AngelicVampire

Ok, rather than fill up the other thread (Older Women craving 14year olds) I thought I would create a new thread.

The question is would a gender/racial neutral trial system be a good idea and if so/not how would it be implementable?

This is of course following the other thread where a woman sleeps with a 14 year old boy and gets off essentially scot free, a man however sleeping with a 14 year old girl would likely be lambasted and sentenced heavily. Of course society views these differently however is the law not meant to be blind to the differences between people and try them as citizens of a nation rather than black woman <30, hot as opposed to middle age man, greying hair pervert...

Any thoughts?

sailor

I'd say yes, they are a good idea, but I have no idea how one would go about implementing that. Perhaps some sort of double-blind system like psychologists use in studies? It seems to me though that it would be extremely difficult to do this though, trials tend to last a bit longer than a psychological experiment and it seems to me that the identity of the person would come out.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

tec-9-7

In theory it might be a good idea, but our laws give the accused the right to confront their accuser before the jury. I don't see how this could work.

Toaster126

The premise of neutral trials of all sorts is a good one. It's just not feasible. People will always be biased. It's part of human nature.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

Dragonknight

Simple change the law. Why must they see them to confront them? Set up a two way audio system that makes the both parties voices plane. Meaning that you can't tell male or female. Then conduct the trial. Both parties can say things to there lawyers, based on what they hear in the court so both parties can try and get there point across. Being able to actually see the jury doesn't help at all, you don't try (?) them based on there looks only the facts. Looks are a hinderance on many levels: 1 giving a weeker sentence to women as apposed to males, 2 racial profileing, and 3 he/she looked guilty. It's not like the people can up and say anything in court any damn way, it's all up to there lawyers.

__________________
Freedom is NOT Free.

CandleInTheDark

Why should the law be blind to the differences of the people? A 22 year old and a 17 year old are in a very different situation than a 13 year old and a 20 year old. Both are illegal in many states. Sex laws should not be blind to differences, because each situation is unique.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

AngelicVampire

Each situation is unique, however if the following is true:

A 28 year old sleeps with a 14 year old, 3 known times, once in the position of work where the younger party is under the care of the older party, once on private property and once in a park.

Does it matter if the accused is male, female, black, white, nice, ugly, fat, thin, balding or not? These really should not have an impact on the case, now if the person is suffering from mental problems etc that could also be brought up but realistically looking at certain cases some people do seem to get off easier, LaFaye's lawyer said she was too pretty to go to jail... is that realistically an arguement?

Coppertop

And what about when the defendant desires to take the stand? Ever been part of a jury? Being in the room with all parties involved is integral to the process of determining guilt or innocence. Recorded/transmitted audio/video just don't convey the same messages.

CandleInTheDark

What the accused is does not matter as much as what the "victim" is. A 14 year old boy is less likely to feel victimized having consentual (reality, not legally) sex with a 28 year old woman than a 14 year old girl would have sex with either a woman or man.

If there is not a victim, that is, the younger party at no point feels victimized, then how is there a case?

/Devil's Advocate

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

guthmund

Ah, you beat me to it.

How can the court system work, how can 'justice' be doled out accordingly if all factors of the case aren't included and taken into consideration?

If the intent is to punish each individual adhering strictly to the letter of the law without the examination of the circumstances, then why have a jury at all? Why not just a rope line for the defendants to wait while the judge examines his 'punishment' checklist to dole out the approprate sentence?

Like Candle said, it's important to know who or what the 'victim' really is. I'm certainly not an expert on the criminal justice system, phibophelia (if I even spelled that right) or some psychological whiz, but it seems to me that the dynamic between an older man/younger girl is more, "you have what I want, I'm going to take it" rather than the older woman/younger man dynamic, which seems to be more, "I'm offering it to you, take what you will."

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

tokaok

to add, laws are their to represent the views and ideals of the society, sexual bias is a key part of animal behaviour and culture and must certenly be taken into account.

Coppertop

Ever wonder why criminal cases are The People vs. Joe Pedophile and not Little Susie Derkins vs. Joe Pedophile? Because it is the State that has been wronged (or perceived to have been). Yeah, I know it doesn't make much sense when you think about it, but that's how it is. The State can pursue legal action against Joe even if Susie doesn't feel victimized. I'm sure a legally trained mind could better illuminate this for us.

snowy

Both my aunt (mom's sister) and my uncle (dad's brother) work for different prison systems. My uncle, as a director of facilities, says that this is an issue they are facing right now in addressing prison populations. For years, they have been treating women as if they were less violent versions of male offenders. However, experience and psychology show that this is not true. Female offenders need different things from the prison system than male offenders do. Female prison populations also function differently socially. My aunt, who is a boot camp director, says the same thing. The same should be assumed of defendants in court; women are different than men. That is a fundamental truth we cannot ignore. In the interest of "equality" women like to make it seem as if we're similar to men, but the fact is that there are significant differences between the genders/sexes, psychologically and physically, and we should take those into account when trying people.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Willravel

It would be nice just to get a packet in the mail with all the relevent facts of the case, including examinations and cross examinations, openings, and closing, and all relevent laws that would or could bear on a case and simply make my decision at home drinking some tea and listening to some music.