“This story out of the heartland — northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan — deserves a bigger audience. Two teenagers meet via a hookup app but one turned out to be younger than the magic legal age. Now the older one is in jail for a misdemeanor, but once he’s served the time it gets even worse: 25 years of his future will be mortgaged to the Michigan sex offender registry.
“Often those charged with sex offenses are shamed into silence. What’s unusual is that this young man and his family are fighting back. The Andersons of Elkhart, IN have taken to the internet, social media, local newspapers and the courts. There are even ‘Justice 4 Zach’ t-shirts to drive home a poignant message about that scarlet letter, the sex offender registry.
The local paper, the Elkhart Truth, put the story (below) on the front page. In the nearby bigger city, the South Bend Tribune has also been covering and even carried an editorial about the case.
Here you go — boldface mine.
‘Old-fashioned scarlet letter’: Elkhart 19-year-old fights sex offender status after encounter with Michigan teen
ELKHART — As Zach Anderson sits in the Berrien County Jail in St. Joseph, Mich., his parents worry.
And plead.
And fight.
The young man from Elkhart, 19, pleaded guilty in Berrien County, Mich., Trial Court in March to a misdemeanor count of criminal sexual conduct for having sex — consensual sex — on Dec. 19, 2014, with a Niles, Mich., teen. She said she was 17, and met him in person after a whirlwind courtship in cyberspace that started with a meeting via the social app Hot or Not.
It turns out she was only 14, though, two years under the age of consent in Michigan. And now, Anderson finds himself sitting out a 90-day jail sentence, with another five years probation and, of particular concern to his parents, 25 years on Michigan’s sex offender registry. Worse yet, Les and Amanda Anderson, who run a small Elkhart media and printing company, fear their son could face a lifetime on Indiana’s sex offender registry on returning to the Elkhart area after his jail sentence is up.
“Here’s the thing: This mistake should not haunt him the rest of his life,” Les Anderson says from the family home in east Elkhart. That’s where his son — a 2014 Concord High School grad and Ivy Tech Community College student until his jailing — lived before Judge Dennis Wiley handed down the sentence on April 27.
In light of Zach Anderson’s age and clean criminal record, Wiley could have offered him leniency under Michigan’s Holmes Youthful Training Act, as his lawyer sought in sentencing. The Niles girl and her mom — whom the Elkhart Truth won’t name because the teen is a victim — even asked for leniency, asked that the case be dropped altogether.
“What do I say? I feel that nothing should happen to Zach,” the girl said at the first of his two sentencing hearings April 13, accompanied by her mother. “I, I mean I, I don’t know. I just … if you feel like something should, I feel like the lowest thing possible.”
Her mom followed her daughter at the hearing.
“I don’t want him to be a sex offender because he really is not and I know that there’s an age difference and I realize that (name deleted) was inappropriate that night, we didn’t know,” the mother said. She continued: “I’m very sorry and I hope you’ll really consider the fact of just dropping the case. I can’t say anything more than that. I hope you really will for all of our families.”
Wiley didn’t drop the case and ultimately denied Zach Anderson HYTA status, told him he’s “darn lucky” he got the deal he did. HYTA, geared to first-time offenders ages 17 to 21, allows eligible participants to expunge criminal convictions on complying with sentencing conditions, thus avoiding the stigma of a criminal record as they enter their adult years.
Read the rest here. Here is the Justice for Zach Facebook page. Here is the South Bend Tribune’s editorial. And here is what I have to say: Our sex offender laws are cruel, draconian and not making anyone safer. They must be overhauled, now. It is time to demand our lawmakers stop peddling the idea that these are making our kids safer. What if our kid is 19? – L
.
.
180 Comments
Google Judge Wiley. Some interesting history there.
This is a complicated situation. The sex offender registration seems overbearing in this case, excessive.
However, I don’t think that the victim petition to have the case dropped should have any sway. The concept of statutory rape is that people below a certain age are too immature to fully understand the consequences of sex and that others that are significantly older bear the responsibility to avoid sexual/intimate contact.
Now maybe 16 is too high of an age of consent, and that is a valid discussion. However, the victim excusing the fact shouldn’t count in the same way a victim of sexual abuse at home can’t excuse the perpetrator with a request to the judge of “don’t jail my parent/sibling/relative, because I need them and my life will be bad if they are sent away to jail”.
Maybe everyone should have to show ID before having sex! (Sarcasm)….I think consenting teenagers should be immune from sexual predator laws, period.
I don’t advocate a judge just doing as a victim directs. However, the victim’s statements are very relevant to a determination of how reprehensible the perpetrator’s acts are. Here, if the victim’s statements are consistent with him holding a reasonable belief that she was of age, then it is quite possible that a draconian sentence (and the sex offender registries are draconian in their effect) will cause more harm to the girl and her family than having early consensual sex ever could.
I’ve been following this case since I am from the St. Joe area (although I don’t live there anymore). Based on all the different accounts, she lied to him, her mother didn’t want him charged because the girl was in the wrong, and the judge decided to make an example of the guy. There are statements from the judge saying that the guy was a predator of young girls (no history of that) and he was using the Internet for sex, which the judge is very hard nosed about. No mention of the girl. I’m sorry, but he should not be on the registry. He shouldn’t be on parole. It was a mistake and I bet he will be checking IDs from now on.
“people below a certain age are too immature to fully understand the consequences of sex ”
Maybe she didn’t understand the “consequences”, but she was mature enough to form the plan to lie about her age, get on a dating website, and meet the guy for sex. She does not get a free pass, at least from me.
She isn’t a damn victim, not in any sense of the word. She is the one responsible for it all. Not him. She lied about her age. That is where it should end. And if the state needs to actually get its pound of flesh, charge, try and convict the girl.
I’m confused. If the girl’s family didn’t want to press charges, how did this ever even come to the court system?
Unsure about this state in particular, but where I’m from, the people don’t press charges. The police lay charges after consulting with the Crown Attorney.
Gina- I am serious about it. I am teaching my sons to get a picture of her ID on your phone before sex so you have proof you tried your honest best to find out her true age before having sex. I also would advise getting her on camera saying she is agreeing to sex. Just get her saying “yes”. Call me overly paranoid but I don’t want my sons on the sex offender registry. Too many girls lie about their age or lie about being forced nowadays.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. If a 14 year old committed a crime, many times the prosecution would seek to treat them as an adult – but lying about your age and seeking out sex doesn’t confer this status. The only way to convince a court that a 14 year is a thinking being with agency is to commit a crime. Until they do that, they’re victims with no ability to reason or think. This is absolutely absurd.
Sure, the older person is supposed to know better; that’s the basis for statutory rape laws. But you can only know better if you know the age of the person you’re sleeping with. People can’t reasonably be expected to ‘know better’ than to be lied to.
SOA,
Yes you are paranoid, and you are insane. Enough said.
To Catch a Predator: Remember that show where they trap predators by having a grown adult/cop pretend to be an underage child online. Over and over in the transcripts, they will lie and say they are 13 or 14, so the pedophile knows without a doubt that they are underage. They convince the predator to meet for sex. They have an over-18 actor who looks young pose as the “underage child” and ask them to get naked, get the condoms for sex, etc. And then when the actor leaves, the camera crew descends, followed by the cops for an arrest.
So in the story in this post, the 19-year old boy thought he was having sex with a 17 year-old girl, which would have been legal. But in convicting/sentencing him, intent doesn’t matter, that she lied about her age doesn’t matter, only the fact that she was underage matters, even though there was no way for him to know that she was underage.
So does that mean the predators on the show should all be pardoned, since they never actually had any sexual interactions with anyone underage. Since the adults all lied about being underage, the intent doesn’t matter, right?
I don’t understand how they can have it both ways.
Maybe there should be two separate kinds of statutory rape. Just like there is a difference between first degree murder and manslaughter, there should be different kinds of statutory rape that takes into account intent and whether the accused knew the victim was underage.
In our legal system, there is a process for people who technically have violated the law but should not be punished according to the statutory punishment, and that process is clemency.
He’s guilty of the crime he was charged with and convicted of.
We (collectively) want laws that protect young girls from being preyed on by older men. A statutory age of consent, however, robs those girls capable of deciding for themselves of the power to make that decision. You won’t find many people in places of authority willing to defend the idea that teenage girls are capable of deciding to have sex if they want to. Saying this tends to just lead to people responding that (obviously) you just want to have sex with young girls. (Oddly, if women stand up and say that age-of-consent laws are set at too high an age, very few people accuse them of just wanting to have sex with young boys.)
What we need is a three-tiered system.
In the first tier, it’s just illegal to have sex with that person, period. This should apply to pre-pubescent children.
In the second tier, you have a rebuttable presumption that persons in that age are not capable of proper consent to have sex. A “rebuttable presumption” is legal-speak for “unless there is evidence to the contrary, this is what we think”. So, if the defense can bring forth evidence that the person is below the age, but is capable of forming a mature, informed, decision on whether or not to enter a sexual relationship, then the consent to do so is valid. This would cover the age range between sexual maturity (puberty) and legal adulthood (majority).
In the third tier, you have a rebuttable presumption that persons in this age range are capable of proper consent. The prosecutor would need to show that some condition (developmental delay) causes this person to be incapable of meaningful consent, in order to prosecute someone for having sex with this person. This would cover people who are no longer “minors”, but is not necessarily tied to age of majority.
“Unsure about this state in particular, but where I’m from, the people don’t press charges. The police lay charges after consulting with the Crown Attorney.”
In the U.S., there is no Crown, so the crown prosecutors work directly for “the people”. In criminal cases, the parties to the lawsuit are “the people of (jurisdiction) vs. (defendant), usually abbreviated to “state vs. defendant” or “U.S. vs defendant” for federal cases)
This is also why the case went forward even though the victim didn’t want it to… the prosecutor doesn’t work for the victim, specifically, but for all the citizens of the jurisdiction he or she represents.
As a civil libertarian, I think statutory rape laws need to change, maybe to a similar model to the one that was used in the Netherlands in the 90s, which Judith Levine talks about in Harmful to Minors.
No interaction between an adult and a minor–because he is a legal adult, and she a legal minor–can be located outside of power. And if this power imbalance in itself is enough to render a particular behavior immoral/illegal, then all adult-minor interactions are immoral (and should in turn be made illegal), because none exist outside of power structures.
“Yes, I get that, but sex is particularly wrong because, in addition, it is also harmful!”
Or maybe not, say some academics [cue sad trumpet sound]:
http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=430
While I understand and agree that being on El Reg for 25 years is a serious overshot for the kind of offence, I am not so sure about the demand to pardon the offence in the first place. An adult teenager meeting a younger girl should by all means be fully aware that it matters – for him! – whether she’s two years younger or five years. He should have ways of finding out if he cared. I want to see y’all if he had impregnated her and she had started wailing “I didn’t want this to happen, I didn’t think of the consequences, he should have!”
“An adult teenager meeting a younger girl should by all means be fully aware that it matters — for him! — whether she’s two years younger or five years. He should have ways of finding out if he cared.”
He’s liable even if she provides him with faked ID showing legal age.
uh, she lied about her age. According to feminists, that’s rape by fraud. She should be in jail, not him.
If I remember it correctly, the reason for which statutory rape laws admit zero or near-zero exceptions to absolute age thresholds is that, in the past, this was used by shoddy businesses to outright flaunt it and engage in child prostitution/abuse.
For instance, some decades ago somebody who was in a 21+ bar/club/venue and met a minor there could get him/herself excluded from any culpability by arguing that they were on a 21+ place and couldn’t possibly expect a minor being there. So some of these business teamed up with child pimps and let teenagers go there work their ‘trade’ and nobody got punished.
“She appears as an adult and behaves as an adult” also used to be a standard criminal defense, one especially used regarding people picking prostitutes up on streets, or flirting with girls seen drinking/smoking/scantly dressed (I’d hold the opposite situation of older women/young boy equally disgusting).
That is why these absolute age of consent laws were passed, closing all loopholes. That was all before the Internet was around.
Now I do agree that:
– 16 is too old an age of consent regarding an adult that is only 19 years old (if the adult was 25 or 30 or older, I’d agree anyone below 18 is too young, period). The median age of first sexual activity (that would be legally classified as sex) for contemporary American teens is 15.9.
– using the sex offender registration to effectively further punish the guy is absurd, and the way the registry has become almost meaningless now that most people on it are not really risky sex predators people should be on the lookout for
– the judge is appalling in letting his own personal views about online dating interfere with his judgment
@James Pollock
The three tiered system sounds good. I would go a step further and also propose more tiers in terms of the actual punishment.
After all, some “unwanted behaviour” is going on, and that kind of behaviour is sanctioned by the laws. The problem seems to be that a single day in age difference can make all the difference between sex being perfectly legal and the law doing a its counterpart of a nuclear strike on the delinquent, namely statutory rape conviction and sex offender registration.
I think some kind of intermediate response is missing there. Something like a bunch of hours of community service and a stern warning not to do it again but neither jail nor registration if the age difference is not too big and if it’s a first offence. Just so that it doesn’t completely screw up a teenager’s life if he or she makes a mistake once.
But of course even if that were in place, it would only be a question of time until someone indeed does violate the law twice and then people will come screaming, “why wasn’t he jailed the first time?!”
Also, i wonder how the girl feels about this. Knowing that her actions completely messed up that boy’s life may be far worse for her than whatever he did to her. In that sense the law may have achieved the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.
Another thing that i wonder about: What if two underage teenagers of exactly equal age have sex with each other? Does that count as “mutual statutory rape” then, and both get convicted?
The same question may apply to drunk people who by law can’t give informed consent anymore – is it then a matter of “who is more drunk”?
“A Scarlet Letter”– *that* is the term I’ve been trying to come up with to describe these things!
Dolly, how old are your sons..6? 8? And you’ve already taught them about sex, and the bad girls who will try to have it with them, and given them a step-by-step process for avoiding those bad girls?
I call bs.
There is a lot of “what we need” answers on here. Well, here is another.
What we need are laws and ordinances that are based on facts and empirical evidence. That would eliminate the public registry and public notification right away and place the registry in the hands of law enforcement only.
What we need are laws that distinguish between horny teenagers making stupid decisions and predatory acts which actually pose a risk to the public.
@Thomas, he should have ways of finding out “if he cared”?
Huh. Is there a True Age Registry that I’m not aware of? Is he supposed to go to the Hall of Records and get a copy of her birth certificate? Have a sit-down with her parents and confirm her age, like SO many boys do before having sex with daughters?
I don’t think caring has anything to do with it. He trusted her to tell the truth about her age and he got, ha, screwed.
Anything that has a penis needs to be locked away immediately!
I know this kid personally, he was a student of mine. He made a mistake, but in no way does the punishment fit the crime. He is not a Sex Offender, he is a kid who made a mistake. The girl lied about her age & admittedly so.
My heart breaks for this family!
Help them out & go to their Facebook page & donate money. This case needs an appeal, but that is at a huge cost.
Your support by commenting is great, but a donation of any amount would really help this family.
Repost this story & spread the word to help Zach.
Thomas,
Your what if scenario is not what happened here. If you are using that as a justification for the charges and sentence then you need to worry.
Prisons will need to be built to handle all those arrested because of possible outcomes that never happened.
Thomas she lied drawing him into committing a crime. If she knew that the result of her lie would result in a crime, she should have been the one charged and convicted.
@JKP
“I don’t understand how they can have it both ways.”
Exactly correct. Pick a set of rules and consistently follow it.
I think I’m going back to advocating for good ol’ fashioned “don’t have sex until after you’re married” sex ed, not because I’m a prude, but because that seems the only way of keeping young men out of jail.
Having dealt with this judge personally on a case involving our son, I can honestly say that the impression I received from him is that anyone walking into his courtroom is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. And, even if you prove yourself innocent, he will not easily back down. You pray that your attorney and the prosecutor can work together well (and that doesn’t always work either).
I feel for this family and wish them all the luck in the world. I believe if they had been in front of any other judge, this likely would not be happening to them.
Godspeed, Anderson Family!
Who’s the victim here? What’s the crime? There’s lawfully wrong and then there’s morally wrong, and in this case the two are lightyears apart.
Why are the American authorities so obsessed with teens’ sex lives anyway??
@To be kind, James Pollock: AFAIK Dutch law in the 90s was somewhat like to James’ three tier system. Basically having sex with a person under 12 was never okay, between 12 and 16 was technically illegal but the teen and/or her parents had to press charges (while under James’ system the consenting underaged teen would potentially have to prove over and over again that she really wants to have sex with her boyfriend – and what if authorities deem the proof unconvincing?), 16 and older was always okay (apart from teacher/coach/trainer – student relationships, but that has to do with power rather than age).
