# Statutory Rape. How deep does the rabbit hole go? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 20, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135 "2004-05-20T06:17:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/21 "2004-05-20T15:38:58Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > How would a person of legal age ensure they was no chance a potential SO is of legal age in Florida then? If they are automatically guilty if the SO turns out to be under 18 years old no matter how well that person ‘proves’ they are above 18. > Is it just a case that anyone who looks under 30 should be avoided just in case they are using false identification to up their age? > (Maybe this is why the elderly retire to Florida, where the only ‘safe’ shag is when your partner has dentures and a hip replacement 😉 ) That’s pretty much it, if you want certainty. Another course of action would be to move to a state with a lower [age of consent](http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm). In most states there is no good faith defense. As others have said, it is a strict liability crime. The Traci Lords incident resulted in Federal legislation that gave the porn industry a good faith defense as long as producers kept records of the information provided by the participants in their films. That is why you see the Compliance screen at the beginning of adult films these days: It is required by 18 USC section 2257. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/22 "2004-05-20T15:41:57Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > I can’t remember, was Rob Lowe aquited? He was charged with having sex with a minor even though he met her in a bar. I don’t remember how that all played out. > [@](#): > > Rob Lowe - TV and film star. Former brat packer. Back in 1988, during the Democratic National > Convention in Atlanta, Lowe taped himself in compromising positions with a 16-year-old girl and a > young woman. Lowe agreed to perform 20 hours of community service to avoid criminal charges. [http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtynine.htm](http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtynine.htm) ---
**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:** [May 20, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/23 "2004-05-20T15:54:29Z")
This is not legal advice and is not intended to be used in any way To answer the OP: In a vast majority of states, guilt in statutory rape cases is established on proof of the prohibited act, and the defendant’s reasonable belief that the female was at or over the age of consent is not a defense. In at least four states reasonable mistake of age does constitute a defense. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions the defendant’s reasonable mistake as to the female’s age, although not affecting guilt, may be considered as a mitigating factor when punishment is imposed. I believe that a reasonable mistake of age may be a defense to statutory rape in Alaska, California, New Mexico, and Tennessee. In some other states, such as Oregon, you may raise the defense depending on the age of the victim. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/24 "2004-05-20T16:09:38Z")
Your Honor, it is not our contention that the defendant erroneously _thought_ Ms. Smith was of age. We intend to introduce these items as evidence of the fact that Ms. Smith _is_ of age, that she was not a minor at the time of the event in question, and that therefore my client is not guilty of committing the act of which he is accused. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/25 "2004-05-20T16:44:46Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Well, the old word for rabbit is _coney_, pronounced _cunny_, and that’s where the word c\*nt is believed to have come from (it being, outwardly at least, a small warm furry thing), so… Not so. According to the OED, the “rabbit” term has its first reference in 1290 AD; the other is first mentioned in 1230, and was certainly used before that, since the first mention is the name of a street (Gropec\*nt Lane). 😃 In addition, the rabbit derives from Spanish and the other animal comes from German. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/26 "2004-05-20T17:02:11Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Your Honor, it is not our contention that the defendant erroneously _thought_ Ms. Smith was of age. We intend to introduce these items as evidence of the fact that Ms. Smith _is_ of age, that she was not a minor at the time of the event in question, and that therefore my client is not guilty of committing the act of which he is accused. Judge: Counsel, this is a poor attempt at the Miracle on 34th Street defense. Are you seriously contending that the victim’s admittedly false identification \*proves \* that the minor is an adult? I remind you that the prosecution has already introduced a copy of the birth certificate. A certified copy . . . :dubious: what was your proffer again? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/27 "2004-05-20T17:06:54Z")
I must tell you that I am astonished by what I’ve read here. There seems to be a fundamental unfairness to it all. What other “strict liability” laws are there? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/28 "2004-05-20T17:12:59Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Not so. According to the OED, the “rabbit” term has its first reference in 1290 AD; the other is first mentioned in 1230, and was certainly used before that, since the first mention is the name of a street (Gropec\*nt Lane). 😃 > > In addition, the rabbit derives from Spanish and the other animal comes from German. Color me folk-etymologized! I was told the coney/c\*nt thing as gospel. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/29 "2004-05-20T17:27:59Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > I must tell you that I am astonished by what I’ve read here. There seems to be a fundamental unfairness to it all. What other “strict liability” laws are there? Statutory rape is the big one. The reason why it is a strict liability offense is that it was be very difficult to prove what the defendant knew or thought about the victim’s age. Other strict liability crimes are generally public welfare and safety laws, such as traffic ordinances. They are generally misdemeanors punishable by fines, not jail time. (I believe the Model Penal Code suggests that strict liability crimes should be subject only to civil penalties.) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/30 "2004-05-20T17:29:38Z")
