09-17-2018, 01:29 PM
(09-17-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You anticipated my follow up question: if the accusers recollection of the event is 100% accurate does that disqualify him from the SC? Saying yes rather flies in the face of the entire purpose of the juvenile justice system. Also, the brain development fact is widely accepted fact, and it does not apply to men only.
I disagree. The juvenile justice system is established to acknowledge that young people do stupid shit and shouldn't necessarily be punished for life for it. They have an opportunity to learn and move on, being a productive member of society. Something like this disqualifying him from SCOTUS isn't the same. He is a productive member of society, he still has a lifetime appointment, he doesn't have a criminal record to carry with him all of his life that disqualifies him from jobs, voting, housing, etc. I don't think the comparison is an appropriate one.
(09-17-2018, 12:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: How is this even possible?
Not all laws are criminal and committing a crime if violating laws like she did often requires some sort of intent. They have phrases like "knowingly or willfully" in them, which can be tough to prove. This is why there was no prosecution.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
