I have seen the future.

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.

From:

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

From:

You should ask a legal scholar that question.

From:

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?

From:

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.

From:

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.

Sure, but right now you're arguing why *consent* is not a defense against a stat rape charge.

Which is not the same as this argument - that he had no intent to commit a crime, and he had good reason to believe she was of age.

There's been other, similar cases where the underage partner is the aggressor, actively pursuing and propositioning a partner *who does not know, and has no way to know, that they are underage*.

Anyway. My point is, you're saying intent to have sex with a person you know to be underage is irrelevant, and that this is as it should be. Ken, and now I, have asked you to defend that position: Why, in your opinion, is "I didn't know she was underage. I had this evidence here that she was of age" NOT a perfectly acceptable defense against a stat rape charge?

From:

Because I don't believe that saying "I didn't know" is an acceptable defense for any crime.

"I didn't know the gun was loaded when I aimed it at her."

"I didn't know having two drinks would put me over the legal limit."

"I didn't know using someone else's credit card was illegal."

I don't know is not an acceptable defense for any crime. The responsibility for committing the crime rests upon the perpetrator's shoulders.

From:

Whereas "I thought the gun I was handed, on this movie set, to use to shoot her, was a prop gun, just like all the other prop guns we've used" IS an affirmative defense.

And "I didn't know my drink had been spiked with LSD" IS an affirmative defense.

And the third one is hard, because suddenly you're playing rhetorical silly buggers and trying to swap to arguing IGNORANCE OF THE LAW instead of LACK OF INTENT.

From:

Those are more specific examples, yes.

I'm completely outside what I know now.

He broke the law. He's in jail. It's shitty and it obviously pisses people off, but that's what happened. Don't screw 13 year olds.

(no subject)

From:

publius1.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-06-02 04:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

died-just-right.livejournal.com

Okay, I know this comment is months late, because I only saw it through the end of the year recap. But having read through the threads of comments, I have to point something out that no one has pointed out yet.

You yourself point out that it's NOT a crime later in life, right here. You can't use the "I didn't know the gun was loaded when I aimed it at her" example, because that's a crime that's illegal all the time. You point out underage drinking. A better parallel for this case would be a twenty year old who has never drunk underage here in America being taken to Canada, told that it's Canada, and even shown a road sign proving that he's in Canada, where 20 year olds are allowed to drink, and partaking of a beverage--and then finding out that the driver of the car lied to him and even faked a sign, and he's really still in the US, where all of a sudden it's illegal. And then arresting the twenty year old.

You could also extrapolate, from your stance, that if someone were selling alcohol, he would be prosecuted for selling to minors, even if the minors had provided him the proper ID, which would just happen to be a really good fake. Would you condone that? Any vendor of age-controlled substances is supposed to ask for ID, and that is supposed to be legally enough to prove it. A good false ID should absolve the "criminal" of their offense, because they followed the letter of the law. The liar should be prosecuted.

The girl in question had ID, which said 19, and there was no way for him to know that it was fake. Should we all be scared of having sex with anyone, if an ID isn't enough to believe? They could be lying to us, and it could be our fault that our partner of choice seduced us.

Disregarding intent makes it possible for there to be predators like this girl. If an underage girl wants to, it's very easy for her to get a man arrested. Lie to him, have sex with him, and then bring him up on stat rape charges. The fact that this girl has done this multiple times proves that she is a predator.

If you wanted to draw a homicide parallel, though, you still can. Let's say a girl asked her friend for a candy bar. "Sure," says the friend. "There's nuts in it, is that alright?" he asks, knowing that a lot of people are allergic to nuts. "Oh that's fine," she says, and eats the candy bar. She dies, because she was hugely allergic to nuts and knew it. She entrapped her friend into killing her. Is that somehow his fault?

I can understand your argument that "I didn't know" should be disregarded when a man just says "Oh man I didn't know" and never bothered to check. Some guy having sex with a young girl might have suspicions that she is younger and ignore them because he wants to pretend he was innocent and tricked. But this man DID ask, and was provided what seemed legal proof that she was old enough. If you would convict him, then you must, by your own logic, convict alcohol vendors tricked by false IDs, and the friend-with-a-candy-bar mentioned above.

From:

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

Ah, well.

From:

I don't know the answer.

What is it?

From:

The answer as it stands right now is, "It depends from state to state". Statutory rape is a state crime, not a federal one. Some states DO allow intent as a factor of the crime. This state in question does not. Some states (Like Kansas, for example), are EXTREMELY strict in that boundary that is set up; others are more lenient.

In other words, this is not a black-and-white issue; the different rules across different states imply that there is a debate to be had here regarding intent and statutory rape. Thus, I find it surprising that you feel intent is irrelevant and not worth exploring.

The question then becomes "Why is intent not acceptable in THIS State", and "is this state's position on intent a worthy one", and "should other states adopt this state's approach? Why or why not?"

From:

Hmh. All right.

From:

Also, thanks.

From:

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.

From:

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?

From:

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.

From:

Yes.

We disagree.

Having sex someone with underage is against the law. If you do it, it's your fault, you committed a crime, and the justice system is not wrong for making you accountable for that crime.

"I didn't mean to do it!" is not a valid defense and establishing a precedent for making that a valid defense would do more harm in the long term, than good.

From:

"I didn't mean to do it!" is not a valid defense and establishing a precedent for making that a valid defense would do more harm in the long term, than good.

Uh, dude, you mentioned having taken a criminology class.

Did they not mention mens rea at any point during it?

For the vast majority of crimes, "I didn't mean to do it", or, more specifically, "I had no intent to do it and/or no reasonable way to predict that outcome" *IS* a valid affirmative defense.

As in, it is that way. Now. Right now. Has been for centuries.

From:

You know more about this than me, so good.

If I'm not mistaken, the standard for the United States is "ignorance of the law is no excuse." People are presumed to know the law, and can be charged with breaking the law even if they don't.

Does mens rea apply to liability offenses, which is what you called statutory rape earlier?

Also, doesn't mens rea only require some element of intent? He did intend to have sex with her, and she was underage, so he did break the law.

Anyway, as I've said, repeatedly now, I'm not a legal scholar so if I'm wrong, okay.

From:

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

From:

Better to mind your own business and leave mine alone.

(no subject)

From:

publius1.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-06-02 04:11 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

Another question...

Is mens rea a valid affirmative defense to completely rid someone of culpability for a crime, or does it just allow for someone to be charged with a less severe crime or to receive a less severe punishment?

From: