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

Wow...

[chrisrw109.livejournal.com]

There are any number of interesting notes on this case:

1) Intent is legally considered the trump of almost everything legally. So if you shoot someone you think is alive, you get attempted murder even if the body was already dead. From that standpoint, this guy really didn't do anything wrong (although... umm... just passed 18? Ask for ID).

2) The *only* reason this guy got caught? Is he had a concern for the 13 year-olds well-being and went to her dad. He doesn't do that? He doesn't get charged.

3) The parents knowing their daughter is a (*insert expletive here*) have made no attempts to rein in her behavior despite the precedent now of her inducing *two* people to commit a crime.

4) Anyone arguing that the girl is innocent or shouldn't be punished is an utter fool. The girl is well aware that what she's doing is wrong... if she wasn't she would not be using false pretenses to get the men in question to sleep with her.

5) This is the ultimate proof that 'statutory rape' laws are dangerous in their absolutism. Age is really a horrible indicator to use to determine someone's maturity level in general, and specifically in these cases we've seen many many many many cases where people have permanently ended up on the Sex Offender Registry list, for life for making what was at *WORST* a mistake, with no ill intent.

And before someone raises the 'But then how do we protect the children, are you saying it's okay for anyone to sleep with anyone' the answer is, no. But you can protect children the same way you protect mentally handicapped adults. You prove that they're not of sound mind to consent to sex, thus making it rape... that is after all the *INTENT* of statutory rape laws to say that, categorically, these people are not capable of consent.

(The ultimate example of this, taken to absolute extremes are the cases of young incredibly intelligent kids who graduate college at 15 or 16. What barometer tests whether they are or are not emotionally and intellectually capable of consent).

6) The fact that the parents didn't get locked up, is a travesty of justice.

Re: Wow...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Intent is legally considered the trump of almost everything legally.

Almost! See also, the discussion above on the definition of strict liability offenses!

Re: Wow...

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Also:
You prove that they're not of sound mind to consent to sex, thus making it rape... that is after all the *INTENT* of statutory rape laws to say that, categorically, these people are not capable of consent.

The problem with THAT is that you've just put the victim on trial, as the defense throws everything they can to prove that she DID know what she was doing, that she DID consent, and that she's TOTALLY capable of making that decision on her own.

Which, in a case like this, is okay.

In a lot of other cases, not so much.