# Why is ignorance of age not an excuse? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677 "2010-05-07T20:44:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/541 "2010-05-20T20:58:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Wouldn’t that last ‘or’ have to be an ‘and’? teenagers can’t drink either. I meant “or.” I think she could have thought she was a teenager but didn’t care. > [@](#): > > And presuming for a moment that she’s not lying, if an inattentive waitress mistook her for 21, then she didn’t look 11. Unless you’re positing that the waitress was blind. This is a fact, not an assertion. As I’ve said over and over again, I’m not talking about an impression at a glance. I’m saying it’s implausible that the impression would hold up after any level of meaningful interaction and converstaion. It would become clear very quickly that you were talking to a 5th grader. > [@](#): > > Who is being irresponsible? Any legislature who provides legal loopholes for fucking 11 year olds. > [@](#): > > A jury that refuses to examine the evidence before dismissing the evidence is what we like to call a kangaroo court - even if the evidence would almost certainly have lead to a ruling against the defendent if it _had_ been examined. Is it your opinion that courts should be kangaroo courts? The only evidence that matters is the age of the victim and the age of the accused. everything else is immaterial. Allowing scads of immaterial evidence would result in kangaroo courts. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/542 "2010-05-20T20:59:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Involuntary manslaughter can happen without any negligence at all. Statutory rape is an extremely easy crime to avoid. Guys don’t just slip and have their dicks fall into teenagers. Are you trying to make a point? Because you are \*at best \*arguing against a strawman; nobody is claiming that the sex was accidental. That’s a whole different goalpost than the _actual_ topic of discussion, that a person could **deliberately** have sex with a person why they **unintentionally** misidentify the age of. I can see how you would want to move that goalpost, though, because on the actual topic, it’s _your_ assertion of infallibility that’s the absurd position. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/543 "2010-05-20T21:04:59Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Of course it is. No it isn’t. Just because some X’s can look like Y’s, doesn’t mean that Y’s can look like X’s. At best, all you’re saying is that an 11 year old might be able to seem like a mentally challenged adult, in which case you still have a huge red flag. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/544 "2010-05-20T21:06:04Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > From today’s news: [Man Posing as High School B-Baller Busted](http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Man-Posing-as-High-School-B-Baller-Arrested-93575559.html)There was another case in the news a few years ago in which a guy in his 20s succesfully posed as a 6th grader (or something like that) but I’m not inclined to look for it just now. That was on 21 Jump Street. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/545 "2010-05-20T21:06:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Are you trying to make a point? Because you are \*at best \*arguing against a strawman; nobody is claiming that the sex was accidental. That’s a whole different goalpost than the _actual_ topic of discussion, that a person could **deliberately** have sex with a person why they **unintentionally** misidentify the age of. But that “accident” still has to involve a negligent choice to gamble on who an individual is having sex with. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/546 "2010-05-20T21:07:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Depends on the age of consnent, which is 16 in most states. Don’t cofuse porn laws with consent laws. > > Are they pedos? technically, no. Age of consent in California has been 18 for a while. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/547 "2010-05-20T21:09:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I meant “or.” I think she could have thought she was a teenager but didn’t care. That’s absurd - her parents were _right there_. Doesn’t the depths of absurdity you find yourself diving to bother you _even a little_? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > As I’ve said over and over again, I’m not talking about an impression at a glance. I’m saying it’s implausible that the impression would hold up after any level of meaningful interaction and converstaion. It would become clear very quickly that you were talking to a 5th grader. In which case this defense would be no defense, obviously. Seriously - for this defense to _ever_ fly the underage partner would pretty much have to _play along_ - acting the part of an adult before the jury and affirmatively defending his innocence. If she (assuming female) came in a girl scout uniform and ponytails and talked in babytalk on the stand, the dude is **fucked** - even if he _was_ fooled. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Any legislature who provides legal loopholes for fucking 11 year olds. Are you even reading the thread anymore? Anybody with have an iota of awareness of how courts work knows that this is no loophole, except for _people who were actually fooled and can convince a dozen others of it._ Regarding 11 year olds, this isn’t a loophole, this is a _noose_. If you believe that 11 year olds can’t convincingly act 18, then you logically can’t see this defense as a loophole. It’s impossible, unless you literally have no understanding of the jury system, or unless you have abandoned logical thought altogether on the subject. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The only evidence that matters is the age of the victim and the age of the accused. everything else is immaterial. Allowing scads of immaterial evidence would result in kangaroo courts. Do you even know what that term means? