I see what you did there.
Yes indeed. My point about entrapment was more aimed at the “enticed to commit a crime you would not have committed had you not been enticed,” while entirely leaving aside the twist that it’s potentially more accurately portrayed as “enticed to commit a crime that you would not have committed were you aware that it was a crime.”
Stop reading right there. That’s **Dio **at his most honest in the whole thread. Just walk away now, while you still can.
A lot of college freshman still date their high school sweetheart, and by date I mean something else.
[quote=“Diogenes_the_Cynic, post:474, topic:538677”]
No, they’ve said pre-teens can do it, not just “monors.”
Depends on the crime. If you kill somebody while driving drunk, it doesn’t matter what your intentions were.
I’ve also already said that I think a public “sex offender” list is a bad idea.
“Enticement,” my ass. Adults males are responsible for what they stick their own cocks in, and they know what the laws are.
I corrected a misspelling, not a typo. I corrected it because it’s an especially common misspelling, and it annoys me.
This thread will be shut down tout de suite if I have to read any more of the following:
[ul]
[li]Accusations that a poster is a liar or lying about his arguments or intentions.[/li][li]Accusations that a poster is stupid or cognitively impaired.[/li][li]Accusations that a poster wants to have sex with a minor.[/li][li]Just for good measure, any other kind of rules violation in here.[/li][/ul]
Is that crystal clear? The following is a too-long but by no means comprehensive list of posts that are not acceptable in this thread or this forum:
It’s been documented to happen at 7, so you’d be allowing the defense in the case of 9 year olds.
The specific assertion that an 11 year old can be taken to be a 21 year ol was made in this thread by Drain Bead, who said it had happened to her. All I did was call bullshit on it. I did not bring the scenario of 11 years olds into the thread, all I did was respond to them.
Can we all agree that it’s not plausible that an 11 year old could deceive an adult male into thinking she was an adult, and having sex with her, and that any attempt by the adult to argue that he’d been deceived should be dismissed out of hand? Are there people who want to say that it should not be an automatic criminal violation to fuck an 11 year old, regardless of the assailant’s tale of woe?
Let’s point out again that allowing the defense is not a get-out-of-jail-free card - you still have to convince the jury. So unless that 9 year old actually does look and act enough like 18 to convince the jury that the defendant isn’t yanking their chain, then allowing the defense changes nothing.
The latter does not follow from the former. It is the job of the jury to make the determination that a specific fact-based defense is or is not credible.
You think it’s even theoretically possible for a 9 year old to plausibly pass as an adult? Why waste the court’s time on bullshit?
No it isn’t. Statutory rape is strict liability.
You’re also avoiding the question. Do YOU think it could plausibly happen, yes or no?
This isn’t just about adult males and teen girls. The opposite, I imagine, happens significantly more often (as teen males are both more interested in drinking and more interested in sex, as well as less picky about sex partners.)
It seems to me that from my perspective that Drain Bead is at least as believable in her assertions as anyone else in the thread.
While I’d set the bar incredibly high, I’m morally unwilling to cut off all lines of defense in a case where the defendant claims they had no intention of breaking the law and were deceived into it.
I don’t think it matters–I do not think it’s morally right to outright deny the defense, regardless of the implausiblity of it.
Unless the woman is a teacher or the boy is very young the women are hardly ever reported.
This tends to sum up my feelings about the actual “damage” done to a teenager who is actively seeking such.
Not comparable. As soon as you turn the key in the ignition while intoxicated, you know you’re committing a crime. If you have some kind of sexual contact with someone who you reasonably believe to be of an age to consent, you do not know that you are committing a crime, and, in fact, believe you are not. This is not “I don’t think I’m going to harm this teenager by having sex with them, even though they’re under the age of consent,” this is “I think I am having sex with someone who has the capacity to consent to it.”
There you go again, making this all about adult men having sex with underage females. It would be a lot easier to take you seriously if your own dog in this fight (your daughters) didn’t keep being so blatantly obvious.
If it’s so blatantly obvious that an 11-year-old could never pass for the legal age of consent, then you should have *no objection *to allowing someone the opportunity to make that defense at a trial, since the jury will still hold them culpable.
ETA: Our legal system is not limited by what *you *believe is a pointless waste of time.
*Thank *you.
Current law is irrelevent when the discussion is what the law should be and/or allow.