You have both strict liability and an assumption that such damage has occurred. In any other strict liability situation, you have to prove harm. So it seems to me that there’s something more that actual concern over the actual condition of the child in question.
As I’ve said, I tend to agree with him when it comes to just about everything else.
I don’t mean to offend you. You didn’t LIVE it, you played smoochies with her, and before anything remotely illegal happend, you ascertained her true age. You didn’t have sex with her. You didn’t check her ID, you didn’t meet her at a bar, the police weren’t called, you didn’t get charged, you didn’t get convicted and you didn’t go to prison.
You were temporarily fooled by a girl who smooched you and nothing else.
I fear you misunderstand. I’m not calling you a liar or believe you are exagerrating. I have no reason to question what you said. I didn’t find your story “fanciful”. I find the idea that there are hundreds of poor, innocent men being convicted of sex crimes with minors after they had checked ID’s and gone all the way through the criminal justice system. Your story is, if you’ll excuse me, not anywhere close to that.
If you’re 20, what are you doing in bars?
I’m not saying just hit on cougars, I’m saying don’t bone the young ones if you don’t know how old they are.
Actually, I’m not even saying, that much, I’m just saying the onus will be on you if you guess and guess wrong.
Use this thread as a hint to reconsider your position on other things.
I know of several cases of girls being sexually (orally) active at 10. They were volunteers (essentially it was prostitution for things like Ipods). Their parents were horrified, but not effective at stopping the behavior.
Go fuck yourself.
And has he ever used these kinds of tactics in argument on those other things?
Sure he has - quite often. (“All the time, always,” in Diogenes-speak.) But because he’s saying things that most everyone agrees with, he’s seldom (“Never,” in D-speak) called out for his obnoxious tactic at those moments.
Well, there you go. If anyone is being irritated by Dio in a thread, even one on an unrelated topic, just mention that his daughters might be (or that they one day likely will be) interested in sex. It’ll be a cheap way to make him rack up warnings.
If they’re showing ID it’s hardly a guess.
I hope you don’t use that language around your daughters, cause then you’d be a pimp daddy pedo or sumptin.
Are you also one of the people asserting there’s no way for a middle teen to credibly appear to be college aged? If so, I’m glad, it’s a handy marker that your opinion is worth somewhat less than my spit.
And yet you can’t help yourself, can you? We both said we weren’t going to engage him any more in the GD thread, yet here we are.
In statutory rape cases, allowing a mistake-of-fact defense opens up cans of worms that typically are not present with other crimes.
Consider: the defense has the burden of showing, by preponderance of the evidence, that his belief as to her age was reasonable. So the prosecutrix comes into court wearing her school uniform and carrying a teddy bear, and the defense objects.
“If she’s going to be seen by the jury, then I want her wearing what she wore that night!”
So now there’s an evidentiary hearing to determine what she was wearing at the party that night. The court errs on the side of the defense’ theory to prevent an appealable issue.
“That’s not good enough, your honor. She doesn’t have any makeup on. The night in question, she was wearing makeup that made her look 21!”
Does the prosecution have to call a makeup expert, to duel with the defense’s makeup expert?
You’re acting like there’s a raft of cases of nymphettes with falsely notarized college transcripts. That’s not the reality. The vast majority of these cases are much less problematic, and permitting the defense to raise a mistake-of-fact question would simply complicate the trial process.
In every other area I can think of, the mistake-of-fact defense will go to more objectively verifiable issues. You ask why other crimes permit – it’s because age in statutory rape cases are pretty much sui generis – unique.
What’s the matter, Dio?
This happened at my kid sister(-in-law’s) high school too–girls in the 6th-9th grade range were offering blowjobs to all and sundry for as little as $5. Just because you’re in denial about it doesn’t change the fact that teens/pre-teens are in fact capable of having sexual desires at those ages, or at the very least capable of manipulating the sexual desires of people older than they are for their own gain.
Welcome to the real world. Swearing at the reality of the situation doesn’t make it go away.
You raise a very telling point here.
I could be in favor of a mistake-of-fact defense being limited to objective questions of situation and documentation rather than mere appearance–that is, “she looked 21” fails, but “she was in a bar that was carding everyone” or “she showed me a driver’s license that said she was 21” is acceptable.
Maybe even a Republican vice-president.
I thought it was all but universally agreed that ID’s are not a reliable means of checking age.
Absolutely not. Apparently I was unclear, but I was referring to Diogene’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge that some underage females are sexualized in our culture.
Possible 20/30 years prison and a lifetime on a sex offenders register?
I certainly hope its complicated, no harm to you.