Unless they are somehow tricked into giving a guilty verdict, their "prejudice" against a particular type of crime theoretically shouldn't shine through until the defendants' guilt is proven.

One should screen out individuals that will presume guilt, rather than those who will be harsh on the guilty. I realize that because of a "prejudiced" juror's emotions will come into play there will be some overlap, but I believe that a distinction should be made... After all, if these coordinated gang-rapists are kept away from women a little extra I doubt it'll do the world much harm...

she doesnt want them to be punished but get talked to by a shrink?
psychologist arent one-step fix- all magicians that can utter magic words to make people change their ways.
is this bitch stupid?
they have to see what prison is like so they never want to commit a crime again, does she not care if they do it to another girl?

Child sexual abuse may include fondling a child's genitals, masturbation, oral-genital contact, digital penetration, and vaginal and anal intercourse.

child pornography refers to images or films depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse.

Statutory rape laws are based on the concept that a young person may desire sex but may lack the experience possessed by legal adults to make a mature decision as to whether or not to have sexual contact with a particular person. Thus, the law assumes, even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse with a legal adult, his or her sex partner may well have used tactics of manipulation or deceit against which the younger person has not yet developed sufficient discernment or defense

What you have to realise about criminal trials is, the prosecution has the police force and the judicial system to call on. They have a a stupendously huge pot of taxpayers' money to fuck around with, and they're not going to share anything that might shore up the defendants innocence. "Anything you do say may be used in court against you", not "for you". The accused has only their own money or legal aid to fight with, so they need every advantage they get. Don't like, write to your local representative about increasing legal aid until it's equal to the level of resources the government has.

I can guarantee that anyone who seems unusually blase about sex crimes or at all misogynistic gets kicked out, too.

As for the suggested pay-off, even if you're completely innocent, can you really say you're 100% sure you won't get convicted by a jury? Humans are fallible, and if you have it, spending $50,000 to guarantee you don't get your life wrecked for something you didn't do is cheap, however small the chances.

Convicting the right people is important of course, but being kicked out for 'hating sex crime'? That kind of BS can only happen because of this overzealous idea that punishing blatant criminal acts, no matter how egregious should be balanced out. When that happens, what about the victim's rights? What about their recourse? Of course, it's merely an afterthought for this hackeneyed idea of 'fairness'. The crime happening in the first place totally destroyed the sanctity of what's fair to begin with.

Those 3 are NOT meant to protect children, but instead to keep them celibate by fiat of law. Not right, if I allow my daughters/sons to be sexually active, that should be MY CHOICE, not societies... actually, it's not even my choice, it is THEIR choice to doink or not, no matter who they are doing it with.

The fact is that if women were raised CORRECTLY, even when they were raped, they would be like "Okay, this was a bad thing, but do I REALLY want to ruin someone else's life when it is MY CHOICE whether to allow this to 'ruin' my life or not? NO!"

That is what my one cousin told the prosecutor who was trying to get her to testify against the boys who had raped her..... she told him flat out that she would only testify if the boys were put into treatment for psychological issues and NOT put into prison.... prosecutor refused, she told him "Fine, you just lost your witness!" and walked out.

Women need to start realizing (men too) that it is THEIR CHOICE whether being forcibly raped (and that is the only real kind of rape that there is) ruins their lives, and that if they let it do that..... it's their own fault.

Fact is that most women are whoring themselves out anyway, just in a socially acceptable way called 'marriage'.

Absent that, even in the case of a 'minor'.... I'm going to vote for acquittal, regardless of what the law states, since I believe that law is in violation of human rights.

How do I know this? I actually went to a party and SAW HER DO THAT. When her parents found out, they tried accusing the boys in question who were with her 2 days prior of 'gang-rape' but after people like myself came out and told them "Dude, your daughter is a slut and she was ENJOYING that!" they backed off of the boys and their daughter.

And really, that is the JUDGES ESTIMATION as to whether someone is guilty or not, it's no more 'valid' than the jury verdict when it comes down to it.

What we REALLY need to do is repeal a lot of our laws. Statutory rape: gone. Child sexual abuse: gone. Child pornography: gone. Drug laws: gone.

Unless, in the former 3 cases, the child in question or 'young person' is being physically forced into sex with someone, which 99 times out of 100 that is NOT the case in the slightest.

I've seen WAY too many little girls and boys use allegations of sexual abuse to 'get back' at someone, and had it done to ME when I hadn't done jack shit to the young girl in question!

We simply need to REPEAL a lot of our laws and have our system of justice take a NEUTRAL STAND on whether someone is guilty or not..... and stop calling someone a 'victim'... that prejudices the jury. Call them the ALLEGED victim, that is a neutral point of view.

That's when you get into problems, because those people can 'taint' a jury very easily, especially if they go looking for 'facts' online or somewhere else.

ahem, how do you say we determine who the criminal is? accused people have to have the same rights as anyone to be fair and not convict the wrong person. If you convict incorrectly not only do you have an innocent person in jail but the real criminal is out free.