Why should Doe lose out on the transaction? If he has to give back the TV, then surely the person who sold it to him should have to give back the money.
Of course. But as often happens, that person does not step forward to take the consequences of his actions, so Mr. Doe is left holding the financial bag.
If he did, you’re quite correct that Mr. Doe could sue him and cover the money he paid. I was just pointing out that the purchaser of property that turns out to be stolen must relinquish the property, even if innocent of any wrongdoing, and even if there is no way to recover what he paid.
- Rick
So could a stripper be charged for “flashing” if a minor were able to convince the bouncer he was of age?
SuaSponte
Why not add “negligent”? That would still impose some obligation. But I don’t see why the vague feeling that a minor might suffer/regret for events she initiated is more important than not sending guys to jail. If a girl goes out and gets laid, and isn’t emotionally prepared for and suffers because of it, that’s bad. But should we really charge men with preventing that? If a kid runs into the street and gets hit with a car, that’s a tragedy too. But we don’t consider hitting a kid with a car a strict liability offense; there has to be intent or at the very least negligence. If it’s a young kid, she may not understand the risks of running into the street. If it were an adult running into ther street, it would be reasonable to say she knows the risks, and by running into the street she voluntarily assumed those risks. It may be that a child is not capable of assuming the risk. But that doesn’t mean that the driver assumes the risk. We just accept that bad things happen, and sometimes no one is to blame. Why is it with a death, we’re willing to say “Well, the driver didn’t know she was going to run into the street, so we shouldn’t blame him”, but when a child suffers emotional damage, that’s such a tragedy that somebody must pay, regardless of whether anyone did anything wrong?
SimonX
If she’s willing to lie for him, why not just say that no sex took place?
Something else to consider: what if a minor hires a prostitute?
But all of this misses the main issue: unless someone can come up with a reason for criminal santions other than deterrance, STRICT LIABILITY IS POINTLESS! . The principle of deterrence absolutely demands that the actor be reasonably able to avoid the punishment. If we randomly put people in jail, that won’t deter murderers. I suppose that there isn’t anything in the Constitution that explicitly states that the government may not jail people without any valid reason, but I think that that should be a rather obvious human right. “Strict-liability crime” is an oxymoron. A crime is when someone does something wrong. Not when someone does something that has a bad result,