(bolding mine)
So, I assume that you believe the adults who failed her (presumably her parents) should go to jail, rather than the teens who slept with her?
Besides, I don’t believe that parents are necessarily responsible for the bad behaviour of their children, be them tantrum-prone 6 yo, promiscuous 12 yo. or 18 yo delinquents. Children are no saints. There are even violent murderers amongst them.
The adult men (not “teens”) who abused her should go to jail. Every case actually documented in the thread has involved men over the age of 20.
And you think that jurors, on the other hand, would typically be extremely sympathetic to adults having sex with 13 yo, so that the formers would easily get away with it if the court was presented with the specifics of the case?
And you don’t know at what point and why he thought that “something was off”
And I’m going to insist on the fact that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with people you aren’t familiar with. Even if they’re young. If you hook up with a girl who looks like 18+ and have no reason to assume is younger than 18, you didn’t do anything morally condemnable, even if you didn’t check the dental records or asked her dad.
Good lord! People are so fixated on sex! This kind of process (strict liability) wouldn’t fly with anybody if the 13 yo had been savagely murdered instead of having had consensual sex.
Is this an absolute? In the theoretical case (since many of the posters in this thread seems to assume it’s impossible that a 13 yo could actually “pass” as 17) where it’s impossible to realize that the girl is underage (let’s say that due to the peculiar circumstances of her birth and childhood in a war torn country, and of her highly mature personnality due to the same circumstances, everybody including herself and her adoptive parents are convinced she’s 17 when she’s actually 13), should the adult still go to jail if it’s belatedly discovered she’s not of age?
Also, is a 22 or 24 yo (as in this case) morally guilty in your opinion if he has sex with an actual 19 yo (her alleged age)? I want to know here if you think that such a situation is already creepy.
Not typically, I would hope. Although the degree of blame being assigned to child victims in this thread does give me pause.
The law, and I, disagree with you.
I don’t know what you’re asserting here.
It seems that you, like the OP and others, aren’t really complaining about the process; you object to the concept of statutory rape itself.
My point here was the following : assuming you have no moral issue with one night stands, what is the standard of care that should be applied according to you (people who think the partner should be sentenced if he sleep with an underage girl)?
As a practical case, the man is 22 (as in the case presented) and the local age of consent is 17 (still as in this case). The meeting place is a club (as it often happens). What should this boy ascertain before having a one night stand with a girl what would make you think he was reasonnably prudent and isn’t morally guilty if it turns out that his partner was younger? Practically, what should he do before having sex?
We already know about the law. Let’s rather talk about you.
So, you think that having sex with someone you’re not familiar with is morally wrong? This place the discussion on a totally different ground, don’t you think? It means that your opinion is based on you having a moral issue with casual sex in general, and as a result thinking that anything that befell people engaging in this condemnable activity is justfied (“If you don’t want bad result X, just don’t have one night stands”).
I’m asserting here that if a 13 yo was found dead, showing that the accused killed her wouldn’t be enough. He could perfectly argue for instance that he didn’t know, and couldn’t know, she was standing in front of his loaded gun (for instance that she was deliberatly hiding behind the practice target).
So, there’s no strict liability for killing someone, and I suspect eveybody would agree that there shouldn’t be. Just having killed someone isn’t enough to be sent to jail.
But change “killing” with “having consensual sex with” and suddenly everybody is up in arms and think that the crime is so horrible that not knowing, and having no way to know, that you’re commiting it, can’t possibly be an excuse.
And you’re basing this opinion on what, exactly?
The hypothetical young woman in the OP should go into counseling, and should be incarcerated for pulling this kind of thing. Someone smarter than I can come up with the exact crime.
And this is not going to be a popular position, but unless there is forcible or otherwise coerced sex, I don’t think there’s a sex crime worthy of being on a sex offender list forever if both parties are in a club or somewhere else that you expect everyone to be of age.
Certainly when I was going to bars at age 15, I knew that the inappropriate and illegal behavior was mine, and it was a choice I made. If I’d opted to have sex with someone, that would’ve been my choice as well, and I would not have outed someone for having sex with what they thought was a grown-up.
Kids have to learn that behaviors have consequences. And going to a bar and pretending to be a grown-up and having sex and then getting someone in trouble for that…that’s pretty serious stuff. The kid has lied repeatedly, so why should she be protected?
The reason we have strict liability here in the United States is close the frequently invoked loophole of “She looked 18 to me”. And then the prosecution becomes trying to prove that the defendant did or did not actually believe the victim was 18.
The defendant’s beliefs about the victim’s age are irrelevant. The state should not have to prove that the defendant knew the victim was underage but had sex with them anyway. It doesn’t matter if they knew the victim was underage, or didn’t know.
