Ugadawgs98

If this was an adult it would be an open and shut case however since the suspect is a child himself it makes it much harder. You first have to prove he understands death and what actions can kill another. After that you have to prove he actually intended to kill the child. Some children are mature at 12 and some are not and that is always a huge factor in cases like this. I think the state should have went with involuntary manslaughter. It would have been easier to prove that he caused the death of another while committing an illegal act (battery). In the end it really does not mat

It sounds like the judge did not believe he had the intent to kill nor the ability to understand what his actions would do. I am not sure case law would allow charging a juvenile with cruelty to children.

I really does not matter anyway since he is 12 and the matter is in the juvenile system. I am not sure why the state went with murder anyway instead of involuntary manslaughter. It is hard to prove a 12 year old child intended to kill someone because you have to prove the are mature enough to understand life or death and what type of injuries are required to kill someone.

The amount of money someone has/makes has nothing to do with their character as a person.

The news does not care about any 'good' things from here. They only make time for outlying counties when something shocking happens that makes headlines. "If it bleeds it leads" means just that.

Most of the people making those comments have never been in Paulding County. I have lived in some bad areas....this is no where close to one of them.

Ahh...that makes more sense. A story I read last week said the judge overturned the juries verdict. If it was a directed verdict it would be issued when the prosecution rested its case. I would not expect to see any more prosecution under the law until it is rewritten.

I think you are confusing the terms in the ruling. The Supreme Court overturned the Chase case because Chase was not allowed by the trial judge to bring up the fact that the victim consented to the relationship as part of their defense. The Court of Appeals held the judgement on appeal and agreed that consent was not a defense. The appeal to the Supreme Court was decided 5-2 with the ruling saying it could be used as a defense as the law was written but it never said the conduct was legal. In the Cobb case the jury was presented with the fact that it was a consenting relationship. They

There are already provisions in the law as to who it can apply to. Students Probationer/Parolee Medical patients in the custody of law

I think the judge overstepped his grounds. I feel he should have let the juries verdict stand and let the defense go through the appropriate appeals channels which are available if they disagreed with the conviction. This is basically a case of legislating from the bench.

I do not agree with giving a free pass to those charged and I definatly do not agree with the Cobb County judge for ignoring the juries verdict. I still think it should be up to the jury. I say go ahead and proceed with the cases....let the defense inform the jury the victim consented and that they can weight that when determining guilt or innocence. Then let the cards fall where they may.

As I said above....the ruling did not make the conduct legal. In the end it is still up to a jury to decide. The jury found him guilty even though the victim said she consented. The judge set the verdict aside due to the conflict with the law.

The convicted person must be over 21 years old to be put on the sex offender list if they are convicted of statutory rape.

It doesent remove the temptation but it can help limit the act itself. The world is full of 3 kinds of people... 1.Those who follow the law because it is the right thing to do. 2.Those who follow the law because simply because they fear the consiquences of getting caught. 3.Those who will victimize others no matter what the potential penalty is. Numbers 1 & 2 are both very large groups.

There still seems to be this misconception that it is 'not against law' for teachers. It is most defiantly against the law as teachers are covered in the 'supervisor or custodian' section. This ruling about consent of the victim being a defense just came down from a recent appeal. The court did not say it was legal for the teacher to have sex with a student. They simply said the suspect could use consent of the juvenile as a defense. It is still up to the jury in the end to decide guilt or innocence. In the Cobb case the jury still found him guilty and the judge set aside their verdict b

O.C.G.A. 16-6-5.1 Custodial sexual assault (b ) A probation or parole officer or other custodian or supervisor of another person referred to in this Code section commits sexual assault when he engages in sexual contact with another person who is a probationer or parolee under the supervision of said probation or parole officer or who is in the custody of law or who is enrolled in a school or who is detained in or is a patient in a hospital or other institution and such actor has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person. A person convicted of sexual assault shall b

He was found not guilty because of the latest Supreme Court ruling that attacked the law because of the way it is written. There is some misinformation in this thread because teachers are included in subsection B of the law. The problem arose because the lawmakers added 'consent of the victim is not a defense' only under subsection C which only deals with LE and medical personnel. The court ruled since the law is written in that manner then 'consent' could be an affirmative defense when it applies to teachers, probation officers, parole officers and nursing home/assisted living employees si

Nothing is 100%. It enables people to defend themselves every day.

They need to change most lights at busy intersections to left on green arrow only. I used to have faith in my fellow motorists that they would have enough common sense to not turn in front of an approaching car. Unfortunately that is not the case. The downside is that it would really clog that intersection because the turning lanes are not the proper capacity for a left turn arrow light.

Sorry....I go through that intersection several times each day from all directions and I have never had a problem being able to see oncoming traffic so I can decide if I can safely make a turn. Of course I am going the correct speed and I am not talking on the cell phone, feeding myself or tending to the kids in the back seat.

Many of the accidents at that intersection (and other busy intersections) are driver caused and have nothing to do with the roadway.

That would be idiotic since they have nothing to do with it. Hwy 92 is a state highway, work is completed by state DOT and the funds are supplied by state government.

The problem with gun laws is they do not really prevent crime. People who are intent on committing violent crimes knowing the harsh penalties which are attached are certianly not concerned with breaking the "no gun's allowed" law. The only people who follow the laws are the ones who normally obey the law anyway.

I would bet there is a more practical explantaion.

Like men are the only ones who have affairs! Please...