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

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

The bad news is that the credit is only valid at the prison shop.

LOL!

I wonder what crime he'll spend that extra 12 mos. on?

[Clodfobble]

According to CNN,

The state is likely to appeal the ruling... He could remain behind bars while the appeal proceeds.

They also indicate that at the time, the jury protested the crime and sentence--basically it looks like all they were asked was, "Did this boy receive a blowjob from this girl?" and there was video evidence from the party. They did not want to convict him of the crime or give him the (mandatory) sentence.

[TheMercenary]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

What idiots. Thank God most of the judges get smarter on the appeals, except for the left coast circuit.

[glatt]

Well, according to the comments by the legislature as they passed the new law, it wasn't supposed to be applied retroactively. This guy still may be screwed.

From the first post: "Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that in easing the penalties for teens, ‘‘the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.’’"

[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.

[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.

[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.