If you can't produce a victim, a living, breathing victim (or corpse, if appropriate) than you have no crime. It's pretty simple, actually.
I’m happy that you (at least for the time being) do not currently designate pedophilia and STATUTORY rape as victimless crimes.
I'm fairly certain you know I didn't say that. If you had a hard time reading, you can scroll up and read it again. If not, well, then you're intentionally misstating the truth (I'm trying really hard to not use the L word here).
In any case, we certainly need more folks such as yourself. Folks who proudly proclaim that they’ll disregard the juror’s oath they will take swearing that they will render a true verdict according to the law.
It is the right of a juror to judge the law as well as the accused. If it wasn't then there is no point in having a jury trial since the judge could just order the jury to return the verdict he wants. One of the reasons we got rid of prohibition is courts were having a hard time finding juries who would convict for violating the laws banning alcohol.
Orangedog,
I think you missed the word “not” in the following sentence I posted.
“I’m happy that you (at least for the time being) do not currently designate pedophilia and STATUTORY rape as victimless crimes.”
The word “not” makes a critical difference in the meaning of the sentence.
You and I will just have to “agree to disagree”. I live in Maryland and jury nullification is becoming a real problem here where a substantial percentage of Baltimore’s black population will now NEVER render a GUILTY vote against a fellow black—no matter how strong the evidence. I have had a friend who was very badly injured in a crime in which there was an overwhelming body of strong evidence—way more than what was needed to overcome the reasonable doubt burden. And that friend’s attacker got off scot free thanks to a free public defender and a bit of jury nullification.