Quote Originally Posted by MacMullen
I also would love to serve on a jury. I've only been called once and they picked the jury before they needed me. It was a statutory rape trial and the defense attorney asked the potential jurors, and I quote, "Does anyone here have a moral problem with underage drinking or with teenagers having sex?" (
I've only been called once, and they apparently settled before a jury for the two cases on the slate that day was seated; still, I'd happily go back if my name came up.

As for the question you faced MacMullen, I probably would have answered the same as the jury because the question as phrased is exceedingly broad. I find the "underage" drinking statutes to be rather arbitrary: if someone is old enough and mature enough to drive a vehicle, carry a weapon in battle for his or her country or vote, then they should be old enough to buy a beer at a ballgame. Likewise, the phrase "teenagers having sex" is simply too sweeping a statement. I'd have to answer "no" to the defense simply because I do not have a moral objection to every circumstance of teenage sex or underage drinking.

It of course goes without saying that, by relieving society of the duty to police the individual, the individual becomes *MUCH* more responsible for their actions. The defense attorny better hope his/her client acted in a responsible fashion, underage or not: because that is the standard to which I'll hold them.

Bryan...I'll probably never get called again, anyway...