Not too long ago the second tier was changed so the police can press charges even when the girl and her family don’t, because they wanted to be able to go after loverboys (‘a male who starts a relationship with a young girl and provides material support to make her dependent on him, only to later demand repayment of that support, usually through forced prostitution’) and other such miscreants, even when the girl(s) is (are) too deluded (“in love”) or scared to press charges against him.
So technically the age of consent is 16, though I doubt many teens know or care about that, because the police have better things to do than to go after young people who have consensual sex with other young people. Apprehending girls who abduct ponies and take them on train rides, for example 😛
Nowadays, American kids are more physically mature than they were 50 years ago. Perhaps it’s the hormones they put in the food nowadays, I really don’t know. But my hunch is this girl was 14 going on 21. So now the 19-year-old guy is being labeled a pervert by American society because he had sex with a 14-year-old girl. Since the girl is a minor, unfortunately her picture cannot be shown. But if it could, perhaps more people would side with the 19-year-old after seeing how physically mature she looked. Just my hunch.
Yikes! Gotta say…when I was 15 I convinced a 21 year old Navy guy I was 18. Did I know what I was doing? Not really. (But 15 year old me thought I did!) Did I get in over my head. YES! Was it his fault? NOT AT ALL! I looked very mature for my age, and most of the time I acted it. At one point I think he figured out how young I really was and broke things off pretty much immediately. I’m sure the poor guy freaked out about possibly getting in trouble. I’m glad he didn’t, because I was 100% consensual and I was the one that lied and misled him.
I don’t understand how this relates to free range kids. At all.
I think the girl should also have some sort of consequence. Isn’t it illegal to provide someone with false information that leads to a criminal act? If he had know she was 14 would he have still had sex with her? I think the fact she lied about her age should have absolved him from the crime or at least lessened his consequences.
How does that work?
In Wisconsin-
My 16 year old neice (on my husband’s side) had been having sex with a 20 year old since she was 13. My husband told the police.
They went to the house, my neice admitted to it, BUT and my husband’s brother said he “would talk to the boy” because “he didn’t want to ruin anyone’s life.”
My husband followed up with the police who told him that since his brother was not pressing charges they would not be contuing.
8 month ago she gave birth to a baby boy– guess who the father was. There was even dna testing done because she wants to try to get child support from the guy (since they are currently no longer dating.)
AND!!!! she is the 3rd underage girl he had a child with.
WTF? Why is this man not in jail, but a 19 yearold who makes one mistake is!
If the girl’s family had no interest in prosecuting Zach & he didn’t turn himself in, how did the case even come to light to be pursued legally? Is she pregnant or have STD as a result and a doctor reported it?
While I understand the reason for setting legal age of consent is to protect minors, Zach is barely beyond minor himself (19) and, it is my understanding, honestly believed this girl to be of the age of consent she said she was (17) – this does not seem a case where Zach acted as a “predator” knowingly engaging in sex with an underage girl (14) but rather believing he was a consenting partner of legal age – there is no law stating ID exchange as a prerequisite for sex (although, it wouldn’t shock me to see the day that law would be passed) – it is more than reasonable to say Zach honestly believed this girl at her word (especially if she looks older, which some teen girls do – and 14 is only 2 years shy of consenting age)
Sex Offender Registries are meant to protect the public from predators, not people making honest mistakes – clearly, the sex was not forced (rape) – the girl admitted engaging under false pretenses (claiming to be of legal age 17) – the girl & even her mom acknowledge their belief that no crime was committed – I do not see any benefit in ruining this young man’s life by labeling him under the same broad term used to define true predators seeking nonconsentual, violent or underage sex
My heart goes out to both families, particularly the victims – Zach & the unnamed girl – immaturity often influences poor judgment, the girl may even have a more serious mental health issue causing her to have lied about something so important and seek out sex at such a young age – now the situation spiraled out of control and even her pleas and her mom’s can’t save poor Zach from the consequences of her actions – now she will have to live with the guilt she clearly feels – as for Zach, he has to fight to remove the worst possible label a man could have – if & when he has a family, he wouldn’t be able to take his kids to a park or chaperone a field trip or even allow his children to host sleepovers because of his record and could face stigma from other families if they find out about his status, especially not knowing the backstory
That being said, it is so important to raise teen awareness to the risks involved in sex beyond the obvious (STDs, pregnancy, etc) – there were 2 lives ruined, hers & his – perhaps the girl will leave the situation with a valuable lesson in character about the importance of honesty but the price paid for the benefit of that lesson by poor Zach is beyond unjust
I said I am “teaching” that means it a process. First steps I have taken are Don’t trust what people say just because they say it. People can and will lie to get what they want. Find proof, cover your ass.
That is the first step.
why in the world is the court getting involved. both partys are totally fine and now this court has to decide that it is his fault.
and this is one of those things. I have never known a kid that got kidnapped or murdered. But I have known girls who lie about their ages or lie about rape. Oh I could name about 20 who did this. So yeah, this is something I truly worry about and if that make me paranoid so be it. Because I actually am surrounded by this. I saw it all the time when I was a teen. Had three girls admit to me they lied about being raped. THREE!
“Another thing that i wonder about: What if two underage teenagers of exactly equal age have sex with each other? Does that count as “mutual statutory rape” then, and both get convicted?”
Statutory rape laws are generally written with “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions, that provide that being of approximately equal age (exactly how close they have be can vary; in my state it’s 3 years) is a valid defense.
@SOA Ten years ago, I probably would have also said paranoia – not today. My wife and I spent some time a few weeks ago trying to figure our how one could ensure consent in the academic/university realm. The best we could come up with was a deadman’s switch for all participants (to ensure ongoing consent) and an over-site committee to watch the proceedings and intervene (since there clauses that said consent could be withdrawn on the basis of willing parties using bad judgment…). This is obviously absurd; however, given how out of control the laws/rules surrounding sex have become checking ID to avoid statutory rape laws is not out of line. (That said, I expect that if the underage use a fake ID, the older not be let off the hook.) Recording consent is useless as consent can be withdrawn and at best you’re back to he said / she said. (Perhaps a video camera and regulating asking for affirmative consent – again absurd.)
@Michelle Charging is done by the state, not the victim. Often if the victim refuses to cooperate the state will not have evidence to proceed, but a victim pressing charges is not necessary. (Some states (e.g. Ohio) will allow people to petition the court for charges against others, but this is uncommon in my experience). All you really need is a DA that wants to prosecute (many of the elected ones are motivated to do so to show they are tough on crime and ensure funding).
While I believe changing the statutory rape laws and sex offender registry laws is necessary, I suspect doing so would be political suicide.
It is absolutely ridiculous for this boy to be placed on the sex-offender registry! It was supposed to be about keeping kids safe from sick adults, and that is not the case here at all. There needs to be some clause put into these laws to exclude situations where the “victim” and “criminal” are close in age (and both at or close to the age of consent). There should also be something to throw a conviction out if the “victim” admits to deceiving the “criminal”.
When you are 14 (8th grade, freshman in high school) you know exactly what sex is, even if you’ve never had it. There’s only one reason a young girl lies about her age to an older boy. There should be some charge for the female’s deception of the older boy because she set him up.
Years ago Chappelle’s Show did a skit with the “Love Contract,” a paper that the woman had to sign before having sex, so that she couldn’t later claim it was in any way not what she wanted, including information on which specific acts she was agreeing to. It was a joke then, but it’s becoming quite real now. I’m guessing that’s what will be expected, along with copies of photo-ID, possibly a notary there to prove that their identities are real. Sad that it has to come to that.
SOA,
Your education of the devious females will save your sons. It will insure they never have sex before they are about 30. Because every woman they meet before then and ask for ID’s and confirmed consent will think they your sons are weird and will send the ladies running.
Please stop ruining their lives with your insanity and paranoia.
Suz,
Really? You don’t understand how these laws, cases and ideals will not affect our kids, your kids, grandkids and all kids for generations?
How they are treating a 14 yr old liar, as a small innocent child that couldn’t possibly know what she is doing. Instead of treating her like the liar, manipulator and accomplice in the crime that she is.
If that were my daughter, she would be paying for this for a long long time. Her actions have cost this man his future, why should she walk away free and clear.
For those wondering about how the boy could have avoided this situation, possibly not jumping into bed with this girl so quickly might have given him time to spot the clues to her real age.
I don’t say that it’s fair what has happened, or that there is anything to be ashamed of in having sex on a first date, but if you are thinking it was *all* her fault because she lied, it’s not.
H
I realize this idea will probably get hopped all over, but….wait for it….what if he had GOTTEN TO KNOW HER before sleeping with her? Gasp! I totally agree our sex offender laws are not ideal and need reformed. However, so much heartache could be avoided if our kids could be shown that restraint is okay! And no, I’m not old.
This one leaves me a little queasy, only because there was a case in Sweden that ruled the other way and it set a rather scary precedent and basically annulled all statutory laws — The girl was held responsible even though some boys got her drunk and then had sex with her, after she said she was 17 and not he real age of 14.
She may have ‘put herself’ in the situation, but if you have statutory rape laws because minors cannot be responsible for these decisions, she was not responsible. 14 year olds don’t make great decisions, that is why these laws are there.
If the ‘adult’ in the situation is not the one responsible for ascertaining the age of the minor in the situation, then the responsibility for the whole situation goes back on the minor. And the whole point of statutory laws is to take the responsibility away from the minor and put it solely on the adult.
While I have many issues with the sex offender list, and don’t feel this person should be placed on one, if you are going to have statutory rape laws, then the burden of responsibility does lie with the 19 year old, not with the lying 14 year old. It is the ‘adult’s job to make sure they know how old their partner really is.
@Heather – I disagree – Granted, this young man may not have the highest morals; however, I disagree that he bears fault in this case – the article says they met “via a hook-up app” – last time I checked, that meant casual sex and I’m also pretty sure those Apps/Sites have minimum age requirements (which this girl would also have had to lie about her age to access)
Why would people meeting “via a hook-up app” have any expectation other than hooking up? That’s the point of the app
@Vicky – I disagree that a 14 year old is mature enough to fully understand sex beyond the mechanics – minors are labeled such for a reason – they lack the maturity to make major life decisions – sex is a major life decision with many consequences involved – just like alcohol consumption and tobacco use also legally restricted from minors – highly sexualized young girls are typically behaving that way due to much deeper seated mental health issues – sex is not a typical behavior for 14 year olds
I really don’t understand why an adult having sex with a willing and initiating underage person doesn’t receive a charge along the lines of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” the way they would if they engaged with the minor in other inappropriate activities like drinking or using drugs.
I do understand that we don’t want those above the age of majority having sex with those under the age of consent, and that’s fine. We do need to realize that there’s not pathological about a guy in this late teens or twenties finding a post-pubescent teen girl attractive (it is not pedophilia, and in fact would have been the norm for much of human history), but it’s totally fine for us to want to discourage it via the legal system. But we do so in such a disproportionate way. Treating sexual contact with a willing, post-pubescent teen as basically on the same level as forcible offenses or offenses against prepubescent children is ridiculous.
Our sex offender registries are full of men who, in their late teens or early to mid twenties, made a one-time mistake about sexual contact (something just virtual, like receiving or sending a pic) with a willing, post-pubescent teen girl. These young men were wrong, and some consequences are warranted. But, they are not pedophiles and they are not predators. Placing them on a sex offender registry for 25 years to life serves no purpose. It makes nobody safer (Does anybody really think this guy, even if he knew this girl was underage, poses a threat to the children in the area? Because, in reality, if your post-pubescent teen daughter is going to seek out older guys for hook-ups, there is no list in the world that is going to stop her from finding somebody), and it means that, for over two decades, this young man will likely find it impossible or near-impossible to find employment or housing. Is this what we want? Is this justice?
There’s only one or two other countries in the world with public sex offender registries, and NONE put statutory offenders on the list. This is an insane American peculiarity that has devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men (and many more to come) for absolutely no good reason. Once these men have served their legal sentence, they should be free–like murderers, drug dealers, domestic abusers, carjackers, drunk drivers, armed robbers, and those who commit violent assaults–to move on with their lives.
I am the wife of a registered sex offender (arrested in a sting in an adult sex chat room when he was in his mid 20s). He is actually more restricted today than he was when he was on probation! For his probation, the prosecutor and judge took into consideration the nature of his offense and his risk assessment, deemed him very low risk, and put almost no restrictions on his movements. He was free to go to parks, schools, playgrounds, etc. (His probation restrictions mostly revolved around therapy and internet use.) However, state law passed a few years later means that he can no longer do things he was allowed to do while on probation, because all SOs are painted with the same brush. And, a violation is a felony sex offense. So, if my husband were to take his young children to a playground near a school, he would be guilty of a felony sex offense that could land him in prison. He successfully completed his probation a decade ago. A person who had been arrested for selling drugs to middle school students would be allowed to take their kids to the middle school playground the day after their probation ended (or before), but my husband will not be allowed to attend the high school graduation of his three oldest children.
You can say he was wrong and he screwed up and he should have known better, and that is all true. But that doesn’t mean that any and all consequences we want to throw at him are just. I mean, he should have known better, so why not castrate him? Why not execute him? Drunk drivers should know better, why not lock them up for life? Drug dealers know better, why not execute them? There are many offenses for which some punishment is warranted, but the punishment we currently give is excessive. That is absolutely the case for statutory sex offenses.
As to the issue of “But we need statutory laws!”, I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t mean the way we do them is the only or best way. First, age of consent has varied enormous through history and varies around the world. In some countries 13 is the age of consent; in others it is 18. Second, maturity varies. A lot. I know 17 year olds less mature than some 14 year olds. Do we really want to say that no 15 year old is old enough to consent to sex but every 16 year old is? But that’s what these laws say.
There are European countries that a I think have a better system. People between a certain age (usually 14-16 or 14-17 or 14-18) are basically considered *maybe* able to give consent. If there’s any indication of manipulation, abuse of power, use of gifts, grooming, etc., then the sex is illegal. If there is not, then it is legal. In a case where a teen knowingly and purposefully goes to an adult dating site to meet a guy, that would not be statutory rape (unless he manipulated her, coerced her, or offered gifts/money/stuff in exchange for sex). However, if a teen that same age were minding their own business and an adult set out to manipulate or coerce them into sex, that would be a statutory offense.
That makes a lot more sense to me than one-size-fits-all laws, where a 19 year old virgin sleeping with an initiating 15 year old who already has had half a dozen partners is charged with the same offense as a 35 year old guy who sleeps with his 14 year old student. If a teen commits a crime, the court has some discretion over whether or not to charge them as an adult, based on the circumstances. I don’t see why the same should not apply in these cases, and the courts should have some discretion to determine whether or not the teen should be legally treated like a child or like an adult.
@Suz,
The issue because parents often people point to the sex offender registry as proof that the world is awful, and that it is not safe to let their children out. Parents who are just doing right by their kids don’t really know if the “pedophile” next door was just a horny teen a few years back, or a child rapist. And that matters.
Some people lock their kid up fearful that they are surrounded by people who kidnap and rape kids, and keep their children locked up into their teens. Some realize they don’t know but understandably don’t want to take needless risks.
This spring the back fence in a family member’s yard fell down. My sister-in-law posted on face book with a lament. A few people said cool double size yard, and she responded that it was effectively no yard at all. She couldn’t let her kids out in the back yard, because of the sex offender in the adjacent property.
I absolutely don’t want my nieces to be sent out alone to play if their yard is now open to the back yard of a pedophile or child pornographer. But it could just as well be a guy like this one, a former horny teen who had sex with his girl/boyfriend of a similar age, or someone who sexted. If the former, my nieces got protected. If the latter, they lost their outdoor play, during the best weather of the year for nothing.
That is why cases like this are a free range issue.
This is NOT complicated. This is zero tolerance still running amok. Universities continue to double down, triple down, and quadruple down on zero tolerance ideas like this. “Was she drunk? OK, then no consent. Never mind whether he was drunk.” “Was she under 17? Ok, never mind whether she blatantly lied in order to seduce him.”
@Joanne, you are right that alcohol and nicotine are also prohibited to minors. (And, for longer than sex: the age of consent in most states is 16, but you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes and 21 to consume alcohol.) But, if a 15 year old gets drunk–of her own accord, not because she’s forced–with a 22 year old, they are BOTH legally responsible for what they are doing. He will certainly face more consequences, but the charge will be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, not drugging a minor, because we understand that she was acting of her own accord and bears some responsibility.
