They put a fucking 17 YEAR OLD in JAIL for this?!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And if they would have had intercourse it would have been a lower charge with less jail time.

Actually, he did have intercourse with a different girl, and he was charged with rape, but there was not video of it so the jury declined to convict him.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Stop! The GA attorney General has appealed the Judges decision.

I noticed that but I think (and hope) that the appeal is more procedural than a revelation of an actual objection by the DA's office. From what I read when the case first came out, no one wanted to see the kid do time.

I could be wrong though. I'll see if I can find notes from the DA's press conference to clarify.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I heard the DA was pissed because the kid wouldn't accept the plea bargain the others took, so he pushed for the max.

[BrianR]

Has no one down there ever heard of Jury Nullification?

[Griff]

Nobody who isn't screened out by the prosecuter during jury selection.

[Clodfobble]

He's been freed on appeal!

[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.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

I think they should fix the law but not at any expense of creating a loop hole for others to get out on technical grounds, no way.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think they should fix the law but not at any expense of creating a loop hole for others to get out on technical grounds, no way.

The 'loophole' would have consisted of saying that people who were already imprisoned under the old law have as much a right to freedom as the people who would have been convicted if the law hadn't changed.

That's not a loophole, that's 'equal justice under law'.

[TheMercenary]

Further, the legislators did make the law retroactive in an attempt to free the young man. The higher court is the ones who screwed up, so again it is the Judges who are the pussies.

"Legislators last year voted to close that loophole. But the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson, now 21. "

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The 'loophole' would have consisted of saying that people who were already imprisoned under the old law have as much a right to freedom as the people who would have been convicted if the law hadn't changed.

That's not a loophole, that's 'equal justice under law'.

And that is the problem. People who were rightly convicted under the old law were put there for good reason. This kid should never have gone to jail. But the 50 year old man who has sex with your 12 year old daughter more likely should have been there and has no right to release.

[Clodfobble]

This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."

Well they had to come up with something to get it into the court.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

This appeal wasn't based on the change in law, it was classifying his previous sentence as "cruel and unusual."

Which was the only excuse left. However, IMO the 'equal protection' argument had as much plausibility.

I can't believe they couldn't apply the age provision retroactively. In the Skakel murder trial in Connecticut, they ended up trying a 40+ year old man in Juvenile Court.