If you’re that worried about being prosecuted for statutory rape that you don’t sleep with the really young looking girl you just met, even though she’s at a party where most people are older than 18, and then it turns out that the girl is really 18 after all and you could have totally had sex with her, well, if that’s the worst that happens to you in your life then you should count yourself lucky.
Also note that in the United States the age of consent is not uniformly 18, in most states it is 16 or 17.
So if you go to a club in New York and sleep with a 17 year old with a fake ID that says she’s 21, you’re legally in the clear. It’s only the 16 year olds you have to worry about.
I am definitely not against one night stands.
But it’s on you to make sure you have a legal, willing, enthusiastic partner. If there is any possibility that your partner is not any one of these things, it’s up to you to either confirm it in a meaningful way, forgo that particular episode, or face the consequences of being wrong. There is no absolute directive that you have to have sex at every possible opportunity.
If a girl looks young (and yes, even a mature looking preteen is going to look on the edge), you may need to take extra steps to make sure you aren’t having sex with a middle schooler. Just saying “what would a middle schooler be doing at a party?” Isn’t enough. You need to do whatever it takes to be sure you aren’t running around hurting kids because you are too nearsighted or drunk to make sense of who you are taking home. This may take some active steps, and those should be taken before you do the deed.
This isn’t an unbearable burden. There are plenty of women who are unambiguously of age to pick up on. There are plenty of ways to confirm your potential partners age. And there is no absolute requirement to have sex with every partner. Nobody is taking your one night stands away. Just find a confirmed grown-up to do them with.
One thing that makes a strict liability work is that nobody is peeking in your bedroom windows. The only way charges get pressed in these cases is if the victim or their parent presses charges- which typically means some harm was actually done. If you somehow manage to cultivate a happy, consensual, protected sexual relationship with a teen that is supported by their caregiver, nobody is going to stop you. People press charges when you’ve had sex with them in circumstances outside of that.
No, unless that person is a child.
That wouldn’t be the “savage murder” you posited. Let’s pitch this straw.
Children cannot consent to sex on the same basis as adults. That is the fundamental principle of age-of-consent laws. If you disagree with that, your problem is not really with the mechanism of strict liability.
As a practical matter, he should verify her legal age to whatever degree of certainty he attaches to his interest in staying out of jail. If that is not achievable, he should not have sex with her.
As a moral and legal matter, if he goes ahead anyway, and she turns out to be younger, then he is guilty. Again, if you don’t get this, it’s age-of-consent itself that you have a problem with.
It also isn’t uniformly a strict liability crime. As the linked court decision points out, there are a number of states (not Texas) where mistake of age is a legitimate defence.
It should also be pointed out many other countries don’t treat statutory rape as a strict liability crime, and the Model Penal Code calls for it not to be a strict liability crime either.
Advise teen boys to only have sex with older women and they won’t get in this trouble.
Can you explain, precisely, what the steps taken should be? “It’s up to you to confirm” is meaningless (remember the dental records you mentioned).
Again, what should these steps be, practically speaking? Let’s assume the guy is young, so many of his potential partners, under or over 18, are going to be somewhat “on the edge”. Being almost 50, it’s unlikely that someone even looking 25 is going to hit on me, let alone lying to get into my pants. But when I was 20, potential partners were all young.
Again, how do you confirm? What are these ways? Remember we are talking in particular about people who are lying, who have fake IDs, fake facebook accounts, who are in place where they shouldn’t be. Repeating again and again that “there are ways” doesn’t help. I want practical steps that a youngster can take to avoid being on the hook.
And yes, there are women who are unambiguously of age. Those who begin to have wrinkles, for instance. Those you meet at your workplace (although again, strict liability means that hooking up with a colleague still wouldn’t get you off the hook if she had been hired using a fake ID). But let’s again take the example of playboy centerfold. The only thing you can say about them is that they’re young and have big boobs. There’s no way to know whether they’re of age, it’s only a matter of confidence in playboy being unwilling to produce child porn. They could be 16, they could be 20. And if we’re leaving some room for people who don’t look their age, they could be 14 or they could be 24. Not even going to the extreme cases.
I just googled “beautiful women”, then “pretty girls” and looked at the pictures. Not giving a link since many aren’t much dressed, so maybe NSFW. But I defy you to tell me with certainty that the women/girls appearing in such a search are older than 18.
Again, you’re 20 yo man hanging out in a place where young people congregate. A girl looking like any random pick on such a search result hit on you. Practically, what are you morally obligated to do to verify that’s she’s older than whatever is the local age of consent before being in the clear for this one night stand?
