This frikkin' insane!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im certainly aware of situations like custody cases where the opinions of mature teens are solicited, and important, and I approve of that trend. I think its a far jump from that to dropping laws on statuatory rape.

My apologies. It's clear we have little if any substantial disagreement on these issues after all.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think fairly obviously a five year old can make relatively few decisions adequately. A ten year old can make more. A 15 yo can make more than 10 YO, (though is perhaps more dangerous, since the 10 YO is more likely to understand and acknowledge what they need help on ) etc. And obviously some 16 YOs can make decisions better than others. But its obviously impractical to require someone entering into a contract to judge the maturity of the teenager they are dealing with - they need a bright line.

I would suggest that expecting a person having sex with a minor to judge the maturity of the minor to make that decision, and in effect to second guess a court trying them for rape, is not a good idea. A bright shining line is much better for all. (it also avoids some incentive effects you might not like - a parent who wants to keep their kid abstinent might be incented to try to keep them immature if we had a maturity standard instead of an age limit)

I very much approve of encouraging teens and preteens to learn to think for themselves, and have parented that way. I was taking issue with the proposal of Ned, which was seconded by folks who ought to know better.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by dannubis
Is the OP a joke ?

Sadly, no. It is a real case which was just upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court.

[Darius871]

Even though I find this law and its application in this case asinine, I've personally seen enough douchebag seniors shamelessly manipulate lonely & impressionable freshmen into public sexual acts before dumping them like yesterdays garbage to not feel sorry for this classless pr*ck. Believe it or not, a lot of girls have their lives ruined by this kind of sh*t.

If they were a couple of teenagers innocently experimenting in the backseat a car or the like, it'd be a different story.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
would you apply the same thing to contract law? If someone offers a 7 year old some candy, in exchange for 20% of their future earnings, and gets him to sign a contract, should that be legally enforceable absent evidence of undue power? Or should we stick to current rules that contracts with minors are generally not enforceable?

Good point. But clearly in this case, the consent was not in the nature of your example and the conviction was clearly untoward.

On the contract issue, the rule out to continue that contracts with minors are voidable when the minor reaches the age of 21.

Also, if an adult has sex with such a young person that can't really understand what it happening, that is rape. The consent is based upon lies, lack of understanding and influence. I think think the law should have some presumptions, rebuttable of course, allong these lines. But statutory rape laws allow no rebuttable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
which is why i said "generally not enforceable"

But then you used an example in which it would be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Georgia isn't a civilized place; more like the edges of civilization. In fact, I'd lump most of the South in with that discription due to **** like this.

That's because you're prejudiced.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whoha
It would be up to the jury to nullify the decision

Jury nullification

Indiana has a great clause in its constitution that states "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts"

I've won at least one jury trial by using that (usually I don't know why I win or lose, but in that case, it was all I had). Judges hate it

Its a powerful tool, but entirely jurisdiction dependant.

In Indianapolis, with a halfway decent defense attorney, this guy would have been acquitted.



Once you get past the trial stage, the judges have to uphold the conviction based on the statutes and case law. Bummer for him, but the law is the law, and laws involving specific ages are tough to fudge. It did create a change in the law by the legislature, albeit not one that helps this kid. Such is life in the criminal justice system.



But really, the problem lies with an over zealous prosecutor.

And a populace that would rather watch reality tv than become educated about the legal and political systems.

Don't like the law? Contact your state rep.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

You guys have missed the point here!! I asked when did it become illegal for consenting teenagers to engage in oral sex for one and for two on what grounds was this kid in question proescuted if the word came from a separte girl that claims i think i was raped and then no evidence of any such rape is seen to exist?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... did you miss the fact that under GA law at the time (though not anymore) the girl was under the age of consent? Hence, it can't be "consenting teenagers", because the bright line age of consent means those under it can't consent to sex and secondly there is no disputing the sexual relations and the ages of the participants involved (there really can't be since there was a videotape of the incident if what certain posters said earlier in this thread was true).

[Ben Kenobi]

Um... did you miss the fact that under GA law at the time (though not anymore) the girl was under the age of consent? Hence, it can't be "consenting teenagers", because the bright line age of consent means those under it can't consent to sex and secondly there is no disputing the sexual relations and the ages of the participants involved (there really can't be since there was a videotape of the incident if what certain posters said earlier in this thread was true).

Yes, but the question is why under the old law should a kid who has sex with another kid who is underage should receive a lesser penalty then one who recieves a blow job.

The other question is should the tape have been admissible for the second charge, since it has nothing to do with the original complaint. Yes the tape was useful to ensure that no rape occurred, but can they go from the evidence on the tape and charge people for unrelated acts?

Say the kids were smoking pot on the video? Could they be arrested for simple possession too based on the video evidence alone? That's the problem with the video, and using it for unrelated charges.

[Ben Kenobi]

I asked when did it become illegal for consenting teenagers to engage in oral sex for one

The Georgia law has a strange clause that would charge those giving oral sex to a minor with the addition charge of child molestation, a charge which is not present with sex. It's a bad law and the fact that the law has been changed means they should pardon the kids who were arrested under the old law.

and for two on what grounds was this kid in question proescuted if the word came from a separte girl that claims i think i was raped and then no evidence of any such rape is seen to exist?

The kid was originally charged along with all the others for rape and the police decided to charge them with sexual assault of a minor for the oral sex that they saw on the tapes. Apparently the police took the initiative to lay both charges down.

Then all the other kids plea bargained down to 6 years under the poor deal given by the prosecutor. This case is just so messed up in so many different ways.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why was oral sex and genital sex different? You have to ask the legislature at the time that question.

Secondly, the original charges were for both the rape of the 17 year old and the statutory rape of the 15 year old. Simply because someone complains about one thing doesn't mean that the police can't use evidence found as a result of that investigation if another crime has been found to have been committed. For example, if a cop stops a person for speeding and the car is impounded (perhaps if the person is belligerent towards the officer) and a marijuana cigarette is spotted by the cops after it is impounded, the person can be charged for drug possession.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simply because someone complains about one thing doesn't mean that the police can't use evidence found as a result of that investigation if another crime has been found to have been committed. For example, if a cop stops a person for speeding and a marijuana cigarette is spotted by the cop after he starts to walk away from the car, the person can be charged for drug possession.

So if the kids on the tape were shown smoking pot, they could be charged with possession? I didn't think the police had the right to charge everyone on that video with all the laws they supposedly broke based on the erroneous accusation of one person. I would think you would be pretty angry if someone falsely accused you of something, and then the police took liberties to charge you with a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The other question is should the tape have been admissible for the second charge, since it has nothing to do with the original complaint. Yes the tape was useful to ensure that no rape occurred, but can they go from the evidence on the tape and charge people for unrelated acts?

Why do you think it wouldn't be admissible? Its evidence of a felony. Get some corroboration, ie testimony from the girl about her age when it was taken, and you can make the foundation.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Say the kids were smoking pot on the video? Could they be arrested for simple possession too based on the video evidence alone? That's the problem with the video, and using it for unrelated charges.

You could never get an mj conviction on just videotape. The state could never prove that it actually was mj and not some legal substance.


There is absolutely no problem using a videotape for these purposes, so long as foundational requirements are met (and obviously, search and seizure rights are followed)