Since then, they have been invoked in an ever - growing array of anti-crime objectives including the war on drugs, to battle the scourge of gun crimes, high - level fraud cases, and in
the protection against sexual predators and child pornography.
Not exact matches
But I don't quite see how all this rhetoric about «pervert [ing] justice,» «maximum
protection to children 16 and under,» and «the greatest attainment of
protection of society
against child
sexual predators» fits with the case in which the debate is about one day.
How would there be any material loss of «
protection of society
against child
sexual predators» if the court interpreted the law as allowing the 16 - year - old - minus -1-day as being capable of consenting just as the 16 - year - old is capable?