Yes, of course. Parents bringing charges because they’re pissed that their “baby” is having sex with some stranger is completely unheard of. So are teens telling their friends who tell their friends.
Oh, sorry…you’re saying “supported by their caregiver”. So, are you arguing that people should have sex only with the consent of their partner’s parents? Should they ask dad before the one night stand? Is that the reasonnable course that all 20 yo should take?
Anyway, here, you’re essentially arguing that the law isn’t a problem because as long as you hide yourself well, you shouldn’t get in trouble. That’s a nonsentical argument. Either the law is good, and then it should be implemented, and you should support its implementation in all cases, or it’s bad and it should be changed. “It’s OK because it’s not enforced most of the time and you can get away with it” isn’t exactly satisfactory. Especially if it happens that it’s enforced in your case.
And the mere fact that you’re using this argument IMO shows that there’s a problem with the law. Nobody argues “Drug laws are OK because most pot smokers aren’t caught, and most police officers don’t put much efforts into arresting them”. It doesn’t help the slighest bit people who are caught by police officers who put some efforts in it.
(Also, a partner doesn’t need to be enthusiastic. That’s the third time I read this new-fangled requirement for sex. It’s perfectly right to non-enthusiastically have sex, as it’s perfectly right to non-enthusiastically play cards. To use your words, there’s no absolute directive that you have to avoid sex unless stars are all aligned perfectly. Not directly related with the issue of this thread but certainly related with the issue I have in general with people being so fucking obsessed with sex and making it so very very very special that nothing that applies to anything else will apply to it).
Regardless of whether the jury can legally consider that evidence or not, isn’t the defendant’s objection and protest in the jurors’ brain anyway? You can’t **tell jurors to forget something **- they remember. It’s like saying, “Jurors, do not think of the color blue!”
Or let’s put it this way.
A secret biological warfare program started in 1998 has gone awry, and unfortunately everyone born after that date (so younger than 16) has been exposed to a pathogen at birth that causes a terrible STD. This STD spreads to unexposed partners (that is, those born after 1998) via sexual contact, and causes their genitals to shrivel up and fall off immediately upon contact.
Are you worried that you have no way to prevent this horrible fate? Or do you think the occasional careless person might get it, but with a little care it’s pretty easy to avoid? Would you be pretty proactive in vetting your partners? Or would you just assume that if you met them in a grown up place, they are grown ups? Would you take a young looking woman’s word on her age? Or would you try a little harder to confirm?
Ok. Sidekick. So, since you have no problem with casual sex, then can you tell me how you should determine whether or not the prson you intend to have sex with is a child?
Ok. I used “savage murder” because strict liability doesn’t apply to the worst crimes.
Let go back then to “just” killing 13 yo. and to the actual question : "do you think that it’s normal that strict liability applies to having sex with a 13 yo when it doesn’t apply to killing her?
Obfuscation. Kids can’t legally consent, but they can and do consent all the time in reality. There’s no dispute that in all the cases mentioned, the girls did consent. The age of consent is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand and the concept exists to achieve a certain goal, but it has no bearing on reality. A 14 yo might give meaningful consent, and a 20 yo might not. A 50 yo can perfectly be legally incompetent to give consent. There is such a concept because it’s useful, but it doesn’t change reality. It is useful to say “stay on this side of the line in the sand, because it works most of the time”, but when it becomes “you better be on the right side of the line even when you can’t see it”, it becomes a problem. Nobody should be expected to follow he rule when he doesn’t know whether it applies or not.
In other words, like the previous poster, you have no actual practical answer except “don’t have sex”.
And again you’re hiding behind the law. The law “it’s not consent”, so it’s not. The law says “he’s guilty”, so he is.
There’s no doubt that he was legally guilty. What I’m asking you is whether he was morally guilty, and as such deserved punishment.
Let’s assume that you discover tomorrow that this 30 yo (or whatever) guy you had “consensual sex” with last year was in fact legally incompetent. Would you suddenly feel very guilty? Would you suddenly feel he wasn’t consenting? Would you suddenly feel you’re a rapist? Would you suddenly feel you deserve jail and being registered for life as a sex offender?
There’s absolutely no doubt all these things would be legally true. You would be guilty of having raped a non consenting person, which should get you to jail. I’m not asking you about what the law says, we already know that, but about what you would feel and think about yourself (and of course thinking about a real example of an actual sex partner, since we’re talking about people who don’t know that their partner isn’t competent, wasn’t consenting, was raped, so that’s the only way to put yourself in their shoes).
There’s no doubt I would try harder. But frankly the example you propose is pretty close to reality, for someone like me who became sexually active when AIDS appeared and nobody knew exactly what it was and how it was transmited. 
