Comments on: CT Senate passes harsh “Jessica’s Law” and “tender years” exception http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1706 Gideon Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:13:00 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/#comment-1706 I've edited your comment so that the link doesn't run off into the sidebar. As to Mark Lunsford, yeah it is so bizarre. I bet the family is wondering what will happen next. It just goes to show that these statutory rape laws are pretty outdated and the age gap needs to be widened if they are to exist. Why non-consensual sex between teens wouldn't fall within regular rape laws is beyond me. I’ve edited your comment so that the link doesn’t run off into the sidebar.

As to Mark Lunsford, yeah it is so bizarre. I bet the family is wondering what will happen next.

It just goes to show that these statutory rape laws are pretty outdated and the age gap needs to be widened if they are to exist. Why non-consensual sex between teens wouldn’t fall within regular rape laws is beyond me.

]]> By: Woman in Black http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1705 Woman in Black Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:58:28 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/#comment-1705 <p>And <a href="http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/05-31-2007/f5fd00123a34a599.html">look what's happening</a> with the real Jessica's brother (?)</p> <p>Jurors and prosecutors don't buy the "Romeo and Juliet" line in real life...and this boy (because that is what most 18 year olds usually are) would not make it under the CT law, as I understand it.</p> And look what’s happening with the real Jessica’s brother (?)

Jurors and prosecutors don’t buy the “Romeo and Juliet” line in real life…and this boy (because that is what most 18 year olds usually are) would not make it under the CT law, as I understand it.

]]> By: Miranda http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/comment-page-1/#comment-1664 Miranda Thu, 31 May 2007 14:01:04 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/05/30/ct-senate-passes-harsh-jessicas-law/#comment-1664 I don't really see any need for "Jessica's law", or any benefits from it. I guess only time will tell how this plays out, but I foresee some serious issues with plea bargains. With a 25-year minimum, in the majority of cases, a prosecutor is going to have to sub-down the charge (to the statute and penalty we have now, by the way) to get a defendant to take a deal. Why wouldn't you take a sex assault involving a child complainant with a 25-year minimum to trial? Is there a whole lot to lose?? Depends on the circumstances of the individual case obviously, but in many cases, the answer will be no. So, really what we've done is put prosecutors in the position of having to choose between the charge and putting the minor victim through a trial. Is this a positive thing? I suppose those who support the bill can hope that the new offense and new penalty will intimidate defendants into taking quicker plea bargains for more time on lesser charges. Who knows, maybe that will happen and result in the bill actually achieving its apparent goal of higher penalties for these offenders. However, there is also a very real possibility that this bill will result in more trials involving minor victims of sexual assault. Was this an intended consequence? I don’t really see any need for “Jessica’s law”, or any benefits from it. I guess only time will tell how this plays out, but I foresee some serious issues with plea bargains. With a 25-year minimum, in the majority of cases, a prosecutor is going to have to sub-down the charge (to the statute and penalty we have now, by the way) to get a defendant to take a deal. Why wouldn’t you take a sex assault involving a child complainant with a 25-year minimum to trial? Is there a whole lot to lose?? Depends on the circumstances of the individual case obviously, but in many cases, the answer will be no. So, really what we’ve done is put prosecutors in the position of having to choose between the charge and putting the minor victim through a trial. Is this a positive thing?

I suppose those who support the bill can hope that the new offense and new penalty will intimidate defendants into taking quicker plea bargains for more time on lesser charges. Who knows, maybe that will happen and result in the bill actually achieving its apparent goal of higher penalties for these offenders.

However, there is also a very real possibility that this bill will result in more trials involving minor victims of sexual assault. Was this an intended consequence?

]]>