The Criminal Defense Blog sponsored by “Total Criminal Defense” took what I considered to be an unusual position in its post Thursday, “Genarlow Wilson Case Not Just About 17 Year Old Having Consensual Sex With 15 Year Old”. Noting that Wilson received a ten year prison sentence for consensual sex with someone just two years younger than him, the “Guest Attorney” who wrote the post called it a “seeming miscarriage of justice”.

But wait, Mr. Anonymous “Guest Attorney” wants us to know that Wilson’s sentence is indeed justified because:

According to the Journal Constitution, a video tape from the party shows Genarlow having sex with a 17-year-old “listless” girl who later said it was against her will. Wilson’s jury decided the girl had consented…

Whether the 17-year-old consented, or not, Genarlow took advantage of a drunk girl. Rape is generally defined as having intercourse without consent.

When a girl is too drunk to say “no,” intercourse with her is rape. At the very least, there was a drug and alcohol induced, videotaped orgy amongst minors. It is the videotape and the prosecutor’s belief Genarlow raped the girl that keep him in jail for the time being.

I can’t tell if the writer realizes that when he says the “jury decided the girl had consented,” that he is talking about the fact that Wilson was acquitted of that charge. Found Not Guilty.

But the newspaper report and the “prosecutor’s belief” are enough to outweigh the acquittal. Those two things justify the excessive sentence in the consensual sex conviction.

I expect that type of reaction from the public, but you’d think a defense attorney would know better.

  • Didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald argue that Scotter Libby deserved a harsh sentence because he leaked Mrs Wilson’s name, even though Mr Libby was not charged or convicted of leaking Mrs Wilson’s name?

    I think that the federal rules allow this sort of unfortunate prosecution behavior.