[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Originally on the appeal, the jugde did not let him out because it would have created a legal loop hole for hundreds if not thousands of other sex offenders.

There have been times in the past when courts (and this includes the Supreme Court) have made rulings that were 'one off'.

A prime recent example of this is Bush v. Gore. The legal justification behind it was so tortuously constructed and broad that the majority opinion included a clause that had the opinion only apply to that case.

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

In other words, it's possible to rule on a single case and not establish a precedent.

Still, the original sentence was a stupid application of the law which, if applied equally across the country, would have sent tens of thousands to jail. IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, the Wilson case, like Bush v Gore, was an equal protection case. Whether due to race or allegations of 'date rape', which were never proved, Wilson was singled out for this additional charge.

As for a loop hole for other sex offenders, the only ones it would affect are those convicted solely under this law. The legislature should have made the change to the law retroactive. Pussies.