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/548 "2010-05-20T21:09:42Z")
Then whoever fucked her should have been prosecuted – starting with the stepfather who forced her into the industry and gave her the fake ID in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/549 "2010-05-20T21:12:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But that “accident” still has to involve a negligent choice to gamble on who an individual is having sex with. Aaand now we’re back to you saying that the act of having sex with somebody who looks less than forty is a criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/550 "2010-05-20T21:13:10Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I tend towards gender-neutral usernames and I’m abrasive. \*Most \*people online assume I’m male. 😃 You play World of Warcraft in a raiding guild as a tank. It was weeks before I realized you were a gurrl. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/551 "2010-05-20T21:13:51Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > That’s absurd - her parents were _right there_. So what? > [@](#): > > In which case this defense would be no defense, obviously. Exactly. There is no reason to ever entertain it. > [@](#): > > And If you believe that 11 year olds can’t convincingly act 18, then you logically can’t see this defense as a loophole. I can’t see a reason to allow a defendant to argue something that’s impossible. > [@](#): > > Do you even know what that term means? I think I’m the only one of us who does. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/552 "2010-05-20T21:16:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Aaand now we’re back to you saying that the act of having sex with somebody who looks less than forty is a criminal. No having sex with someone under the age of consent is criminal. That means it’s negligent to have sex with people who you don’t know are of age. And no, an ID card is not enough to provide reasonable cover. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/553 "2010-05-20T21:18:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If you shoot into a room without looking, and blow away your mother-in-law, it’s not an excuse that you thought she was a burglar. But what if you did look and you did think your mother-in-law was a burglar? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/554 "2010-05-20T21:24:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So what? So your argument on this subject may be dismissed as being divorced from reality. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Exactly. There is no reason to ever entertain it. I have an excellent idea - let’s skip this whole ‘trial’ thing altogether and just shoot all criminals! It would save so much time - and really, we already _know_ that everyone accused of any crime is guilty, so there is no reason to ever entertain arguments to the contrary. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can’t see a reason to allow a defendant to argue something that’s impossible. You know, I kind of like the idea of being able to accuse people of things, have them not be allowed to defend themselves, and have them harshly punished as a result. What random person should I accuse of murder first? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think I’m the only one of us who does. Define it. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No having sex with someone under the age of consent is criminal. That means it’s negligent to have sex with people who you don’t know are of age. And no, an ID card is not enough to provide reasonable cover. Hitting somebody with your car is criminal, therefore driving is negligent! And no, keeping under the speed limit and driving as carefully as humanly possible is no defense if a person throws themself off the overpass above you and crashes through your windshield. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/555 "2010-05-20T21:29:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Proscutors and judges do have discretion, and they aren’t going to waste time chasing down 20 year olds for banging 17 year olds (seriously, how often do you ever see that prosecuted? But it does happen. How many times does a 20 year old man have to go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old girl before it makes sense to do something about it? Should he simply have to rely on jury nullification. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/556 "2010-05-20T21:30:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can’t see a reason to allow a defendant to argue something that’s impossible. Oh, and from this I take it you support the idea of them being allowed to argue this defense regarding sixteen year olds? (Presuming 18 being the legal limit.) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/557 "2010-05-20T21:32:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > As I’ve said over and over again, I’m not talking about an impression at a glance. I’m saying it’s implausible that the impression would hold up after any level of meaningful interaction and converstaion. It would become clear very quickly that you were talking to a 5th grader. Isnt there some running TV documentary where 5th graders are generally smarter than adults? ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/558 "2010-05-20T21:33:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And no, an ID card is not enough to provide reasonable cover. Yes, it is. It’s a legal document. There being fakes is tough titties. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/559 "2010-05-20T21:39:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s never reasonable. the argument is that it can be accidental. I say too bad. The damage to the child has still been done. The damage to the child may be done but what societal purpose does it serve to incarcerate a man who had no knowledge of his crime when he was committing it. In some states the age of consent is 18 and in other states the age of consent is 15, why does it make sense to imprison someone for 10 years for having consensual sex with a 17 year old in California and not in Alabama? Is the damage to the child less severe in Alabama? I understand what the law says but lets talk about what the law OUGHT TO SAY. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677/560 "2010-05-20T21:40:35Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Here in the UK, a 10 and 11 yr old have just been charged with raping an 8 yr old girl. By **Dio’s** reckoning, they shouldn’t be charged with anything, as they couldn’t possibly have known the consequences of what they had done. How would this sort of incident be dealt with in your country? They’d all get their own reality show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ignorance-of-age-not-an-excuse/538677.md?page=29)