Guess the state!

[theweaselking]

Her MySpace says she's 19, divorced, and looking for no-strings sex.

Her 22-year-old lover is going to prison, because she's lying, she's actually 13.

Bonus: He's not the first guy to be fooled. And not the first to go to jail.

Guess the state!

Comments

[reyl.livejournal.com]

Anyone who can't tell the difference between an 18 year old and a 13 year old deserves what they get. Sorry.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Did you see the photo? She looks nineteen. The fact that the mistake happened twice puts the lie to your claim.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I know some pretty damn immature 18-year-olds, behaviourally, and her *body* looks like it could be 18 in the pictures.

But, then, I've never been happy with statutory rape laws. I understand the *need* for them, but that doesn't mean I have to like the execution.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Could the defense not take screenshots of her MySpace page - and her claims of older age - and submit them to prove that he was deceived?

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

It seems that according to the article, ignorance is not a defence.

[talacky.livejournal.com]

Right. It's strict liability. The defendant's state of mind isn't even an issue.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that doesn't change that the crime is strict liability, and that the mental component required is "intended to have sex with this person, who happens to be underage", not "intended to have sex with someone underage".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

Intent is irrelevant in statutory rape laws, as it should be.

What's illegal is the crime, not whether you knew you were a committing a crime.

He's in jail because he broke the law.

She's not in jail because she didn't break the law.

It's a very shitty situation with an obviously mitigating circumstance, but I'm not sure if there's anyway around it.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

"Intent is irrelevant in statutory rape laws, as it should be. " -- why is intent a mitigating circumstance in homicide, but not in statutory rape?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

You should ask a legal scholar that question.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

No, no, that's cheating. You didn't just say there WAS no intent in stat rape laws, you expressed the opinion that there SHOULD BE no intent in Stat Rape laws.

You said this is as it should be.

So, come one, why is that?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

Actually, I did say that there was no intent in statutory rape laws, and then I agreed with that.

Intent is irrelevant in statutory rape laws, as it should be.

He asked me about a different crime, homicide. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I don't know enough about homicide to say why mitigating factors are an influence there but not in statutory rape laws. I like to acknowledge the limits of my knowledge base and so I said he should ask a legal scholar.

From my very, very few criminology classes, I imagine it has something to do with the concept of status offenses. Statutory rape is (in case you can't tell from the word) a status offense, that is, an offense that is a crime at one point in someone's life but not a crime at another point (underage drinking is another example of this).

Homicide is not a status offense. It is illegal (almost) all the time. Therefore, mitigating factors may be more relevant.

Minors cannot consent to sex. Statutory rape laws are meant to protect minors from child abusers who, in their defense, might argue that the minor consented to sex and therefore it isn't a crime. One of the responsibilities of the law is to protect people who cannot protect themselves and that's one of the things statutory rape laws do.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Actually, it was a rhetorical question. I knew the answer; I hoped that it would provoke some thought.

Ah, well.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

I don't know the answer.

What is it?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Intent is irrelevant in statutory rape laws, as it should be.

Not *entirely* irrelevant - if you're drugged into unconsciousness and someone underage has sex with you, you're not going to get charged. But what matters is that you intended to have sexual contact with the minor, not that you intended to have sexual contact with a minor.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

If you're drugged unconscious and someone has rapes you, well...that's rape. Not sex.

I don't understand your last sentence; they sound the same to me. Could you explain?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

But what matters is that you intended to have sexual contact with the minor, not that you intended to have sexual contact with a minor.

They don't have to prove that you wanted UNDERAGE sex. They only have to prove that you had sex, and the person was underage.

The point is, even if you thought they were an adult and you met them in an 19+ only bar and you saw their (fake) ID and it said they were 19, even though you did all the due diligence to make sure they were of age because you didn't want to screw someone underage, what matters is that you screwed someone underage.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

What don't you like about statutory rape laws?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Mostly it's the arbitrary nature of them. The age that qualifies? Arbitrarily decided. The age that you have to be to hit by them? Arbitrary decided. The consent of those involved? Irrelevant. Plus, I dislike absolute liability offenses where it's possible to commit them *without ever doing anything you have any way of knowing is illegal*.

Add the recent "sex offender registry" nonsense that attaches itself to laws like this? Yikes.

[jerril]

The problem with the consent issue is that the law regards people that are not legally adults (an arbitrary definition) as incapable of making various kinds of important decisions - they can't sign legally enforceable contracts, they can't give consent to possibly risky medical practices, they can't decline medical treatment... and fallout from that is they're considered incapable of consenting, as a category.

Unfortunately the only "fair" way to implement this kind of thing is to set an arbitrary boundary age, and then examine each case to see if the possible-child is in fact mentally, emotionally, and physically mature enough to be having sex, and whether the over-age partner was exploiting their power and authority to manipulate the possible-child into having sex.

Unfortunately the court system is the wrong venue for evaluating mental or physical development, or mental health. Plus, it doesn't have the time. So we're left with arbitrary stuff.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm not disagreeing with you on any point.

But that does mean I have to *like* the laws.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

So you'd be okay with getting rid of statutory rape laws and perhaps having a situation where a child molester, in his defense, says a minor consented to having sex with him/her?

And I'm okay with the sex offender registry. Sex offenders have high rates of recidivism. It's a good idea to keep track of them.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I didn't say I had a better solution, only that I don't like the current one.

And we're STILL not talking about consent, at all, here.

I'm okay with the sex offender registry. Sex offenders have high rates of recidivism. It's a good idea to keep track of them.

In principle, sure, I agree with you.

In practice, there are people on the registry who shouldn't be there, and being on the registry itself is a massively increased punishment that never, ever goes away - regardless of your recidivism, or lack thereof.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/]

That sounds like an argument for reducing the number of crimes that would put you on the registry not for getting rid of the registry all together.

[crazy-alexy.livejournal.com]

My sister is 15, and can pass for 17 if she puts her mind to it.

It's really not difficult if you've got the body for it.