Not More Genarlow!!!

It’s a shame to waste a second day on Genarlow Wilson. I don’t think he deserved nine grand. I certainly don’t think he warrants two posts. But as Anonymous stated, you all were busy little bees yesterday, and now I need to say my piece.

Mr. Antagonist, I’m gonna have to adamantly disagree with you on several issues.

First, I realize degenerate is a harsh term, and I don’t usually throw it around lightly. Shoplifters, pot smokers, etc. I wouldn’t necessarily label degenerates. They could be good kids that made a couple of bad choices.

But Genarlow Wilson was accused of raping one girl and molesting another in incidents stemming from the same party. He had sex with an unconscious 17-year-old. He used his influence as an athlete and older man to pressure a child into oral sex. And he and his buddies videotaped the whole thing. Classy.

Perhaps worst of all, he wasn’t willing to admit that what he did was wrong. The other guys on the tape took plea bargains and didn’t serve any prison time. Mr. Wilson refused to do so (thanks for the extra research, Zizzle-Zot Historian P Corcs). Was it pride, ego, lack of conscience? I don’t know the answer.

I’ve always assumed a good standard for decency was to never be accused of criminal sexual misconduct (whether that be rape, molestation, etc.). Most people go through their entire lives without a single accusation (shocking, I know). This guy was accused twice in one night. What’s your definition of degenerate?

I think we’ll all agree that the law was silly and the sentence harsh. This is where several readers were hung up, and therefore missed the point. No one thinks there should be a ten year sentence for oral sex.

The fact is that Mr. Wilson broke the law. Mr. Antagonist, you’re right to say that sentences aren’t handed out by computers. We need to use a little common sense. But in this case the judge’s hands were tied. The law that Mr. Wilson was found guilty of (because he refused to take a plea) had a mandatory sentence tied to it. This was a flaw in the law, no doubt (and one that has since been corrected), but it was law nonetheless.

Judges aren’t allowed to be relative when there are mandatory sentences. In some ways this is a good thing. At what point would it end? If a guy gets murdered, but the judge decides he really deserved it, should the murderer get a lesser sentence? Of course not (this was hyperbole – I don’t want any outrage that I’m comparing Genarlow to a murderer).

Truth be told, if I were writing this post and Mr. Wilson were still locked up, I would be arguing the other side of the issue completely. I would be screaming for his release. The law was absurd.

But that’s not the point. This whole legal issue is peripheral. One more time, so everyone’s on the same page: The law was wrong. It was ridiculous. Moving on.

As P Corcs was starting to get at (I like your style, P Corcs. Nice fact-finding, great sarcasm), Mr. Wilson did nothing to deserve the money that was given to him, and therein lies my problem.

Mr. Antagonist, you say that “they are giving him the money because he was wrongly imprisoned for two years.” There are people convicted of crimes and exonerated by DNA evidence years later. They were innocent all along. These people were wrongly imprisoned.

Mr. Wilson broke the law. There was a videotape of him breaking the law. There was a mandatory sentence. He wasn’t wrongly imprisoned. The law was wrong, but his imprisonment wasn’t wrongful. Un-just? Yes. Silly? Yes. A waste of everybody’s time and money? Yes. But not wrongful.

I realize there are some gaps in the sequence, but look at the cause/effect relationship of the events and it’s hard to deny that Mr. Wilson is receiving $9,000 for getting a beej. Instigating action: Mr. Wilson gets some lovin’. Final outcome: Mr. Wilson gets $9,000.

The fact that the money isn’t coming out of my taxes doesn’t rectify the situation in my eyes. The problem is that he’s getting scholarship money at all.

I’m arguing the principle.

There are millions of deserving kids worldwide that can’t afford to go to college. Kids that worked hard and stayed out of trouble, but for whatever reason the cards have been stacked against them. These kids will slip through the cracks. They will spend their lives in poverty and no one will ever know their names.

What do these kids need to do to get the same national exposure? How do they get the extra assistance that Mr. Wilson has been offered?

These kids will be forever forgotten because publicity seeking dumbasses (like Jesse Jackson) would rather reward convicted criminals.

That’s the point. As P Corcs points out, the money isn’t unlimited. I’m not outraged as a tax payer, or as a legal-eagle. I’m outraged as a human being. I’m outraged that some brilliant young man or woman will spend a lifetime working in a factory because Genarlow Wilson, the man who got together with his buddies to videotape a 15-year-old performing oral sex, was given the money that he/she had worked so hard to earn.

I know I’m coming off a little bullish on the issue, but sometimes I get tired of playing moderate.

Thanks for reading.

PS. Mr. Antagonist, apologies for not commenting on your blog yet. I assure you that I read it the day you posted, but have spent the time since digesting. I promise I’ll get there.