Lying to someone's parents is a far cry from her lying to her pregnant sister, parents, police, lawyers, a judge, and jury. Now she'll have to do it twice.
I wasn't there and I only skimmed the stuff posted here but I recall the boyfriend being the one who told her parents. I think it happened and if dude was spending that much time with her alone as it seems that is just more evidence she's telling the truth. And lol at the old guy and not believing she could do things while he drove. I think it happened and I'm glad I'm not on the jury.
Huh? Make sense here. You had better get physical evidence to substantiate statutory rape. Otherwise you likely won't get a conviction.
No, you make sense. What evidence are you talking about? Consensual sex with a minor is against the law. How does one prove that? Please tell me the "physical evidence" you're talking about.
I first had sex as a 13 year old. I was having regular sex as a 16-17 year old. Please tell me what physical evidence could be provided to show consensual sex happened... Short of sheets, clothing etc with fluids on them.....
In 49 states this isn't even a close jury decision and in fact would end in mistrial. Oregon is the only state still allowing "convictions" without unanimous jury agreement, a system created in the Jim Crow era to allow for continued convictions of minorities even when a juror or two might demand evidence or proof or something like that. Dems in control here have been asked to repeal it for decades now, but for some reason... https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/ore...emaining-state-with-old-jim-crow-jury-system/ Oregon Is Now The Only Remaining State With Old Jim Crow Jury System Congratulations to Louisiana, which isn't the last horse in this race. By Joe Patrice Nov 7, 2018 at 2:46 PM 33Shares One wouldn’t expect normally forward-thinking Oregon to be the last vestige of a particularly odious legal convention, but after last night’s elections, that’s where it sits. Louisiana voters resoundingly passed Amendment 2, eliminating the state’s acceptance of non-unanimous felony verdicts and leaving Oregon as the sole remaining state with this stain on the books. The Louisiana measure passed with over 64 percent of the vote, a hefty total until you realize the law enjoyed bipartisan support with endorsements from the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Lousiana Republican Party. Unfortunately, law enforcement officials up to and including the state’s attorney general put up a fight against eliminating the law and managed to bring about a third of voters with them to keep a system around that allows people to be convicted of a felony even when two jurors vote to acquit. No wonder Louisiana has the second-highest incarceration rate in the country. These laws are byproducts of the Jim Crow era, designed to minimize the impact of minorities who might find their way onto a jury. In Louisiana, this unequivocally meant suppressing the influence of African American jurors. In Oregon, a state that actually banned black people from moving there until 1926, the jury rule focused more on non-Northern European immigrants from across the Atlantic. As the newspaper The Oregonian put it when Oregon passed its version of the law in the 1930s, “The increased urbanization of American life and the vast immigration into America from southern and eastern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory.” Amazingly — or perhaps, sadly, not amazingly — the Supreme Court has upheld these non-unanimous systems. After indicating in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) that the Sixth Amendment required unanimity, the Court stepped back in Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) and Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) to allow the states to continue railroading people into prison over the reasonable doubts of their peers. But yesterday, finally, Louisiana turned the page and put an end to this nonsense. It’s time for Oregon to do the same.
DNA, semen, hair, corroborating witnesses, that kinda stuff. Without evidence you can't let people get locked up just because they're accused of something.
This is not a court. Think of it as being like a job interview. Yes, we'll leave the convicting to a court of law.
You're asking that question to someone who isn't afforded that privilege? Everywhere I go I'm presumed guilty before innocent... Sorry if it ruffles the feathers of those who aren't used to that treatment. The Brett Kavanaughs, and Brock Turners of the world need prison time.
