SWGA Politics

Supreme Court Decisions Filter Down Fast

Last month, I wrote about the Georgia Supreme Court handing down a decision that basically said that if a teacher has a consensual sexual relationship with a person of legal age, the fact that the relationship was consensual must be allowed as a defense during the trial.

According to my own reading of the decision – and I am NOT a lawyer, you should definitely consult with an official member of the State Bar of Georgia before making any decisions involving matters of law – the Court was not saying that the sex itself was legal, but that consent of the victim was a valid defense, assuming the victim was of legal age to give such consent.

A month and a half later, we already have a case popping up citing this case as precedent. In the new case, reported in today’s AJC, an English teacher in Marietta had sex multiple times with a 17 year old student in April, and both he and the victim claim it was consensual. His lawyer is citing this Supreme Court decision and claiming that “his client’s case should be dropped”.

I disagree with that lawyer. I think, per current law as I understand it – and again, I am NOT a lawyer -, the case needs to go to trial, where he can present the consent defense on behalf of his client and let the jury decide the matter.

Now, on the overall issue of teachers having sex with consenting students of legal age, quite honestly I don’t feel that there should be a law banning it. The two people in question are both of legal age to consent to have sex, they both consent, and therefore there is no issue.

Furthermore, there is an equal protection angle here: It is perfectly legal for a person in most any other profession to have sex with any person of legal age – psychologists and police officers when the person in question is in custody being the exceptions ta I am aware of. Yet because a person decides to work as a teacher, we automatically ban some activities in their private lives?

Are we now going to go back a few decades and ban teachers from drinking alcohol? What about a few decades more and ban female teachers completely?

Laws regulating private decisions that do not violate the Punch Principle are by and large ludicrous to begin with. That goes for many issues, from driving with a cell phone to drug use to prostitution. Laws that regulate private decisions because of occupation just add another level of insanity on top of the base ludicrousness.

But remember, we must obey the law, even as we work to change it.

After all, while it takes a while to get to a Supreme Court, once a Supreme Court makes a decision, it really does filter down fast.