Last year I had jury duty (a child molesting case, actually) and learned something about the law I didn’t know before: when a person is sworn in, unless you have reason to doubt them, you must believe what they say. If nothing is brought up to discredit them or to counter what they say, then you absolutely must believe them.
That also holds true in life, doesn’t it (even if everyone doesn’t go around swearing on a Bible)? Someone tells you their name is John and you immediately believe them. You’d doubt them if they were wearing a name tag saying Rick. If someone says she’s 21 and looks and acts like it, there is no reason to not believe her.
(My memory is faulty, but there is a philosopher who said that the only core assumption people live by is the belief, at first, that everyone is telling the truth).
The burden of proof shouldn’t be on the guy if the girl says she is 21 and looks 21. He doesn’t have to ask for verification of her age if he has no reason to doubt her. Sure, the internet is full of lying people, but if you have no reason to doubt what someone says in a chat room, why would you? The reason people don’t believe the “hot 18 y.o. blonde hot 4 u” tripe is because there is reason to doubt it; it’s a cliched lie.
Sure, the girl in the OP was probably too good to be true in the chat room (“hey, an interesting girl who says she is 21 and attractive, blah blah”), but when he met her, it was proved to be true.
He had no reason to doubt her after meeting her, she lied to get him to believe what was not true for her own gain, and others (his parents) were similarly duped, so I do not believe for one second that he committed a crime. It was entrapment, without the police.
Which leads me to my final little point: this sort of thing is precisely what should change the laws. Some here have said that this one case doesn’t warrant the rewording or weakening of stat. rape laws, but I, personally, feel it does. To me, one wrongful conviction is enough. How many “special cases” must there be before it becomes a problem? If you’re depriving someone of liberty (and, in the capital cases, life), shouldn’t you be sure that the law doesn’t encapsulate people like the man in the OP?
That’s my thought on it, anyways.
For those who think the laws are fine as written, a question (with no ill-will at all intended): At what point does it become necessary for the laws to change?
A juror is not obligated to believe any particular witness, regardless of whether that witness is or isn’t challenged on the witness stand. Indeed, one of the principal jobs of the jury is to weigh credibility. That means if you think witness A looks like a shifty, weasely guy, you are perfectly free to disbelieve his testimony.
If I have no reason to doubt a witness, I cannot doubt him. Without cause, I simply cannot say, for one reason or another, “I dont’ believe this person”.
In the molesting case for which I was a juror, there were two witnesses: the victim and his uncle. The uncle was a shifty peeping-tom and I doubted his testimony because he had apparently been peeping when he witnessed the molesting. The victim, however, did nothing and said nothing which led me to doubt his testimony. As a result, I was one of two hold-outs for acquittal in the jury room; I didn’t feel…right convicting a man based on the testimony of a twelve year old boy, even if I had no reason to doubt the victim. The judge explained that if we had no reason to doubt him, we had to believe his testimony to be true; as the boy’s testimony was the only pertinent testimony other than the uncle’s, there was no way to vote for acquittal.
If what the judge told me was a lie, I’m going to be furious; I still feel bad about sending a man to jail based solely on the testimony of a twelve yr old.
Also, you sound legally educated? Do you, perchance, happen to be a lawyer?
See there seems to be some kind of impression that there are “internet people” and “real-life people”. They’re the same people! Just in different situations. I am willing to believe that more lying goes on on the internet than in real life. I also believe that people are less likely to lie when you’re likely to be able to tell that they’re lying. However, I have no reason to think that someone you meet on the internet lying to you in real life is more likely than someone you meet in real life lying to you in real life.
The judge either gave you grossly inaccuarte - and reversible-error-laden – instructions, or you misunderstood. The jury, as finders of fact, are free to believe or disbelieve any evidence. What they cannot do is create evidence where none exists – that is, for every inference they draw, there must be some evidence to support it. The jury cannot find a man guilty of robbery merely because he was standing in an alley near the place the stolen property was recovered, for example. But the jury is free to believe or disbelieve any witness’ testimony, or portions thereof.
In the case you describe, you were free to disbelieve the boy’s testimony, even though it was uncontradicted by any other evidence. You could simply say that the testimony wasn’t credible to you, and leave it at that.
Judges, in an effort to unhang stuck juries, will sometimes deliver additional charges to get them going. These are called “Allen charges” after the 100-year-old Supreme Court case that sanctioned them. Usually, they take the form of something along the lines of telling the jury that considerable time and expense has gone into the trial, that a new jury would hear the same evidence that they did, and that reaching a verdict is A Good Thing. But they must also be cautioned not to change their minds merely for the sake of reaching a verdict; they must vote as their experience and conscience dictates, informed by the discussions and deliberations with their fellow jurors.
If a judge really told you that merely because there was no contrary evidence, you have to believe a witness’ accusation, when that accusation was the only thing that established an element of the crime… well, much as Humphery Bogart tells Claude Rains, you were misinformed.
Not that it changes my mind about the prosecutor (I hope he/she reaps what he/she sows), I’ve never met anyone under the age of 18 that didn’t reveal themselves through behavior.
I’m sure there are some 14 year olds with a 180 IQ that would appear more mature but they still won’t have the life experiences to pass as an adult.
