I never mentioned prior bad acts.

Prior bad acts are almost always inadmissible at trial, however in any sentencing phase they're in. I was simply stating what a prosecutor could potentially say during a summation, using specifically the evidence in the case at hand. In jury summations both sides have immense latitude when discussing motive and especially intent. I wasn't using Stalin, I mentioned Lenin and Hitler, and only their observation of using emotion to sway average people, who are put off by cold logic and fact of the academic. Demagoguery works. It always has. especially in America. Barack Hussein 0bama couldn't have gotten elected without it, since he offered nothing concrete beyond fuzzy "hope and change". It works with juries. Especially since lawyers do not want overly-educated people onb juries and will do their damnedest to peremptorily strike anyone with an advanced degree, who teaches above an elementary school level, or works in a scientific or engineering capacity. My ideal jury is composed of twelve Wal-Mart cashiers. Finally, the decision the Rehnquist court issued has nothing to do with adult pornography, which they affirmed falls under the protection of the First Amendment. KP doesn't, and their ruling pretty much says that any depiction of a child, even if fully clothed and processing into church for their First Communion, used for sexual stimulation is de facto KP. And until a similar case makes its way to the SCOTUS and possibly gets a ruling that overturns what the Rehnquist court said, that's the law, period. ALL lower court judges are bound by it, and if some wise-ass common-pleas trial judge decides to make new law, he'll easily get over-ruled. Age has nothing to do with it as we're still operating under decisions issued by John Marshall's court. That living-breathing-must expand-with-the-times bullshit is just that....bullshit. Don't go off on tangents with hypotheticals, tj. Focus on the issues as narrowly as possible. You're better than that. Peace...