I’m pretty sure that many men finding themselves into such a situation could have tried harder. But do you believe that even in your scenario, no man would have his genitals shriveled?
Your example is a good parallel, but still doesn’t answer the question of whether or not it was a good idea to deliberatly innoculate people with this disease which is what the law does.
It’s nice and all, but frankly by using this example, you’re admiting that like the disease, there’s no actual and reasonnable steps that allow a sexually active youngster to be sure to avoid the bad consequences, and that to be just “fairly sure” you need to forfeit a lot of sexual freedom (like casual sex), and that some will get the disease anyway. Especially if some carriers actively try to transmit it.
But contrarily to the disease, we would have easy means to avoid undeserving genitals to be shriveled, by simply allowing courts to examine the facts of the case.
Honestly, I’m quite a bit irritated to have spent so much time on this thread, arguing with you and Peremensoe, telling us that yes, it can be avoided when you know pretty well it can’t, mentioning that there are mysterious “ways” to make sure that your casual partner is of legal age when there are no such things, and so on.
It was obvious from the beginning that people just think that it’s pretty much impossible to be fooled by a 13 yo, that all men who argue that are liars and perv who deserve to have the book thrown at them, and so on. I still can’t understand this firm opposition to have presumably reasonnable people judging the case on its merits, and actually checking if the argument makes sense.
And besides, of course, it’s not just about 13 yo. Lacking Romeo and Juliet laws, which aren’t universal, the law and its consequences are exactly the same for a 17/18 couple in love with irrate parents. Or, more commonly, for a regular guy hooking up with a regular girl, who might or might not be straightforward about their age, who might or might not be hoping that they won’t be caught, who might or might not be in a long term relationship.
I think you’re readily willing to risk sacrificing the future of a lot of people who didn’t intend nor caused any wrong, just to make very very sure that no kid who is on the wrong side of the consent age line can possibly have a penis inserted in her vagina. And that for this purpose, are wagging around arguments who are only smokescreen, like those numerous “ways” that allow to magically determine your partner’s age, even though nobody seem to be able to state what they are.
I don’t know what your sex life was when you were young. Maybe you were incredibly careful, and made sure every time that the “caretakers” of your boyfriends were fine with your relationship. And double checked their age. And never had casual sex. And so on. Maybe. But most people aren’t nearly as perfect as yourself. But nevertheless don’t deserve to have their life ruined because of a lack of dental record.
Once again, I can only say that this attitude is irrational. And is only tolerated or supported because it’s about sex and as soon as it’s about sex, everything flies out of the windows. “Just imagine your innocent, 12 yo baby with an old prev grinning while he’s fucking her” “Bring the torches!!! No excuse, no defense, no trial. Just burn him to frighten the others!” But not everything fits this narrative. Your baby might not be a baby, nor innocent, nor 12 yo for that matter. The old perv might be barely older than her, even less mature, and it might be the second time he has (bad) sex in his life. And she might be the one grinning. Still, to the sex crime registry he goes, “pour encourager les autres”
But well, it’s sex, and a young innocent vagina has been penetrated, so what else do you expect? Not going to chime in anymore in this thread, I said and repeated my opinion enough times. Keep burning the witches.
No, arguments about what defenses may be presented are made and ruled upon outside the jury’s presence (and usually before there even IS a jury seated). If the judge is doing his/her job, the jury will never even know about the objection and protest, and you can’t remember something you never saw.
The other day I met this really cool girl Julia. She’s into sports, plays volley ball for the freshman squad at her college, told me some funny stories about her psychology professor in freshman seminar, knows all the fraternities, and even has a goofy picture on her ID. Her Myspace is hilarious. We’d been hanging out a lot so I invited her over to watch a movie. We ended having a great time that night and she told me she wanted to have sex. So we did.
As I later found out, the ID was fake and she was lying about being in college. Julia was actually a freshman in high school. Her Myspace was a fake she made to convince me she was 19. Even though she showed me a forged state ID that stated she was 19, and told me a host of lies to support the idea that she was in college, I live in a state where statutory rape is a strict liability crime, and therefore I was not able to offer a defense that she was a psychopathic liar and manipulator.
I’m currently serving year 2 of a 5-year sentence for this crime. When I get out, I will be registered as a sex offender for the rest of my life. Nobody will want to hire me as a convicted felon.
I just want to thank our legislators for protecting an innocent, young girl like Julia from sexual predators like myself. I know most young girls would never do such a thing, and I do feel the state has done justice by protecting her from culpability for all this. Clearly, I was in the wrong. In retrospect, I should have broken into her house to check her birth certificate (hoping, of course, that document wasn’t also forged). Anything less than criminal invasion of privacy is clearly a lack of due diligence on my part.