I’m not sure why that goes out the window with sex. Statutory sex offenses should exist, but they should not be major felonies. How many generations would most of us have to go back before we found a relative who would have been a statutory offender under today’s laws? How many of us engaged in sex with either an older guy (if we’re female) or a younger girl (if we’re male) when we were younger? My best friend dated guys 5-10 years older than her all through high school. It was 20 years ago, and it was a bit odd and technically illegal, but this was right before sex offender hysteria took root and nobody batted an eye or called her boyfriends pedophiles. And, they weren’t. No pedophile would be interested in a post-pubescent teen.
Again, there is not another country in the world that puts statutory offenders on a public registry. Is every other country on earth wildly irresponsible? Are young people there in peril? It doesn’t appear to be the case. If this young man were simply facing a few years probation, that would seem fair to me. But 25 years of the registry–imperiling his employment, education, relationships, housing, and even his life–is not in any way a just or reasonable consequence, even if he had known her age. The registry was intended to be a list of people who, if a child went missing, might have committed crimes that would lead us to believe they might have raped and murdered a child. It was never intended to be a list of guys who, if our teen daughters came on to them, would give in to temptation. (And, let’s be real, there’d never be a list long enough for that.)
This happened to my nephew, except she didn’t lie about her age. He knew she was 14… he was 18 when it happened. He did over a year in jail, is on probation for 3 years, and has to register as a sex offender for 10 years. It sucks for the guy in this article, but when you’re willing to hop in bed with someone you hardly know, sometimes this is the consequence. Here’s a thought… next time get to know the person first before you are so quick to hop in the sack with them. And if there is any doubt, why not just as to see their ID? It’s best to protect yourself above all. Yes, it’s a complicated situation, but the law has to draw clear lines or else people will constantly push the bar.
@Korn, punishments should fit the crime. “Sometimes that’s the consequence” is NOT a valid argument for a bad law. An 18 who sleeps with a 14 year old does NOT deserve to have his entire future ruined because of it. He just doesn’t. Bad laws are bad laws even if the people they are applied to have done something wrong.
The sex offender registry is NOT necessary. There are states where statutory offenders are kept off the public list (like Minnesota and some states in New England); those states do NOT have higher rates of statutory offenses (and in fact have rates of sex crimes). No other country puts statutory offenders on the public registry (and most have no public registry at all), and they also do not have higher rates of statutory offenses. The public registry does not deter people from engaging in statutory offenses, or any sex crime, but it does mean that actions that just two decades ago most of society would have shrugged at will now ruin your life.
Are we really saying that males who engage in casual sex deserve to have their lives ruined? Because that’s what it sounds like. Yes, they should be more discerning. I personally would love to see everybody wait until marriage for sex. But, that does mean that we can resort to cruel, unjust, and draconian tactics in order to deter hook-up culture, especially when it’s only the males who feel the consequences.
Crazy. In Canada we have a three tiered system that is amazingly relatively sensible, and would apply in this situation:
The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years, or 18 years where the sexual activity “exploits” the young person (when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency).
A 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the “solemnization” of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).
There is also a “close-in-age” exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
This judge is the one who should be in jail.
If a girl claims to be and appears to be of adult age – how can someone prove she’s not. Was Zach supposed to use his magic powers to know the truth? This judge (and the DA who charged the boy) is abusing their authority, and are more criminal than the people they send to jail, because they’re supposed to know better, and are sworn to uphold the law.
“Was Zach supposed to use his magic powers to know the truth?”
The other side of this argument is “if you don’t know someone well enough to know how old they are, you don’t know them well enough to have sex with them.”
Statutory rape is a “strict liability” offense… the ONLY thing that matters is the actual age of the underage person. This makes it simple to adjudicate, at the expense of denying the agency of some persons below the statutory age but otherwise fully prepared for making his or her own decisions.
Most people accept the side effect that it makes older people think twice before engaging is sex with anyone who looks young.
Isn’t it time we reformed our sex offender laws? We have been sold a bill of goods by politicians, but this is our country, and these are our laws. Isn’t it time for a change? Situations like Zach’s point out the flaws in our legal system that need change. First awareness. Then action.
“Isn’t it time we reformed our sex offender laws?”
Politicians who suggest ANY “weakening” of sex offender laws can expect to be BLITZED by “candidate X supports sex offenders over citizens” campaign ads in the next election. You win elections by being “tough on crime”, not by being actually effective on crime.
Heather and Crystal,
Thank you for speaking for all the prudes, and dreamers. The girl lied. She is 100% responsible for all of this. I know so many people love to think that a 14 yr old girl is still innocent……………..give your blue wigs a shake. 14 yr old girls can be liars, manipulators and sluts just as well as they can when they are adults.
James,
You are still being an idiot. The girl lied repeatedly, in order to knock boots with this guy. She should be the one facing charges not him.
“The girl lied. She is 100% responsible for all of this.”
Legally, this is 100% incorrect. Morally, it’s only partly correct. It takes two to tango, as they say.
“James, You are still being an idiot.”
You keep using this word incorrectly. It’s like it’s your fallback when you can’t counter what someone else says.
“The girl lied repeatedly, in order to knock boots with this guy.”
Both true.
“She should be the one facing charges not him.”
That’s not the way the legal system works. Or has ever worked. Or will ever work. Other than that, you’re dead-on.
JKP – Great point. If a girl is of age, but says she isn’t – the guy is guilty. If she isn’t of age, but says she is – the guy is guilty. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Yes, it takes two to tango. But only one of those tangoing were aware that the tango was illegal. I recognize it’s a strict liability law – I just happen to think most strict liability laws are absurd. Maybe a rebuttable presumption of guilt makes sense once the facts are established, but laws that say ‘the bartender is guilty, no matter if she shows him 50 fake IDs’ just strict me as insane.
I agree it’s quite hard as a politician to get ahead by not being tough on crime. As James Carville pointed out, it’s hard to get ahead by doing much of anything other than promising the middle class a better economy – taking stands on oppressive social issues is just a liability, as is, gasp, talking about the poor instead of the middle class, since the poor don’t vote as much. But leaders should lead – we need statesmen, not politicians. The job of a leader is not to follow public opinion, but to help mold and shape it, through inspirational leadership. That’s what I see lacking in far too many politicians today. I see some rays of light emerging, in the form of leaders stepping onto the national stage (some of whom I agree with, many of whom I don’t on many issues) who behave in the statesman manner – but there’s far too few, and they’re far outnumbered by ideologues and those who lick a finger to see which way the wind is blowing.
” If a girl is of age, but says she isn’t — the guy is guilty.”
Of what?
@ Ducky and Chet: Yes, the prosecutor is the one who files charges against citizens, but who told them??? I’m with Joanne and Michelle. If the girl and her family didn’t want to pursue charges against the boy, how did it even come to the attention of the police and, therefore, the DA?
First, I am not a prude. I don’t care what consenting adults do. I actually don’t have a real problem with the statutory crimes or with the punishment. I think there have been some other options discussed (from other countries) that seem to make more sense then ours. Maybe reform is needed. But when I read comments calling a 14 year old a slut (and several other of the comments) I am reminded of exactly why it is so important for our society to protect children. In spite of behavior, how someone looks, acts ect. 14 years old is not an adult. People lie sometimes. Men, women, teenagers, children. Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your actions. Casual sex with basically strangers in this “teen” category caries very specific risks, obviously.
As far as the public sex registry – i am and always have been against it. In California you can be listed for peeing in public, flashing your tits at a party, teenagers “mooning” from a car… the list goes on, and on, and on. I have always felt that the public SO registry was innately unfair even to actual predators. Once you have served your sentence and done your probation /parole I don’t think you should have ongoing punishment. If society feels so strongly about it, they should fight for longer sentencing for sexual predators. I also feel that it gives the general public a false sense of security. The fact is that the vast majority of children who are the victims of sexual abuse are victimized by someone they know. Not the scary stranger.
@James Pollock: “Statutory rape is a “strict liability” offense… the ONLY thing that matters is the actual age of the underage person. This makes it simple to adjudicate, at the expense of denying the agency of some persons below the statutory age but otherwise fully prepared for making his or her own decision.”
“Simple” is fine, but by making only age matter you exclude so many relevant issues that it becomes “too simple” aka “dumb”. You cannot oversimplify such a complex problem and still correctly address it. Moreover if you want to simplify things you have to do it in favor of innocence, since the basic principle is that it’s better to leave guilty people out than getting innocent people in.
In most countries age doesn’t matter if the perpetrator had a reasonable belief that the “victim” was above the age of consent. Might make things a little harder to decide, but definitely allows for more sensible decisions.
A classic! Boys are evil and girls are always the helpless victims – even when the girl admits she lied. Traditional macho nonsense.
Where is justice fair & balanced in this situation? Is the boy supposed to ask for a certified birth certificate before any dating occurs? Or vice-versa? What happens if one of the two parties involved has a fake ID? I guess we really ARE moving toward a more cloistered 7th Century mentality of waiting until the marriage before a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE who will verify the people in the union & then when it grows old in say 2 weeks as is the want during this age range, the state will get a legal fee for a ‘divorce’. What a racket!
@James Pollock:
“Statutory rape laws are generally written with “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions, that provide that being of approximately equal age (exactly how close they have be can vary; in my state it’s 3 years) is a valid defense.”
Some, but not all. Upon reading upon this matter i found out that most states at least do not consider it full statutory rape though, but a lesser crime.
E.g. in California *both* participants in the intercourse are charged with a misdemeanor.
“E.g. in California *both* participants in the intercourse are charged with a misdemeanor.”
In practice, or just in theory?
“What happens if one of the two parties involved has a fake ID?”
This was answered previously, and the answer is… it doesn’t matter. The ONLY thing that matters is what the actual age of the person was at the time of the sexual act. (Note that if you take photos, too, you can face state and/or federal child porn charges, too. And if these pics are shared, as they often are, everyone who touches them may face charges.)
“”Simple” is fine, but by making only age matter you exclude so many relevant issues that it becomes “too simple” aka “dumb””
Don’t confuse my explanation of how the law works for an argument that it is as it should be. I happen to be opposed to strict liability (as my commentary above shows), not because I think older guys should be allowed to have sex with younger girls, but because I think younger girls should be allowed to decide for themselves who they have sex with. The median age for first intercourse for American women is 16. It has been 16 for over 100 years. Why, then, is age of consent set at 18, if more than half of girls have already chosen to have sex by that age?
Hi there Dear, are you truly visiting this site regularly, if so afterward you will definitely obtain good
know-how.
So misrepresenting yourself, in order to have someone commit a crime is not illegal? Cool. Wonder if that applies to theft, murder and other such nice things.
According to this article judge Wiler’s decision not only was questionable, it was also made on the wrong assumption that the conviction was expungeable, which is not: http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/was-justice-served-after-teen-s-encounter-with-girl/article_bede1df7-505d-5d39-b9d8-256719f553d9.html
“But Wiley, without giving a reason, said, “I’m not going to place you on Holmes Youthful Training status…And Mr. Gardiner, contrary to your belief, it is an expungeable conviction..So we shall see how he does.”
But the judge was apparently wrong. Michigan lawmakers recently passed legislation that, as of Jan. 12, now includes Anderson’s offense among those that are never expungeable.
The judge did not respond to a request for comment.”
@James Pollock “If a girl is of age, but says she isn’t — the guy is guilty.” Of what?
Puzzled was referring to my earlier comment in the thread where they have sting operations to arrest adult predators. They lure them in chat rooms and arrange meets where the predators are arrested. Even though everyone in the sting is in reality overage and thus legal, they are lying about being 13 or 14, and thus the predator is still arrested and still guilty because they intended to have sex with this imaginary 13 or 14 year old. I’m not sure what the actual charge is, possibly solicitation of a minor or some kind of cyber crime with a minor.
The point is that in the sting, the predator believed that the person was a minor and thus would knowingly be committing statutory offenses. So they are arrested even though there wasn’t actually any minor involved in real life.
@JKP, I think it’s very, very questionable whether these things are catching “adult predators.” I have never heard of one of these stings taking place on a site where you’d expect to find teens. They ALWAYS occur on adult sex sites. The men going there are expecting and intending to find adult women, not teens.
That doesn’t mean they are not in the wrong, just that not saying no when an underage girl offers to meet you for sex is NOT the same as seeking out and preying on teen girls.
To use the drug dealer analogy again, a drug dealer who hangs out outside the local middle school and approaches students walking home is preying on those students. A drug dealer hanging out at a bar where only people 21+ are supposed to go, in the seediest part of town, at midnight, and is approached by somebody who sneaks in, admits to the dealer that they are 16, and then asks to be drugs is not a “predator” if he sells drugs to that teen. He shouldn’t have, no question. But, not saying no to something you should say no to is NOT the same as being a predator. These stings do not make that distinction, the men arrested are in their late teens or twenties themselves, and the cops often pose as “girls” less than a year under the age of consent.
This story does a good job of showing the kinds of tactics used in these stings. They do NOT target or find men who are seeking out teens, but men who are seeking out casual sex (or just casual cybersex) with adult women who don’t say no when approached by a teen. That is not acceptable behavior but it’s also not predatory. If your 14 or 15 or 16 year old daughter is going into adult sex chat rooms, posting “casual encounters” ads on Craigslist, or otherwise actively seeking out sex from older guys in places where adults go to find adults for sex, she isn’t being preyed upon even if, by all means, the men involved should have the good sense to say no. However, I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect 19 and 20 year old guys to show particularly good sense about sex, and it would make sense that SOME of the responsibility also lies with the girl.
For more of these kinds of stings:
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/investigations/2014/12/29/10-investigates-problems-sex-predator-stings/20802715/
People keep talking about this boy making a “mistake.” A mistake implies that there is some other action he could have taken in the past or – now that he has learned his lesson – some other action he could take in the future to avoid this happening.
But what exactly is this “mistake” that he is being punished for?
He met a girl on a hookup app who said she was 17. How exactly was he supposed to know she wasn’t 17? How will he know the next girl is old enough? Seeing ID isn’t good enough, because so many underage people have fake IDs. Even meeting in a bar where he thinks they are over 21 because they are carded at the door and drinking alcohol, he could still get arrested if he sleeps with her and the girl turns out to be underage.
@Heather: “For those wondering about how the boy could have avoided this situation, possibly not jumping into bed with this girl so quickly might have given him time to spot the clues to her real age.”
@Crystal: “what if he had GOTTEN TO KNOW HER before sleeping with her?”
@ James Pollock: “The other side of this argument is if you don’t know someone well enough to know how old they are, you don’t know them well enough to have sex with them.”
So that is the real “mistake” he is being punished for. Shame on him for sleeping with a girl too quickly.
The problem is that while some may disapprove of one night stands or casual sex, they are not illegal, nor should they be.
The girl lying about her age is the ONLY mistake that would have changed the outcome of this encounter. Her lying was 100% under her control and 100% out of his control. Thus, it is HER mistake, not his. The only thing he is being punished for is having sex too quickly. Do we really want to make laws requiring a waiting period before two people are allowed to have sex with each other?
How long should that waiting period be? I dated my current boyfriend for 6 months before I discovered that he had lied about his age (he was older than he said, so that didn’t make me a felon at least).
No one can look at someone and know with certainty their true age. I was an entertainer at a young age, and I performed at fairs and festivals, colleges, business conventions, as well as lots of bars. I developed early, so I had a woman’s body (DDD chest) and I dressed professionally, did my hair and makeup, not to mention I knew what I was doing on stage. People had no idea how old I was. Not even the police officers who were often working security at various shows I did. In fact, one time I had a group of cops who were fascinated with what I did and stuck around after the show to ask me a bunch of questions after the audience had all left. In the end it was just me at about a dozen police officers, who eventually offered to buy me a drink. I asked them how old they thought I was. They thought I was 25. I was 15. Blew their mind. POLICE OFFICERS. If I had wanted to hook up with them and have sex, they would have been felons.
@JKP: “People keep talking about this boy making a “mistake.” A mistake implies that there is some other action he could have taken in the past or — now that he has learned his lesson — some other action he could take in the future to avoid this happening.
But what exactly is this “mistake” that he is being punished for?”
According from the article I mentioned above:
“The Internet’s wonderful, thank you, Al Gore. But it also is a danger,” Wiley told Anderson, according to the recording of the sentencing. “You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this, whatsoever.”
Note that in the snippet above the judge is not talking about the illegality of engaging in underage sex: it’s claiming that the current culture of casual sex and use of the internet to find willing partners is “inappropriate”. Not illegal, “inappropriate”.
All the activities in the snippet are *perfectly legal*, so why the reprimand? It’s clear that the judge’s decision was influenced by his personal distaste for casual sex and the use of online hookup websites/apps, but since he could not punish these activities directly (being them legal) he likely punished the guy indirectly by being overly harsh with his underage sex sentence.
