Do you think this matters to THEM? do you think a teenager is going to think to themselves “well im too stupid to make my own decisions so i guess they are right”?
It’s more than just wanting to, it’s actually trying to. If you TRY to rape Angelina Jolie, it’s not a defense for you that you didn’t see her 6 foot 8 bodyguard standing off to the side and got coldcocked, making the rape impossible to carry out.
Are you planning on making a point at all or just continue using rolleyes like they help your case at all?
You’ve left out only a teeny tiny part of the issue here, and it’s so insignificant I can understand why you’ve missed it. It’s the bit about attempting to actually do something that’s illegal.
If you went to Angelina Jolie’s house with rope, condoms and a burglar’s kit, yes, I’d say there is a pretty good chance you’d be found guilty of trying to rape her.
Huh? 
I don’t understand. You’re saying that if a child doesn’t understand she’s being exploited then it’s ok to exploit her.
I really don’t grasp your point here.
DigitalC, if you’re arguing against statutory rape laws against underage sex, then you’ll admit the Internet-sting aspect has nothing to do with your argument, correct?
I just want to be clear here; it seems like you’re arguing that statutory rape should not automatically exist as a crime.
Do you deny stating that you think being sodomized by an adult male would not be a negative experience for most 13 year old boys?
I’m saying that if a teenager agrees to have sex with someone they are not going to feel like they’ve been raped so they are not going to be fucked up for life because of it. I’ve never said its ok to do it, i just fail to see why people think its going to ruin their whole lives.
A 13 year old child is not capable of “agreeing” to have sex, and whether or not they’re capable of surviving sexual exploitation without permanent emotional consequences (though I think the odds are low that they can) is beside the point. People can survive a lot of crimes without permanent consequences. So what? Why should that have any effect on the law?
You are missing one of the other key elements of attempt: “An overt act.”
http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3010/3010lect03a.htm
If you wanted to rape Jolie, and took steps toward doing it, you might be found guilty. Similarly, these guys agreed to have sex with minors, made appointments to do so, and showed up for the appointments with the required equipment. Most courts say that’s enough for attempt.
A 13 year old is not capable of giving valid legal consent, they are perfectly capable and willing to agree to have sex and do so constantly and willingly with each other. Mind you, not EVERY 13 year old but theres plenty of teenager who are sexually active at that age. I’ve never said anything about changing any law, i just dispute the fact that having a regretable sexual experience as a teenager means you are mentally screwed up for life.
Right. Cuz, ya know, a child who’s been sexually exploited won’t ever have any problems later in life with things like trusting others, forming lasting bonds or handling adult sexual relationships. :rolleyes:
Not if she doesn’t feel shes been sexually exploited.
They’re physically capable of having sex. They’re not emotionally capable of evaluating and appreciating the consequences. Their brains have not yet fully developed.
Please re-read post #85.
Cite?
You appear to be contending that if the child doesn’t feel she’s been sexually exploited at the time of the exploitation, she’s never going to look back on it and feel differently. I’ll be polite and say I think that’s very unlikely.
This isn’t the first time questions like this have come up in the category of attempted crimes. As you might imagine, there’s a very well-settled body of law dealing with how to analyze attempt.
You quoted only one line: “…and he failed to complete the offense only because it was not possible under the circumstances.” But there’s more. In order to constitute attempt, the accused has to either make a “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime…” (if you’re in an MPC state) or you must go beyond mere preparation and commit an act which, if uninterrupted, would lead to the completion of the crime (in common law jurisdictions).
So you ask: “How can you be guilty of something which is impossible to do?” The answer is: you didn’t know it was impossible, and you tried to do it, and if it hadn’t been impossible, you would have succeeded. That’s enough to say that you should be punished, since it was only by fortunate happenstance that you couldn’t actually complete the crime.
We’ve done these kinds of hypotheticals many times before. You see your neighbor asleep in his backyard and shoot him, furious because he’s complained about your lack of lawn care to the homeowner’s association. Unbeknownst to you, he actually died of a heart attack half an hour before you pulled the trigger. What crime have you completed? Mutiliation of a corpse, maybe, or discharging a firearm in the city limits. But your intent was to murder the man, and so we punish you for attempted murder. There was no victim, no murder… but your actions are exactly the sort of crime that the murder statues are intended to punish. Should you get a pass on your murderous rage? No, not at all. At the same time, we recognize that you didn’t actually kill - you merely attempted to kill. And so that’s the crime.
So: no, nothing makes you guilty of raping Angelina Jolie except actually raping her. But if you plan to rape her, intend to rape her, and take some substantial step towards raping her, only to be foiled by her attack mastiff before you can complete the deed, you may well be guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE.
Please reread the entire thread and try to comprehend what i’ve actually said rather than resorting to strawmen and rolleyes instead of making valid points.
Hmmm. Even if it turns out she wasn’t home? (I think that’s a “yes”.)
Edit: Yup. Thanks Bricker.