Genarlow Wilson Free!

This evening, our justice system has shown itself to work, on some level, by granting the release of Genarlow Wilson. This decision has come about by the hard work of many individuals who saw this case, from the very beginning, as being one of cruel and unusual punishment. The Georgia state prosecutors ruled earlier that, with no prima facie fault, the decision to appeal the ruling that the Monore County judge held in support of Mr. Wilson was an accurate one, furthermore stating that his case would not be looked at retroactively due to the law change. With this decision came about much action by Civil Rights groups, students and Georgia citizens to see that justice in this case was served, duly to Genarlow and his family. This case was taken to the Georgia State Supreme Court, who ruled in a 4-3 decision that they would uphold the Monroe County judge that this was in fact cruel and unusual punishment. This decision came about by the swift and diligent leadership of one of Cornell's own, CHIEF JUSTICE of the Georgia State Supreme Court, the honorable Leah Ward Sears.

Chief Justice Sears received her B.S. from Cornell University in 1976, her J.D. from Emory University in 1980 and an LL.M from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1995. At Cornell, she was a member of the Quill and Dagger honor society (of which I am a proud member) and she is an active member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Inc. Prior to becoming a Superior Court Judge in 1988 (the first African-American woman to hold that position in the state), she was a trial attorney with law firm Alston & Bird and a judge in the City of Atlanta Traffic Court, to which she was appointed by then Mayor Andrew Young.

As a Cornell Alum from the class of 2007, I am proud to call her a fellow Cornellian and fellow acquaintance. Being from Georgia never felt any better during this landmark case in which the state of Georgia changed its law due to the archaic nature of the penalty that unjustly placed Genarlow Wilson at odds and in prison. As a fellow High School classmate of Genarlow, I can tell you how proud his mother and sister are for his release as am I. His Lawyer, BJ Bernstein is also a true trailblazer in this case having worked long and hard to see her client and now friend released from prison.

Take this lesson as a way to look at how Cornellians are shaping the world we live in. Work hard, smart and above all, remain dedicated to success. Hats off to Cornell University and Bj Bernstein for another job well-done!

Below you will find some comments that a few other Cornellians and I were having about the case:

*********************

I am very excited! I hope he can just have his life back. I was reading some of the comments and it's just so sad how ignorant people are. Some actually believe that he should be in jail. Also, the logic in the Georgia Supreme Court's dissenting opinion was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard of. The majority argued that since Georgia changed the law it was obvious they themselves no longer agreed with the idea that consensual oral sex should be punished with 10 years in prison. That seems like a logical reaction to me. The dissent replies....Yeah, they changed their mind on the acceptable punishment for consensual sex but they didn't change their mind on GENARLOW. And it's kind of like well.....if they changed their mind in general then why should Genarlow be the exception? I don't think they provided any evidence that should be treated as the exception other than the fact that the prosecutors wanted him to be.

-Javeste Dulcio

*****************************

Wait, hold up... I don't think the dissent's argument was faulty prima facie. The dissent argued that the majority is callously disregarding the General Assembly's constitutional authority in that the legislature specifically amended the law explicitly delineating that it will not be applied retroactively. The legislature is perfectly within its constitutional authority to do this. It might be stupid and wrong, but that's what it is. The role of the courts is to interpret the law where there is ambiguity in its application and meaning, not to legislate or override wherein the legislature has expressly outlined the law and its application. On the other hand, the courts can rule a law to be unconstitutional - and I think that's where the majority's strength lies in this case, in that it declared the punishment de jure unconstitutional because it was cruel and unusual punishment - I mean 10 years of imprisonment without chance of probation or parole for oral sex? Albeit a social ill for teenagers to be sexually active premaritally, I would think anyone in this day and age would consider this punishment a "gross miscarriage of justice" for a 17 year old to be imprisoned for 10 years because he got oral sex (forgive my crudity) from some 15 year old.

-Funmi Ojetayo

**************************

I think we are saying the same thing. The legislature had had the RIGHT to make it un-retroactive (if that is a word) but in doing so they made it easier for the Court to argue that it was cruel and unusual punishmet because the legislature themselves think those standards of punishment are no longer just and appropriate. Thus, the dissent saying "Well, the Courts intended to exclude Genarlow from the new legislation" does nothing to address the majoirty's point. In fact, it further proves the majority's point that Genarlow suffered clear and unusual punishment because no one else would suffer such punishment and the legislature no longer supported such punishment as appropriate. Hence, my rationale for saying the dissent't logic ws a bit irrational.

-Javeste Dulcio

*************************

True that I do not think that the dissent's argument was faulty prima
facie due to the legislative power the law held when it was passed; however, because the change in law was brought on, not by the volition of the General Assembly, but by legal pressure from the convicted's counsel, the law has the aptitude to be applied retroactively to the convicted party regardless of the constraints on the law as it is passed. In this case, I think the state prosecutors were influenced by mitigating circumstances, that is, circumstances not constituting justification or excuse for the offense in question (Coker v. Georgia), the color of his skin for instance and the disproportionately large amount of cases where Black men have been sentenced harsher penalties in the past for doing similar acts are among those circumstances. The State of Georgia was using a rule of past precedence to make the decision about Genarlow. The State found its past precedents to be archaic in nature and unjust towards people of color, thus a change in law had to ensue with the decision, being as it was, to be applied to Genarlow's case, without consideration of changing all cases prior to Genarlow. The fact that they considered to not apply this to his case, assuming that he was fighting this to set new precedent and not pro bono work, that he would not benefit from, in my mind, is unconstitutional ~ DUE PROCESS. It would be similar to a United States v. Wong Kim Ark where it was held that it was unconstitutional to deny citizenship on the basis that Wong Kim Ark was Chinese in ancestry and him not being able to reap the benefit of this case for his own merit. Genarlow's case is a showing, albeit a weak one, that the courts work with the right counsel and right law in place to help. Cruel and unusual punishment cases are laden in GA's history. I am glad that his case set a new ground and changed law despite a difference in color of counsel, being he was black and his
lawyer white --- ( similar to A Time To Kill)

-Justin Davis