This actually annoys me to no end. If you want to preach, become a preacher, not a judge. If you want to judge, you should do it without abusing the law: you should punish illegal behaviour fairly and not be influenced by legal behaviour you happen to personally consider “inappropriate”.
On the Dateline issue, I felt for a long time that the charges simply didn’t make sense – how can you charge someone with endangering a minor without there being a minor involved? Then I met a law professor who gave me a copy of an article she had published on a different topic (Misthinking Like a Lawyer.) It answered the question for me. She looked at 4 cases in her paper. Perhaps most relevant was a person who showed up at a polling place, voted, then returned later, after a change in shifts of the poll workers. The second time, he gave the name of his neighbor, who had recently died. He voted a second time. He was charged with voter fraud, and convicted. The conviction was overturned on appeal because the law he was charged with violating said it is illegal to impersonate a qualified voter. The appeals court held that, since the neighbor was dead, and dead people aren’t qualified voters, he hadn’t violated the law.
She criticized this reasoning on the grounds that what is actually criminalized is pretending to be in the category of qualified voters, not impersonating a specific qualified voter. By the same logic, she said, impersonating a police officer would be impossible. “Which police officer was he impersonating?” “Well, none in particular, just himself as a police officer.” “Is he a police officer?” “No.” “Then he’s not guilty.” Since I agreed with her reasoning, I had to concede to myself that it applied to the Dateline case – endangering a minor need not include an actual minor.
Now, I still have multiple issues, including the police not only working with the tv crew, but clearly playing up their actions for the cameras with the running tackles. Also, as noted, if they want to find predators, they should look in the websites predators frequent. Many of the people caught appear not to be mentally ‘all there.’ The parts of the chat logs they don’t read on tv usually show the volunteer continually messaging and pestering the ‘predator’ if they express disinterest because of age, until they finally give in, etc. Now, they shouldn’t give in, obviously, but it still seems like an absurdly ineffective tactic, and one more about tv and funding than dealing with a real problem. In any case, though, I say JKP’s logic is sound. Either what matters is the mens rea, or the actus rea. If it’s the mens rea, then this case is wrong. If it’s the actus rea, then the Dateline case is wrong. They can’t both be right. Interestingly, though, I would expect that most people would either disagree with both, or agree with both. Heck, I disagree with both.
I suppose it’s possible that both what age you think the person is, and what age they actually are, matter. That seems like a rather draconian answer, though. But then, I also think it’s draconian to say that the actual age matters when it varies from the age given. I don’t know, an old-fashioned idea that criminal prosecution requires a criminal mind. Went out the window a long time ago, along with other time-honored notions of law.
Anyway, back to this case. I see the arguments that revolve around “you can avoid this by not sleeping with people you just met” as rather silly. First, the legality of a sexual encounter shouldn’t depend on that, and second, I’m not sure you can. Certainly you’ve been in relationships where the person was hesitant to introduce you to friends and family until they’re sure, right? If they look 18, claim to be 18, and say they aren’t ready for you to meet their parents or friends…how is it that meeting more times will reveal their real age?
Anyway, I also see the arguments above revolving around “you can’t criticize a child for lying, they’re a child.” Well, okay. But it doesn’t follow that you must punish the guy – sometimes, believe it or not, something can happen without anyone being convicted. But, actually, I think it is far more insulting to a person to deny their autonomy than to say they lied when they did. This happens in other areas as well – for instance, ‘kind’ people who assume that all sex workers were abused as children, are trafficked, or are mentally ill. Also, again, by this logic, you must oppose all cases of trying a child as an adult.
Wiley, in addition to deciding a case based on his opinion about legal behavior, also appears to be repeating an incorrect myth about Al Gore. Al Gore said something to the effect of “I suggested that DARPA develop the capabilities that later made the internet possible.” He had, in fact, done so. He never claimed to have invented the internet.
Many posters have questioned how this case is applicable to FRK – my take on that is that it has to do with the broken laws that define sex offenders (i.e. any male speaking to a minor) – Lenore has run other stories on this topic before – this one is just has a different spin than the others
It is sad that the laws are manipulated to the point where the labels lose their meaning – in this case, “sex offender” has been used to describe a situation that is not “predatory”, which is the type of offense from which sex offender laws were designed to protect the general public – “neglect” has been stretched to ridiculous extents relative to parents/grandparents/guardians as well to the point where parents allowing their children to experience independence and freedoms are labeled as “bad parents” no different than those who purposefully neglect their children with malicious intent
This case is part of a bigger issue affecting FRK – the laws in place under the premise of protecting our children are not effectively achieving this goal and instead are all too often used to destroy families and hurt innocent people
In this case, I hope that Zach is able to clear his name from the SORI and that this girl gets a MH evaluation to get the help she needs – in all of this, the authorities haven’t done a thing to try to help this girl or even acknowledge the fact that her behavior could likely be a cry for help with a deep-seated MH issue – Im sure her mom would welcome help and intervention as she acknowledges her daughter’s actions and her belief that as a result of those actions it is unjust to label Zach or his actions as criminal – our society feeds too much off of the drama – unfortunately, whenever there is actual Help or, God forbid, work involved the authorities want nothing to do with the effort
By the way, (no spoilers here) there’s a scene in San Andreas that may be worth noting. A man grabs a scared young girl who is on a road that is collapsing (no, that’s not a spoiler, you know it’s about an earthquake) and saves her. In the next clip, the mother comes to take the child from his arms. If you see the movie, keep an eye on her face when she takes the child.
“So that is the real “mistake” he is being punished for. Shame on him for sleeping with a girl too quickly.”
Yes, exactly. Shame on him for sleeping with a girl too quickly TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL FOR HIM TO DO SO. (I filled in the part you left out).
“The problem is that while some may disapprove of one night stands or casual sex, they are not illegal, nor should they be.”
You’re barking up the wrong tree, here. I don’t disapprove of one night stands OR casual sex. However, when you say “they are not illegal”, you’ve kind of stepped around the fact that, in this particular case, the sex WAS illegal.
@Puzzled, re: the internet stings (which, just to note, are ONLY legal in the U.S.–no other country in the world allows criminal charges to be pressed based on that type of wide-net sting), the other issue I have is that obviously if we say a 14 or 15 year old cannot consent to sex, it’s because of maturity. But if the “teen” is really a man in his 50s–often propositioning a young man in his teens or twenties, decades younger than the officer himself–then suddenly you have a weird situation. Sure, this person mentions at one point that they are 15 (or 14 or 16 or whatever age they are using). But, nothing in their language indicates immaturity. They never–in any of the stings I’m aware of–present themselves as immature or mention anything–parents, curfews, homework, school, extracurriculars, etc.–that would indicate immaturity. So you have, in the most common sting scenario, a guy in his 20s being propositioned by a cop in his 40s or 50s who is trying to act like a 15 year old temptress. I honestly do not think you can extrapolate from that that, if approached by an actual 14/15 year old–whose immaturity would come across in the interactions–the same men would respond the same way.
Presumably, if there was actually a 15 year old who really and truly had the mentality and maturity of a 50 year old–if they had a genuinely 50 year old brain in a 15 year old body–we would not think that person sleeping with a 20 year old would be a crime. Because, again, it’s all emotional rather than physical maturity, since post-pubescent teens are physically mature and it’s their emotional maturity that is in question. These stings create an artificial situation where you have an officer who is often decades older than the men being arrested manipulating those men by basically playing the adult temptress except saying at one point they are underage.
If a 30 year old were asking me to buy them cigarettes, but at one point in our conversation said, “Oh, I’m 7,” I’d likely buy them cigarettes. That doesn’t mean that if an actual 7yo–with a 7yo’s mentality and reasoning and language abilities–asked me to buy them cigarettes, I’d do it. These are simply not fair situations, because a 45 year old man pretending to be a 14 or 15 year old is NOT having the same type of interactions that an actual teen girl would have.
“The girl lying about her age is the ONLY mistake that would have changed the outcome of this encounter.”
Asserted without evidence. For all your or I know, if she’d said she was 14 all along, he might well have done it anyway.
Another point… she lied, and he believed her lie. But… did he believe because she was particularly skillful in fabricating and executing her lie, or did he believe because if he believed her he gets to have sex with her, and if he didn’t believe her he didn’t. It’s not exactly a shocking revelation that people are more willing to believe a lie if they think they stand to benefit from it. Understanding this principle is how con men and politicians (ignoring the overlap for now) make their living..
Even if he had known she was 14, 25 years on the registry would be a ridiculous and overly harsh consequence.
I think we are also ignoring how much people differ in both physical and emotional maturity. At 14, I was routinely mistaken by people who saw me and talked to me for a woman in her 20s. I was a very physically mature, emotionally mature, smart teen. I know some 18 year olds on the other hand who don’t seem a day over 13 to me. The idea that somebody can, absent a birth certificate, determine if a person is 14 or 17 is just wrong. If I had told somebody I was 20 when I was 14, they’d have had no reason given my appearance, demeanor, or behavior to not believe me.
@James Pollock “Shame on him for sleeping with a girl too quickly TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL FOR HIM TO DO SO. (I filled in the part you left out).”
How? How does he magically find out if it is legal for him to sleep with the girl? Where is the “True Age” database where you can check if someone is lying about their age? How long are you required to wait before sleeping together in order to have done “due diligence” on their age?
For example, when I was in high school, I was in a gifted program where we took college classes at the actual college. I had high school friends who managed to date college guys for a whole semester (4-5 months) before any of the guys found out they were dating high school students. Yes, it was illegal for them to have sex. And yes, they were having sex. But how were these guys to know the girls had lied about their ages? They met because they were taking the same college class and dated for months (and had fake IDs to go to bars). Was the 4 months they dated first enough time to give them a pass on not knowing that the girls were underage?
When I was in high school, I traveled and did shows, took college classes, and could have easily kept up a charade of being over 18 for as long as I wanted. If I had wanted to date a college boy in those years, he could have dated me for months without ever discovering my true age. How would any of these guys ever figured out that it wasn’t legal to sleep with me?
Personally, I don’t approve of people casually hooking up and sleeping with someone they just met, for many other reasons besides whether they risk committing statutory rape. But I also don’t believe that people should be arrested for doing so.
If the court doesn’t take into account the fact that the girl lied about her age, then the guy is basically just being punished for having casual sex. Because there is no definitive way for him to verify her age. Thus there is no way to avoid the possibility of sleeping with someone underage except to just not have sex at all with anyone.
That’s the problem I have with zero tolerance statutory rape laws. They’re basically punishing people for casual sex & one night stands, which it outside the bounds of what the law should be regulating. Innocent until proven guilty should apply in cases like this, and the prosecution should have to prove that the offender knew that the victim was underage.
The online stings are often done in places /chats /groups where teens gather. In no way do I feel that the “adult” in internet sting situations is a victim of the criminal justice system. IMO they are (at the very least) a victim of their own poor judgment in pusuing a sexual encounter with someone they believe to be under the legal age of consent.
BTW, the puberty in girls can start as early as age 10. So all the “post pubescent” reference is in no way shape or form- clearcut.
@James Pollock: “Yes, exactly. Shame on him for sleeping with a girl too quickly TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL FOR HIM TO DO SO. (I filled in the part you left out).”
That’s not what the judge’s own comments suggest. Again, from the sentence’s recording:
“You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this, whatsoever.”
No part of this snippet is about underage sex: he directly and unequivocally criticises the guy for trying to engage in *legal*, casual sex. The judge acknowledges explicitly that the guy intended to look for willing *women*, not girls or children.
By making these declaration the judge clearly demonstrates a bias against the guy not based on the illegal acts committed by the guy but based on a personal hostility against casual sex and online hookup sites/apps.
Not sure about the US, but in my country comments like that would easily warrant the judge to be recused and his sentence declared null and void due to the reasonable suspects of impartiality. I’d expect that in any reasonable justice system.
“How? How does he magically find out if it is legal for him to sleep with the girl?”
Through a largely subconscious process of noticing details that a person who is lying about their age will make.
“How long are you required to wait before sleeping together in order to have done “due diligence” on their age?”
Long enough to know that their capacity to consent (for age, or any other reason) is not compromised.
“I had high school friends who managed to date college guys for a whole semester (4-5 months) before any of the guys found out they were dating high school students. Yes, it was illegal for them to have sex.”
Maybe. Maybe not.
“When I was in high school, I traveled and did shows, took college classes, and could have easily kept up a charade of being over 18 for as long as I wanted.”
Maybe. Probably not. At least, not against someone who actively wanted to find the truth.
I’m currently the other way… most people think, upon first meeting me, that I’m at least ten years younger than I actually am. The truth quickly comes out as soon as I talk about my youth, though… the cultural references are all wrong for somebody who’s younger than I am
“That’s the problem I have with zero tolerance statutory rape laws. They’re basically punishing people for casual sex & one night stands, which it outside the bounds of what the law should be regulating. Innocent until proven guilty should apply in cases like this, and the prosecution should have to prove that the offender knew that the victim was underage.”
Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply in these cases…If the government wants to convict you of statutory rape, it has to prove that you had sex with someone, and that someone was underage at the time. It doesn’t have to prove you INTENDED to sleep with someone who was underage, just that you DID. Out of curiosity, do you apply the same logic to manslaughter? To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.
@MissMic, it is simply factually untrue that the stings take place in places where teens go. Ten years ago, around the time my husband was arrested, they took place in adult sex chat rooms. In fact, my husband got a sentence of only 2 years probation because the judge noted that he was in an adult sex chat room, not in a place where he would reasonably expect to find a teen. Over 150 men were arrested in the same room over a period of about six months. All entered the room with the expectation of meeting adults.
Today, with chat rooms out of favor, the most common places for these stings to take place is in the “Casual Encounters” section of Craigslist. In order to post an ad, you have to confirm that you are 18 years old. Anybody seeking out a hook-up on Casual Encounters is expecting to meet an adult, not a minor.
I am not aware of a single police-run sting that did NOT take place on a site that is clearly designated for people 18 and over.
These stings are taking men–often young men, in their late teens or twenties–seeking out sex with adult women, and then baiting them by offering them sex from an eager, initiating 14 or 15 year old. Yes, they should say no. But, the registry is NOT a fitting punishment.
The registry was designed to keep track of the kind of people who you might want to look at if a child was kidnapped. We are talking about people who committed serious, violence offenses against children. It was never, ever intended to be a list of guys who, when they were in their 20s, wouldn’t have said no if your 15 year old daughter aggressively propositioned them. And yet those are exactly the guys being caught in these stings. Arrest them, give them probation, make them go to therapy, but a ruined life is NOT a fitting consequence for what is essentially an online, victimless, attempted statutory offense.
“How long are you required to wait before sleeping together in order to have done “due diligence” on their age?”
Long enough to know that their capacity to consent (for age, or any other reason) is not compromised.
–Again: How? How you do you definitively know that someone has lied about their age? How do you know if they also have a fake ID they can show you?
“I had high school friends who managed to date college guys for a whole semester (4-5 months) before any of the guys found out they were dating high school students. Yes, it was illegal for them to have sex.”
Maybe. Maybe not.
–Actually not maybe. Yes, definitely. Where I lived, the age of consent was 18. They were 15 (we were in the same grade). The college guys were 18-20.
“When I was in high school, I traveled and did shows, took college classes, and could have easily kept up a charade of being over 18 for as long as I wanted.”
Maybe. Probably not. At least, not against someone who actively wanted to find the truth.
–Considering that a dozen cops were willing to buy me alcohol when I was 15, I think I could have fooled anyone. Considering that I had been fast-tracked through school, so I was always in classes with people 2-3 years older than me since I was in 3rd grade, plus I had professional and entrepreneurial experience with colleagues decades older than me, I had the maturity, cultural knowledge, and work experience of someone older. If someone “actively wanted to find the truth” what would they do exactly? Hire a private investigator? Is that the minimum standard to sleep with someone now?
“Out of curiosity, do you apply the same logic to manslaughter? To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
–You actually prove my point here. If you INTEND to kill someone, that’s first degree murder. Intent actually matters. If you didn’t intend to kill someone, you can be convicted of manslaughter, but they would have to prove that you were at fault somehow. If I accidentally kill someone in a car accident, I’m unlikely to be charged with manslaughter unless I did something wrong, like run a red light or drink and drive or violate some other law. But if I’m not breaking any laws and driving reasonably, but unfortunately have an accident, that’s not necessarily manslaughter. My point is that to charge someone with statutory rape, the prosecution should need to prove that a reasonable person should have been able to know that the person was underage.
