WTF: Teen Given 10 Years For Having Sex With Girl Two Years Younger

[underEJ]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Good point.


This is absolutely inexcusable. I suspect that some judge is destroying a kid's life to make a political protest about the law.

I think the way I read it, the judge was on the kid's side as a question of reason, but was bound by legislation, so accepting the appeal would have been illegal. Representatives appealing to conservatives with reactionary legislation against sex offenders are actually at fault.

And wake up people, many states just got hoodwinked into this crap in the last election under the guise of protecting children.

Like I said before, time for the torch carrying mob on the capital steps.

Edit, this sounds like I disagree with you, but I think we agree on the judge's actions right?

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by underEJ

I think the way I read it, the judge was on the kid's side as a question of reason, but was bound by legislation, so accepting the appeal would have been illegal. Representatives appealing to conservatives with reactionary legislation against sex offenders are actually at fault.

And wake up people, many states just got hoodwinked into this crap in the last election under the guise of protecting children.

Like I said before, time for the torch carrying mob on the capital steps.

Edit, this sounds like I disagree with you, but I think we agree on the judge's actions right?

Like I said before, the letter of the law. I would think that a judge should be able to exercise some JUDGEment on this. If it is just about strictly following the law we might as well put a computer up there as the judge instead of a thinking (hopefully) human. I don't care what the law is, each case is individual and needs to be treated on such a basis.

[memyselfI]

That is insane. What is this world coming to???

[MichaelH]

The really sad thing is if her dad of another male family member raped her, they'd get a slap on the wrist and it would be swept under the carpet.

[KC Jones]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

Like I said before, the letter of the law. I would think that a judge should be able to exercise some JUDGEment on this. If it is just about strictly following the law we might as well put a computer up there as the judge instead of a thinking (hopefully) human. I don't care what the law is, each case is individual and needs to be treated on such a basis.

Nope, if they do they fall under the label "activist judges" who fail to uphold the strict letter of the law that the legislative branch carefully constructed.

[jidar]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

Like I said before, the letter of the law. I would think that a judge should be able to exercise some JUDGEment on this. If it is just about strictly following the law we might as well put a computer up there as the judge instead of a thinking (hopefully) human. I don't care what the law is, each case is individual and needs to be treated on such a basis.

You might think that, but the judge is bound by law.
It's reactionary mandatory sentencing crap laws that get passed.
Think about that the next time you get all pissed off about some horrible crime and demand for tougher laws.

mandatory sentencing is bullshit really.

[noa]

He loses 10 years of his life and has to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Way to go justice system.

Unbelievable. I'd have done time for sure.

[|Zach|]

Maybe if he avoids unloading in her mouth they could take the "aggravated" part out?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

Maybe if he avoids unloading in her mouth they could take the "aggravated" part out?

You stay classy Zach.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

You stay classy Zach.

Try not to jerk yourself off too hard. You might get put in the slammer for molesting little Zach

[thedude]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

Maybe if he avoids unloading in her mouth they could take the "aggravated" part out?

[Eric]

If this guy were smart he would checkout and move to some other less rednecky state.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by (Zach)

Maybe if he avoids unloading in her mouth they could take the "aggravated" part out?

I'm certain this sentance will be appealed. In fact, I'm sure there will be plenty of defense lawyers who will volunteer their efforts to challenge this law on constitutional grounds. I would be very surprised if there weren't some liberal law professor at the Univ of Georgia that is putting together a student team to challenge it. I bet this is going to the US supreme court.

Unfortunately, mandatory sentancing has held up against challenge in most states. But here, the distinction between oral sex vs. regular intercourse seems irrational. The natural ground to challenge this law is as "cruel and unusual punishment" (on the basis that the magnitude of the crime doesn't match the sentance, but this theory hasn't worked well in previous mandatory sentancing cases) or under the due process clause because it is an "abitrary and capricious" distinction between regular intercourse between minors and agg. sexual assault.

The problem is, the trial judge doesn't have the power or the authority to dismiss the case on these grounds. The party I really blame is the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor has "prosecutorial discretion" to file charges and frankly, I find it unbelievable that the prosecutor chose to pursue this action. When the judge is making these statements, the judge is likely not very happy with either the legislature OR the prosecutor. This is judge-speak for "you are MORONS!".

The legislature CHANGED the law...cited this case as one reason, then expressly said that the change in the law shouldn't apply to already adjudicated cases.

OK....the way out here is for the governor to issue a pardon. If you guys want to do something...we should all e mail the governor of georgia.

[Donger]

So, did he go down on her or vice versa?