NationStates Jolt Archive

...being convicted to 10 years in prison for having consentual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl - while himself being 17.

The Georgia Supreme Court earlier Friday ordered that he be released, ruling 4-3 that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.
The 10-year sentence was mandatory under the law.

In the decision, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote that changes in the law "represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants."

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children," the court's majority found.

"For the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of 10 years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime," the majority opinion concluded.

The dissent noted that the Georgia Legislature had made clear that the changes in the law were not to be applied retroactively.

Writing for the dissenting justices, Justice George Carley said, "The General Assembly made the express decision that he cannot benefit from the subsequent legislative determination to reduce the sentence for commission of that crime from felony to misdemeanor status."

The majority countered that it was not applying the 2006 amendment retroactively, but instead factoring that "into its determination that Wilson's punishment is cruel and unusual," the court said in a news release.

The court said this kind of decision is unusual: "The majority opinion points out that this court rarely overturns a sentence on cruel and unusual grounds. But twice before, it did so following a legislative change."
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html
Alternative story. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7028482,00.html)

I agree with the majority opinion, but I cannot see why the change in the law couldn't be applied retroactively.

But all in all, I'm happy with the result :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541701

I cannot see why the change in the law couldn't be applied retroactively.

Because that is one of the basic tennets of law as such, primarily, of course, of code law, but even of the anglo-saxon para-legal system of so-called case "law".

Otherwise, it would be possible that you do something perfectly legal, and then someone criminalises it post factum and you would become a criminal retroactively and have to go to jail.

To avoid such unbearable uncertainty, laws never apply retroactively.

Cases can be reviewed/revised in the light of changed legal system ONLY if that is alleviating for the person sentenced, and even then only if certain preconditions apply, as was -- rightly -- done in this case.

Actually, since he was under 18 himslef at the time of the event, he should not have been tried for what he was tried for in the criminal case anyway, but that's something he will have to settle in a litigation case.

Because that is one of the basic tennets of law...

laws never apply retroactively. OK thats loud and clear
.
(sometimes) Cases can be reviewed...
...



What happened to "never" and to "basic tennets.."
:confused:

In another words: NEVER !! no exceptions.. unless its a tuesday, certain conditions apply, etc.

Otherwise, it would be possible that you do something perfectly legal, and then someone criminalises it post factum and you would become a criminal retroactively and have to go to jail.

To avoid such unbearable uncertainty, laws never apply retroactively.

except when they decriminalize things or grant amnesty or otherwise lessen or reduce previous punishments, in which case they apply retroactively all the fucking time.

Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids Congress from making this -improved- sex Law retroactive.. and set free the other victims of the old -retarded- sex law?

I dont think so.

oceandrive:

When cases are reviewed, the law doesn't apply retroactively (which would be across the board), just individual cases are reviewed. No one is under obligation to review/revise, as s/he would be if the laws did -- which they do not -- apply retroactively.

freesoviet:

you should read more carefully. I did said "ONLY if that is alleviating for the person sentenced". But even then, it is not across the board, unless reviewed by a higher or usually supreme court. And then it is not the law that applies retroactively but interpretation.

As for amnesties, these are in NO sense whasoever laws applying retroactively. Quite to the contrary, they confirm the legislative valifity of the previous sentence, and then amend it.

Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids Congress from making this -improved- sex Law retroactive.. and set free the other victims of the old -retarded- sex law?

I dont think so.Yes, there is. Or rather, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them that power, and the federal government is one of (however broadly interpreted) enumerated powers.

This belongs clearly in the province of police powers retained by the states.

For better or worse.

... of course, if aspects of any state law violate the federal Constitution, the courts can effect change.

Just not Congress.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541701

Posted so people know that there is a thread on this already.

Because that is one of the basic tennets of law as such, primarily, of course, of code law, but even of the anglo-saxon para-legal system of so-called case "law".

Otherwise, it would be possible that you do something perfectly legal, and then someone criminalises it post factum and you would become a criminal retroactively and have to go to jail.

To avoid such unbearable uncertainty, laws never apply retroactively.

Cases can be reviewed/revised in the light of changed legal system ONLY if that is alleviating for the person sentenced, and even then only if certain preconditions apply, as was -- rightly -- done in this case.

Meh. There's nothing fundamentally or principally wrong with making laws that benefit the citizenry apply retroactively. The absolute restriction on making laws have a retroactive effect is only for laws and regulations that somehow will/can be to the detriment of the citizens.

After all, the decriminalizing effect is a kind of retroactive effect. If you do something today that's criminal, but the law is changed tomorrow, you cannot be convicted of that crime (which is no longer a crime) the day after that - even if you were guilty of breaking a law at the time of your actions.

However, legal systems do not operate on the basis of what you yourself find "fundamentally or principally wrong" (sic!) or indeed fundamentally right.

Except for the shariah, all other legal systems of the world in force today follow a set of rules crystalised over centuries and "fundamentally" based in Roman law, which does not allow retroactivity of criminal law as such.

freesoviet:

you should read more carefully. I did said "ONLY if that is alleviating for the person sentenced". But even then, it is not across the board, unless reviewed by a higher or usually supreme court. And then it is not the law that applies retroactively but interpretation.

so you didn't say "laws never apply retroactively"? perhaps you should try writing more carefully first.

Except for the shariah, all other legal systems of the world in force today follow a set of rules crystalised over centuries and "fundamentally" based in Roman law, which does not allow retroactivity of criminal law as such.

chinese law is fundamentally based on roman law?

However, legal systems do not operate on the basis of what you yourself find "fundamentally or principally wrong" (sic!) or indeed fundamentally right.
No, but it is based on what the legislators find to be fundamentally or principally right and wrong.

Except for the shariah, all other legal systems of the world in force today follow a set of rules crystalised over centuries and "fundamentally" based in Roman law, which does not allow retroactivity of criminal law as such.
Depends on how you look at it (and I expect you to mean "western legal systems").

*Points to amnesty laws*

Again, the point is that it's generally OK with legislation that is beneficial for the citizens, and generally not OK with legislation which is detrimental or somehow imposes burdens or responsibilities.

chinese law is fundamentally based on roman law?

In it's current form, largely yes. The Nationalists and the Communists both had nothing but contempt for the old Imperal legal system and imported the western model.

In it's current form, largely yes. The Nationalists and the Communists both had nothing but contempt for the old Imperal legal system and imported the western model.

Indeed, the Western model, i.e. from the West = Europe (except for a couple of isles off the coast of France), and not the Eastern model from the Far East from Chinese perspective, aka North America.

Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids Congress from making this -improved- sex Law retroactive.. and set free the other victims of the old -retarded- sex law?

I dont think so.

In this case, we're talking about the GA General Assembly, but no, there was nothing in the Constitution (GA or US) keeping them from having the law apply retroactively, as it would have alleviated the sentences of those convicted before, rather than harming them.

Of course, the General Assembly decided not to, because it has a lot of assholes in it who thought it would be an awful, awful thing if the courts had to handle actually seeing that people like Wilson were treated justly.