Author: Admin

When Congress passed the law that will govern how terrorist suspects can be tried in military tribunals, it acted just like the Founding Fathers would have wished. It stuck fast to principles, the bedrock of values and beliefs that this nation stands for — and it compromised on particulars.The Defense Department holds about 350 detainees at Guantanamo Bay who are considered enemy combatants and whom the military believes would fight America and its allies if released. Like all captured enemies, these detainees should be held for the duration of hostilities or until the military is satisfied that they pose no further threat.This is how enemies captured in wartime have traditionally been handled. Military leaders believe, however, that some of these detainees have committed serious war crimes. They wanted, and rightly so, to bring them to justice. That’s where Congress comes in.This summer, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress must explicitly authorize the commissions used to try alleged war criminals. The administration was right to argue against using the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the regular civilian court system as a basis for these trials.Both are traditional legal systems that put the protection of individual rights first, ahead of accommodations for national security and military necessity. This system is not appropriate for trying terrorists in the Pentagon’s custody while the war is still going on.Instead, the Bush administration proposed a judicial process that foremost protects national security interests while also including procedural protections to ensure due process.
Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Service Committee authored a competing version of legislation for the “military commissions” that would try the alleged war criminals at Guantanamo. Intense negotiations between the House, Senate and White House produced a compromise that Congress passed last week.

Three principles were at stake in the debate — ones that should be used to grade the compromise. Any suitable legislation would have to 1) respect the rule of law, 2) guarantee the basic human rights to the defendants and 3) respect the legitimate national security interests of the United States. By any fair measure of the legislation, Congress did all three.

In stipulating the procedures that will be used to interrogate defendants, Congress fulfilled the Supreme Court’s mandate of specifically authorizing the rules for trials. It was Congress’ job to ensure that all the equitable elements of due process, such as the right to counsel, were included. Congress did this.

Congress also stipulated that these procedures complied with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This measure was designed to reassure the rest of the world that the United States takes seriously its responsibility to respect the basic human rights of all persons, on and off the battlefield.

Finally, Congress ensured that adequate measures were taken to protect legitimate secrets and the “sources and methods” used to obtain them. Some complain that other war crimes trials, such as the Nazi Nuremberg trials and the prosecutions of Bosnian war criminals at the Hague, did not allow for “secret” evidence.

But there is a significant difference. Those trials didn’t take place during a war when enemies on the battlefield might use the information to their advantage. Under the congressional rules for military commissions, defendants will still be able to know about and challenge evidence — they just won’t be able to give away America’s secrets.

To endure the often lengthy process of civil litigation, and to make effective decisions at each stage of a lawsuit, you need to understand the chronology of a case, its importance in resolving the case, and the unique terminology involved. Those who understand this otherwise perplexing process are best-suited to work with their attorneys to achieve the best possible results effectively, efficiently and with an eye toward reducing the cost of litigation.

1. Where to Sue? You don’t need three years of law school to realize that there are many different courts throughout the United States with many different functions. But to understand litigation, it’s important to learn the each court’s role within the system.
2. Filing Suit Cases take many shapes and sizes. To understand lawsuits, one must often sort through a number of parties and claims to figure out “who’s who” and get to the heart of the matter.
3. Serving the Lawsuit To protect constitutional rights, plaintiffs must satisfy due process by serving process on the defendant.
4. Defending Against Lawsuits After being served with lawsuits, defendants only have a short time to respond, with a preliminary motion or an answer establishing defenses to the action.
5. Discovery and Investigation As its name suggests, discovery is the investigative phase of the litigation process. Unlike the surprises typical of cases tried by Perry Mason, the discovery rules are designed to uncover the facts well in advance of trial.
6. Pretrial Motions Just because a lawsuit has been filed, that does not mean that the case will ultimately go to trial. Much can happen en route to the courthouse to derail a case or produce victory long before the trial itself.
7. The Trial Though many cases settle or are decided before trial, the trial provides most of the high-stakes drama. To sort through it, and place the evidence in its proper context, one must understand the mechanics of the trial process.
8. Post-Trial Motions Even after the jury has spoken, litigants may file certain “post-trial motions” designed to grab victory out of the jaws of defeat, to persuade the judge to order a new trial, or to modify the result in some less drastic way.
9. Enforcing and Collecting Judgments Beyond enforcement, judgments also have rippling effects on other litigation, precluding similar claims and similar issues from being tried in the future.
10. Appeals After losing at trial, those seeking relief from adverse judgments often forgo post-trial motions addressed to the same courts that handed them their losses. They go above the trial judge’s head to the appellate court.

Most states have what are referred to as statutory rape laws. Such laws typically make it illegal for anyone to have sex with a minor, though the definition of minor varies from state to state. In many states, the punishment for statutory rape is the same as the punishment for other sex crimes: in addition to incarceration, the offender must register as a sex offender for several years or for the rest of his or her life. When applied to non-violent youthful offenders, many feel that such a punishment is unfair and unwarranted. Until recently, Michigan’s statutory rape law required that a person convicted of having sex with a minor between the ages of 13 and 16 register as sex offender with the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry. The older person would be the offender. Thus, if a 16-year old had “consensual” sex with his 15-year old girlfriend or boyfriend, that 16-year old would have to register as a sex offender for at least 15 years. On July 1, 2011, the law changed. While it is still illegal to have sex with a person age 13-16, if the age of the offender is within 4 years of the “victim” and the offender is 18-years old or younger, the punishment would not include having to register as a sex offender. This new law is referred to as the “Romeo and Juliet Law.”

Consequence of statutory rape laws
Statutory rape laws were put in place to protect children from sexual predators. The rationale is that minors under a certain age do not have the mental or emotional capacity to consent to sex. Thus, even if a child in the protected age group was not physically forced, and in fact agreed to the sexual or even initiated it, it would be a crime to have sex with that child. As a consequence, the offender would have criminal record.

Each time such a convicted offender applies to certain educational programs, or applies to any program that requires a background check, he or she will be flagged as having a criminal record. Many employers may be willing to overlook some criminal offenses, especially those committed by teenagers. Many young people have what some might consider as “petty” brushes with the laws, but clean up their acts to become productive citizens. This is one reason that juvenile records are often sealed or expunged. However, if the words “sex offender” are attached to a job applicant, or any other type of applicant, that application will likely quickly be turned down.

Furthermore, with the recent violence in schools, many schools now have security systems in place that require background checks in order to enter schools. If someone is a registered sex offender that person will not be permitted to enter the school, even if the person is a parent of a child attending that school.

Romeo and Juliet Law
Under the Romeo and Juliet law, while Michigan recognizes that teenagers engage in consensual sex it still prohibits such acts. It simply changes the punishment. If the older of the two “consenting” teens is age18 or younger and is within 4 years of the other teen, the punishment now does not include registering as a sex offender. However, the older teen still faces the possibility of jail time and will still have a criminal record. The change to the law only applies where the younger teen is age 13-16 and does not apply in cases where the sex was forcible. The law is not necessarily retroactive. However, a criminal defense attorney can petition to have a person convicted of such sexual misconduct removed from the registry, if the circumstances fit the Romeo and Julie law.

While the Romeo and Juliet law gives a nod to the reality that teenagers have sex, the law does not change that fact that the legislature deems teenage sex as illegal. Thus, it still reflects a paternalistic attitude that teenagers do not have the mental capacity to consent to sex. While most adults would prefer for teenagers to not engage in sex, it is likely that most would also agree that doing so should not be a criminal act. Given societal realities, do you think that sex between two consenting teens should be illegal?