A better way to get the information in front of the jury. . . perhaps: [The minor has just testified for the prosecution . . .] Q: Ms. Minor, you have testified that you had sexual relations with Mr. Defensless, right? A: Yes. Q: And how old are you? A: 17. Q: Have you ever told anyone that you were an age other than 17? Prosecutor: Objection your honor. The defendant’s good faith is irrelevant in prosecutions for statutory rape. Defense counsel: The prosecutor is right your honor. Good faith is irrelevant. But that’s not why I am introducing this evidence. I am offering this evidence to impeach the witness. She has testified for the prosecution, and is subject to cross-examination. One of the primary purposes of cross-examination is to attack the credibility of the witness. Mr. Defenseless has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him, and that right would be rendered meaningless if he were not allowed to attack the witnesses credibility by showing that she has previously lied about her age. . . . If she has lied about her age and other basic facts, how are we to take her word for anything? Judge: Overruled. The witness will answer the question. A: Yes. Q: I’m confused, did you not know how old you were? … ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/31 "2004-05-20T17:35:56Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Judge: Counsel, this is a poor attempt at the Miracle on 34th Street defense. Are you seriously contending that the victim’s admittedly false identification \*proves \* that the minor is an adult? I remind you that the prosecution has already introduced a copy of the birth certificate. A certified copy . . . Your honor, we wish to call those documents into question. Let the jury decide which set of papers they believe. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/32 "2004-05-20T17:40:47Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > I must tell you that I am astonished by what I’ve read here. There seems to be a fundamental unfairness to it all. What other “strict liability” laws are there? [http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/9371DEAF-4C01-4A10-9546ED9CE0148A16/catID/9084D9CE-7259-4AC7-ABAC23333466322C](http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/9371DEAF-4C01-4A10-9546ED9CE0148A16/catID/9084D9CE-7259-4AC7-ABAC23333466322C) As **Chula** said, most of the others are regulatory. Statutory rape is singled out in criminal law classes as an example of a strict liability crime. In the link above, they mention sale of alcohol to a minor. I actually worked on a case like that before the Liquor Commission in Hawaii. We were the first to raise the “carding” defense. State regulations required licensees (my client was a nightclub) to check identification on patrons. My client did. A minor showed them a fake ID, and was approached by a liquor control officer in the club. We argued, “Hey, we complied with the regulations. He showed us a fake ID. How were we to know?” The commissioners took the argument seriously, but ultimately decided to reject the defense. At least at the time of the case I am referring to, sale of alcohol to a minor was a true strict liability offense. ---
**Author:** ![BurnMeUp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@BurnMeUp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BurnMeUp)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/33 "2004-05-20T17:59:35Z")
Another thought… If you went through tthe troble to ask for a notorized birth certificate and photo ID before the deed, I think that would cast enough doubt in the trial phase that you felt certain of her age. I mean if you truely thought she was legal, why would you ask in the first place. If you had doubts you shouldn’t have hit it. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/34 "2004-05-20T18:00:56Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Your honor, we wish to call those documents into question. Let the jury decide which set of papers they believe. Prosecutor: Objection. Hearsay, more prejudicial than probative, these documents have not been authenticated. Judge: Counsel, who is your foundation witness for these documents? The defendant lacks personal knowledge of the facts involved in the documents’ preparation. Will the custodian of records for the office charged with producing these documents be testifying that these are accurate copies of the originals? If not, let’s move on with the trial . . . 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/35 "2004-05-20T18:14:14Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > I must tell you that I am astonished by what I’ve read here. There seems to be a fundamental unfairness to it all. ``` I suppose there's also a deep cultural feeling that when it comes right down to it, no man can really be fooled into having sex with a minor. If there's any reason to suspect that someone is underage, then the defendant could always have avoided sex. And in a situation in which a guy might really have been fooled, it's most likely a situation in which the defendant didn't know the minor very well. Bottom line, if you're nailing a stranger, you're not going to get sympathy from the law. ``` > [@](#): > > What other “strict liability” laws are there? ``` Others have already addressed this question. I just want to mention that strict liability is much more common in civil law, where it is one of three main kinds of torts (the other two being intentional torts and negligence). Strict liability most prominently applies in cases of product liability. The attitude of product liability law is basically --> you made something faulty, so you're going to be held responsible if something bad happens, no matter what else might have contributed to cause the accident. