Very interesting article. However, I do have some feedback to give you on some of the contents of your article.

Commenting as I read

Let's start with the least controversial statement that I've ever made - at least, I hope so. Kids can't consent. There's a reason why statutory rape is a crime. There's a reason why a forty-year-old having sex with a fifteen-year-old ends up in jail even if the fifteen-year-old said "yes." We understand that kids lack the capacity to adequately give consent. I sincerely hope that I'm not going to strike controversy with this. If you're a member of NAMBLA (Not the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes), please feel free to mute me.

Not long ago in the state of Idaho where the statutory age of consent is eighteen, a case that was heard in a criminal court involving a 40-something-year-old man who had sexual relations with a 17-year-old girl was acquitted as a result of jury nullification. That is, the jury decided that even though the defendant did, in fact, have sexual relations with the underage girl, they acquitted him on the premise that nobody got hurt in the act.

I'm not going to say one way or the other what that jury should have done. I think we all are going to have our individual opinions based upon our experiences with the law. However, I will say that this same case sparked a great amount of controversy over whether or not the doctrine of jury nullification is just and right and should be allowed in the deliberation of verdicts.

The North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? That's hilarious. LOL! :-)