DMark: It isn’t just the rich kids. When I worked as a newspaper reporter/photographer, I had to take several shots of prom kingsand queens at high schools whose populations included kids from many middle-class, working-class, and poor families.
The boys at the proms looks just like boys, 15- to 18-year-olds. They were wearing suits and tuxes, but 99.99 percent of them looked as uncomfortable as hell.
The girls, my God. The vast majority looked and acted as if they were in their early 20’s.
My thought is “guilty as charged”, but I could easily see a lighter sentence depending upon how convincing the defense’s evidence was.
What worries me is that I’ve met a number of people from the internet and never once asked for ID. Of course, I’ve generally suspected them of saying they were younger than they actually were
I have met most of them for drinks so the bartender at least should have been fooled by the ID. But that leads me to wonder, what if you asked for ID and the ID was passable?
That’s a great point errata. Let’s extend this debate by one notch into the hyperthetical. Imagine the 14 year old girl in this case obtained a fake drivers licence and photo - it wouldn’t be the first time - and actually showed said fake ID to the young man?
Assuming he then has a nookie with her, would he still be guilty of statutory rape? Given that he had introduced her to his parents, and they agreed she looked 21 too etc etc etc.
No… as a wise poster pointed out earlier… the failing here is that prosecutorial discretion was lacking it seems to me.
Strict liability. Did you have sex with this woman? That is the only question. Period. A yes or no. Period.
Fake drivers license is not a defense. Fake passport is not a defense. Other people also being fooled is not a defense. Strict liability. The legal structure of the statute does not allow these defenses. The only hope a guy has is that the prosecutor won’t pursue the case. Justice hangs on the whim of the prosecutor.
I also happen to disagree with our esteemed Sua Sponte(which is a rare event in and of itself) in that removing strict liability from these types of laws makes the ineffectual. There are states with “it shall be a defense” clauses in their statutory rape statutes. I’d like to see proof, but my guess is that sex offenders don’t get off the hook in significantly larger numbers in states with non-strict liability(in other words, which allow defendants to claim they were fooled about the age of the minor) versus states like the one in the OP where strict liability is the rule. I would guess states would return to strict liability if this was occuring.
Merely providing a defense is no guarantee your defense will be believed. While removing strict liability would certainly result in every statutory rapist raising a mistake of fact defense, I don’t agree that this translates to automatic jury acceptance of the claim.
Just as the fear of bodily harm for self-defense cases must be both objectively reasonable and subjectively felt, I’d say that the mistake of age defense should be both objectively reasonable and subjectively believed.
Normally, I’d say that prosecutorial discretion was enough to keep things just… but in cases like this, prosecutors may act based on their own sense of offended morality with respect to casual or unmarried sex, for instance, or bow to political or publicity pressure.
But if a man meets a girl in a bar, and she shows him a passport, birth certificate, college diploma, and invites him to visit her office and meet her colleagues, and they then sleep together … and it turns out that the paperwork and office were an elaborate mock-up and the girl is 14, it is an absolute miscarriage of justice to convict him. I agree that’s not what happened here… but it’s closer than I’m comfortable with.
I think there may be stronger evidence, either to support Sua’s point or to refute it, in the form of statutory rape statistics in states with mistake of fact defenses versus strict liability states. How often was the defense used, how often was it considered credible, etc. I just can’t imagine that the states who allow mistake of fact defenses have ineffectual statutory rape laws.
This is my first venture into GD, and I hope I’m not hijacking here. Go easy on me, please.
I would like to used a crude comparison, if I may.
Mr. Doe bought a TV from eBay (or a flea market, or a garage sale). Turns out, the TV was stolen!! He has engaged in an illegal activity (purchase of stolen goods), yet did so unwillingly. Should/would he still be prosecuted?
Should he? I don’t think so. As you mentioned, he had no knowledge that it was a stolen TV. He didn’t steal it. He didn’t ask the thief to steal it. He didn’t promise the thief that he’d buy it if the thief went out and stole it. I see no wrongdoing in this situation.
Would he be prosectuted? Depends. Under a strict liability statute like the one for statutory rape in the case in the OP, yes.
The charge of possession of stolen goods generally has a scienter, or mens rea, element: you must KNOWINGLY possess goods you KNOW, or reasonably should know, to be stolen.
But even here, there is strict liability, of a sort: consider the civil consequences. Mr. Doe may not be criminally liable, but surely YOU agree he must give up the TV he bought and paid for in favor of it being returned to his rightful owner. So Mr. Doe is out the money he paid for the TV.
I think most people agree that it would be a miscarriage of justice to impose criminal sanction against Mr. Doe for his innocent actions. But – what if Mr. Doe bought the TV from a guy in a van down by the river, and it was a 36" plasma-screen, like-new TV, and he paid $25 for it. We might feel comfortable saying to him: “Look, you didn’t know for a fact it was stolen – but what reasonable person would believe this deal was legitimate?”
The question is – how far do we turn the screw? How much assurance does Mr. Doe have to take before he can say he reasonably believed his TV deal was legitimate?
Because the issue of sexual absue of children is so important, some states take the position that the onus is so strongly on the adult to be sure hsi partner is of legal age that no excuse for being wrong is sufficient.
As I have suggested above, I don’t completely agree.
