If Obama really wants to turn the economy around with a “stimulus”, I propose that he buy a few million copies of “Eat The Rich” by P.J. O’Rourke and send it to all the government operated schools and see if they can figure it out and maybe teach it to some students. And just maybe he and his cabinet could read it and get an f’ing clue as well.

Federal judges in California ordering thousands of inmates released due to prison overcrowding.

How about we start with the guys in there for lighting up a joint. Instead of parole how about we just commute their sentences to lighten the load on the parole/judicial system as well.

Is that really “reverse” nullification, or just nullification we don’t like? Heck, is it even nullification? Without asking the juror I don’t think we’d know for sure. I’ve always viewed nullification as a two edged sword, and I think the history of its use in the U.S. is strong evidence of the good and the bad that can come of it.

I disagree that Western society has not viewed women as property. Until the 60s, a married woman (in many US states) could not enter into a contract unless cosigning with the husband, because she was deemed incompetent to sign for both parties. A married man could, however, sign without his wife’s permission.

In the UK until at least victorian era, a father could privately prosecute a man who had consensual sex with, or married, his daughter, unless the man had obtained permission from the father. I would refer you to the cases if I still had my old books.

Similarly, if Elizabeth I had married, there was concern that the husband would become ruler of England under concepts of property.

There should be some type of legal recourse for parents to protect their kids, and for us as a society to say that teenage sex can be wrong and inappropriate but these criminal sanctions are awful.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6256265.html

Five of the six jurors refused to vote to convict Milburn of felony assault, said defense attorney Anthony Griffin and Assistant District Attorney Veronique Cantrell-Avloes.

One asshole hangs the jury by refusing to acquit- sounds like reverse jury nullification by some badgelicker.

#20: Because the law view sex through a very old fashioned mindset. The woman is property, first of her father, then her husband. Hence, a husband cannot be a rapist. Having sex with her degrades the value of that property and is an offense against the male owner. Hence, one old punishment for rape was to force the rapist to marry the victim (if unmarried).

There are a few things very wrong with what you just said:

1) Husbands can be charged with rape, and usually are if the DA can make the charges stick.

2) This view has more to do with the Victorian Era view of women as inherently more virtuous than men which puts the assumption on the man as being the “guilty party.”

3) Traditionally, in western society, the family patriarch’s social obligation regarding his daughter’s chastity was part and parcel of his overall obligation to provide for her and protect her until she was married to a man who could assume that obligation. Likewise, at least in theory (often not in practice), he was supposed to punish his sons for doing behavior that would compromise the daughters of other men. It was hardly the sort of arrangement like what you have in the Middle East where women actually are treated like property; a man recently lost his 8 year old daughter in Saudi Arabia because her father made her his wager in a card game.

A slight correction to the Mass. story. The Mass. Supreme Court is allowing discovery of statutory rape statistics so the defendant can make a defense of vindictive prosecution and possibly have the charges dismissed. This is not civil action against the prosecutor.

I don’t really view it as that unusual, particularly considering that–unlike many other “crimes” (generally statutory ones that do not require mens rea, which is basically intent)–it’s an act that most people can intuitively recognize as wrong. That being said, I agree that the double-standards are illogical, particularly with respect to rape shield rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Just because rape is a rather heinous crime doesn’t mean that the accused deserve less protection; if anything, the emotionally charged nature of such trials suggests the accused is in GREATER need of procedural protections.

Sure, the law has evolved, but it still retains strong traces of the past. Law has not caught up with the idea of sex as an entirely consensual act between two equal parties.

That said, when he gets to 14 (admittedly, a long time), if he gets caught having sex with an 11 year old he won’t just have the girl’s father to worry about.

(yeah, I know that might not be reasonable either, but having daughters does that to you).

Rape is unusual in the criminal law: You have a normal human activity that can be criminalized merely on the word of one of the parties, or because the age of the participants, and then there is prosecution. The evidentiary standards are different than for other crimes (very much against the accused), and the consequences severe.

We don’t use these crazy standards elsewhere.

Imagine, going to the mall with the concern that every commercial transaction opened you to a realistic charge of theft or robbery on the word of the cashier, that if the cashier was underage you would automatically be guilty, that different evidentiary standard were applied to you versus the cashier, and that the punishment was many years in jail and a requirment that you never go near any commercial establishment, ever.