The way I understand it, you vote guilty or not guilty. If you think the law is wrong, vote Not Guilty. I see the Statuatory Rape issue as being very gray. If I was 17 and having sex with my 16 year old girlfriend, no crime has been committed. The day I turn 18, I'm suddenly in trouble?!?! Makes no sense. I understand the need to protect minors from predatory adults. I don't understand the need to pile on misdemeanor charges to inflate a prosecutor's score card.
On the other hand, the juror was being a bit disingenuous when he was stating that he didn't want to "stain this young man's record" with a spurious Statuatory Rape cherge. Hell, the defendant was being chraged with rape, torture, assault, etc. The statuatory add-on was very minor. I could understand if he said something like "I don't believe in piling on lesser charges in order to make the prosecutor look good. But I've got no problem with barbecueing him for rape, torture, etc."
Bottom line:
1. Defendant was a scumbag
2. Juror was an idiot
3. Exclusive of the above court case, California is going to hell.
So there. [:P]