@MissMic, also, while it is technically true that children as young as 10 can go through puberty, the term “post-pubescent” generally refers to those over 13. That’s why the term “post-pubescent TEEN” is generally used, because it’s referring to those 14 and older.
@James, regardless of whether you think the actions were wrong or not, I’m curious as to why you think the sex offender registry is a just consequence. What threat, exactly, does this guy pose to the community? Do you HONESTLY think that a 19 year old who’d hook up with a willing 14 year old is going to molest and maybe murder your 6 year old when he’s 30 years old? Because that just does not follow. That’s not how people work. Attractions to post-pubescent teen girls is psychologically normal, and does not in any way mean that a person would have a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children (and probably indicates that they do not–a guy seeking out hook ups on Hot or Not is almost certainly not a pedophile or he wouldn’t be using that app). And, there’s no indication that people who commit non-forcible statutory offenses are more likely than the average person to commit violent or forcible offenses.
So, what threat, exactly, does this teenager pose to the community, that he needs to be on a public list for 25 years, a list that will keep him from getting an education, a job, housing, or a relationship? Does he somehow pose more of a threat than a person who sold drugs to a 13 year old? Somebody who drove drunk and left a 10 year old injured for life? Who carjacked a woman with two kids in the back of the car? Who held a family up at gunpoint? Do you HONESTLY think that he is somehow a more dangerous person than they are, and the neighbors need to know about his past more than theirs, even if he’s lying and did know this girl was 14? Because if that’s the case, then we are more insane about sex in this country than I thought.
Give him probation. Make him get counselling. But, the registry is NOT an appropriate consequence for his actions. It’s a 25-year sentence, and his actions, while wrong, do not warrant that, because just punishment MUST have limits.
“—Again: How? How you do you definitively know that someone has lied about their age? How do you know if they also have a fake ID they can show you?”
Again, by a largely subconscious amassing of evidence.
“—You actually prove my point here. If you INTEND to kill someone, that’s first degree murder.”
Second-degree murder.
“Intent actually matters. If you didn’t intend to kill someone, you can be convicted of manslaughter, but they would have to prove that you were at fault somehow.”
Your intent to kill, or lack thereof, does not matter in a manslaughter prosecution. In fact, at common law, you can be convicted of murder in some cases without a specific intent to kill (not legal advice, your jurisdiction may vary, consult a professional licensed in your jurisdiction.).
“My point is that to charge someone with statutory rape, the prosecution should need to prove that a reasonable person should have been able to know that the person was underage.”
Perhaps. But that’s not how it is.
“@James, regardless of whether you think the actions were wrong or not, I’m curious as to why you think the sex offender registry is a just consequence.”
And I’m wondering where you got the idea that I think the sex offender registry is a just consequence.
You’ve gone on a multi-paragraph rant against a position I’ve never taken.
@James Pollock: “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
No, involuntary manslaughter requires either the killing to happen in the course of you committing an unlawful act, or the killing to happen as consequence of grossly negligent behaviour. If you drive recklessly and kill a child you are guilty of manslaughter, but if you drive carefully and kill a child it’s not manslaughter, it’s just an accident without anyone “guilty” of anything.
The argument here seems to be that engaging in sex with someone without verifying the age is enough to be considered “negligent behaviour”. I may agree with that if the girl looks very young, but not if she looks old enough. That’s actually how it works in most countries I know: if you have compelling reasons to believe that your partner is too young, you don’t investigate the matter and have sex, then you can be found guilty. If you don’t have these compelling reasons you cannot be found guilty even if the partner is actually underage.
On top of that even if you committed the crime the resulting punishment has to be proportional to the severity of the crime you committed. I have many doubt that in these cases this principle is respected.
@anonymous mom
First, I am not factually incorrect about some stings beeing in internet places where teens gather. I never said all of the stings take place there. The Craigslist stings that your talking about are something different since there is no method to communicate via Craigslist. I assume those people make contact offsite and at some point, make their age known?
As far as post pubescent teens, I guess that could be 13 too? So 13 yr. old female and 25 yr. old male…. You see no problem with that?
It’s cool, we disagree on this issue. We all have different perspective and different life experiences.
But I do agree with you regarding the public registry. I stated some of my reasons earlier but I am with you on that completely.
“No, involuntary manslaughter requires either the killing to happen in the course of you committing an unlawful act, or the killing to happen as consequence of grossly negligent behaviour. If you drive recklessly and kill a child you are guilty of manslaughter, but if you drive carefully and kill a child it’s not manslaughter, it’s just an accident without anyone “guilty” of anything.”
Right. Which part of this paragraph says that the government has to prove you had an intent to kill someone in order to convict you of manslaughter? I can’t seem to find that part.
“The argument here seems to be that engaging in sex with someone without verifying the age is enough to be considered ‘negligent behaviour’.”
Nope. “negligent behavior” is not a required element of the crime charged.
“I may agree with that if the girl looks very young, but not if she looks old enough. That’s actually how it works in most countries I know:”
Not this one (unfortunately for this fellow)..
“On top of that even if you committed the crime the resulting punishment has to be proportional to the severity of the crime you committed.”
In theory. Alas, in practice, not always.
As mentioned about 90 comments ago, there IS a mechanism in place for when the statutory punishment is inappropriate even though the defendant is actually guilty of the crime(s) charged.
When you decide to have sex with someone you have known for less than 18 years, you are taking on the risk that they might be under 18 (substitute a different age, if appropriate).
When you decide to have sex with someone, you also take on a lot of other risks… unintended pregnancy, STI, they might turn out to be all stalker-y afterwards, and so on. You can (and should!) do things to reduce these risks. If you can’t (or won’t), then the consequences follow. If you aren’t prepared to take the consequences, perhaps you aren’t as ready for sex as certain parts of your body are telling you.
@James Pollock: “Right. Which part of this paragraph says that the government has to prove you had an intent to kill someone in order to convict you of manslaughter? I can’t seem to find that part.”
That part doesn’t matter. To be more clear, citing your original statements:
> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone”
This is correct: even without intent it might still be involuntary manslaughter.
> “just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
This is not correct, for the reasons I explained above.
> “Nope. “negligent behavior” is not a required element of the crime charged.”
For manslaughter it is (assuming it’s not voluntary or constructive manslaughter), but for underage sex no, that’s the whole point. *It should be*.
> “Not this one (unfortunately for this fellow)..”
Again, that’s the point. Not *yet*.
> “In theory. Alas, in practice, not always.”
Not a good reason not to point out the injustice and debate about how things should change.
> “As mentioned about 90 comments ago, there IS a mechanism in place for when the statutory punishment is inappropriate even though the defendant is actually guilty of the crime(s) charged.”
Pardon is meant to solve exceptional cases which are bound to happen even with good laws, not to fix systemic issues caused by bad laws.
“@James Pollock: “Right. Which part of this paragraph says that the government has to prove you had an intent to kill someone in order to convict you of manslaughter? I can’t seem to find that part.”
That part doesn’t matter.”
A discussion of manslaughter was brought into this to point out that one does not have to have an INTENT to commit a crime in order to be CONVICTED of a crime. But you find the matter of intent to be not relevant. Um, OK.
“To be more clear, citing your original statements:
> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone”
This is correct: even without intent it might still be involuntary manslaughter.”
OK, then. Maybe you DO get the point.
Although “involuntary” doesn’t belong in that sentence.
“> “just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
This is not correct, for the reasons I explained above.”
It is correct. Manslaughter is the unjustified killing of a person without specific intent to kill (or, in some jurisdictions, intent to kill that is mitigated down from murder) To convict on manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the elements of manslaughter, which include that A) you did it, and B) somebody died. They do not have to prove that you wanted them dead at any point in the process. In legal-speak, there is no mens rea element.
“> “Nope. “negligent behavior” is not a required element of the crime charged.”
For manslaughter it is”
But manslaughter was not the crime being discussed.
>Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply in these cases…If the government wants to convict you of statutory >rape, it has to prove that you had sex with someone, and that someone was underage at the time. It doesn’t >have to prove you INTENDED to sleep with someone who was underage, just that you DID. Out of curiosity, do >you apply the same logic to manslaughter? To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to >prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.
Again, back in the old days, there was this legal concept known as mens rea. So let’s look at manslaughter. What needs to be proven? It need not be proven that you intended to kill the person. But it must be proven that you committed some act, and intended to commit THAT act, and that act led to the death of the person. So there is still an element of intent.
Here, you’ll say, there still is intent also – they need to show intent to have sex. However, in this case, it appears that the intent was specifically to have sex with an adult. That aside, the difference between the cases is whether the act is instrumental to the outcome, or just is the outcome. In the case of manslaughter, they can be separated. In this case, you don’t get this nice split. But, in any case, manslaughter laws do recognize intent, and require it.
In fact, manslaughter breaks up nicely. We have voluntary manslaughter, where there actually is intent to kill or cause serious injury. Then we have constructive manslaughter. Here, you intend to do something, and that something is malicious, but you don’t intent to kill. The malicious intent of the original act is applied to the death because the death was caused by your action, and your action was already illicit Finally, we have negligent manslaughter, where it must be shown that you had a legal responsibility to exercise care, and failed to do so. The intent element here arises from the fact that you were intentionally engaged in some action (say, driving a car) which brings with it the legal obligation to exercise care, and that you failed to exercise said care.
So if you want a comparison, I guess we’ll use that one and say the crime here is not exercising sufficient care to know the age of the person. But wait – it’s a strict liability law, which means there is no amount of care you can possibly take that will exonerate you. This is not the case with manslaughter – you can’t be convicted of negligent manslaughter if you demonstrated the care that is legally required. The whole issue with strict liability is that the law specifically rules out any amount of care – in essence, requiring infinite care. You can check 50 IDs, and have been this person’s godfather and present at their birth – but if it turns out that yesterday, they were murdered and replaced by a body double one year younger, alike in every way, solely for the purpose of getting you to commit statutory rape – you’re still guilty. There is no such thing as reasonable care in such matters.
I’m not liking where this comparison takes you. Do you think manslaughter should require infinite care, or is it that consensual sex is so much worse than death? Why do the two cases differ in this way?
So, manslaughter laws require mens rea for a conviction. Failure to take appropriate care is, itself, an intention act. But you can’t intend to fail to do the impossible. Statutory rape laws throw out the window the notion of having a legal obligation to exercise care.
>Again, by a largely subconscious amassing of evidence.
Yes, that sounds about right. Unfortunately, subconscious judgments like that are sometimes wrong. In other areas of law, we say ‘here’s how much care you need to exercise.’ Here we don’t. So we have an unquantifiable, largely unprovable, element of care, together with a requirement that says, essentially, that having taken care is not a defense. How is this supposed to be workable?
>Perhaps. But that’s not how it is.
Obviously. I don’t think anyone is claiming that the judge got the law wrong. I think most of us, (and know for myself) are saying the law should be written differently.
>As mentioned about 90 comments ago, there IS a mechanism in place for when the statutory punishment is >inappropriate even though the defendant is actually guilty of the crime(s) charged.
There is no philosophy of law that counsels society to write absurd laws, prosecute them, and fail to exercise judicial caution, on the premise that a pardon can be given later. Such a suggestion would be absurd. The remedy to bad law is not the existence of pardons, it is fixing the law.
>When you decide to have sex with someone you have known for less than 18 years, you are taking on the risk >that they might be under 18 (substitute a different age, if appropriate).
>When you decide to have sex with someone, you also take on a lot of other risks… unintended pregnancy, STI, >they might turn out to be all stalker-y afterwards, and so on. You can (and should!) do things to reduce these >risks. If you can’t (or won’t), then the consequences follow. If you aren’t prepared to take the consequences, >perhaps you aren’t as ready for sex as certain parts of your body are telling you.
Actually, I gave you a scenario where you did know someone for 18 years, but granted, that was rather far-fetched. Anyway, yes, those risks exist. The difference is that those are not socially imposed risks. Society, that is, has no choice in the matter. You can’t go from ‘nature imposes risks you might think are unfair’ to ‘society can too.’ Where science is able to mitigate those risks, it does.
So you can say that my infinite care argument applies to, say, pregnancy – you can wear 100 condoms, and something can still go wrong. That’s true. Nature does not care for intent, and you can’t get out of natural consequences with lack of intent, or lack of any other element requiring in criminal law. But there’s no reason law must imitate nature in this regard.
“I’m not liking where this comparison takes you. Do you think manslaughter should require infinite care, or is it that consensual sex is so much worse than death? Why do the two cases differ in this way?”
I’m not even going to bother to try following you down this road.
“So, manslaughter laws require mens rea for a conviction.”
They do not.
For example:
Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.125 ¹
Manslaughter in the second degree
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
(a) It is committed recklessly;
(b) A person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide; or
(c) A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
(A) The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
(B) The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
(2) Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
This is the last I have to say about that subject.
“In other areas of law, we say ‘here’s how much care you need to exercise.’ Here we don’t. So we have an unquantifiable, largely unprovable, element of care, together with a requirement that says, essentially, that having taken care is not a defense. How is this supposed to be workable?”
I suggest you start your studies with tort law, particularly with products liability law, where strict liability generally applies. Then, you can move over to property law, which also has many strict liability provisions… Somehow, strict liability has been found workable for several centuries now. I predict it will continue to do so.
When you finish with that, move on to agency law generally, paying close attention to the fact that an agent with apparent, but not actual, authority may nevertheless bind you to something you never agreed to.
@James Pollock: “To convict on manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the elements of manslaughter, which include that A) you did it, and B) somebody died.”
That’s not what you originally claimed. You originally claimed that:
> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
“just” implies that it’s a necessary and sufficient condition, which is incorrect. Now you talk about “include”, which implies a necessary condition which might *not* be sufficient, which is correct.
As of why it’s not sufficient condition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
“A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether “excessive force” was used or other factors.”
In both these two examples a person caused the death of another person, but it doesn’t mean they are guilty of manslaughter.
” Nature does not care for intent, and you can’t get out of natural consequences with lack of intent, or lack of any other element requiring in criminal law. But there’s no reason law must imitate nature in this regard.”
I have two words for you, natural law. The once-widely-held view, now largely discarded, that law arises not from man but from nature itself. It still holds sway with some legal theorists, and some parts of it survive today… for example, in the necessity defense.
To point out something that should have been obvious, in the sentence
“> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.”
The “something” you did DOES have to be manslaughter.
There. THAT’S the last I’m going to say about manslaughter.
I think most of us, (and know for myself) are saying the law should be written differently.
https://www.freerangekids.com/19-y-o-has-sex-w-girl-who-says-shes-17-really-14-now-he-sits-in-jail-a-sex-ofender/#comment-371481
@James Pollock: “To point out something that should have been obvious, in the sentence
“> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you did something, and someone died as a direct result.” The “something” you did DOES have to be manslaughter.”
So “something” == “manslaughter”. Let’s inline the variable…
> “To convict you of manslaughter, the government doesn’t have to prove that you INTENDED to kill someone, just that you committed manslaughter, and someone died as a direct result.”
This is a convoluted way to say that the government can convict you for manslaughter if you committed manslaughter… I hope you are joking in stating that *this* is what you originally meant.
> There. THAT’S the last I’m going to say about manslaughter.
But thankfully your last argument was also the best.
bsolar, I can recommend several legal blogs if meaningless arguments about manslaughter is that important to you.
Natural law theory does not hold that law must imitate nature in its method of assigning consequences. It is not part of natural law theory to simply throw out intent. Natural law theory is a theory as to how rights, obligations, and prohibitions arise.
Tort and property law are quite different from criminal law. I should have said in other areas of criminal law, rather than other areas of law. Standards from one cannot be moved without argument to the other.
I have no idea why you don’t wish to respond to the lack of parallels between manslaughter and statutory rape laws, given that you originated that line of questioning, but that’s fine.
None of the three conditions in the ORS cited can be established without reference to mental states. In a, ‘reckless’ is a conclusion about mental states. b requires intent. c requires criminal negligence, which is defined here as violating ORS 163.205 and thereby causing death (together with other conditions, but it suffices to look at this one.) Turning to ORS 163.205, we see that there are two sufficient conditions – both of which require intent.
See, manslaughter is really a nicely defined law. It defines that subset of killings which aren’t murder, but which nonetheless demonstrate some sort of intent, such as intentionally accepting a responsibility and not fulfilling it, or intentionally committing some act which causes a death, even if the death wasn’t the intended outcome. This is exactly how they differ from statutory rape laws, and criminal strict liability in general.
