The analogy is that you shot at something that you could reasonably assume to be a safe target but turns out to not have been. If a police officer shoots someone running at him with a plastic toy knife, a jury would find that he’d made a reasonable judgment call.
About as often as the local prosecutor has it in for one of the 20-year-old’s relatives or friends because they’re political opponents, or own some piece of property the prosecutor’s friends want to buy cheap, or are just plain the Wrong Sort Of People For Our Neighborhood[tn].
Which is generally a valid defense if the error arose because the shootee looked like a legitimate target as a result of their own actions (e.g. brandishing a toy gun that could reasonably be mistaken for a real one).
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.
This statement has no relevance to the scenario presented in the OP, which is one of fraud, not of accident.
A strange girl at a bar is not something you can reasonably assume to be a safe target.
You are attempting to re-introduce the discredited notion that such mistakes are simply not possible.
To repeat a statement that ought to be one of the mantras of this board: You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts.
No fraud is possible on the part of the child. The liability and responsibility is 100% on the adult.
Re you attempt to re-introduce the claim that convincing fake IDs simply don’t exist: see previous message.
No, I just reject the notion that it’s ever “reasonable” for an adult to fuck a child. Accidental, maybe (but unlikely-- certainly nowhere near as likely as some people would like some other people to believe). Essentially I’m just objecting to a word choice there.
It is my opinion that the scenarios involving poor, unsuspecting middle-aged men being preyed upon by evil, calculating, preternaurally seductive and adult-looking eleven year olds are preposterous and laughable.
Sure it is. You could almost argue that bars exist to facilitate sexual encounters between men and women.
Yeah, yeah, I know, tough shit, shouldn’t have gambled, so on and so forth. Thank God most people seem to disagree with you on this point.
When have any of us suggested such a scenario? Oh, right, I must be a pedophile to be arguing on the side that I am. Right.
No, I’m saying the DO exist, and that’s why it’s not reasonable to ever assume they’re reliable proof of age. I have never said that fake ID’s don’t exist? Where are you getting that?
When I say that “fraud isn’t possible” for a child, I’m saying that children do not have the cognitive and emotional capability to form the requisite mens rea. They cannot understand what they are doing when it comes to sexual decisions and consequences.
Of course, that 17 year old girl a day away from her 18th birthday lacks the emotional and cognitive capacity to understand what she’s doing. The next day it develops immediately, though!
That’s what the laws you support suggest.
Wasn’t there an extended argument about somebody claiming to have been mistaken for 21 when she was 11? Are you now agreeing that such a claim is unbelievable, unrealistic bullshit?
That’s the way the law has to be. What would you replace it with if not an artificial line?
I accidentally a 17-year-old. Is this bad?
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?
How should I know? It might be illegal, though, depending on the state.
1.) Romeo and Juliet laws. It’s illegal to diddle someone under 18 unless you’re within a certain age range, say two years. Now the 17 year old with the 16 year old girlfriend won’t go to prison when he hits his birthday. Yes, the line is still artificial, but it’s better than the black and white bullshit we have in many states (including mine) right now. In addition, what punishments exist can vary by the age difference between the two involved. An 19 year old “raping” a 16 year old shouldn’t be punished as severely as a 40 year old raping an 11 year old.
2.) Again, juries can deliberate not on whether it was reasonable to have sex with a minor, but whether it was reasonable to think she wasn’t a minor. Laws are based on what reasonable citizens would do or think. This is why laws regarding obscenity ask “would this be obscene for an average, reasonable person?” This is why insurance companies ask “is this a symptom of a condition that would have caused an average, reasonable person to seek health care prior to purchasing insurance from us?” I’m not even saying that punishment should be dropped entirely, if a person has a history of having happy “accidents” with minors then that should be used as evidence by the prosecution that this encounter wasn’t a mistake at all. Any forty year old who diddles an eleven year old is going to be doing hard time under this system.
I thought that claim was bullshit all along. But I have been fooled by a minor before (I was 19 and she had just turned 17- she told me she was 18 and I believed her, she could have passed for my age if she’d chosen to say so). I found out her real age before anything progressed but only by accident. That would have been a *minimum *of five years prison for me had a prosecutor chosen to go after me. That’s bullshit.
As ivan touched upon, what about when the minor is the one doing the raping? You might have heard about a case where some teens (I think they were 16 or 17) were raping (as in serious, hardcore rape) elderly women at a senior center. Clearly they didn’t know what they were doing, seeing as they were only minors. Clearly the elderly woman should be thrown in prison. Intent and liability aren’t an issue, as you’ve so adamantly declared, it’s always the responsibility of the adult. You can’t say “Oh, well a prosecutor simply wouldn’t choose to go after her,” it’s about whether they can go after her. It’s as simple as “Men and women of the jury, do you believe that these teens and this elderly woman had intercourse? If so, she is liable and you must convict.”
Don’t make laws and pray for sound prosecutors. You need to make sound laws to begin with.
I know you’re a stubborn father of three girls, Dio, but I don’t see anything unreasonable about what I’ve just argued.
Civil commitments for the assailants, probably, with a lot of therapy. They would not be criminally liable.
There was a very similar case to this in the St. Paul neighborhood where I used to run a couple of summer day camps. Similar ages. Some boys (9 or 10, I think) gang raped one of the boys’ little sisters in a vacant, neighborhood house. They were acting out stuff they’d seen in porno movies.
The kids’ identities were protected, and they weren’t criminally charged. I think they were civilly committed, but I’m not even positive they got that much. Might have just been therapy.