This frikkin' insane!

[asleepathewheel]

Ok, I'll walk you through the evidentiary foundation to prove this kid guilty without testimony from the 15 year old. This is a rough way of doing it.

1st witness-one of co-d's that pled guilty.
He establishes authenticity of videotape and date/place taken.
He can testify to name of the girl.

2nd witness-let's say principal of her school.
Use blown up (erm) pic of girls face from video
Ask if he recognizes her and how.
Ask if he recognizes defendant and how.

3rd witness-Keeper of school records
Get her school records including her birthdate entered into evidence. This would probalby include a copy of her birth certificate.
Repeat with defendant.

(in most cases, the above would be stipulated to, as business records are very simple to get in, and it wastes the jury's time)


Done.

That's it.

probably an 30-45 minute long trial with just a judge, one day with a jury. Depending on how long the video is and how much room the judge gives the defense.


Its a strict liability crime, so you just have to demonstrate the age of the gir and the guy and boom, 10 year sentence.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And did they use an expert in this case?

I'm sure the prosecutor used someone to get evidence in if she didn't testify. I have no idea if she did or not, I just know how to get this conviction without her being necessary.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How is society served by putting this kid away for 10 years? Please show me how this prosecutor is serving society in applying the enormous sentence, plus the awful plea bargain. Any prosecutor worth his salt would have tried to lower the sentence to something much more reasonable.

1. Neither Imran nor myself have argued this is a "just" result, merely it is the only one allowable by the governing statute. They are separate issues.

2. The prosecutor offered him 5 years like the other kids. He rejected it and went to trial. A trial that was a dead bang loser. His choice. I've tried those before. They're the most fun trials to defend, very little pressure.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But not before they charged them. You can't charge someone without sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed.

The video tape itself is evidence enough that a crime was committed.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The plea was 6 years. I fail to see how the prosecution is serving society in any of the decisions that he made.

That is a a matter of opinion, unlike the rest of it, and I happen to agree with you.

[Barnabas]

I just watched a map, and was surprised by Georgia being on the atlantic, I expected it to be somewhere more backwards, like the midwest

[asleepathewheel]

heh

[asleepathewheel]

I always seem to kill threads like these

[Dinner]

A victims wishes are always subservient to the wishes of society, regardless of age. A prosecutor that pays heed to the whims of a victim is not a very good prosecutor.

That's all well and good except the prosecutor in this case is a monster. He is taking the letter of the law and using it to destroy the intent of the law. There is no justice in this verdict. He is attempting to further his own poltical career by ruining the lives of other people unjustly; that is immoral.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
For better or for worse the right for a 17 year old boy to have oral sex with a 15 year old girl without facing 10 years in prison isn't enshrined in our country's constitution quite as much as some other rights. What do you suggest the judge do in this situation?

and while the defendant might have argued that there's an equal protection violation in treating pre-2006 actors differently from post-2006 ones, that argument likely wouldn't work, either, and in any event likely wouldn't have been made.

Strike down an unjust sentence on grounds provided for by your own law. It is unjust to imprison a person for something that is no longer a crime deserving of the sentence.

And I'm really curious how 'equal protection' wouldn't work. WTF does it mean then?

[Kuciwalker]

Strike down an unjust sentence on grounds provided for by your own law. It is unjust to imprison a person for something that is no longer a crime deserving of the sentence.

The new law explicitly states it doesn't apply to people already convicted of the old law.

[notyoueither]

And that's a very strange legal provision.

You see nothing wrong with it?

[Kuciwalker]

What? There's no reason it's unconstitutional, or ought to be.

[notyoueither]

What does 'equal protection' mean?

[notyoueither]

Let's suppose that the State of California decides that the death penalty isn't such a great idea. However, there is a particularly notorious person already on death row and he is next up.

The legislature of the State of California repeals the death penalty, except they stipulate that existing sentences will be carried out.

Defend this stipulation by the State of California. Could it stand?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Strike down an unjust sentence on grounds provided for by your own law. It is unjust to imprison a person for something that is no longer a crime deserving of the sentence.

The new law explicitly states it doesn't apply to people already convicted of the old law.

Stop being daft. The guy wasn't convicted of jack **** prior to the vetdict and the state of Georgia claimed it was more damaging to have people get a blow job then to have actual sex. That is garbage.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Lorizael


It's quite possible that I've only ever been the recipient of good oral sex, but I've always been of the opinion that, unless the one performing is doing something atrociously wrong, it's hard for the act to be... not worth it, even if it could be much better.

Worth 10 years in prison?!

[dannubis]

Well, it sure sucks to be a teenager in the US...