And yes, your suggestion is better than the current law. That doesn’t explain the remainder of your comments, which seem to defend the current laws in some ways, and to maintain that it is legitimate to have a law which penalizes a person for facts, in the face of any amount of demonstrated care. I’ve actually seen something similar in several discussions with lawyers – stating the current law in response to a criticism, when the criticism is directed at the law, not a particular application of it.
what JKP said. These laws are mostly about punishing people for casual one night stand sex. I would rather my sons not have casual one night stand sex, but if they do, they should probably be smart about it and cover their ass. One night should not ruin your life.
“Natural law theory does not hold that law must imitate nature in its method of assigning consequences.”
Nor did I suggest it did.
“It is not part of natural law theory to simply throw out intent.”
Duh?
“Tort and property law are quite different from criminal law.”
Or not, as the case may be. It’s all intertwined.
I have no idea why you don’t wish to respond to the lack of parallels between manslaughter and statutory rape laws … [blah, blah, blah, manslaughter]
My offer to bsolar is open to you as well.
“to maintain that it is legitimate to have a law which penalizes a person for facts”
All laws penalize a person for facts. At least, all laws that penalize persons do. Penalizing someone in the absence of facts isn’t law at all.
I know you dislike discussion of other areas of law, and all, but contract law has something somewhat similar… contracts (with some exceptions) are not binding on minors, and minors can get out of contracts by just announcing that they are a minor and that they demand rescission. (Statutory provisions vary wildly). The minor doesn’t have to prove that the contract was unfair… just that they were a minor when they entered into it.
Your responses on natural law theory make no sense to me in context. You mentioned natural law theory in response to my claim that the fact that nature assigns consequences without concern for intentions is no reason for society to adopt policies that do so. I responded that natural law theory takes you nowhere in rebutting that claim…and you seem to agree. Okay.
I don’t dislike areas of law other than criminal law, I’m just hesitant in applying contractual principles to legal scenarios, among other reasons, due to the difference in the way the outcomes matter.
On the matter of penalty for facts – you’ve simply clipped off half the sentence. Any sentence can be made to appear silly by doing that. Of course I wasn’t advocating penalties without facts, but rather limitations on penalties where the facts exist – say, by requiring intent as well.
So far you’ve accused me and bsolar of having some sort of unhealthy attachment to manslaughter laws, when all we did was respond to a claim of parallelism made by…who was that again? Oh, right. I appreciate the offer, but I’m familiar with the major law journals, and manage to read them without your invitation.
In any case, since your responses seem unresponsive to my points, I can once again only conclude that we’re talking past each other. I enjoyed the conversation.
James,
So by your take on the law, if I were to lie to a man and tell him his family was all burned to death in a fire, and as a result of his heart condition, he has a heart attack and dies, I am then guilty of manslaughter.
But this 14 year old tramp can lie, luring a man into criminal behaviour and she walks away free and clear?
Since she is a minor, and her actions have severely damaged this man’s future, how would you feel about a civil suit for damages, against the girl and her family?
“So far you’ve accused me and bsolar of having some sort of unhealthy attachment to manslaughter laws”
Actually, I didn’t, but I’m willing to consider it a possibility.
This just isn’t the right place for such a discussion.
It was brought in to make the point that there are other laws where you don’t have to have the specific intent of doing something illegal to nevertheless be convicted of doing something illegal, it did that, and then took on a life of its own.
“but I’m familiar with the major law journals, and manage to read them without your invitation. ”
Good for you, I guess? I suppose I’ll keep that in mind if I ever decide to invite you to read any law journals. I can’t recommend it to anyone who isn’t an academic, and even for them, it’s only MOSTLY a waste of time.
“I can once again only conclude that we’re talking past each other.”
Gee, and it only took FOUR times of my pointing out that you were either misquoting me or misunderstanding what I wrote before you reached this conclusion.
“So by your take on the law, if I were to lie to a man and tell him his family was all burned to death in a fire, and as a result of his heart condition, he has a heart attack and dies, I am then guilty of manslaughter.”
Warren, you’ve already convinced me you’re a twit. You don’t have to keep trying.
If you were to lie to man (about whatever) and as a result of his heart condition, he has a heart attack and dies, he’s died of natural causes.
“But this 14 year old tramp”
You REALLY should work on this habit of yours of directing insults at people you don’t even know. Your casual sexism does not reflect well on you.
“can lie, luring a man into criminal behaviour and she walks away free and clear?”
Yes, that would be the case. Legally speaking, of course. Social repercussions and personal remorse may follow.
“Since she is a minor, and her actions have severely damaged this man’s future, how would you feel about a civil suit for damages, against the girl and her family?”
They would be a good way to end up paying a lawyer to laugh. Oh, he or she won’t do it right in your face, but those two things would happen… the lawyer would get paid, and the lawyer would get a good laugh. If you skipped the lawyer, and filed the paperwork pro se (legal-speak for “without a lawyer”) it would be bounced on a 12(b)6 motion, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
James,
Read you other comment where you admit to considering the kid abandoned. Tells me just how ignorant you are. Ignorance and arrogance is a bad combination. Sometimes dangerous.
So, you’re dangerous, is what you’re saying.
@James Pollock: “bsolar, I can recommend several legal blogs if meaningless arguments about manslaughter is that important to you.”
I can recommend several blogs on fallacies if logically invalid argumentation is that important to you.
James,
I pose no risk to you at all. I am just well aware of what can happen to people like you. Just an observation.
“I pose no risk to you at all.”
Yeah, Warren. I know. You just like to threaten people on the Internet. In real life, you’re no danger at all.
“I am just well aware of what can happen to people like you. Just an observation.”
Based on your record so far, I don’t think you’re well aware of anything at all.
“I can recommend several blogs on fallacies if logically invalid argumentation is that important to you.”
If that’s what you’d prefer, have at it.
@James Pollock: “Yeah, Warren. I know. You just like to threaten people on the Internet. In real life, you’re no danger at all.”
He’s not suggesting that *he* could harm you, he’s suggesting that *your own ignorance and arrogance* could end up harming you, assuming you are ignorant and arrogant.
First I thought you might need some remedial lessons on argumentation, but now I’m starting to think you have problems with basic reading comprehension. Either that or you are wilfully misrepresenting what warren meant, which I’m not sure would be a better situation: ignorance can usually be fixed relatively easily, but maliciousness is a tougher problem.
James,
Are you really that slow, that you believe I cannot see through you. You pick and select points that you can twist and turn, while avoiding any point that you either can’t answer or don’t understand.
And yes your type of personality and attitude can be risky, for you. I know people like you, and you usually end up saying or doing something that bites you in the ass, either personally or professionally. It never fails. The more you go on, the more insight I get. You are very easy to read. Short story, no real plot, weak characters and a disappointing ending.
“Are you really that slow, that you believe I cannot see through you.”
It’s been repeatedly shown that you cannot accurately judge anything, anything at all, about me.
” You pick and select points that you can twist and turn, while avoiding any point that you either can’t answer or don’t understand.”
If I took the time to point out each and every thing you get wrong, I’d be writing for hours. You’re just not worth that kind of effort.
“And yes your type of personality and attitude can be risky, for you. I know people like you, and you usually end up saying or doing something that bites you in the ass, either personally or professionally. It never fails.”
Just for a cheap parting shot, let’s take that one apart.’ [blah, blah, blah usually blah blah blah it never fails] Well, which is it? Usually? Or never fails? Or did you MEAN that it usually never fails?
“The more you go on, the more insight I get. You are very easy to read. Short story, no real plot, weak characters and a disappointing ending.”
Weak characters? At least your IN it…
Seriously, you couldn’t get insight if it were hand-delivered. You’ve gone an amazing oh-fer when sharing your “insights” about me. I’m 100% positive, however, that this will not slow you down.
“@James Pollock: “Yeah, Warren. I know. You just like to threaten people on the Internet. In real life, you’re no danger at all.”
He’s not suggesting that *he* could harm you, he’s suggesting that *your own ignorance and arrogance* could end up harming you, assuming you are ignorant and arrogant.”
I was referring to a threat he made on a different thread.
“First I thought you might need some remedial lessons on argumentation, but now I’m starting to think you have problems with basic reading comprehension. Either that or you are wilfully misrepresenting what warren meant, which I’m not sure would be a better situation: ignorance can usually be fixed relatively easily, but maliciousness is a tougher problem.”
Warren, meet bsolar, bsolar, Warren. You guys deserve each other.
@James Pollock: “I was referring to a threat he made on a different thread.”
No, you were not. You are just trying to bullshit your way out of a losing argument, again.
@MissMic, of course a 25yo having sex with a 13yo is not okay. And, as I said, there should be legal consequences.
But, 1) finding a physically-mature teenager sexually attractive is NOT pathological. At 13, I was 5’6″, 135 pounds, and in a DD bra. I can remember guys in their 20s (and sometimes much older) hitting on me at the mall. Those men were not pedophiles. Now, OF COURSE they should have backed off once they knew my age, but even if they hadn’t, they still wouldn’t have been pedophiles.
2) A man who would sleep with–or just consider sleeping with–a willing post-pubescent teen does NOT pose a threat to public safety. Again, that doesn’t mean that there should not be legal consequences, just that non-forcible statutory offenders do not belong on a registry.
3) These stings–when they take place on sites where adults go expecting to find not children or young teens but other adults 18 and over–are not a good way to identify men who pose a threat. Realistically, many men–especially if they are young–are not going to say no if a 14 or 15 year old propositions them for sex, even thought they should. But, is it the job of law enforcement to try to identify people who, if they were aggressively and persistently propositioned by a girl a year or two below the age of consent, would give in to temptation? Why not extend that? Why not going to places where law-abiding people gather and try to entice them into committing crimes, and then arrest them if they show any interest?
I mean, if somebody offered me a great car for $500, I’d be at least tempted to take a look, even if I knew that car was stolen. But would it be right or fair to run a sting where an officer would go to a used car lot that sold legally-obtained cars and then pull me aside and try to convince me to take a look at their stolen car, and then arrest me if I agreed to take a look at it? I just don’t see tempting people who are not seeking to commit a crime to commit crimes and then arresting them if they don’t say no as something law enforcement should do.
The concern with “internet predators,” as it’s presented to the public, is that they are going to places where children or teens gather and attempting to lure children to meetings. These stings often do the opposite. They go to places where adults gather and then the officer attempts to lure young men to meetings. I don’t think stings like this serve any purpose than racking up easy arrests and justifying “cybercrimes” grants when most police departments are terrible at catching actual cybercriminals.
But, I do not disagree that a 25 year old sleeping with a 13 year old is a bad thing. By all means, arrest him and punish him. But, when he has served his time, he should be free to go on with his life without a scarlet letter, the same way a car-jacker, wife-beater, drunk driver, armed robber, or attempted murderer would.
@anonymous mom, the issue is determining whether these stings constitute entrapment, which depends on a lot of factors and can get very complicated.
You can find many interesting articles about this topic, e.g: http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/investigations/2014/08/07/law-enforcement-crosses-lines-on-sex-stings-entrapment/13734121/
@bsolar, they are almost certainly not technically entrapment, because of how difficult it is to prove entrapment in the U.S. In most other countries, the stings would absolutely be illegal.
But I think the real issue is one of morality and safety: is running these stings either right or effective? Often, the funding comes from Homeland Security grants. Do we think that horny twenty-somethings on adult sex sites pose a threat to national security that warrants multi-million dollar grants to pay for officers to spend months on end pretending to be aggressive, horny, sexually-experienced teens early seeking out hook-ups on sites where they are not expected or supposed to be? Is this a wise and moral use of our tax money?
And, does it make kids safer? I have an 11 year old. If there were men going onto, say, Minecraft forums or Wii chat and trying to lure him into meeting them so they could sexually assault him when he was just trying to figure out how to use a new mod or wanting to talk about Super Smash Bros., that would be predatory and a problem. However, if he was 14 and decided to download Grindr because he really wanted to meet an older person for a hook-up, that would not be an issue of “internet predators” but an out-of-control teen. These stings replicate the latter situation, not the former.
@James Pollock June 13, 2015 at 1:34 am #
“So far you’ve accused me and bsolar of having some sort of unhealthy attachment to manslaughter laws”
It was brought in to make the point that there are other laws where you don’t have to have the specific intent of doing something illegal to nevertheless be convicted of doing something illegal, it did that, and then took on a life of its own.
–You brought up manslaughter, and everyone is arguing about it because it did not in fact make the point you were trying to make. It actually made the opposite point. Intent does matter in manslaughter. Not the intent to kill, but you need to have some other bad intent: behaving recklessly, doing some other illegal act, being negligent. If you accidentally kill a kid with your car because they ran out in front of you and you were otherwise driving responsibly but just couldn’t stop in time, that’s not manslaughter. If you’re drunk when you do it or texting, that’s manslaughter. The idea is that you could have prevented it from happening if you were behaving more responsibly.
With statutory rape, in this particular case, the guy is doing nothing illegal, negligent, nor reckless. He’s using a hook-up app to meet people for sex, which many people may not personally approve of, but which is not illegal. The girl lies about her age and meets him on the app. This is the equivalent of a kid running in front of your car. He wouldn’t be charged with manslaughter if she ran in front of his car and got killed, and he was driving responsibly. She basically ran in front of his hook-up attempts and got laid. If you’re comparing it to manslaughter, then where is his negligence, recklessness, or other illegal activity? The conclusion must then be that simply having sex too soon or outside of a relationship is behavior that the state wants to punish, which is something I don’t think it should be doing.
I get that you’re a law expert. But there is also a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Maybe the letter of the law in statutory rape is that anyone who has sex with someone underage is guilty no matter what. But maybe the spirit of the law is that adults shouldn’t knowingly have sex with someone underage, but if they lied/had fake ID, then the adult couldn’t be expected to psychically know they were underage.
Unfortunately this sort of thing happens a lot.
These dialogues could be a major force for much needed legal change. There are fine arguments here for changing our state laws so that the registry applies only to those who pose a real danger.
This case and the huge interest it is generating, here and elsewhere, may make it a model for legislative review and change.
If this case were discussed in middle school civics classes, all the issues discussed here would become familiar to those whom they impact most severely. Imagine a role play exercise with kids playing lawyers, defendant, the young girl, all the parents, DA, internet hook-up operator, state politicians, and a character representing the young man 20 years down the road, his life a possible wreck due to the sex offender registry.
It may not alter behavior, but it might teach consequences. And it could be a start toward legislative change.
We’ll never know unless we try.
This is a case about unfair treatment. This could have been anyone’s son or daughter. Youth needs education, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. Justice takes everything into account. Mercy is not excluded. Nor forgiveness.
“Not the intent to kill, but you need to have some other bad intent: behaving recklessly, doing some other illegal act, being negligent.”
Being reckless and being negligent are the complete antithesis of intent. You cannot both intend to commit an act and recklessly or negligently commit it. And there is certainly no requirement that you intended to be negligent or reckless.
Vehicular homicide and involuntary manslaughter are very much the same as stat rape at their most basic level. I’ve seen people convicted of vehicular homicide for accidentally driving through a stop sign despite the fact that they neither intended to kill anyone nor drive through the stop sign. That is pretty much the same as someone being convicted of stat rape despite the fact that they didn’t intend to sleep with someone underage.
The big difference is in degree. In my state, vehicular homicide based on negligence and involuntary manslaughter are misdemeanors while stat rape can be a felony (based only on age and not the nature of the behavior of the defendant) requiring a lifetime on the sex offender registry.
Personally, I am against both stat rape laws and prosecuting negligence, but I do see the connection between the two.
“—You brought up manslaughter, and everyone is arguing about it because it did not in fact make the point you were trying to make. It actually made the opposite point. Intent does matter in manslaughter. Not the intent to kill, but you need to have some other bad intent: behaving recklessly”
This point has been made above, but I’ll repeat it for emphasis. Intent to kill is NOT a required element of manslaughter. Intent to break the law is NOT a required element of manslaughter.
“With statutory rape, in this particular case, the guy is doing nothing illegal, negligent, nor reckless. He’s using a hook-up app to meet people for sex”
An argument can be made that this is, in fact, reckless…. the non-reckless way to have sex is to get to know the person you’re planning on having sex fairly well before jumping in the sack with them; find out if they’re the type of person who forgets to take their oral contraceptive pills, the type who might boil your family pet after you break up with them, or… might be underage or otherwise incapable of providing consent.
This is not particularly important, however. there are a substantial number of crimes and torts one can commit without any intent to break the law. (As a matter of fact, orts are generally divided into “intentional torts”, “strict liability torts” and “negligence” for first-year torts class.
