# He slept with a 14 year old - but he shouldn't go to jail **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2003, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877 "2003-07-21T10:12:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/1 "2003-07-21T10:12:22Z")
[http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b5-3grinkjul21,0,2706466.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed](http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b5-3grinkjul21,0,2706466.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed) > [@](#): > > \*\*Judge: P’burg girl shares blame in sex assault case > 14-year-old convinced man she was 21. They met over Internet. > > By Jay Richards > Special to The Morning Call > > A Warren County prosecutor wanted a West Hazleton man to serve three to five years in jail for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl from Phillipsburg last year. But New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Pursel sentenced the man Friday to 364 days in jail because the girl had convinced the man, whom she met over the Internet, that she was 21 and a cheerleader coach.\*\* I frankly don’t think this guy should have gone to jail at all. He is innocent. The article also points out that: - when he found out she was 14, he tried to commit suicide twice - even his parents thought she was 21 when they met her - he was never seeking a relationship with a minor, and made no lies about his own age This case means that all men now are going to have to ask for a faxed copy of a young women’s passport before asking them out just to verifty their date of birth. I ABHOR paedophilia and net-predators. But this man is not that. And wasting time and money prosecuting someone who has a better case to sue his supposed “victim” than she him, is resources better spent pursuing actual paedophiles. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/2 "2003-07-21T11:04:36Z")
I cannot see that he intended to commit a crime. > [@](#): > > Defense attorney Stephanie Tettemer said the girl admitted she had convinced Grink that she was 21 and did not want Grink to go to jail. Were it not for her deception, no crime would been committed. IF Tettemer is correct, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/3 "2003-07-21T11:17:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > This case means that all men now are going to have to ask for a faxed copy of a young women’s passport before asking them out just to verifty their date of birth. That’s not bad. I also accept birth certificate + photo ID. I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that this guy didn’t intend to commit the crime. Also, though, it’s pretty clear that he did commit the crime. I mean, there’s no question that he’s guilty of the law as written, right? It can be extremely difficult to guess somebody’s age from her appearance and demeanor. If someone here thinks they can always tell a teenager from a 21-year-old just from a casual conversation, they just haven’t met any crafty enough teenagers yet… that they know of. I think that people over 18 should have _some_ obligation to determine the age of their partners beyond just asking them, but not to the point of asking for ID. If they have no obligation, then they can actively ignore it and claim that they didn’t know. From the sound of things, this guy would have met my expectations. Until the law gets changed, though, I’m sticking with the passport copy. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/4 "2003-07-21T12:11:35Z")
Since I posted the above, I saw this article: [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058639656078.html](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058639656078.html) These girls are FOURTEEN. All six colleagues I showed the photo, as well as me, guessed their ages to be early/mid twenties. And they’re not even trying to look older. I feel more and more sorry for poor Grink. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/5 "2003-07-21T13:01:46Z")
This thread is bound to turn ugly I suspect. It’s too tempting a target for someone to NOT do a classic drive-by “I’m so righteous” kinda “holier than thou” post. EG; It was RAPE! How can you sit there in your smug little world and condone RAPE! Assholes like that deserve to DIE! Have you any idea how incredibly insensitive your position is? People like you allow the criminals of this world to get off scott free! It was RAPE! The law defines it as rape, and that’s what it was! Blah Blah Blah Blah ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/6 "2003-07-21T13:03:46Z")
Oh, I should add… I agree with you by the way **istara** - all the circumstances would indicate that the young man was quite thoroughly duped and possessed zero immoral intentions. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/7 "2003-07-21T13:19:59Z")
Ah yes, the “rant about an argument noone has, in fact, espoused” tactic. Masterfully employed. pan ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/8 "2003-07-21T13:28:00Z")
Well I must concede… guilty as accused sir. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/9 "2003-07-21T13:46:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*Since I posted the above, I saw this article: [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058639656078.html](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058639656078.html) > > These girls are FOURTEEN. > > All six colleagues I showed the photo, as well as me, guessed their ages to be early/mid twenties. And they’re not even trying to look older. \*\* On the other hand, that IS a publicity still, done after attention from professional makeup artists. In person I assure you they’d look younger. But I agree, it looks like Grink got screwed. The other way. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/10 "2003-07-21T13:59:28Z")
Well, I suppose that one could argue that there is an adverse selection problem, i.e. it is pretty easy for someone to say that he really believed that the girl was of majority age. So by giving the guy some time, even though his motive was to _not_ commit a crime, society’s interests are served in that he gets an unusually light sentence while potential statutory rapists still have the threat of a year in jail as a disencentive to screw underage girls. That’s the best I can do. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/11 "2003-07-21T14:05:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > **I cannot see that he intended to commit a crime.** Doesn’t matter. Intent is not an element of the crime of statutory rape. That’s the way the statutes are designed. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/12 "2003-07-21T14:17:05Z")
