IL: New Illinois sex offense laws taking effect Jan. 1

Source: 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, …

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.