Source: mystateline.com 12/28/22
A handful of new Illinois laws that deal with sex offenses will go into effect Jan. 1.
The first, filed as House Bill 4593, places the burden of proof on a defendant accused of soliciting sex from a minor or intellectually disabled person and claims they did not know the victim was a minor or disabled.
Anyone who uses the defense must prove they were unaware of the age or disability status of the victim. Currently, that burden of proof is on the state. Gov. JB Pritzker signed the bill into law on May 27.
The second law pertains to when a victim of sexual assault is unable to give consent after taking intoxicating substances. The law, signed on June 16, clarifies the current definition of “unable to give knowing consent” by adding that the survivor is unable to consent even if they voluntarily become intoxicated.
Under the current law, the offender must have provided an intoxicating substance to the victim to be charged with sexual assault.
The third provision, …
Kinds of unusual to insert mens rea into underage sex cases isn’t it?
I wish I could have used not knowing the age as a defense, but the state of Michigan said even though she had lied and I had proof of it, I should have known she wasn’t 18 🙃
Laws against us are AKA: “closing loopholes.”
How brave and trendy!
Not sure how this can withstand legal scrutiny, requiring a defendant to prove his innocence rather than the state prove his guilt.
Just how is one supposed to prove that he/she didn’t know something?
A very clever attempt to further destroy the paltry few protections our quaint, antiquated foundational document, and its amendments offer as privileges to those who have not had them suspended or revoked yet.
These are Statutory offences…perfect choice to continue the dismantling process with.They, technically, do not have to prove that you knew the, “Victim” was ____ and that _____ constitutes a statutory violation. They only have to prove that _____ occurred.
Been doing this with drug possession for decades! Doesn’t actually have to be _____, so long as you THINK it is _____. This is just an extension of that idea!
It is, NOT a presumption of guilt…it is a presumption of knowledge! Guilty is established the moment _____ occurs. This just invalidated the, “I didn’t know” defense. That defense is not constitutionally guaranteed! Thus, no constitutional issue!
Constitution side stepped: Check
Pandering to judgement of constituents: Check
Political gain achieved!!!!
This will bloat their beloved registries with so many “Regular Janes and Joes” it will make it harder to maintain the mind numbing, panicky idiocy the registry requires to survive. It is in these moments I remind myself of something I once heard in a documentary…
“It is the nature of golems to destroy their creators and themselves.”
The registry is a golem, and it will behave according to its nature. This is just part of that process. Sometimes it takes longer than it did with the most famous golem of all time…the one Dr. Frankenstein created. May take longer, but the outcome is assured…in time.