And nobody, but the completely discredited Dio, is advocating locking up the guy in prison.
It’s not open season, but I think it’s equally as silly to posit that having the defense codified wouldn’t result in lots more people who have sex with minors getting away with it.
Between prosecutorial discretion, the defense team, realistic judges, juries, and the system as a whole, I have found the “examples” of poor, duped overaged adults victimized by deceitful underaged harpies to be miniscule compared to the number of defendants who try to claim “I thought she was of age.”
Without even addressing how wrong you are about the rarity of the circumstances (as far as minors using fake IDs to get into bars, and subsequently hit on), I’ll just point out that a defense of “I didn’t know” would still need to meet the approval of a jury to fly. If 12 of your peers feel that your measures weren’t prudent enough to constitute due diligence, you’re SOL. If they agree that you did your homework and any other reasonable person would’ve come to the same conclusion, I see no problem.
“She was a 5’11” DD smoking a cigarette outside the restaurant" earns you no sympathy points in my book.
“Once she got past the bouncer, she presented an ID indicating she was 22, bought me a drink at the bar, and introduced me to several of her ‘college classmates’,” with some good corroborating evidence, makes me lean towards a not guilty. billfish678 said it best:
As I noted, Hamlet’s position requires the abolition of all anti-fraud laws. The guy you hired to add a master bathroom used old garden hose instead of proper piping? Hope you don’t have mold allergies, because you’re going to live with the leaks until you can scrape together the cash to redo it (maybe by somebody who does it right this time, maybe not). The contractor presented a license and good references that turned out to be phony? Sucks to be you! That’ll teach you to be certain next time!
If you let terrorists have Miranda warnings and lawyers and legal protections against enhanced interrogation techniques, more terrorists would successfully evade detection and more of their evil schemes would procee to fruition. Glad to see you’ve come around to the side of real Amurrikins against the commie pinko libruls!
I read your post immedidately before this one I’m quoting now, and had a reply all set, but didn’t actually click the reply button, because it just seemed a waste of time. Now I see that you’ve taken your post and made it even more inane, to the point of hysterical strawmen, I’m kinda wish I hadn’t deleted it. But, to be honest, when you’re willing to reach the conclusion that you have here, I’m pretty sure there’s no point in trying to reason with you.
You believe that statutory rapists in general should not go to prison (a position that nobody has suggested so far, except insofar as it is one of the possible implcations of the above-quoted statement).
You believe that deception that would credibly lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that someone was over the age of consent is a legitimate defense against a charge of statutory rape (the position of just about everybody else here).
You do not stand behind the quoted statement above (the pattern in your previous posts of running away from the logical implications of your positions leads me to bet on this one).
Honest question for Dio, who I agree with on some things in this thread, but I think he’s allowed his emotion to run away and has gotten pig-headed…
If you think guys that do this are just looking to stick it in young girls…what about guys that masturbated to pictures of Traci Lords in Penthouse? Or when she did porn? She was under 18 and had used a false ID. The guys getting the magazine or video had no idea she was underage. They were basically relying on the publisher to check her age.
Should they be held responsible for looking at child pornography? Are they pedo’s?
This isn’t an attempt at a trick question, I honestly want to hear his answer.
Asking deliberately obtuse questions of a person who has already stated their point repeatedly is a sign of the weakness of the questioners’ argument.
Asking deliberately obtuse questions of a person who has already their point repeatedly already is a sign of the trouble with the questioners’ reading comprehension.
Asking deliberately obtuse a person who has stated their point repeatedly already is a sign of desperation.
Irrelevant, since I did not ask any obtuse question. You have indeed clearly stated the positions:
A person in the situation posited by the OP should not go to prison.
A person in the situation posited by the OP should not be permitted to offer that fact situation as a defense (and must therefore be treated exactly the same as someone who knowingly and willfully commits statutory rape).
I have merely pointed out that the two are mutually exclusive (unless one posits that statutory rape in general is not an offense deserving of imprisonment, which I included in the list to make it logically complete but do not consider likely as a real-world position).
Sure you did. Offering three choices, none of which is an accurate statement of my position, is obtuse.
I have offered nothing about Lawrence Taylor. But in an effort to help you out, I will state that a young man who is less than 5 years older than his partner has sex with a girl who is between the ages of 13-16, and has a reasonable belief that she is of age of consent should not go to prison.
Did you notice anything while typing this one out? Just try to take a look at it again, with fresh eyes, and see what sticks out at you.
The parenthesis. Does the fact you felt the need to add the parenthetical statement mean anything to you? If you had to guess, what would you guess would be MY problem with that question?
Stop this immediately. Nobody is advocating sex with minors here and as best I can tell nobody is advocating doing anything immoral. This is off-topic and it’s not allowed in this forum.
