The objections raised earlier that this could result in the minor (possible victim) being placed on trial could be resolved by requiring the defense to get permission to use the approach in a closed court pre-trial hearing. That would also add a layer of protection. You’d have to convince a judge first and then have to convince a jury. If you try to use this defense with the hypothetical 11 year old, she better be well spoken and “physically mature” or the first hurdle won’t be cleared.
Obviously, you are unaware of how stupid (immature, ignorant, whatever you want to call it) many people over 18 are. There are plenty of people over 18 that cannot converse intelligently at an adult level; therefore, an underage level of patter (particular the mid-teens) would not seem immature or a sign of very young age to them at all.
He would argue that you shouldn’t fuck stupid adults. :rolleyes:
Now that’s a policy I can get behind. They propogate enough as it is. 
Unfortunately, stupid people rarely realize they are stupid (and as a result they hook up with other stupid people which is why there are so many stupid people).
Why are you so afraid to answer the question?
Every time one of those teacher-student stories happens, the woman gets crucified.
It’s a far FAR more common occurance for adult males to fuck teenaged girls, and even knock them up, but nobody thinks twice.
This is an irrelevant point. The fact that adults can seem immature is not converse evidence that an 11 year old can be convincing as an adult. It can’t happen. It doesn’t happen.
I thought I was clear–a conviction for statutory rape should NEVER be automatic, with no affirmative defense available, regardless of the age of the victim. I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that a jury will give a pass to a person in a case where the victim is obviously too young, and cases where the victim is NOT obviously too young is the whole point of the discussion.
I think both of these statements are completely unsupported, and the first one is dangerously irrelevant to the thread as it discusses an act where there is both a power imbalance and a virtual certitude that the woman knew exactly what crime she was committing, which is about the exact opposite of what we’re talking about.
According to Drain Bead, it HAS happened at least once. Your statement is not so much one of fact as one of abject denial of facts entered into evidence.
If you stick your dick in something without knowing what it is, you know you might be fucking a child and you are assuming the risk. You are firing a gun into a dark room. Fucking someone who might be underaged is a negligent choice and you are liable if you guess and guess wrong.
Crucified? Hardly. The South Park episode reflected reality, actually.
Of course they do.
I have a male friend who’s only 16 and he’s fucking (or he was- I’m not sure if he is anymore) a 24 year old girl and we just high five him. If he was a 23 year old man fucking a 16 year old he’d take flak for it.
Your two questions answer each other: if there are no plausibly adult nine year olds, then nobody will ever use the defense, and if anybody uses the defense, it will be because they do think that they can convince a jury that the rapee in question is plausibly an adult.
This is also why I don’t see a need to set any lower limit at all on the age of the rapee - let some nimrod claim that a three year old posed as an adult and seduced him, for all I care. If anyone is so stupid as to try this they’ll merely have crucified themselves. Eleven year olds? I’ve never seen one for which a person could use this defense and win. Might such 11 year olds exist? Maybe, I don’t know, and it’s not up to me to decide. It’s up to the jury to decide. If you actually think that no 11 year old looks 18 you should be begging for this defense to be allowed, because time wasted on a doomed defense argument can only hurt the defendant’s case.
In all seriousness, the self-defense argument for murder is a very good analogue here. People only try it when they think they can win with it. Sure it’s an affirmative defense, but despite that you just don’t see all that many axe murderers or gang members getting off due to it, amazingly enough.
Of course the law needs to protect children, the question is how severely the law should punish someone who had no intent to commit a crime. We normally reserve our harshest punishments for those crimes that have an intent element. Statutory rape seems to be unique in the severity of the punishment for a crime that has no intent requirement. Even felony murder has SOME intent element in the underlying felony.
Your point is that creating an intent requirement will provide an avenue for escape for even those scumbags who can prove to a jury that they didn’t know (and reasonably couldn’t have known) that the child was but a child. I suspect that this will rule out the use of this defense for the pubescent 9 year old.
That wasn’t my question. My question was whether you think it’s plausible that an 11 year old could convince an adult male that she was also an adult and “seduce” him into having sex with her withjout ever having a clue that she was a pre-teen.
Do you think this is a scenario that could actually happen in real life, yes or no?
No, both are unquestionably true. You’re wrong.
You need to learn the difference between facts and assertions. Dain Bread made an assertion which I called bullshit on. She probably really believes that a waitress mistook her for a 21 year old when she was 11, but I think it’s far more likely that the waitress either thought she was a teenager, or just wasn’t really paying attention to who she was handing out shots to.
There is absolutely no way that an 11 year old could convincingly pass herself off as an adult to the point of sexual intimacy with another adult, and there’s absolutely no reason to entertain that kind of horseshit as a defense to raping an 11 year old. The damage has been done, and the rapist is liable. It’s recklessly irresponsible to do things any other way.
Manslaughter is a crime but we provide several affirmative defenses (self defense for example). Why should statutory rape be any less susceptible to affirmative defenses than manslaughter?
I think that a lot of states require people who sell cigarettes to card you if you look like you might be under 24 (18 being the legal requirement).
Wouldn’t that last ‘or’ have to be an ‘and’? teenagers can’t drink either.
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.
Who is being irresponsible? Allowing the defense doesn’t mean it will be used, so it’s not us or any theoretical legislators who would allow the defense. You clearly are talking about the jury - you’re saying that if they entertain the defense - that if they don’t dismiss it prior to actually examining the facts - that they’re being recklessly irresponsible.
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?
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.
Of course it is. Once it is established that some adults talk in an immature way (and that fact is established, you betcha, how’s that Nile-denial thing working out for ya?), it is logically impossible to deny that a child can pass himself off as such an adult (at least insofar as speech patterns are concerned).
Because Dio has daughters, pretty much.