Laws vary from state to state regarding whether a good reason to believe that the victim was of age should be a defense against a charge of statutory rape. In some states in never is, in others, it is so easily accepted, that lying and saying “She tolf me she was sixteen” can almost guarantee a walk.
I’m not sure how I feel, and I’m wondering where other people stand.
There’s a poll to come.
I read about the case that probably inspired this poll.
They met at 4 in the morning at a taxi rank.
She was with a friend who backed up her lie about her age.
He was only 19.
She told the police that she had lied about her age and that she had consented.
The police had spoken to her earlier that same night and believed she was 16. If they hadn’t, they would have taken her home.
She invited him to a party, so she made the moves.
He pled guilty.
I think that it was a fair verdict.
I think most of the choices are variants on the same question; should honest belief be a defense?
I have no problem in this case shifting the burden onto the accused (on a balance of probabilities). The objective question should be " would a reasonable person in the circumstances have suspected that the victim was below the age of consent and if so, did the accused take sufficiently reasonable steps to ensure that the victim in fact was".
California is one state where intent can be argued. It is absurd to charge someone with a crime they could not know they were committing. It is a touchy area though, it’s easy to say “I thought she was 18!”, determining if that is a sincere belief can be a lot more difficult.
It should always be a defense. That doesn’t mean that they should always win–the jury would have to reasonably believe that you sincerely believed they were of age. And the prosecutor would have to believe that a jury could believe that to take it to a jury.
In general, there is no actual dependable difference for a year apart. Puberty works at different rates for different people. I mean, it even goes more extreme than that–I’ve met 19 year olds who looked 12 and 12 year olds who looked 19.
There just isn’t a way to do this without belief being important. The only question is at level of duty the person has. But I think that would depend on the situation. Some of your situations make it where you don’t have to do as much to verify.
I’m also of the opinion that, if you can prove the other party willfully misled the person about their age, there should be consequences for that, too, if only to teach the kid that there’s a reason not to lie about those sorts of things. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay if they get raped. Just that there should be some sort of consequence in place to try and discourage such behavior.
I know that, when I was a kid, I didn’t fully realize how bad lying about your age could be. Nor did I understand the big deal about, say, this popular ninth grade girl I knew who was dating a college student. And, yeah, she looked at least 16, the age of consent in my state–I don’t know if she lied about her age or not–I didn’t even think to find out.
A lot of the girls in my senior year of high school dated college guys or recent high school graduates with jobs.
A 16 or 17 year old dating a 19 year old
was acceptable. I never looked it up but am pretty sure it was legal. It would be illegal for a man in his twenties to be with someone that young.
The laws intent was to protect teen girls from older men. Two teenagers dating shouldn’t result in someone going to prison.
Someone lying about their age just makes it even more confusing. I’d hate to see a young man’s life ruined for believing a lie. Every situation is unique. The girl’s real age and her mature appearance need to be considered.
There is a difference between calling a crime “statutory rape” and calling the accused “a rapist”.
Unsurprisingly for a lawyer, AK84 hit the real point.
The very name “statutory rape” implies that we as a society have made this a status crime, not subject to mens rea, the idea that the perpetrator had to know and understand what he was doing to be guilty.
The strict construction of the statutory rape law is like some speed limits. 35 is legal; 36 is not. What you thought is 100% immaterial.
The various adjustments of the law in various states to include defenses like elements of intent or deception or what have you are halting recognitions that our codified Victorian morals fly in the face of human reality, especially in this sexually precocious era.
My own attitude is that we probably do still need a *statutory * rape law to protect the utterly underage, like below 12. But once a person of either sex is old enough to form the idea “I want to have sex”, even if that’s not really in what society thinks is their best interest, now we have two potentially willing participants. And the law should recognize that fact by treating the crime, if any, as some variant of rape. i.e. was she coerced, drugged, etc. Was he lied to, reasonable, unreasonable, etc. What was the mental state of both parties?
Thanks. You are right of course. For sex with minor/underage, you are presented with the problem that (outside of obvious cases like with pre-teens) it would be too easy for the perpetrator to say “I did not know she was underage” and the traditional way; make the prosecution disprove it would be very onerous and you would see few convictions. This is compounded by the fact that in many cases, purported victim was a fully and enthusiastic participant and supports the victim; often having been and remaining under; their influence; . You can forget about ever getting a sex grooming conviction.
