Remember that renouncement is generally an affirmative defense. That means that it’s something the accused must prove, not something the prosecution must DISprove. If the guy drives by and doesn’t stop, the prosecution will argue that he was merely casing the scene, looking for police presence, and had no intention at all of abandoning his course of criminal conduct. The guy’s defense is essentially, “No, no, at the last moment, after all my graphic and detailed chat and after driving x many hours to have sex with this minor, just as I pulled up to the house I realized that this was oh so very wrong, and that I couldn’t do it.”
He must convince the jury by preponderance of the evidence that what he’s saying is true. If they believe him, he establishes the defense of renunciation.
Too broad a question to make even an “in general” statement. There are many states with laws that criminalize the attempted online seduction of any person whom the actor BELIEVES to be a minor. Under any variety of those laws, we need not enter the analysis of inchoate crimes; the crime is complete at the keyboard, even if there is no intention to follow through.
BUT – if the accused argues that he knew all along that this was an adult at the other end of the conversation, and he was happily role-playing a sexual fantasy about a minor with another adult, then he might well be off the hook under any law.
Of course, that determination is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Let’s say a guy has sex with a girl who is over the legal age. Afterwards the guy asks her age and he expresses surprise and disappointment at her reply. He thought she was a minor, that’s what turned him on. In disgust she reports him to the cops.
Most likely yes. There are substantial problems of proof, but that’s not the issue. If the facts are that he believed she was a minor, under circumstances that the belief was objectively reasonable, and he bedded her, then he has attempted the crime.
I read of a case in which a man was in fact convicted of such a crime. He had sex with a girl he knew was a high school student and he believed was underage. He was caught and convicted of having sex with a minor. It was later revealed that the girl was actually in her twenties and had only been pretending to be a teenager. But the conviction stood.
In what arguably is a double standard, the reverse does not hold true. If a person you had sex with is actually a minor, there is generally no defense that can be made that you met them under circumstances that would cause any reasonable person to believe they were of legal age.
True. But this is a special instance of what’s called strict liability law… usually, a mistake of fact is a defense to a crime. But in the specific area of underage sex, the law generally does not allow for mistake of fact, and holds you strictly liable for the act, no matter what your frame of mind was.
True for Indiana, but Little Nemo is correct that there is “generally no defense” in such cases. In the majority of states, the prosecution does not have the burden of proving that the defendent knew or should have known the child’s age, and the defendent can’t plead an affirmative defense of mistake of age.
I would actually challenge that assertion. For example, in Ohio, §2907.04 of the Ohio Revised Statutes states in subsection A:
Note that the offense is not achieved if the person doesn’t know, or recklessly disregarded the probable age of, the other person. Ohio isn’t exactly a state known for allowing men to do as they will with girls.
It seems to me that in all of these “attempted murder” scenarios, there is an actual person who could be the actual murder victim. Can someone be prosecuted for planning the murder of someone who doesn’t exist?
Or at least, can those who make the argument that “attempted murder” is in the same vein as these guys who attempt to have sex with minors change the argument to something more parallel? At this point, the “attempted murder” parallel, does not seem really parallel to me. In those cases, there is an actual person that is having their murder planned against them.
A more accurate analogy would be that in an attempt to kill your intended victim you shot a mannequin he had cleverly left as a ruse. If someone shoots a dummy thinking that it is a real person aren’t they guilty of attempted murder?
But in pointing a realistic fake gun at your neighbor, you’ve committed felony assault. Lots of states have the concept of felony murder…if someone dies because you committed a felony, you can be charged with murder even if you didn’t intend to kill them.
So if you’re robbing a gas station, and the owner runs away from you into the street and gets hit by a car, in many cases you can be charged with murder.
Okay, how about this? Someone creates a fake persona online called “Chad.” Chad doesn’t exist. He’s a character chatting online. The real person behind Chad is a 48-year-old female performance artist named Monique living 3,000 miles away. During his chats online, “Chad” develops communication with Bill. Bill gets pissed off at Chad at some point and decides to kill Chad. Monique arranges for a friend to have a mannequin stand in for Chad on a local park bench at a certain time. She then alllows Bill to know that "Chad’ will be there at the appointed time. Bill arrives at the park with a gun in his trunk. This scenario seems parallel to me. But is it possible to commit murder against someone who was never alive? Or even attempt to murder someone who was never alive?
30 to 20. A majority, yes. Nice article, by the way.
However, I will still challenge your assertion that this means one can say that “there is generally no …” A better way of phrasing it would be, “The majority of states do not allow, but a substantial minority of states do.” N’est-ce pas?
But what if you co-worker, on seeing the fake gun and hearing of your nefarious intention is so shocked they run in a blind panic through a plate glass window and fall 17 stories to their death? Are you then guilty of murder, even if your specific intent (to shoot them in the head) wasn’t followed through on?