Sonsider a different hypothetical: a pimp with an underaged girl working in forced prosecution. If you ask the girl, or the johns, or the pimp, they will all say the sex was consensual. By declaring that sex with an underaged person is NEVER lawful, you solve two legal issues: First, it takes the question of assessing consent from unreliable witnesses out of the equation. The jury no longer has to decide if it believes the witness(es) who state that the sex was consensual. Secondly, it moves the female victim firmly into play as a victim in a crime of rape rather than as a participant in a crime of prostitution. This allows the state to bring social services to bear to attempt to address the situation, rather than leaving it in the criminal justice system.
“an underaged girl working in forced prosecution”
How does that work, exactly?
“”an underaged girl working in forced prosecution”
How does that work, exactly?”
You… need an explanation of how prostitution works?
Ahh… never mind. Even with you pointing it out, I kept reading it as what I meant to write, rather than what actually came out. Well, I’m still sure the intended meaning was clear, even with the error in it.
The danger of “dating” young girls is not exactly new.
40 years ago, for example…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkL7Fkigfn8
I just couldn’t resist, James; it sounded like an internship from hell 😛
What do we expect as a society when mixed signals are sent? Why do we force 14-20 year olds to extensively interact together on a daily basis in a thing called high school as peers, as equals & act abhorred when 2 individuals in this age group take things further? And if we can’t handle 17-20 hooking up with 14-16 yr olds, why did we change the law in 2009 to allow individuals up to age 25 to attend high school classes as peers with this group if a school district decides so? Why can’t we draw a clearer line? Either up/lower age of consent to fit the group being taught together as peers & equals or seperate the children from the adults.
Dolly– I have taught my girls that being a woman comes with the great responsibility of respecting not only herself but who she has relationships with…. You do not lie about your age… or what what happens between the two of you.
Quote:
“Sonsider a different hypothetical: a pimp with an underaged girl working in forced prosecution. If you ask the girl, or the johns, or the pimp, they will all say the sex was consensual. By declaring that sex with an underaged person is NEVER lawful, you solve two legal issues: First, it takes the question of assessing consent from unreliable witnesses out of the equation. The jury no longer has to decide if it believes the witness(es) who state that the sex was consensual. Secondly, it moves the female victim firmly into play as a victim in a crime of rape rather than as a participant in a crime of prostitution. This allows the state to bring social services to bear to attempt to address the situation, rather than leaving it in the criminal justice system.”
-> Shouldn’t be the same line of argumentation e.g all sex under the age of 21 be illegal? Then that could be used to help e.g. 20 years old forced prostitutes as well. Or why not set the limit at 30? Or 40?
I think that your argumentation mixes two entirely separate issues.
“An argument can be made that this is, in fact, reckless…. the non-reckless way to have sex is to get to know the person you’re planning on having sex fairly well before jumping in the sack with them; find out if they’re the type of person who forgets to take their oral contraceptive pills, the type who might boil your family pet after you break up with them, or… might be underage or otherwise incapable of providing consent.”
What would be a reasonable level of care that the other person truly is of legal age then? Checking the driver’s license generally would be considered a reasonable level of care to ensure that a person is authorized to drive a car. Why isn’t checking the ID a reasonable level of care for finding out if a person is of legal age then?
I think sex and driving a car both are very similar in the sense that they can completely mess up a person’s life if they go wrong. So why should there be different standards of evidence? If anything, i find that the standards for driving should be stricter, as incompetent drivers put not only themselves into danger, but also completely innocent others.
Regarding getting to know a person – it may work, but it doesn’t always. Boys may sweet-talk to a girl for months to get her into bed, and then dump her as soon as they got what they wanted. There are countless cases of people turning out to be scumbags even after having known them for years. If one goes by that, then one should never ever have sex, as one can never be truly sure to know the other person.
Overall i think a part of the problem may be that fake IDs appear to be so incredibly common in the US. Being European, it seems to me that having a fake ID is almost a normal thing for teenagers over there, going by what i see in movies.
Is that truly so? A quick google search yielded punishments as low as a fee of $500 or so for being caught with a fake ID. Of course it depends on the state.
Here in Europe IDs generally can be relied upon. Faking an ID is a *serious* crime, just like faking a driver’s license in the USA or counterfeiting money. Hence people just don’t do it. If an ID says that a person is 16, then one generally can rely on that here.
“What would be a reasonable level of care that the other person truly is of legal age then?”
A reasonable level of care is an appropriate inquiry for negligence, it’s meaningless for strict liability.
“Checking the driver’s license generally would be considered a reasonable level of care to ensure that a person is authorized to drive a car.”
Actually, the standard by law enforcement now is to run the license (that is, to compare it to the state’s database) every time law enforcement has a reason to check your identity.
“Why isn’t checking the ID a reasonable level of care for finding out if a person is of legal age then?”
This still is the wrong question. If you are of age, you are responsible for your actions.
“I think sex and driving a car both are very similar in the sense that they can completely mess up a person’s life if they go wrong.”
Um, OK. So can walking down the sidewalk. (A child my daughter went to school with was killed just walking down the sidewalk.) Heck, so can going to the doctor’s office completely mess up a person’s life if it goes wrong. Just saying.
“So why should there be different standards of evidence? If anything, i find that the standards for driving should be stricter, as incompetent drivers put not only themselves into danger, but also completely innocent others.”
People who have sex with underaged persons don’t put just themselves in danger. Kind of the whole point of age-of-consent law is that they put someone else in danger.
The reason why age-of-consent law is strict liability is because proving that one person has another person under undue influence is very difficult, but proving a person’s calendar age is very easy.
“Overall i think a part of the problem may be that fake IDs appear to be so incredibly common in the US. Being European, it seems to me that having a fake ID is almost a normal thing for teenagers over there, going by what i see in movies.”
If you’re getting your information from movies, that explains a lot. I have some bad news for you. What’s in the movies is… not real.
“Here in Europe IDs generally can be relied upon. Faking an ID is a *serious* crime, just like faking a driver’s license in the USA”
For about 98% of Americans, their ID is a driver’s license. Very, very few use anything else (a small-number of people who can’t or won’t drive use an ID card rather than a DL, and some have a “better” form of ID (a military ID card, for example, gets you on and off-base.)
“Actually, the standard by law enforcement now is to run the license (that is, to compare it to the state’s database) every time law enforcement has a reason to check your identity.”
-> The average person is not a law enforcement officer with such tools at disposal though. The law apparently considers simply looking at the ID to be sufficient e.g. for admitting someone into a night club. Why should a different standard apply for having sex?
Another example: A parent allows a third person, e.g. the babysitter, to drive their child somewhere. The babysitter has an accident and the child is injured. It turns out that his driver’s license was faked. But the parent had viewed that license before deciding to allow the babysitter to drive with the child. Was the parent negligent in this case? No. The parent could rightfully trust that the driver’s license would be genuine unless it was a really really bad and obvious fake.
“Um, OK. So can walking down the sidewalk. (A child my daughter went to school with was killed just walking down the sidewalk.) Heck, so can going to the doctor’s office completely mess up a person’s life if it goes wrong. Just saying.”
-> A person walking on a sidewalk or going to a doctor however usually is not a threat to others. That’s the relevant distinction there, and why one needs to be able to prove with a document that one is fit to drive a vehicle. Or to *be* a doctor. Or to have sex.
“The reason why age-of-consent law is strict liability is because proving that one person has another person under undue influence is very difficult, but proving a person’s calendar age is very easy.”
-> For the actual legal authorities it may be. But what about the older partner in the encounter, without access to government databases? How is he or she supposed to know that his or her “influence” (which may be no more than sweet-talking) is due or undue if checking the ID supposedly does not provide a sufficient level of certainty?
“If you’re getting your information from movies, that explains a lot.”
-> Like what? So far i think i have been respectful and as factual as possible. Why do you feel the need to get snippy here?
`
“For about 98% of Americans, their ID is a driver’s license. Very, very few use anything else (a small-number of people who can’t or won’t drive use an ID card rather than a DL, and some have a “better” form of ID (a military ID card, for example, gets you on and off-base.)”
-> Yes, and based on what some google searches revealed about that, the penalty for faking a driver’s license usually is far worse (felony, depending on the state) than the penalty for faking an ID (usually just a misdemeanor and punished with a fee for first offenders). Hence i would assume that most faked IDs are not driver’s licenses.
But please specifically answer these questions: Are fake IDs so common that a person generally cannot rely on an ID to verify another person’s age? Or would you trust a driver’s license, due to the higher penalty for faking one? Or would you trust neither document?
I think that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that such documents are trustworthy.
“The law apparently considers simply looking at the ID to be sufficient e.g. for admitting someone into a night club.”
Nope. Strict liability for allowing minors on the premises where alcohol is served. For selling nicotine products to people under 18, too.
“Why should a different standard apply for having sex?”
It doesn’t. A person who is over 18 is expected to be responsible for their own actions; persons under the age of majority are not.
“Another example: A parent allows a third person, e.g. the babysitter, to drive their child somewhere. The babysitter has an accident and the child is injured. It turns out that his driver’s license was faked. But the parent had viewed that license before deciding to allow the babysitter to drive with the child. Was the parent negligent in this case? No. The parent could rightfully trust that the driver’s license would be genuine unless it was a really really bad and obvious fake.”
Right answer, wrong reason. Negligence disappears if there is an intervening criminal act. So, it’s at least potentially negligent to leave your car running, with the keys in the ignition, while you go somewhere else. If, however, someone hops in your car and takes off, then has an accident, the victims of that accident cannot go after you for negligence… there was an intervening criminal act (their recourse is against the person who was driving.)
“A person walking on a sidewalk or going to a doctor however usually is not a threat to others.”
How do your figure? Infectious disease can be spread in a doctor’s office.
“That’s the relevant distinction there, and why one needs to be able to prove with a document that one is fit to drive a vehicle.”
You don’t need a document to drive a car.
“Or to have sex.”
You don’t need a document to have sex, either. Where are you going with this?
“For the actual legal authorities it may be. But what about the older partner in the encounter, without access to government databases?”
You rolls the dice and you takes your chances.
“‘If you’re getting your information from movies, that explains a lot.’
-> Like what? So far i think i have been respectful and as factual as possible. Why do you feel the need to get snippy here?”
If I should happen to get snippy, I’ll tell you why.
If your information is coming from movies, that explains why it’s inaccurate. Movies are not real.
`
“For about 98% of Americans, their ID is a driver’s license. Very, very few use anything else (a small-number of people who can’t or won’t drive use an ID card rather than a DL, and some have a “better” form of ID (a military ID card, for example, gets you on and off-base.)”
“-> Yes, and based on what some google searches revealed about that, the penalty for faking a driver’s license usually is far worse (felony, depending on the state) than the penalty for faking an ID (usually just a misdemeanor and punished with a fee for first offenders). Hence i would assume that most faked IDs are not driver’s licenses.”
You assume incorrectly.
“But please specifically answer these questions: Are fake IDs so common that a person generally cannot rely on an ID to verify another person’s age?”
No. A possibility always exists that an ID is faked, particularly if there is a particular reason why a person would WANT a faked ID. For example, Traci Lords used faked ID so she could work in porn when she was 16. The thing is, usually people are taken in by fake IDs are people who want it to be real. (The bar owner wants your faked ID to be real so he can sell you alcohol, for example.)
” Or would you trust a driver’s license, due to the higher penalty for faking one?”
I don’t know that there is a higher penalty for having a faked driver’s license than for any other form of ID. Generally, the crime(s) charged for a fake ID have more to do with what you were trying to do than with what document you faked to do it.
“Or would you trust neither document?”
I have neither still nor experience is examining ID documents.
“I think that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that such documents are trustworthy.”
Only for the ones the state issues.
Jen – “But please specifically answer these questions: Are fake IDs so common that a person generally cannot rely on an ID to verify another person’s age?”
In my personal experience, fake IDs are very, very common. At my college, I would estimate that 75% of my freshman dorm mates (maybe 50 out of 65 girls) had fake IDs that said they were over 21 so they could go to the bars drinking. I could have had a fake ID if I had wanted. In high school, that percentage was lower, mostly because of less access to those with 21+ IDs, but even in high school, many people were able to use their older sibling’s ID to get alcohol.
Unlike the movies, the IDs are not usually made in some elaborate counterfeiting operation. They are usually real IDs from older kids who sell their real ID, then go to the DMV and claim they “lost” theirs and get a replacement. Since you’re just proving age, it doesn’t really matter what the name on the ID is. In fact, at one place I worked when I was a college senior, my manager asked to buy my ID to give to her freshman daughter because we looked similar enough. The girl’s own mother tried to get her a fake ID, can you believe it? I told her no.
On the fake ID topic, I’ll add that even though getting real IDs from older, similar looking students was the most typical method of getting a fake ID, there were also some students counterfeiting IDs. One year when my friend was an RA, one of the students on her floor was running a counterfeit ID business, which she only learned when the Feds came in SWAT style to arrest him.
Yes, when a 19 year man old RAPES a 14 year old girl, he should be a sex offender. He was the age of a high school graduate. She was in middle school. What if he gave her AIDS or got her pregnant? Would you not be furious as this 19 year old man.
Would you feel the same if he was 17 and she was 12 years old? In Mexico the age of consent is 12 years old. Is that where you want to take our country? Legalized Pedophilia by adopting the Mexican culture? If you can’t stand up for this female victim (consenting or not, since she is a minor), then you truly are the World’s Worst Mom.
Tom King,
What article did you read? There was no RAPE. The girl lied about her age. So she is NO victim. Not in any sense of the word. Considering all the trouble that her lies have caused this guy, he is the victim. Here you go, how many other guys are there that she has duped? What if this little tramp has given them AIDS?
“Nope. Strict liability for allowing minors on the premises where alcohol is served. For selling nicotine products to people under 18, too.”
-> The difference here however is that bars and clubs mostly only get fines for violations. The bar owners do not end up on sex offender registrations that ruins their whole lives. Strict liability laws are based on the assumption that a number of “undue” convictions are a lesser evil than whatever may happen if they would not set an incentive against a certain unwanted behaviour. But in this case at hand the punishment is far, far too severe.
It’s like a strict liability law that calls for capital punishment if you happen to cause the death of someone else, no matter whether it was an innocent accident or not.
“Negligence disappears if there is an intervening criminal act.”
-> And here we go! Getting a faked ID or using someone else’s ID is exactly such an intervening criminal act, isn’t it? Hence it should count as an exculpating circumstance if someone was made believe that his or her partner in sexual intercourse is of age by being shown a fake ID. After all that person has no other means to reliably establish the age.
“How do your figure? Infectious disease can be spread in a doctor’s office.”
-> Hence high standards for hygiene in a doctor’s office, which is also the doctor’s responsibility to maintain.
“You don’t need a document to drive a car.”
-> A driver’s license by definition is an “official document”. Or do you propose that one does not need a driver’s license to drive a car (on public roads)?
“You don’t need a document to have sex, either. Where are you going with this?”
-> One needs to be able to prove being of age. It’s the state’s obligation to provide legal security, so one can be sure that a legal act that one is about to do truly is legal. How would you do that?
“If I should happen to get snippy, I’ll tell you why.
If your information is coming from movies, that explains why it’s inaccurate. Movies are not real.”
-> Then by all means just point out my mistakes and false assumptions – that’s why i did point out my source of information in first instance after all. Don’t just say, “you’re wrong”, but tell me what is different.
But what i’ve read from you so far actually confirms what i’ve seen in movies – that fake or false IDs are sufficiently common so that you would not trust an ID if you were shown one.
“No. A possibility always exists that an ID is faked, particularly if there is a particular reason why a person would WANT a faked ID.”
-> Of course. There even also is a possibility that the actual parents of a 15 years old girl might lie to her boyfriend and falsely claim that she is 16 just so they can frame him afterwards. Should such a boy be charged with statutory rape? According to your line of reasoning he should.
“For example, Traci Lords used faked ID so she could work in porn when she was 16. The thing is, usually people are taken in by fake IDs are people who want it to be real. (The bar owner wants your faked ID to be real so he can sell you alcohol, for example.)”
-> I dare to say that for being employed as a porn actor there should require a higher standard of proof of age than for a sexual encounter between two teenagers.
“I don’t know that there is a higher penalty for having a faked driver’s license than for any other form of ID. Generally, the crime(s) charged for a fake ID have more to do with what you were trying to do than with what document you faked to do it.”
-> One can do more things with a driver’s license than with an ID (namely, driving. The law might predate the option of having licenses run through the computer ), so it makes sense that faked driver’s licenses are seen as a more severe thing than a faked ID.
“I think that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that such documents are trustworthy.”
“Only for the ones the state issues.”
-> That would be IDs and driver’s licenses, wouldn’t it? The DMV is a state level government agency. It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure that those documents can be trusted. If someone violates a law because he or she trusted an official document which turned out to be faked, then that should be an exculpating circumstance.
