recording microphone rather than amplify mine but i'm glad that someone younger than you actually asked to speak up so i got you something i'm sorry about that i will speak out illinois sands in the north and it gets the majority on the issue pursuant to seven twenty i also yes five backslash eleven dash one point five zero see a teenager is subjected to up to a year in jail and required to register as a sex offender if he or she engages in the normative behavior of consensual sexual conduct with another the provision not only violates the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the united states constitution and the illinois constitution but it also violates the  eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment challenges are reviewed under one of two distinct analytical frameworks the term of years approach or the category  where the united states supreme court and graham versus florida in two thousand and five recognized that juveniles were different given their unique characteristics in the punishments aimed at issue only in constitution under the categorical approach the court is directed to first look to objective indication of society's standards as expressed in legislative in that and in state practice to determine if there is a national consensus against the senate and practice that issue next the court must then look and exercise its own independent judgment to determine if sentencing practice is indeed unconstitutional the practice that issue here the placement of juveniles and detention for up to a year or engaging in normative behavior is not only contrary to charge the defendant in this case with the not with the voluntary condom not the non voluntary forceful conduct this is a situation where this could have just as easily charge the defendant that the charge was for the volunteer consensual act as opposed to the forceful th e punishment that applies to that the punishment that mor major difference and the analysis whether it's true love romeo and juliet or whether it's the most popular quarterback of the football team and someone who will be and this i hope you understand i'm trying to beat someone who's not popular and is not going to get a date to the prom  taken advantage of but it's consensual in the sense that willingness there's a willingness because of the way the person manipulates the partner and whether it's maybe it's the captain of the girls soccer team who takes consequence here the registration and i understand you're making you know that the statute is bad it's bad public policy it's not so the registration very harmful it's it's psychologically harmful it's this is really harmful it tends to change their entire development i mean illinois they write the victim testified that respondents bench trial but the sexual activity not consensual corespondent prevent the preventing the victim from leaving the van and respondent pending the victim's right on in addition three boys had intercourse with the victim and they know it was not a boyfriend slash girlfriend situation the next day respondent facebook message the victim and admitted raping her and you take issue with the accuracy of th reporting of this she did state that her encounter with maurice was consensual the facebook reference all we have is the same which could have easily have been a question it could have it's written words on paper which can be made out to see anything he could have been questioning her now statement that it was rape as opposed to consensual which is why i also disagree with the state's presentation now on appeal when that's why the statute is president as it is if it's not yours and you're then showing it out to be force how does that speak to our system that we're allowing someone a lesser penalty i would love to make it but as the statute stadium it is unconstitutional because in this state the legislature has recognize  that's only in violation of the law because of the person involved but you seem to be indicating that that's an element of the of the normal of behavior that statu the ages of the parties involved regardless of whether it's voluntary or non however there are other sections of that statute that specifically deal with non sexual conduct and when we're looking at this we agree that it's ok to put children in jail for up to a year for engaging in activity that has evolved in our society to be normal to be expected as a part of their development over fifty percent of teenagers in high school today are engaging in sexual activity with each other in illinois seventy five percent of sexually active have partners that are within three years of their age were saying you should to jail for just being a teenager and for just doing what teenagers do and that's cruel and unusual punishment under the framework surely whether that person is a doll or a child if they're a citizen of this country they're entitled to the preservation and to put them in jail for just being a child doing what children do it's cruel and unusual punishment and over seventy five percent of the jurisdictions in this country have sets also unconstitutional should not be punished by imprisonment and there is no rehabilitative potential dealing with close in age sexual conduct among teenagers when there's nothing to rehabilitate it's normal expected in finding that and found that this was not a boyfriend girlfriend situation this was a situation where one of the three boys who sexually assaulted this girl might have been a boyfriend or at least based on what i understand the evidence was there was an agreement to meet up and have sex and then two other young men decided either in conjunction with a third young man or not decided to take advantage of the situation and engage in sexual intercourse with this young girl so this is not a girlfriend boyfriend normal situation of teenagers so i think that i have basically two arguments i think that my strongest argument is that the eighth amendment does not apply to me you cation  government to inflict punishment the court found that the proceedings under the juvenile court and in this was the warship do not proceed are not criminal and in judah cation courtship is not a direct action by the state to inflict punishment within the meaning of the eighth amendment in the proportionate penalties lots delinquency proceedings are protective in nature and the purpose of the act to protect and rebut rehabilitate not to punish i think to that effect that some two thousand and eleven supreme court almost supreme court case while the us supreme court has held that the unique characteristics of juveniles warrant heightened scrutiny in the context of convictions for criminal offenses these cases are in opposite because they dealt with joe juveniles who are prosecuted  adult criminal system not in the juvenile system in addition the harshest possible penalties the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole are not issue here like they were in th united states supreme court case the state also argues that responded back standing to make the argument respond it is arguing that the prosecution of a minor wound gauges in consensual sexual activity with another close in each minor for and personal mr meaner constitutes cruel and unusual punishment however responded conduct was not consensual or normative the victim testified it responded bench trial that the sexual activity was happened sensual home responded preventing the victim from leaving the van and responded pinning the victim's right arm that the judge actually laid out what what he felt was a fact and said this was not a boyfriend girlfriend situation the state bar you set a facial challenge neither a facial challenge to the hypothetical case to argue that it's unconstitutional and in their case and in the case we're talking about today my opponent is using a hypothetical case this was not consensual  this court should also judge the possible violation of the eighth amendment by what punishment was actually inflicted not by potential punishment in this case respond it got a year of conditional charge discharge and thirty days in jail and the state's attorney says well we'll give him a deal later plead to this and but he's got a registered sex offender because that's what's required by the statute what public policies are i think th so i do think that the court laid out in the sentencing hearing that if you get rid of that registration go through sex offender class and show them you're not a sex so that's the that's the remedy