"Why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? - It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children."
That "generally considered" idea does exist, and it's bullshit. It's verifiable through annual stats from the US Dept of Health and Human Services, that no group commits more child abuse than mothers acting alone. It's twice as frequent as the amount done by fathers alone.
Those are a minority among the good parents out there. Baby-fur senate staffers who perv on teenagers are rare, too.
"Generally considered" ideas shouldn't happen in the justice system. They might when an almost all-female jury considers the case of a man accused of a gender-loaded crime.
You could compare it to an almost all-white jury considering the case of a black person accused of a race-loaded crime. It's verifiable that being male leads to a harsher sentencing gender disparity, that outweighs the well-known disparity for sentences between black and white people. "To Kill A Mockingbird" put both situations together.
(Gender-loaded: A man who honestly hasn't checked age while doing sex chat is both dumb, and excusable. There shouldn't be a list of sex offenders that lumps the most brutal rapists together with men who got listed for peeing in public, for sleeping with a 17-year-old girlfriend while they were 19, or for making an honest mistake about ID. These people get less constitutional rights than captured terror suspects.)
However this guy was chatting about secret screwing in the backyard with someone who lived with parents. If he didn't check age in the first place, there's a big fat clue to do it.
This conviction sounds justified, but there's bigger issues around it.
That was a great question.
"Why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? - It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children."
That "generally considered" idea does exist, and it's bullshit. It's verifiable through annual stats from the US Dept of Health and Human Services, that no group commits more child abuse than mothers acting alone. It's twice as frequent as the amount done by fathers alone.
Those are a minority among the good parents out there. Baby-fur senate staffers who perv on teenagers are rare, too.
"Generally considered" ideas shouldn't happen in the justice system. They might when an almost all-female jury considers the case of a man accused of a gender-loaded crime.
You could compare it to an almost all-white jury considering the case of a black person accused of a race-loaded crime. It's verifiable that being male leads to a harsher sentencing gender disparity, that outweighs the well-known disparity for sentences between black and white people. "To Kill A Mockingbird" put both situations together.
(Gender-loaded: A man who honestly hasn't checked age while doing sex chat is both dumb, and excusable. There shouldn't be a list of sex offenders that lumps the most brutal rapists together with men who got listed for peeing in public, for sleeping with a 17-year-old girlfriend while they were 19, or for making an honest mistake about ID. These people get less constitutional rights than captured terror suspects.)
However this guy was chatting about secret screwing in the backyard with someone who lived with parents. If he didn't check age in the first place, there's a big fat clue to do it.
This conviction sounds justified, but there's bigger issues around it.
Reason is cool.