No difference to me. A 14 year old boy is no more mature or able to deal with sex than a 14 year old girl. It's an abuse of power either way.
Scenario 1 - somebody is gonna get their a$$ kicked. Scenario 2 - somebody is gonna get congrats! Seriously it is different. If/when I have a daughter, I don't want anyone "deflowering" her.
i just accidentally clicked yes...but i meant no...so deduct one from the yes column and add one to the no to account for it!
Would any of you defend a client who had intercourse with a child? This is why I can never be a defense attorney. I gotta give them props. I want to lock people up.
i can tell you i would not...i could not be a criminal defense attorney...our system needs them...and i believe they have a right to the best attorney they can afford...but i'm not the guy for that job. it's no different...you mess with a kid, particularly when you know they're underage, and you're freaking wrong in my book. of course, the law is such that it doesn't matter if you knew or not. moral to story...exercise some freaking self-restraint!
basically you saying women don't enjoy sex as much as men? The female child could not POSSIBLY enjoy sex while your Male Child can? Rocket River
Defending people in general who you know are guilty of a crime, and trying to find a technicality or some other way of creating and element of reasonable doubt to get them off would almost seem like it should be a crime itself, aiding and abetting is a crime. Smokey, I am sure you will get into it more as time goes on, but maybe you know the answer now. Do the defense attorneys ask "did you commit this crime," to know what they have to overcome or do they simply go into the case assuming he actually is innocent and prove what they assume? "Did OJ's attorneys ever ask did you kill them?" And to that he possibly said "yes, but I did not act alone," thus the attorneys knew they could create reasonable doubt b/c there was an accomplice and evidence would bear that out?
When your male child suffers from psychological problems, starts questioning his sexuality, and starts feeling up on other children, be sure to give him a high five for scoring with his teacher.
you don't think some girls in school are looking to get with the gym Coach . . . trust and beleive. . . ask you girlfriend or wife or homegirl if their was a teacher they wanted to . . uhm . . have sex with I bet all of them will say . . . Well Mr [somebody] was hot . . . Rocket River I think we as men . .. tend to underestimate the female sex drive and ability to enjoy sex
as i understand it, you usually say, "if you did it, i don't want to know..." i certainly can't lie on behalf of my clients...this is a little different because of the 5th Amendment where silence is permissible...but you're really saying that it's the prosecution's job to prove you're guilty...not that it's your job to prove his innocence...if they can't prove it, he can't be sentenced. but i can't withhold documents in a civil case...or participate knowingly with my client's lies under oath...i have to call him on it. or i lose my license.
While I think it would be helpful to know the truth in some cases as it would make it easier to understand the circumstances thus giving me a better oppotrtunity to defend my client. I also think it may make it more difficult b/c you know that the truth is he did it, and (as you stated) it should be illegal and is certainly immoral to get some one off for a crime when I have a confession that he did it. I would find it tough to sleep at night! However, you still walk that fine line like Parnham (sp?) in cases like Clara Harris or Adrea Yates, when you know the individual is guilty yet you attempt to create a story or reason to compensate for that guilt.
i think that guy actually believed that yates was not guilty by insanity...i don't know if he ever believed that about harris or not...but lawyers tend to disconnect from the truth and the truth they need jurors to see..it becomes as much about arranging evidence in the best way possible as it does to getting to the truth...of course the argument for that is that if both sides argue vehmently for their side, the truth will be exposed...like two people pulling a sheet in two different directions, eventually the sheet will tear.
The old 3 sides to every story; prosecution, defense, and truth. I see what you are saying though. The only reason I brought up OJ is I think that could be (if this were what took place) a good example of knowing if he did it or not could help the defense. Seeing that he was the only one being prosecuted for a crime he may have been a part of would immediately let his lawyers know there will be evidence in this case which will point away from OJ being the person involved (the glove) even though there was so much evidence that also pointed to him (the footprints, blood in the truck etc). That knowledge could give the defense enough to present a little doubt in the jurors’ minds returning a not guilty verdict. Knowing the client/attorney 9for the lack of the correct term) confidentiality agreement, I always wondered if the attorney just asks "did you do it?"