Unlike other strict liability crimes; statutory rape is a charge which upon conviction brings heavy punishment.
A reverse burden is a good compromise. Once, the prosecution has proven the fact of intercourse and age; the burden shifts to the Accused to prove that he did honestly believe and in the circumstances was reasonable to believe; that the victim was unerage.
We do something similar with financial crime.
I do like the idea of the absolute discharge. While no penalty applies immediately, the absolute discharge remains on the defendant’s record so can be noted if there is a subsequent incident.
Waste of everyone’s time and effort, not to mention the mental anguish for the accused. Huge waste of taxpayers money The law needs to be more reflective of the society it pertains to.
Bolding mine. I assume you meant the victim was of legal age, not under age.
I have an interesting alternative formulation that just popped to mind. Statutory sex. Any person under the age of X who has sex (defined as …) with another commits the crime of statutory sex. With an absolute defense for being coerced into it.
When a horny 15 yo solicits sex from a horny 19 yo, the former is soliciting the latter to commit a felony, and one of the bigger ones at that. Perhaps we should recognize that societal ill along with recognizing the statutory rape going in the other direction.
Or, more sensibly here in the West in the 21st Century, perhaps we should recognize the silliness and futility of what we’re trying to regulate vs. the actual behaviors and social mores of 15 to 19 yos.
Already many jurisdictions cover the circumstances exemplified above by the “15y/o with 19y/o date” situation by introducing in their laws the so-called “Romeo and Juliet” clause, by which there is an exception to the “statutory rape”(*) charge if the participants are within a particular window of ages and age differences around the teens. e.g. say absolute Age of Consent is 18, but for 14 and up it’s OK if there’s no more than 4 years’ difference.
As to what has been discussed, a reverse burden on defense to *prove *the accused had performed his “due diligence” , in the case of a reasonably credible situation of active or passive deceit(**) ISTM that could indeed be a way to avoid miscarriages of justice. You may not even have to acquit altogether, you could instead make it become a lesser offense if you did prove this to the Court’s satisfaction.
(*BTW it is referred to as statutory rape to distinguish from forcible rape in news reporting and in discussion among the lawyers, but in most Penal Codes the offense in the book is simply stated as “rape” or more modernly “sexual battery”)
(**It would have to be damn well more than just “hey, she looked plausibly 18ish” and the judge/jury would of course be empowered to say “cool story, bro…” if it fails to hold water)
Thanks to everybody who replied and voted. I really have nothing to add, except I’ve been given a lot to think about. I just wanted to post, so people would know I didn’t abandon the thread.
I think that more than a sincere reasonable belief is needed. That still leaves room for “Hey, she said she was 19, and I didn’t think she was lying, and look at her, there’s no way she looks 15”. On the other hand, “She showed her ID to the bouncer at the bar, and he let her in, and if the pro can’t recognize a fake ID, how the heck was I to know?” should be a valid defense. Or any other situation where the defendant had strong (albeit false) evidence about age: I can think of others, though the bar one is probably the most plausible.
Anyone can say “Oh, I just thought that she was older, man!” I don’t believe that ignorance should be a valid defense, especially if the man should’ve known better and there was reasonable evidence the girl was underage.
If, however, the girl had an I.D. that showed she was at the statutory age of consent in the state, and she looked relatively old for her age, well then that is different, and I think the prosecutor should definitely seek a minimum sentence. He definitely shouldn’t be forced to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life either.
People are mixing up conviction with quantum of sentence. A successful defence would be be an acquittal, avoiding the former and making the later point moot.
True. Which sounds like some people really want a lesser statutory crime to be invented. Something like “exercising poor judgment about your partner’s age” with relatively minor penalties.
Given that a conviction in the US for a sex offense is pretty much a sentence to lifetime unemployability and hence homelessness, it makes a certain sense to try to retain some legal deterrence against sex with under-aged people that amounts to less than a nuclear option if used.
As much as legislators love to enact nuclear show-no-mercy options, and as much as some of the public loves the idea, the reality is that most judges, many prosecutors, and the much of the public shy away from actually pulling the trigger when faced with the messy realities of most real cases.
IOW, It’s lots of fun to hang straw men. It’s not so fun to hang real ones.
A gradation of crimes and sentences (considering their long term consequences, not just the immediate number of days in jail and dollar amount fines) affords the opportunity to have, as the saying goes, “the punishment fit the crime.”