New channel...

Yeah, looks like its new. I truly hope she spends the rest of her life in jail. More importantly, I hope the victims can find a way to sue Epsteins estate and get into the pockets of every public official that aided those scuzzy people.

Agreed.

I'm interested in her getting a fair trial!

I'm interested in her living long enough to get a fair trial!!

And what part of my statement indicates I don't also want those things?

I absolutely believe that we should risk 100,000 guilty go free as a single innocent person be convicted. But, that is in no way contrary to my opinion in the matter. The public evidence is extensive. So, I absolutely believe she is as guilty as sin. But, yes of course I want her and every other person to get a fair trial.

I also oppose the death penalty and vigilante justice - so not sure what you mean by "living long enough to get a fair trial"

What part of what I said excludes what you said. But it's hard to look at her in terms of a fair trial if we don't check out the defense?

And what is her defense? That "technically" some of these children were at the age of consent by the time Epstein raped them?

That appears to be what you are saying. And if that, in fact, is true then maybe she skates a few counts. But, I hardly think that her plan was to con this poor girls often from broken homes and in dire situations to help them out of their situations by selling their bodies to a pervert - but only after they reached the age of consent.

If that is established at trial then by all mean well done defense team. But I seriously doubt that being the case.

Grooming is treated differently to "consensual" intercourse, IIRC.

Or exploitation of a minor.

And for the record here I am very very defense oriented. The idea that prosecutors are out there saving the world from all the horrible criminals is utter horseshit.

If our laws do not protect the least of us, the worst of us then they will eventually fail to protect the best of us....

So absolutely she gets her defense... and absolutely she can walk on a technicality and I would defend that result. Because those "technicalities" are there for a reason. They are there to protect us from over zealous prosecutors and the like....

I am simply stating that my opinion is that she is guilty and I hope she will get found guilty after a fair trial. But I will absolutely support a not guilty verdict even on something as technical as age of consent laws.

Yeppers... I am aware.

And while the "grooming" laws are different than the actual act of sex you do bring up an interesting point. The "exploitation of a minor" was locked in not long after Maxwell met the girls.

I put "consensual" in quotes because I firmly believe anyone under 18 cannot consent to sexual intercourse with a 30+ year old man. The power dynamics are way to prevalent.

If she met a girl and began to interact with the intent of offering her up to Epstien at a later date that is exploitation of a minor even if the girl never meets Epstein

Im a bit more liberal. I was having sex before 18 and baring one incident it was all consensual and I feel I did not suffer adversely from those sexual encounters (save the 1 but that did not involve consent)

But, I do agree that we have to pick an age

If it's with people your age, that's less a power dynamic than if the person is an established adult.

I agree

which is why Tennessee's law on the matter is pretty good

If the "victim" is less than 16 (I think) and the accused is 3 years or less older then its a defense.

I might have the numbers off but that is essentially the way it works

And of course it does not apply to any form for forced sex regardless of age

A lot of states do not call it "rape of a child" unless the victim is like 12 or under. So anyone charged in that situation regardless of their age is going to go away from a long time.

But, to me 12 is too young. Its really hard for me to imagine even a 14 year old capable of making those sorts of decisions regardless how old the other party is

It's the same sort of opinion I have about shady things in Hollywood. People have power dynamics and they abuse those to take advantage of people from a young age that are looking to make their footprint in life. A lot of the offers are simply **unable to be refused**, no matter how much they may not want to do a particular act with someone.

And I firmly believe that sort of behavior is incredibly predatory.

I do completely understand and agree.

But then at some point we have to at least assume that it was a consensual thing.

I totally get that young women (adults) wanting to make it in Hollywood or whatever were taken advantage of by the likes of Wienstein (or whatever his name was).... but I also see how a person should be able to assume or rely that another sober, mentally sound adult they are having sex with is ok with having sex.

But I am not discounting your point. In that situation he was clearly taking advantage of his position and what he could do for these women and their careers and livelihood. So was their duress? Im sure there was in most if not all those cases.

But at what point does duress remove consent? And how is a potential defendant suppose to knwo that?

I hate this topic because every time I try to defend either side I feel like I am saying something I shouldnt

I'm not judging you for wanting a reasonable bar, it's not something that can be answered in a black and white way I don't think.

I think it has to be a case by case basis

As the law should be handled.

Yeppers, but of course we have to first draft the law before we get there.... so how important are we going to make the "power dynamic" in the text of the law?

I just try to put myself in the shoes of my 17 year old self those 13 years ago and say: If some old guy came up to me and said "hey I'll pay your college tuition if you just (do something)" I'd probably feel pretty disgusted by it, but at the same time, if I knew they probably could do that, I'd probably go along with it, because I didn't know better at the time. I wasn't at an age where I understood complex social dynamics.

Absolutely. I totally get it. But what about the 18 year old? I mean, you see what I am saying the passing of some number of months or days does not remove that "durress"

@JD~Jordan That's the state's attempt to say "Well we need to have something specific at least."

Right.... and I honestly didn't follow the Weinsten crap.... but weren't many of his accusers adults at the time he made advances?

Dunno.

Never followed it myself.

And I also do recognize that at some point we have to draw a red line... anyone under X years of age simply cannot give consent for any sort of sexual intercourse, period. For me, I would put it at anyone under 14 instead of 12 like in many states.

I also see the logic of having it on the other end, 18. Of course, our laws are so batty . At 18, 19 and 20 I can buy a gun, have sex with anyone, enter into contracts, go to war.... but I cant buy a bear or a pack of cigs

its seems so random

Depends on the state, I think one state age of consent is actually 21.

Wow, really? That's crazy. So, I could travel to the wrong state hook up with a 20year old and potentially be charges with Stat. Rape? Yikes