Soxbadger

Fathom, Vitale is terrible with any blue blood program (UNC, Duke, etc) Or maybe Vitale is just terrible because now that I think about it he also loves underdogs or any other reason to scream.

I cant believe how low scoring that game was and this is coming from a Wisconsin fan.

Wisconsin is shooting under 30% and may lose to Penn State, ugh

Strange Sox, You may want to read Sparf v US in regards to Jury Nullification. Judges do not tell the jury they can nullify, they tell the jury what the law is and that they have to apply the law. Nullification almost NEVER happens, if you want to rely on the hope that a jury nullifies and goes explicitly against the Judge, that is your option, but in my experience that would be a terrible risk for your client to take. As for any case where that occurred, it would be basically impossible. Circuit Court decisions are not really reported so the only way to do would be to go through basically every single criminal case and try and find one. That being said, it is a common example used by many criminal attorneys for the absurdity of statutory laws (the fact the person lied to you about being underage is not a defense.)

Tex, There is no definitive answer, I just know which to me is preferable. This is the fact pattern that scares me: 16 year old can uses a fake id to get into a bar, they go home with someone they met at the bar and have consensual sex (for the sake of argument lets just say there is no question that its consensual). The next day dad of the 16 year old finds out, calls the police and the police charge the person over 21 with a statutory sex crime. If you follow the law of many states, the 21+ year old is guilty, no questions asked. I just cant agree with such a black and white rule, which is why I generally dont like statutory laws.

Strange, Not necessarily, its just more to show that states and people are all over the place on what truly is a crime in this regard. Because its not so clear, Id rather just leave it up to a jury to determine. That way if I want I can try and convict a 18 year old having sex with a 17 or a 17 with a 12, it would just depend on the facts of the case. Most reasonable people are not going to believe a 12 year old cant consent to sex with a 17 year old, but maybe in the circumstances it was okay. I cant predict the future, so I prefer laws that are flexible for the facts. Thats just my personal opinion, I generally hate statutes and legislature because they write things so terribly and it makes my life twice as hard. Although I guess if it wasnt for things being poorly worded, I wouldnt have a job. Makes you think.

Youre entitled to your opinion, but not every state is like Illinois that has at least some different variations. (edit) Not to mention that each state has different laws, so you could be committing a crime in Illinois but not Indiana.

Strangesox, I never said that you couldnt write the laws appropriately. I just said that as it stands today, Id rather have no laws then current laws. The current laws are really bad.

Steve, Unfortunately the reason I brought it up was because of this: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/25/famil...playing-doctor/ This is why statutory crimes are stupid.

Strange Sox, A jury can determine that a 12 year old didnt have the ability to consent to sex. The jury can also determine if its 2 7year olds and they were playing a game of Dr that it wasnt actually statutory rape. But if the law says, it is illegal for anyone to touch someone under the age of 16, then you get the ruling that one of the 7 year olds committed a sex crime because that is how the law is written. It is the epitome of stupidity.

Strangesox, Sure if you care more about consistency than common sense, I agree that having bright line rules will result in more consistent crimes. If your 16 and 364 days and you have sex with someone who is 18, the 18 year old should go to jail, no questions asked, right? Because that is what happens when you have bright line statutory rules. Mitigating circumstances dont matter.

If the risk assessment isnt formed until 20s, then why can people under 20 consent? Once again, arbitrary. Put the witnesses on the stand, let them testify, let a jury determine if their was a crime, its really not that revolutionary, its how our criminal system worked for the majority of time.

No. Im saying that regardless of what age you pick its entirely arbitrary, so why not just look at the facts of the situation and determine whether its a crime? As opposed to our current system of calling it a crime regardless of what the facts are. That to me just seems strange.

Balta, Perhaps you missed the part where I said I dont like statutory laws at all, that includes drinking, etc. I believe criminal law requires "mens rea" (criminal mind), statutory law excludes that from the consideration. Im not going say that society is right or wrong on the ages, to me it would be a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances. Obviously a role of power would play into those circumstances, but as Ive said repeatedly, I dont really agree with statutory crimes. I think facts matter and that each case should be judged on its own merits, not on some idea that you can draw arbitrary lines at 16/17. (edit) Strangesox, It depends on the 12 year old. When I was 12, I definitely could have understood whether or not I wanted to have sex with some girl. Now that is drastically different than having sex with a teacher, but thats why it should be a fact based determination and not arbitrary lines.

I dont think you can change the law for guys or girls. That being said, age of consent is usually a state law and different states have drastically different laws. I personally think that the law easily could be changed to avoid such a nonsensical situation. If the "victim" states there was consent, then there is no crime. If the "victim" is silent on consent or says there was no consent, then you can move forward on the case. The fact is, people have been convicted when the "victim" absolutely consented and even at trial testifies that they wanted it to happen. That situation is just stupid.

Why have any law denying anyone from having consensual sex? If Im 12 and a hot 18 year old wants a piece of me, whats wrong with that? Im usually the last person to defend statutory laws, I think that as soon as you get rid of mens rea you lose a lot of legitimacy on a criminal conviction. That being said, you cant just change the rules for hot teachers, or for boys. The rules are the rules, so if its okay for adults to have sex with kids, its okay. If its not, its not. Bad facts make for bad law, and "hot teacher" makes for bad facts. Personally I think the law should be changed and most statutory crimes erased. But Id guess Im in the severe minority.

Yeah some of these comments have irony written all over them.

There are arguments for both sides. At the end of the day, you know if youre good whether or not you "win". This just doesnt just apply to sports, as there are competitions in all aspects of life. Personally, I dont think you really need to be calling kids winners or losers. As a kid I felt opposite, I hated ties and I was super competitive.

I wonder if there is a market for online counsel. For the right price I can argue semantics for you!

Well that guys argument is somewhat contradictory. Right from the song: "I got a beep from Kim". Unfortunately Good Day is just a mindset, not a real day.

Dont blame me, I was just relying on what other people said in this thread. I have no clue about NBA rules.

In that song he refers to the Benedict Arnold line, No Vaseline (imo) kind of made Ice Cube because he just kills it and disses NWA at the same time (also NWA dissolves soon after so Ice Cube arguably got the last word in the beef). It may be my one of favorite Ice Cube songs because its just hilarious.

When Ice Cube left NWA they went after him and in Real n****z called him "Benedict Arnold" in one of their lines, he replies in a song called "No Vaseline", it just is kind of a stark contract to the Ice Cube of today.