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/36 "2004-05-20T18:15:52Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > I must tell you that I am astonished by what I’ve read here. There seems to be a fundamental unfairness to it all. ``` I suppose there's also a deep cultural feeling that when it comes right down to it, no man can really be fooled into having sex with a minor. If there's any reason to suspect that someone is underage, then the defendant could always have avoided sex. And in a situation in which a guy might really have been fooled, it's most likely a situation in which the defendant didn't know the minor very well. Bottom line, if you're nailing a stranger, you're not going to get sympathy from the law. ``` > [@](#): > > What other “strict liability” laws are there? ``` Others have already addressed this question. I just want to mention that strict liability is much more common in civil law, where it is one of three main kinds of torts (the other two being intentional torts and negligence). Strict liability most prominently applies in cases of product liability. The attitude of product liability law is basically --> you made something faulty, so you're going to be held responsible if something bad happens, no matter what else might have contributed to cause the accident. In the case of intentional torts, you have to prove the state of mind (intent) and in the case of negligence, you have to prove a breach of duty. ``` ---
**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:** [May 20, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/37 "2004-05-20T18:21:48Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Defense counsel: The prosecutor is right your honor. Good faith is irrelevant. But that’s not why I am introducing this evidence. I am offering this evidence to impeach the witness. She has testified for the prosecution, and is subject to cross-examination. One of the primary purposes of cross-examination is to attack the credibility of the witness. Mr. Defenseless has a right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him, and that right would be rendered meaningless if he were not allowed to attack the witnesses credibility by showing that she has previously lied about her age. . . . If she has lied about her age and other basic facts, how are we to take her word for anything? Prosecutor: Your honor, it’s clear that defense counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible evidence under the guise of attacking credibility. This line of questioning would unduly prejudice the jury in violation of clearly established statutes and case law. Judge: Objection sustained. Move on, defense counsel. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/38 "2004-05-20T18:41:02Z")
> [@BurnMeUp](#): > > Another thought… If you went through tthe troble to ask for a notorized birth certificate and photo ID before the deed, I think that would cast enough doubt in the trial phase that you felt certain of her age. I mean if you truely thought she was legal, why would you ask in the first place. If you had doubts you shouldn’t have hit it. I remember hearing stories about a football player who would videotape his women saying that they were of age and consented to sex with him. He didn’t want any lawsuits coming up after the fact. I don’t know how true it was, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/39 "2004-05-20T19:11:34Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Others have already addressed this question. I just want to mention that strict liability is much more common in civil law, where it is one of three main kinds of torts (the other two being intentional torts and negligence). Strict liability most prominently applies in cases of product liability. The attitude of product liability law is basically → you made something faulty, so you’re going to be held responsible if something bad happens, no matter what else might have contributed to cause the accident. In the case of intentional torts, you have to prove the state of mind (intent) and in the case of negligence, you have to prove a breach of duty. Strict liability in torts is really not relevant and is liable to confuse people. I think everyone understands that sometimes you can be forced to pay monetary damages even when you did not intentionally harm the person. What strikes people as unfair is that you can be convicted of a crime you didn’t intentionally, or even knowingly, commit. For the vast majority of crimes, you must have a guilty mind (mens rea) to be considered guilty. Did you by any chance just finish your first year of law school? You can spot a 1L a mile away. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135/40 "2004-05-20T19:15:30Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Prosecutor: Your honor, it’s clear that defense counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible evidence under the guise of attacking credibility. This line of questioning would unduly prejudice the jury in violation of clearly established statutes and case law. > > Judge: Objection sustained. Move on, defense counsel. I agree with you. Lying about your age is considered a “white lie” and therefore of little impeachment value, which is clearly outweighed by the obvious attempt to prejudice the jury. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statutory-rape-how-deep-does-the-rabbit-hole-go/246135.md?page=3)