country.
Jesse Jackson, benevolent soul that he is, stepped up and offered to pay for this young woman's college tuition, so that she wouldn't "be forced" to work as a stripper to feed her kids.
Where, I would like to know, was the out cry over the pre-planned victimization of under aged, intoxicated black females in Georgia? Did I miss it?
Where were the pot bangers? The feminists? The media, with their cameras stuck in everyone's face? Where the heck was Jesse Jackson?
Didn't he want to pay these young traumatized victim's tuition when they went off to college? I don't know.
Perhaps, umm, maybe because there weren't enough cameras stuck in everyone's faces at the time?
Could it be that because this was a black against black crime that it didn't warrant his attention - or his wallet?
Why wasn't the community out there shouting that those young black boys should be convicted of gang rape and sexual molestation - even if they didn't do it - just to make up for all the injustices and victimization blacks commit against blacks?
Because sadly, that's the way it usually is.
Criminology studies and statistics have shown over and over again that people are victimized most by their own community members, neighbors, friends, and relatives.
Studies show that Blacks victimize blacks more than they victimize whites. Whites victimize whites more than they victimize blacks. Hispanics victimize Hispanics. Criminals usually stick to their own neighborhoods.
Rape is almost completely intra racial.
I keep reading that those "white boys" should pay for all the times black women have been raped by white men. When? When has it happened?
I've read the statistics. Black women are usually raped by black men. White women are usually raped by white men. Rarely does it ever cross racial lines.
I keep reading about how justice should be served against those "white boys" because of all those black men imprisoned because of false rape charges by white women.
When? Where are the statistics on this? Someone please show me the numbers.
I hate to disillusion members of the black community - and believe me, I mean no offense when I say this - but if black men are behind bars, it's mostly because black women put them there - false accusations or not.
Out of all my patients I've seen complaining of sexual assault, I can't recall a single complaint of a white male assaulting a black female.
Most of my patients are from the AA community. When asked the race of the attacker(s), the answer is always "black", even in supposed abductions and gang rape situations.
And I've only had one instance of black against white.
Rape rarely ever crosses racial boundaries. I read an on line post once, where someone claiming to be a black female made the remark that white males will rape black females because they find them more attractive than white women.
I was shocked when I read that. I couldn't believe that in this day and age, someone could actually still believe that rape has anything to do with finding someone attractive.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing 80 year old rape victims.
Rape is about violence and control - not about sexual attraction!
Some theorists believe that intra racial rape has to do with location. Victims of the same race are close by. It's easier to attack someone from the neighborhood and that person is usually of the same race. I think that's true.
However, I believe it goes deeper than that. If you've read any of my posts on rapist profiling, it's easy to see that rapists have serious emotional issues dealing with the significant females in their early life.
There is a great deal of hate and anger directed at those women who played an essential part of their growing up.
The primary one, of course, is the rapist's mother. The mother is usually of the same race as the child.
When that child grows up and starts displaying aggression, he's targeting someone who represents that significant female. So of course, the victim will usually be of the same race as his mother.
That's my theory anyway. And I believe it explains why, even when a rapist goes out of the neighborhood, he will still usually target a female of the same race.
This was one of the biggest clues that had me questioning the Duke case from the beginning.
Racially speaking, the Duke case "rape" scenario is very atypical of rapes, including gang rape.
According to statistics and studies, even gang rapes tend to involve victims of the same race as the perpetrator (s).
"Acquaintance" assaults usually involve people of the same race. The same goes for "acquaintance" homicides. They all rarely cross racial boundaries.
If I'm wrong about there being no huge out cry regarding the Wilson case and the intended victimization of young, underage black females, I'll apologize.
However, I cannot recall ever hearing of any. I certainly don't recall it being all over the news, nor do I recall Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton giving speeches against this type of victimization, or offering tuition payment.
Does it not seem reasonable to believe that those young women might have been so traumatized that they might have trouble working to support themselves, and pay for school, as well?
The Wilson boy was not 12 years old. He was certainly old enough and smart enough to knew that what he was doing was illegal. I'm assuming the same goes for his friends.
And those girls were not adult strippers earning money. They were under aged young women. The defense was consent (hard to deny considering the film) - not multiple witnesses stating outright that no sex ever took place.
If there is any outrage, it should be for the fact that those young women were deliberately intoxicated and victimized - and filmed to boot.
If I were a member of the black female community, I would have been outraged that there was no public outcry - that our daughters and sisters were not being protected against this kind of "Hooliganism".
If that were my daughter, I would have been the loudest pot banger out there!
I'm sorry to be so woefully uninformed, but you write "Most of my patients are from the AA community."
African-American? Or Alcoholics Anonynmous?
I'm not trying to be cute, I've just never read AA as anything other than Friend of Bill W's before.
Posted by: Richard R | December 20, 2006 at 07:11 PM