I think md2000’s point was that a jury can concern itself about what is just or not, without having to find a rationalization within the law as written.
I think it was more than that. He was justifying treating jurisprudence as unimportant on the basis that jurisprudence is nothing but window dressing for judges’ rationalization.
Not to me. I shall now go and look them up. It’s a poor day when you don’t learn something new.
You are ok with an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old?
Whatever about 15 on 14, that is waay too much of an age-gap for me to be comfortable with.
An 18-year-old is miles away developmentally from a 14-year-old.
There are degrees n there between “okay with” and “deserves a sentence on a par with armed robbery” In fact, the court that reviewed Limon did not exonerate the kid, but said to resentence him in accord with the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law. Since that prescribed a maximum penalty measured in months, and he’d already been locked up five years, he was released with time served.
However, you have to remember two things in the particular scenario of Limon:
- Both boys were developmentally disabled;
- It was the 14-year-old who initiated sexual contact.
It’s not quite the older boy molests younger boy scenario people seem to imagine when they first hear about it