Do 17 year olds have a constitutional right to intercourse?
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Main(Difference between revisions)
by: Ryan • August 5, 2012 • no comments
(Importing text file) |
m (Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}") |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The headline alone would have made [ | + | The headline alone would have made [[Blog:Main/Do_17_year_olds_have_a_constitutional_right_to_intercourse?|Do 17 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Intercourse]] [[Blog:Main/Do_17_year_olds_have_a_constitutional_right_to_intercourse?|Do 17 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Intercourse]] , but not so much, actually. |
At some point, I will follow this up with an argument that a criminal defendant would have standing to assert the 17 year old's constitutional right. | At some point, I will follow this up with an argument that a criminal defendant would have standing to assert the 17 year old's constitutional right. | ||
It would seem worth raising, for no other reason than alerting the trial judge just how out-of-step Oregon is when it makes a felony (sexual abuse in the second degree) out of sex with 17 year olds, and further it requires sex offender registration, when not only is it not a felony in most states, it's not even criminal. | It would seem worth raising, for no other reason than alerting the trial judge just how out-of-step Oregon is when it makes a felony (sexual abuse in the second degree) out of sex with 17 year olds, and further it requires sex offender registration, when not only is it not a felony in most states, it's not even criminal. | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2012-08-05 21:15:51 -0700 | Ryan }} | + | {{wl-publish: 2012-08-05 21:15:51 -0700 | Ryan:Ryan Scott }} |
Latest revision as of 12:04, August 10, 2013
The headline alone would have made Do 17 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Intercourse Do 17 Year Olds Have a Constitutional Right to Intercourse , but not so much, actually.
At some point, I will follow this up with an argument that a criminal defendant would have standing to assert the 17 year old's constitutional right.
It would seem worth raising, for no other reason than alerting the trial judge just how out-of-step Oregon is when it makes a felony (sexual abuse in the second degree) out of sex with 17 year olds, and further it requires sex offender registration, when not only is it not a felony in most states, it's not even criminal.
