Teen gets 10 years for consensual sex with 15 yr old Options

[psidancer]

From what I've read about this, a large part of the argument against his sentence is the fact that it was only so long becuase it was oral sex, which falls under sodomy laws. had they just had vaginal sex, this would have fallen under the "Romeo and Juliet" laws and he would have gotten a much lighter sentence, had he even been charged with any crime.


There was a similar issue in Kansas where two male teens engaged in consensual sex. The older teen violated age of consent laws, but becuase the Kansas Romeo and Juliet law specifically excluded gay sex, the older teen was scheduled to 17 years when he otherwise would have only been sentenced to 5. That was one of the laws that had to be revised after Lawrence v. Texas

[pysex]

No it's not.

Really? Then why was he still charged with a crime? I'm not interested enough in this case to research Georgia law.

[James]

Yet you're interested enough to post in a thread about it? You read Impala's posts at all?

[chook]

No it's not.

I agree, but wouldn't call it moral.

[pysex]

Yet you're interested enough to post in a thread about it? You read Impala's posts at all?

He's been ignored.

[pysex]

Georgia law states that a sexual act involving the mouth is considered sodomy. Georgia law also states that if the act of child molestation was committed on a victim older than 14 and younger than 16 by a person 18 or younger they would be convicted of a misdemeanor. However, if it involved sodomy the punishment is harsher (no more than 20 years in prison). But then they passed a revision...I'm guessing after his sentencing that reduces that punishment to a misdemeanor for acts of sodomy in their specific age ranges.

So...

It's still a crime under Georgia law whether you want to believe it or not. It's only a misdemeanor and he won't register as a sex offender but it's still a crime.


I don't like it any more than you do. I think he should be able to have his sentence reduced and released for time served. But this douche of a district attorney won't let it go.

[Mommy]

Impala, my reason for posting this was that he had already served 2 years, and now he has to sit and jail and await the appeal by the prosecuter. If youll see in my original post, I even mentioned the sentencing being lightened.

[THECHICKEN]

Yeah this was a fucked up case. This kid was an all A student with scholarships to a few schools. If only he would have just had sex he'd of been fine. Oh and i think its so stupid that when the legislature enacted the law they didn't make it retroactive (as was possible if im not mistaken).

[impala454]

Impala, my reason for posting this was that he had already served 2 years, and now he has to sit and jail and await the appeal by the prosecuter. If youll see in my original post, I even mentioned the sentencing being lightened.

well I was talking to the people who were saying "omg how come it can't apply retroactively". when the article says it does.

[Spectatrix]

well I was talking to the people who were saying "omg how come it can't apply retroactively". when the article says it does.

I think maybe you misread?

Lawmakers 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.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 12 2007, 02:24 PM

[impala454]

the judge ordered the guy to be released based on it, so it did apply retroactively.

was ordered released from prison Monday by a judge who called his mandatory 10-year sentence for consensual teen sex "a grave miscarriage of justice."

[Mommy]

I think it was more that the judge felt his punishment was unfair and reduced his sentencing... not based on the change of law. Technicalities

[impala454]

yeah but court judgements get used as law (which is why the attorney general thinks it could "open a floodgate" for lots of other similiar cases)

[pysex]

the judge ordered the guy to be released based on it, so it did apply retroactively.

i'm really not sure what's happened to the kid

there are contradicting reports saying he's been released and others that say he's still in prison awaiting further litigation....

just one big clusterfuck of crap

[THECHICKEN]

yeah but court judgements get used as law (which is why the attorney general thinks it could "open a floodgate" for lots of other similiar cases)

Sentencing is by its nature personal to the person punished. It couldn't be applied retroactively by a judge to others.

So just because this judge reduced sentencing, the law was NOT applied retroactively. As in, if there was 2 of these kids, on kid would still be fucked unless specifically given a reduction.

So unless declared unconstitutional, a judge can't CHANGE the law, he must only apply it or interpret it. And interpreting it doesn't apply to previous cases.