Really? Can you cite that? Seems odd to me, is all. What’s the line of reasoning there? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/13 "2003-07-21T14:40:16Z")
He’s right, **Jonathan**. Stat rape is a strict liability crime, with no intent element. [Texas law](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0002100.html#pe005.21.11) is illustrative: > [@](#): > > **§ 21.11. Indecency With a Child** > > (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person’s spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person: > > (1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or > > (2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: > (A) exposes the person’s anus or any part of the person’s genitals, knowing the child is present; or > (B) causes the child to expose the child’s anus or any part of the child’s genitals. > > […] > > © In this section, “sexual contact” means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: > > (1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or > > (2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person. > > (d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree. Note the difference between the offenses described in (a)(1) and (a)(2). Sub (1) is classical statutory rape – note the absence of intent language similar to that found in sub (2) (which is basically flashing in front of a minor or having the minor flash). As for “why,” some crimes society has decided are so bad that there just shouldn’t be an intent element attached to them. In the particular case of stat rape, it’s probably to prevent precisely the “but officer, she _looked_ 18” defense employed here, because it would invariably be employed in every stat rape prosecution. The law presumes that in most cases this defense is bullshit. It also places the onus on the older party to the sexual encounter to inquire as to the age of his partner – with an intent requirement, willful ignorance would be a decent strategy for sexual predators. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@The\_Calculus\_of\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Calculus_of_Logic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/14 "2003-07-21T15:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > \*\*Doesn’t matter. Intent is not an element of the crime of statutory rape. That’s the way the statutes are designed. \*\* It is in Indiana IC 35-42-4-9 Sexual misconduct with a minor … c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/15 "2003-07-21T15:45:57Z")
Right, it seems like we have to change the laws in some states- but that won’t happen in this current moral climate. That guys was innocent of any CRIME. period. ---
**Author:** ![5\_time\_champ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/278dde/32.png) [@5\_time\_champ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5_time_champ)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/16 "2003-07-21T16:05:37Z")
Same here in Missouri. Recently a defendant was found not guilty by a jury of a similar crime. He took the stand in his own defense, and claimed the girl told him she was 18. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/17 "2003-07-21T16:19:23Z")
There’s a difference between blame/fault and responsibility. The guy’s over 18 and therefore responsible for his actions even though I don’t think that this was his fault. On the other hand… How’s a judge to tell this case apart from a case where the guy knew the girl was underage and the two collaborated their testimony to protect him from the legal consequences? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/18 "2003-07-21T16:48:00Z")
From [this site](http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA3102.html), it appears that this guy could have raised the defense of mistake of age. Why he didn’t, I have no idea, but I’m guessing that there is more to it than the defendant’s statements now. And the fact remains that he PLEADED GUILTY. He had sex with a 14 year old. Sure she told him she was 21, but, maybe, just perhaps, going out on a limb, in the realm of possiblity, he might want to check out her real age. He met her on the internet, which isn’t exactly known for it’s transmission of the truth, especially in these kinds of situations. So he communicates online with a girl, thinks she’s 21, and then meets her, has dinner, goes to a movie, and has sex with her, all without a concern that maybe she might be under 21. I don’t think putting the burden on him to assure that she is over the age of consent is too tough. And to those who say he’s not guilty of any crime… Ummmm, he pleaded guilty. Kinda hard to say he’s not guilty of any crime WHEN HE ADMITS IT. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/19 "2003-07-21T17:15:16Z")
Well, since this board is about fighting ignorance, I should probable fight some of my own. The link I provided in the above post was for Pennsylvania, which I assumed was where the offense occurred. In truth, it occurred in New Jersey, where the [statute](http://www.enjlawyer.com/sexasslt.htm) in question reads: > [@](#): > > It shall be no defense to a prosecution for a crime under this chapter that the actor believed the victim to be above the age stated for the offense, even if such a mistaken belief was reasonable. So, it appears the defense was not available. I apologize for the mistake. However, I also do not have a problem with a statute that puts the burden of establishing the age of the person on the one who is going to have sex with her/him. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877/20 "2003-07-21T17:56:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure she told him she was 21, but, maybe, just perhaps, going out on a limb, in the realm of possiblity, he might want to check out her real age. Hmm. Or possibly we should re-vamp the laws of consent in the light of the new and groundbreaking discovery that teenagers enjoy sex. Seroiusly, aside from stupid laws like this, why should the exact age of one’s partner be an issue at all? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-slept-with-a-14-year-old-but-he-shouldnt-go-to-jail/189877.md?page=2)