The Georgia case?

Question

I just posted a question regarding the case in Georgia where two teens had sex. A sex tape was produced and entered into evidence. As it was entered into evidence, the prosecutor decided to distribute the tape to the public. While he was essentially following the law, it seems beyond the realm of common sense that a prosecutor would willingly distribute what is basically a child sex tape. I got quite a response with a person telling me to stop criticizing people for following a law that they did not write. So, I gave it some thought. And, still think that a person should always error on the side of caution where children are concerned. Perhaps this person shouldn't be drug out of office (but I certainly wouldn't be first in line to reelect this dude). If he doesn't have the "guts" to stand up to a law that allows him to release a child sex tape, what other injustices provided by law is he willing to overlook.

Answer 1

I agree that "erring on the side of caution" is a good thing.

Where there is discretion (choice).

Where the law clearly requires releasing the tape to news outlets and others under an explicit statute -- what discretion did the prosecutor have? His choices were to either follow the law or ignore the law.

If someone felt the tape shouldn't be released, then they could have petitioned the court to seal the records.

But given that the activity was not (at the time the tape was released) even illegal anymore, and given that none of the people involved complained, why should the prosecutor have taken it upon himself to challenge the law.

Besides, he doesn't have standing to challenge the law requiring disclosure. In other words, he could not have brought the suit asking the courts to say the law is wrong. All he could do is refuse to obey it as it was written, and hope that the court agreed with him. But that is basically demanding that he break the law -- which is the law thing a prosecutor should be doing, for any reason.

Answer 2

The only place for that tape is in the courtroom. Is the prosecutor up for election this year? If so, did he learn nothing from the Nifong case?

Answer 3

Apparently, he doesn't care what kind of permanent damage is done to the kids - he's only interested in winning and in sensationalism. He's probably hoping to "shame" them - the only thing he's done is make himself look like a lascivious, dirty old man. And an idiot - the other answerer is right - he must have missed what happened to Nifong.

Somebody should tell these people that there's a difference between being famous and being infamous.

Geez - what a self-centered idiot.