The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Genarlow Wilson’s sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. This comes after he served two years of a ten year sentence for, at the age of 17, engaging in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl.
Here we have it: Yet another case that exemplifies how unjust our criminal justice system truly is, especially for people of color. With 2.2 million folks in prison, most of them black and brown, and with 5 million on parole or probation, isn’t it time we take a long walk around the block to think about what our draconian law and policy is actually doing to our communities?
The 7 facts you may or may not know about Genarlow’s case:
1. Had Genarlow actually had sex with the girl, the act would have been charged as a misdemeanor.
2. Under Georgia law, until 1998, oral sex between a husband and a wife was illegal.
3. Five of the other high school-age boys who had consensual oral sex with the girl on that same night were offered — and accepted — plea bargains. Genarlow, the one without a criminal record or knowledge of court workings, decided to trust the American (in)justice system.
4. The jury acquitted Genarlow of one charge of rape but were forced to render a guilty verdict for the second charge, aggravated child molestation, because the girl was under the 16-years-of-age consent limit.
5. The conviction automatically registered Genarlow as a sex offender.
6. Because of mandatory minimum sentencing (the kind in which a drug dealer slinging 1 gram of crack cocaine is sentenced to the same time as someone selling 100 grams of powder) Genarlow automatically received 10 years without the possibility of probation or parole.
7. Many people have derided Thurbert Baker, the black Georgia DA who seems not to think that Genarlow’s sentence was cruel and unusual. Jimmy Carter wrote a blah blah state-the-obvious letter to Baker that put a crazy notion out there: “The racial dimension of the case is likewise hard to ignore and perhaps unfortunately has had an impact on the final outcome of the case.” (Wow, who would have thought? Race and criminal justice, there’s a heinous intersection there?!) He also noted another shocker: white defendants have — historically received and currently receive — milder sentences for similar acts. Thankfully, more nuanced and with-it Baker critics included Rev. Joseph Lowery and the Congressional Black Caucus.
While I planned to concentrate on the criminal justice side of this case (i.e. the utter disregard for reason in mandatory sentencing and the more specific racial underpinnings in Southern criminal law), I kept reading articles where (mainly white) op-ed writers and others in the mainstream media were using the same phraseology: “honor student” and “son of a single mother” and “football star.” Even ESPN picked up on Genarlow’s case and, er, “ran” with it because he had such a great football record.
Hmm. Now, don’t get me wrong: Any time the American people are turned on to the injustice in the criminal justice system, I’m glad. I’m just worried that many may gloss right over the important parts of this case because of a few loaded phrases.
“honor student” “son of a single mother” “football star”
We know why they use these buzz phrases, don’t we? Because the more acceptable YBMs (young black males) — the ones who “overcame” their “circumstances” to make good grades — are the ones who are championed. I’ll say it again: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hating on Genarlow for his acheivements and I’m not disregarding how this case can be used to make changes to crazed sentencing policy. I’m just hesitant to buy into what some in the media and public sphere emphasize about this case’s tone and meaning. Yeah, he seemed like a good guy. But there are plenty of good guys out there who, because of social, economic, familial and other circumstances, don’t have the access or opportunity to acheive, especially not to acheive the way that middle America folks think is “good” or “worthy” or “acceptable”…for a black man…
There are notions of a chosen-because-of-his-acceptability, Rosa Parks-like dimension to the coverage and amplification — and the corresponding outrage — of Genarlow’s case, especially in the white media. Let’s be real: Rosa should be celebrated because of her sit down and the way she pushed (or, um, was pushed) out into the public consciousness, but Claudette Colvin (one of four young black girls who refused to give up their seats to white people way before Rosa Parks and even went to court for it) was deemed unworthy of championing by the white liberals and the civil rights establishment because she was low-income and had a child out of wedlock. I just wonder what would have happened if Genarlow had had a criminal record, was a D student, or wasn’t in school. Maybe everyone would be similarly outraged. Perhaps the mainstream media would have pushed the case of a D student to their front pages, like they did with Genarlow.
But, then again, there are Genarlows all around the country, every day, convicted because of structural and policy obsurdities like the crack/powder disparity or Jena-like assault charges. Yet very few of them have the grades, the sport, and the overcoming narrative to get press coverage. Not all of them are acceptable.
