SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (25837)1/23/2004 10:20:30 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 793931
 
I looked a little more into it - the girl was not 16, she was 15, and the boy was 18. He said it was consensual, she said it was rape. She did not report it for a couple of days, and she had bruising on her lips and privates. The prosecution said it was consistent with rape, the defense said it was consistent with first time intercourse. I suppose that because the jury did not convict him of rape, they believed it was consensual, or at least that there was reasonable doubt that it was rape.

At least five jurors said they would not have convicted the boy of the charge had they known about the mandatory minimum sentence - and that they convicted him of the aggravated child abuse charge because of the bruises.

I dunno. I am not at all a fan of mandatory minimum sentences, I think they lead to travesties of justice, but I also think the race issue is a red herring.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News