This frikkin' insane!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Thue
Throwing a person 10 years in sex for violating an arbitrary age limit by engaging in consensual sex with a girl of almost the same age. I don't really see what that will accomplish.

I though stuff like that did not happen in the civilized world.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
Also, should the judge go to prison, being a complete f'stick?

So now we are throwing judges in jail for correctly applying the law

Man, if they are activist people want them in jail. If they aren't activist (like here), other people want them in jail.

Oh, FWIW, Huntstein is a fairly liberal judge.

[Pekka]

fairly liberal judge, complete BS if he sees this as a good sentencing.

Well maybe not prison, but if we have these goofs who think yeah this is justice, and it _clearly_ is not, they should at least get fired.

I thought they were supposed to interpret the law, taking the spirit of the scenario, crime etc into consideration.

In this situation, if the minimum law is this, well, not guilty.

If you sentence a young man for 10 for this, you are a bad person, even if you 'follow the law'. Yeah, you should step down as a judge if you want to be seen as a good person in my eyes. "I was following the orders" is hardly an excuse for blowing up these kinds of sentences, even if it's the minimum.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Judges are supposed to apply the law, not just make up whatever they want. They are not legislators and never were supposed to be. Anyone who basically throws away the law only because they personally don't like it should step down as a judge immediately, IMO.

[Pekka]

YEah, and any person who thinks it's not OK to ruin this young man's life with this, they should step down. It's the only moral option.

Everyone can follow the rules, like sheeps, and make sure this kind of crap will continue to happen. Sheeps in wolves clothes.

[Dinner]

I agree with Imran for the most part though I believe at least some judges are also given the responsibility to review laws for Constitutionality at both the state and federal level. I'm not sure what grounds such harsh punishment could be found to be unconstitutional (maybe the equal protection clause) but somebody needs to get very creative and start tossing out this insane monster of a law. It is completely unjust.

[Stuie]

Glad the cop just told us to "move along" when I was with my 16-year-old girlfriend. I've got a friend in Pennsylvania.

Of course, that was 19 years ago... so... uh... anyway...

[Solver]

That's a much more harsh sentence than people often get for assaulting a person due to racist reasons. I don' see why there should be a jail sentence at all in this case, but this is beyond insane.

It is indeed the people who need protection from the government.

[snoopy369]

It comes down to the people in the state of Georgia. If they believe this is a fair punishment for a person committing this "crime", then ... it is, in their state. That's called democracy (or a republic at least). You can't just say "I don't like that law, it's stupid"; over half of the people in the state liked it or at least supported a representative who liked it (when it was passed).

However, as the OP article notes, there is a final appeal (of the sentence), to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, who can (apparently) affect the sentence. Or the governor, who could pardon him

[FrostyBoy]

I didn't read the article.

But something tells me the parents have something to do with the stupidity of this.

[Solver]

It comes down to the people in the state of Georgia. If they believe this is a fair punishment for a person committing this "crime", then ... it is, in their state. That's called democracy (or a republic at least). You can't just say "I don't like that law, it's stupid"; over half of the people in the state liked it or at least supported a representative who liked it (when it was passed).

Meh, laws shouldn't have to be obeyed blindly. That's stupid. They should, ideally, be a guideline and a basis for conflict resolution. And there should be no moronic laws. Which isn't the case.

I also think that the whole "age of consent" thing is ridiculous. As a concept. I hate this artificial legal thinking - draw a line at an arbitrary range and pronounce that people who've reached an arbitrary age can consent. But others can't. That, too, is far from what an ideal justice system would look like. Grrr!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah, you should step down as a judge if you want to be seen as a good person in my eyes. "I was following the orders" is hardly an excuse for blowing up these kinds of sentences, even if it's the minimum.

The agony and ecstacy of being a judge is that you swear an oath to uphold the law. It's the Legislature that passes these laws, not the judges. It's the judges' job is to enforce the laws.

Take f'instance, California Chief Justice Rose Bird. She had a personal disagreement with the death penalty, so she found a way to vote to overeturn every death penalty case that came before the Supreme Court. She was voted out of office...and rightfully so. If a judge won't follow the law, how can anyone else be expected to?

[Solver]

And thus a judge's oath is immoral as the judge, by swearing an oath, swears, in essence, to shove his moral convictions where the sun never shines. If a dictatorship passes a law that talking on a cellphone earns a 10 year prison sentence, then the judge's oath requires him to uphold that law. Judges can too easily be instruments of the government, just one of the many ways to control people.

[Barnabas]

Dude, I wouldnt be surprised if the papal states has lighter laws on sex than Georgia

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
It comes down to the people in the state of Georgia. If they believe this is a fair punishment for a person committing this "crime", then ... it is, in their state. That's called democracy

It's also called tyranny of the majority