Why havn’t the laws changed to state that this is not a Strict Liability offence, but one where deffence requires the accused to show they took every reasonable precaution to ensure the person the slept with was over age, such that no reasonable person would be expected to act differently.
If you meet someone who looks 25 in an over 21 bar, s(he) tells you about his/her job, and then drives you to his/her appartment. It shouldn’t be possible to be found guilty when it turns out he/she is 17 and has borrowed the keys to an older siblings appartment and vehicle and talked about the older sibling’s job…
Clearly the above would be a remarkably unlikely thing for a 17 year old to be mature enough to do, but it is not beyonde possibility that a younger sibling might be so much in awe and jellosy of an older sibling’s lifestyle that they may want to live it for a day or two given an unexpected opportunity.
Any law that is blind to the facts arround the case is IMHO an inherrantly unjust law.
I don’t think that question has an easily found factual answer. It invites speculation.
Well, obviously, the laws haven’t been changed because not enough people have pushed for legislative change. There probably is not enough feeling among the general public (or legal scholars) that there is actually any injustice being committeed with regard to these laws.
Why might that be? Well, prosecutors have discretion to bring criminal charges. Maybe charges are not being brought in many cases in which the circumstances are complex. Maybe in such cases that are prosecuted, people in the whole don’t feel that an injustice has been done. It’s hard to support any of this factually, of course.
The United States is still a rather conservative country when it comes to certain things. Perhaps, as I mentioned before, the public as a whole doesn’t feel much sympathy in such cases. I don’t think that any member of the public or, especially, any elected official, who stands up and says that he or she thinks that defendants in statutory rape cases are getting a raw deal is going to get much of a following.
Maybe your question is why haven’t courts overturned such laws on the basis of unconstitutionality? Well, I don’t know. Off the top of my head, I can’t come up with any constitutional reasons to strike down such a law. Make a constitutional argument and we’ll see where the discussion goes.
Heh, I didn’t miss it, just thought we could use a reminder of how these quirky little twists in the law can ruin people’s lives. Carry on.
I would go further than that, actually. Over the last few years, statutory rape has become a higher-profile issue, and investigations and prosecutions are now widely reported and praised. Many police departments have units or officers assigned to sting “internet predators”. Amber Alerts, Megan’s Laws, and the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996[sup]*[/sup], all point to a society that is more likely to support strict liability for statutory rape, not oppose it.
Imagine that you are a politician and you ignore acsenray and say that these defendants are getting a raw deal.
Who are you appealing to? Strict civil libertarians? The leftover remnants of the “Sexual Revolution,” who now have children of their own? 18 to 24 year old males who don’t (generally) vote anyway? And you risk offending just about the entire rest of society.
[sup]*[/sup]This law criminalized any “visual depiction that is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” The Supreme Court struck this down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, but also praised the intent of the law.
Sorry for the hijack - this thread is a fascinating read and there is no way I could add anything intelligent to it - but since his email is private I’m taking this opportunity to poke Paperbackwriter and tell him he is requested here.
I agree with Paperbackwriter. I don’t think the laws on statutory rape will change anytime soon.
I don’t think different states having differing ages of consent helps matters either.
Mind if I take a stab at it? I’m not a lawyer, but this is fun. 
Well, we have a Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against us, right? And the purpose of that confrontation is fundamentally to either impeach the witness, or ellicit information that weakens the case of the prosecution. So couldn’t the argument be made that “strict liability” laws which don’t allow you to ask questions of the complainant like “Didn’t you show me a liscence that said you were 18?” consitutes such a grievous restriction on your right to confront a witness against you that it defeats the intent of the sixth amendment?
What if the minor in question had several professionally done tattoos in a state that only allowed 18 or older to get body art. Would that be admissible as evidence?
Also, these cases stated above they all deal with underage girls. Do things generally change in court if the guy was 17 and the girl was 26? I’ve known a few high school guys who were 17 that didn’t get carded about half the time. If the guy is a hulking 6’3 17 year old athlete with a full-beard, how would the jury consider that? Is there any difference?
Slight hijack:
is Statutory rape what Kobe Bryant is being charged with?
No, the alleged victim in Colorado v. Bryant was 19 years old at the time of the incident at issue. The charge pending is felony sexual assault.
PA Crimes Code §3102. Mistake as to age. Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends on a child being below the age of 14 years, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the age of the child or reasonably believed the child to be the age of 14 years or older. When criminality depends on the child’s being below a critical age older than 14 years, it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she reasonably believed the child to be above the critical age.
I thought the age of consent here in the Keystone State was 16. Is it 14 or do the laws just not deal as harshly if the minor is 15?
Since the snip mentions “critical age of 14 years or older” I’d wager that your are correct about the AoC being 16. It seems, though, that it’s no longer a strict liability crime for victims over 14.
Seems like a good idea if you ask me. One could argue that a 15 year old looked 19… but a 12 year old?
§ 3122.1 Statutory sexual assault.* Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complaintant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complaintant and the complaintant and the person are not married to each other.*
The PA legislature has been working on this for a few years, DocCathode. A few years ago, a married couple was restricted from dancing the nasty in whatever form they wished were they of tender age.
Yup, it’s legal to boink at 13 in PA, just be close enough in age that the phrase, “Who’s your Daddy?” doesn’t take on evil connotations. :eek:
And you folk thought PA was about horses and buggies and shoo-fly pie. 
Brings to mind the joke about the Amish fellow at a honeymoon motel
I assume you are presenting all of this with the presupposition that whether the defendant slept with the witness is in question. Otherwise, what other statement from the witness are you trying to show as tainted?
The issue is mens rea, the criminal intent necessary, along with criminal act, to have a crime. Mens rea is a somewhat flexible doctrine, but in cases of strict liability, you must still intend the act (e.g. intending to have sex itself, not necessarily intending to have sex with someone who is underage).
I agree that this is the issue with this example. I believe there is a biblical equivalent often cited in law texts and law school classes of the roofer who fell off a roof and sexual penetrated a woman by accident. This does not constitute rape, even though the woman did not consent to penetration, because there was no intentional act of penetration.
Hi! Sorry to take you by surprise, Ma’am, and thanks for allowing me inside. :eek: While we’re here, could I interest you in a continuous ridge vent? You look like a lady whose flashing needs to be caulked-how long has it been since you’ve had a proper caulking? 
The elements of a crime are almost always in issue at a trial. I am assuming the defendant did not take the stand and admit that he slept with her, at least during the prosecution’s case. And I am assuming his lawyer did not admit the act during open statements.
If the defendant admits that he slept with the minor, and there is no freaky situation (e.g., she was dead at the time, he was forced to do it at gunpoint, it was an accident, he’s legally insane, etc.), he’d be well-advised to cop a plea, if he can bargain for a reduced charge or a better sentence.
Right, and courts in many states address this type of mens rea requirement under the “no act” doctrine, rather than as part of the mens rea. This does raise a few more interesting hypotheticals though . . .
-
Minor sneaks into man’s bedroom at night and pretends to be his wife. He is not mistaken about her age, but her identity.
-
Same hypo but the man has sex with her but while half asleep, a practice he routinely engages in with his wife.
-
Man has a morning erection, she has sex with him, he is oblivious.
Well, that’s enough for this early in the morning.
Geez, I worked as a roofer for years, and nothing like that ever happened to me. Some guys have all the luck.
Or not, I suppose. Depends how high the roof was.
(Once again, I am resisting the urging of my sense of decency that I hide my signature in posting to this thread.)
And then I forget to check the sig display, which I recently changed to default to ‘no’. Dangblastit!