Or cigarettes. Or allow them to vote :). I mean, a very realisitc ID, and they can prove that they asked the person and the person showed them the ID. An obvious fake I can see they would be, or a real license that clearly is not the person pictured, but in these times I would guess reliastic fakes are out there. Anyone know, or had this experience?
If there is no negligent intent, there is no crime.
You might not go to jail, but you will probably hear harsh words and maybe a penalty from the state liquor control authority.
Depends on the state I would imagine, but I have to say you are. Strict liability statutes are generally disfavored, except in cases of minors. Strict liability statutes doesn’t require intent. Kind of like statutory rape. Even if the girl told you she was above the age of majority, you’re still criminally liable.
Its not at all fair, but the criminal justice system is built for fairness. So if you get caught selling alcohol to any minor, despite that minor having the best fake ID in the world, you’re still gonna be in some sort of trouble. Its one of the costs of owning a bar.
IANA Lawyer, but…
Under Ohio law, at least, any permit holder who made a good faith effort at the time of sale to verify a person’s age by asking for valid ID and checking it against the person’s appearance and for obvious signs of tampering, and had reason to believe the person buying was of legal age is protected from prosecution, according to the ORC in section 4301.639.
I suspect it’s similar for most states (though I could be wrong).
This sounds really, really attractive to many people. It sounds fair. It sounds like justice.
Unfortunately, it’s also wrong. There are crimes called ‘strict liability offenses’ where the accused’s state of mind is completely irrelevant. If the defense even raises the issue, the trial is thrown and the accused is retried. Which offenses are strict liability is, so far as I can tell, completely random: Statutory rape is but forcible rape is not. Murder in any form is not, so far as I’m aware of. The question here is whether selling liquor to a minor is.
What about child pornography? Traci Lords was able to fool the federal government into thinking she was of age and obtained a real passport.
There is a device out now for situations like this-the clerk takes the ID, drops it in this slot, and it is a high resolution scanner that scans the ID, then sends it to a multiplexer which overlays it in a particular location on the security camera footage being streamed from the cash register. Pretty much it’s sole use is to protect the owner and clerk in this instance.
The owner is further protected by knowing that the clerks will not play games, since he can review if they are cheating the system for buddies, or not honestly checking the IDs.
It depends on how the statute is written, but again, in cases of minors, strict liability usually applies. I suppose in the Traci Lords case, the accused could bring up a legitimate mistake defense which would be relevant at sentencing. But as far as the trial, all the prosecution has to prove is that the pictures/movies were taken and the subject was a minor. It doesn’t matter what Traci Lords did to fool them. She was a minor and pornographic movies were made of her. Just remember, all thats needed in strict liability is the act. No intent needed.
I don’t know this specifics on her, but what if she or someone else secured the birth certificate of an older sister who died at six months, and then used that to get a real govt/state issued passport and license. The pornographer or the beer seller does confirm the documents she shows are real, even though they were obtained fradulently. Surely in this case they would not be liable?
Well shoot, can’t say I know the answer to that one. The case would probably have to go before a judge and he could dismiss the case because of the fraud. This is one of the reasons strict liability statutes are generally disfavored…
Now that I look at my Crim law notes I see that they would probably rely on mistake in fact defense, but it may not be successful
"Mistake in Fact-this form of mistake arises when the defendant bases her conduct on erroneous factual belief constituting a misperception of reality. A mistake in fact can have the effect of negating the mens rea in either specific or general intent crimes,** (but not in strict liability “public welfare” offenses, which have no mens rea.) **
So after all that, my answer is I’m not sure.
What offends people’s sensibilities is that someone who does everything right, plays by the rules, and tries damned hard to live a good, clean life could get utterly ruined and branded a child rapist by one mistake. It is equivalent to a witch trial, where the only defense was to drown when thrown into a river.
Is a judge allowed to exercise any judgment at all in cases like these? I’m sure lawyers around here would stand up and scream if I suggested jury nullification, but that honestly seems the only possible way to achieve justice in some cases.
(Trying to change the law seems unlikely to work. The opposition need only say “Why are you for child rape?” and your arguments would be lost in the backwash.)
In what sense could the question of strict liability be applicable to forcible rape? “Your Honor, I didn’t know I was holding a knife to her throat at the time.”?
In my Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission class, they told us that the only defensible proof of age was a valid Texas driver’s license, or ID. IOW, if the ID is good and real and valid and issued by the state and the buyer was in fact a minor, you are in the clear. If you accept, say, a passport as proof of age and it turns out that the individual is under 21, you are liable.
Think of S&M play that one party later regrets.
More on Texas:
A falsified passport of DL from another state wouldn’t constitute an automatic defense as would a falsified Texas DL, but it’s still something you could (and should) argue to a jury.
negligent… intent 
Those two words just don’t go together, my friend.
I was looking for a good-faith defense allowance in California, but couldn’t find one. What I did find, however, was one very confusing statute:
Huh?
I think it means you can’t get off by not checking IDs and say you didn’t know they were under-age, but couldn’t it be worded better?