Basically that is what i’m saying:
If some girl merely claims to be of age, then a guy who falsely believes this may be guilty of negligence. In that case there should be some minor punishment for first offenders to teach them a lesson, but certainly not sex offender registration.
If he however actually checked her ID and fell for a good fake, then he should not be punished at all. He took all the care that the law could ask of him to ensure that he isn’t breaking any laws.
“But in this case at hand the punishment is far, far too severe.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. The solution to that is to adjust the punishment for the crime.
“‘Negligence disappears if there is an intervening criminal act.’
-> And here we go! Getting a faked ID or using someone else’s ID is exactly such an intervening criminal act, isn’t it?”
No. Getting a faked ID or using someone else’s ID happens before, not after. Intervening means “between”. The legal concept you’re looking for is “fraud in the inducement”. However, if you’re fraudulently induced to do something illegal, you’re still culpable for the offense (unless some other defense applies).
“Hence it should count as an exculpating circumstance if someone was made believe that his or her partner in sexual intercourse is of age by being shown a fake ID.”
OK. Mitigating circumstances affect sentencing, and this is something that absolutely should bear in the sentencing decision.
“‘You don’t need a document to drive a car.’
-> A driver’s license by definition is an “official document”. Or do you propose that one does not need a driver’s license to drive a car (on public roads)?”
You’re adding a condition after the fact. You don’t need a license (or any other document) to drive a car.
“You don’t need a document to have sex, either. Where are you going with this?”
-> One needs to be able to prove being of age. It’s the state’s obligation to provide legal security, so one can be sure that a legal act that one is about to do truly is legal. How would you do that?
It’s not the state’s obligation.
“But what i’ve read from you so far actually confirms what i’ve seen in movies — that fake or false IDs are sufficiently common so that you would not trust an ID if you were shown one.”
I wouldn’t rely on an ID, or anything else, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s a chance somebody has a false ID. When I was close enough to the age of consent that I was seeing people who might not have reached it, a romeo&juliet provision would have applied. In the many years since, I haven’t pursued anyone where that might be an issue.
“-> Of course. There even also is a possibility that the actual parents of a 15 years old girl might lie to her boyfriend and falsely claim that she is 16 just so they can frame him afterwards.”
I have a feeling that the reason you’re going to offer will sound like a movie plot. What possible reason is there for the parents of an underage girl to lie about her age for purposes of framing somebody for sleeping with her? (Keep in mind, if they want to frame him, all they have to do is lie about whether or not they had sex at all, and if you’re going to do that, why not claim the rape was forcible? You get a felony out of that, rather than a misdemeanor.)
“Should such a boy be charged with statutory rape? According to your line of reasoning he should.”
Yes, he should be charged with statutory rape, because he’s guilty of statutory rape. Should this circumstance arise.
“-> I dare to say that for being employed as a porn actor there should require a higher standard of proof of age than for a sexual encounter between two teenagers.”
It doesn’t. It does carry a records-keeping requirement, though.(18 U.S. Code § 2257).
“-> One can do more things with a driver’s license than with an ID (namely, driving.”
So they might tack on a charge of driving without a license to a charge of providing false identification. This doesn’t mean that providing false identification by means of a fake driver’s license is punished more severely than providing false identification by means of some other document. The point of a fake ID is to get into a bar. People who want to drive but don’t have a license just drive without a license.
“I think that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that such documents are trustworthy.”
“Only for the ones the state issues.”
-> That would be IDs and driver’s licenses, wouldn’t it?”
Not fake ones. Now, the state DOES have a duty not to issue fakes, which it does not always succeed at… sometimes identity thieves are able to secure real government-issued identification for identities that are false. I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about here.
“The DMV is a state level government agency. It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure that those documents can be trusted. If someone violates a law because he or she trusted an official document which turned out to be faked, then that should be an exculpating circumstance.”
It can be considered as a mitigating factor. It’s not exculpatory. Think about it… if a bar could escape liability for serving underaged patrons by saying “he had an ID!”, then they’d take any old ID that anyone showed up with, because they WANT to sell alcohol. By keeping strict liability, the bars are VERY motivated to ensure that only those who are 21 are allowed to enter the premises.
“Basically that is what i’m saying:
If some girl merely claims to be of age, then a guy who falsely believes this may be guilty of negligence.”
Maybe. But that’s STILL not the standard he’ll be judged on. (Note also that you’ve fallen into some gender stereotyping here.)
“In that case there should be some minor punishment for first offenders to teach them a lesson, but certainly not sex offender registration.”
And we’re back where we started. This is an argument to change the punishment for the crime, not the definition of it.
(Note that, way up above, I suggested a change to the way the law is defined that would make all this worry about fake IDs moot.)
“No. Getting a faked ID or using someone else’s ID happens before, not after. Intervening means “between”. The legal concept you’re looking for is “fraud in the inducement”. However, if you’re fraudulently induced to do something illegal, you’re still culpable for the offense (unless some other defense applies).”
-> It happens in the chain of events that lead up to the illegal sex, possibly even just minutes before it. That’s pretty much exactly “intervening”. Fraud in the inducement is something rather different according to various definitions that i read up.
“You’re adding a condition after the fact. You don’t need a license (or any other document) to drive a car.”
-> Well, now you’re playing word games. You know perfectly well that when i write, “you need a driver’s license to drive a car,” that by that i mean that you need a license to drive it *legally*. Not that it is a physical requirement for the car to move.
“I wouldn’t rely on an ID, or anything else, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s a chance somebody has a false ID.”
-> And what are those actual reasons?
“I have a feeling that the reason you’re going to offer will sound like a movie plot. What possible reason is there for the parents of an underage girl to lie about her age for purposes of framing somebody for sleeping with her? ”
-> It’s a hypothetical scenario. Perhaps they just hate the boy for whatever reason, and they expect their daughter not to play along with their devious plan but to testify that it would have been consensual sex and that she also claimed to have been 16.
“Yes, he should be charged with statutory rape, because he’s guilty of statutory rape. Should this circumstance arise.”
-> IMHO he is “proven” to have committed statutory rape, but “not guilty” of it. To me it seems like a showcase example where a jury nullification would be due, which is about just that – act proven but not guilty.
“Not fake ones. ”
-> Then why is faking IDs and driver’s licenses illegal, if the state’s responsibility is limited to not issueing fake ones in its own offices? As soon as the state enacts a law, it is responsible for upholding that law. Apparently the state currently fails at that big time in terms of fake IDs.
“Think about it… if a bar could escape liability for serving underaged patrons by saying “he had an ID!”, then they’d take any old ID that anyone showed up with, because they WANT to sell alcohol. By keeping strict liability, the bars are VERY motivated to ensure that only those who are 21 are allowed to enter the premises.”
-> If a 19 years old enters a bar with his (!) grandma’s ID, then of course the bar should not get away with it – because they evidently didn’t actually check the ID. But in case of good fakes or good lookalikes (e.g. using the ID of the one year older sibling) i think the bar should not be punished. They did all that could be reasonably expected of them. They even did all they *could*, as they don’t have access to government databases in which they could verify the identity.
Do you think it would be *fair* to punish a bar owner if he fell for a perfect fake that even a trained person could have missed?
“Maybe. But that’s STILL not the standard he’ll be judged on.”
-> i’m not exclusively talking about “what is”, but also what i think “ought to be”.
“(Note also that you’ve fallen into some gender stereotyping here.)”
-> Nah, i just got tired of writing “he or she” but instead chose a simple specific example – which also most likely constitutes the majority of such cases, IMHO.
“And we’re back where we started. This is an argument to change the punishment for the crime, not the definition of it.”
-> I think “negligent statutory rape” would be a new definition of a crime, not a different punishment. But yes, i think some laws (both crimes and punishments) should be adapted to these particular circumstances to offer a more reasonable and sensible reaction instead of doing the legal counterpart to a nuclear strike on the offender with a statutory rape conviction and sex offender registration.
-> It happens in the chain of events that lead up to the illegal sex, possibly even just minutes before it. That’s pretty much exactly “intervening”.
It’s not “intervening”. One of the elements of negligence is “proximate cause”, that is, the negligence caused the injury (or at least, is the dominant cause). And “intervening criminal act” inserts another defendant… the criminal… whose actions occur between the act that would otherwise be negligence and the resulting injury. To be “intervening”, the sequence would have to be
1. The person who is sufficiently older than the underaged person, decides to have sex with them (the negligence)
2. The underaged person shows a fake ID (the intervening criminal act)
3. Criminal sex occurs.
The realistic sequence would be
1. The underaged person shows a fake ID
2. The older person decides to have sex with the underaged person
3. Sex occurs.
In this order, the showing of faked ID is not “intervening”, it’s inducement.
“‘You’re adding a condition after the fact. You don’t need a license (or any other document) to drive a car.’
-> Well, now you’re playing word games. You know perfectly well that when i write, “you need a driver’s license to drive a car,” that by that i mean that you need a license to drive it *legally*. Not that it is a physical requirement for the car to move.”
No, you’re continuing to misunderstand. You do not need a license to LEGALLY DRIVE A CAR. Many, many people have driven a car, ENTIRELY LEGALLY, prior to obtaining a driver’s license. I myself have done so. You don’t need a document to drive on private property, only the property owner’s permission. There are other cases where you don’t need any document to legally drive.
“‘I wouldn’t rely on an ID, or anything else, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s a chance somebody has a false ID.’
-> And what are those actual reasons?”
The people I date usually have kids over 18. I consider this sufficient proof that they are properly of age, without need to consult any documents.
“-> It’s a hypothetical scenario. Perhaps they just hate the boy for whatever reason, and they expect their daughter not to play along with their devious plan but to testify that it would have been consensual sex and that she also claimed to have been 16.”
So… that’s a movie plot. It’s entirely unrelated to the real world. You left out what they hope to gain from this. The logic of “we hate you. Here, sleep with our daughter!” escapes me.
“-> If a 19 years old enters a bar with his (!) grandma’s ID, then of course the bar should not get away with it — because they evidently didn’t actually check the ID. But in case of good fakes or good lookalikes (e.g. using the ID of the one year older sibling) i think the bar should not be punished.”
If a 19-year old enters a bar with an ID of their sibling who is 1 year older, then yeah, the bar should be punished. They let someone in with an ID that said they were 20… (underaged in all 50 states).
James and Jens, just stop. I, for one, would appreciate it if you’d take your wall of text posts to each other off site.
“To be “intervening”, the sequence would have to be
1. The person who is sufficiently older than the underaged person, decides to have sex with them (the negligence)
2. The underaged person shows a fake ID (the intervening criminal act)
3. Criminal sex occurs.
The realistic sequence would be
1. The underaged person shows a fake ID
2. The older person decides to have sex with the underaged person
3. Sex occurs.
In this order, the showing of faked ID is not “intervening”, it’s inducement.”
-> Why would the underage person show a fake ID unless there already is some preliminary plan to get it on? Do people randomly wave IDs? Isn’t it more likely that someone asks for that ID because the need to check the age (wanting to have sex) has arisen beforehand? Thus i think the first sequence of events is perfectly plausible.
“No, you’re continuing to misunderstand. You do not need a license to LEGALLY DRIVE A CAR. Many, many people have driven a car, ENTIRELY LEGALLY, prior to obtaining a driver’s license. I myself have done so. You don’t need a document to drive on private property, only the property owner’s permission. There are other cases where you don’t need any document to legally drive.”
-> Sigh…Of course i know that exceptions exist, hence i already explicitly mentioned “on public roads” in a previous post to exclude private roads. There also may be exceptions for public roads, e.g. in case of medical emergencies. But that’s irrelevant. It was plain as day that i was talking about the kind of driving that encompasses about 99% of all miles that are being driven – things like your routine errand to a supermarket on public roads. You typically need a driver’s license to do that legally, don’t you?
“The people I date usually have kids over 18. I consider this sufficient proof that they are properly of age, without need to consult any documents.”
-> That’s different to your previous assertion that you wouldn’t trust IDs for other reason than the risk of being shown a fake one. What you’re saying now is that you don’t *need* to trust IDs in first instance, not that you don’t trust them. Those are two very distinct statements.
“So… that’s a movie plot. It’s entirely unrelated to the real world. You left out what they hope to gain from this. The logic of “we hate you. Here, sleep with our daughter!” escapes me.”
-> It’s about whether the laws as they exist are just or not. And people do all kinds of wacky stuff to get revenge on people they hate, even at the expense of their (hopefully) loved ones.
Besides, hypothetical questions like that are common e.g. in Ethics classes. Just like the famous “would you kill an innocent child to save ten innocent adults” question in its countless variants..
@Buffy:
I’m sorry that you feel annoyed by our walls of texts. But there is no way for us to take this elsewhere without publicly posting some rather private information such as an email address.
But generally it seems that we two are the only ones left who keep commenting on this issue, so you’re not really missing out on anything here. Also, our debate is fully on topic. So please bear with us.
“James and Jens, just stop. I, for one, would appreciate it if you’d take your wall of text posts to each other off site.”
May I suggest that if you don’t want to read “wall-of-text” comments, that you simply refrain from reading them? Thank you.
“-> Why would the underage person show a fake ID unless there already is some preliminary plan to get it on? Do people randomly wave IDs? Isn’t it more likely that someone asks for that ID because the need to check the age (wanting to have sex) has arisen beforehand? Thus i think the first sequence of events is perfectly plausible.”
If the sequence is “decide to have sex, get shown fake ID, have sex, then the fake ID has no bearing on the outcome and is immaterial.
“-> Sigh…Of course i know that exceptions exist, hence i already explicitly mentioned “on public roads” in a previous post to exclude private roads.”
To which I pointed out that you were adding an important qualifier to your original claim, and you went off on a tangent..
“There also may be exceptions for public roads, e.g. in case of medical emergencies. But that’s irrelevant.”
So your claim goes from “you need a document to drive” to “you need a document to drive, except for when you don’t.”
“-> That’s different to your previous assertion that you wouldn’t trust IDs for other reason than the risk of being shown a fake one. What you’re saying now is that you don’t *need* to trust IDs in first instance, not that you don’t trust them. Those are two very distinct statements.
I said previously
“I wouldn’t rely on an ID, or anything else, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there’s a chance somebody has a false ID. When I was close enough to the age of consent that I was seeing people who might not have reached it, a romeo&juliet provision would have applied. In the many years since, I haven’t pursued anyone where that might be an issue.”
I don’t think those are “two very distinct statements” at all.
“‘So… that’s a movie plot. It’s entirely unrelated to the real world. You left out what they hope to gain from this. The logic of “we hate you. Here, sleep with our daughter!” escapes me.’
-> It’s about whether the laws as they exist are just or not.”
I’m on the record as saying that strict liability for age of consent is not, but for totally different reasoning.
“And people do all kinds of wacky stuff to get revenge on people they hate, even at the expense of their (hopefully) loved ones.”
Yeah, people do all sorts of wacky stuff to get revenge on people they hate. Tricking them into having sex with their children, though? I think I’m safe to say that this one isn’t going to come up often enough to be troubling.
“Besides, hypothetical questions like that are common e.g. in Ethics classes. Just like the famous “would you kill an innocent child to save ten innocent adults” question in its countless variants.”
Law school is 3 years of constant hypotheticals. But they still have to make sense..
https://m.facebook.com/zig19/photos/pb.892341837529020.-2207520000.1434647115./898943053535565/?type=1&source=54&refid=17
Just curious if anyone checked out Justice4Zach FB link posted by Lenore – above is a link to a breakdown of the expenses involved in this case – cost is in tens of thousands of $$$
Also interesting reading parents’ posts about their experience and perspective on the case
Regardless of opinion on this case, Zach’s family has clearly been through an emotional & financial nightmare
It will be interesting to read how the appeals in this case play out
Here is a link to coverage by the ABA:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/f_word_policing_judge_blasts_hookup_culture_requires_sex_offender_registrat/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email&utm_source=maestro&job_id=150617BD
To many girls lie about rape an age. So that’s why god invented a hand for man. An yup just like everyone said in the comments below I need ID an a pic of ID so that in case it goes to court whether it was fake or not cause IDs can be faked to look real. An also a written consent letter by the girl. If she doesn’t like it there’s the door. Srry I gotta protect myself. This world is against men mgtow all the way.
Hi
There is this girl she is the same age as me and we send each other nudes I see her every day. I want to do more, so one day she was in the shower and I went in her room while she was still in the shower, I laid in her bed and she saw me there and she dropped her towel and came over and laid by me. I was so happy I was so close to her in till her little brother cane in and saw her laying down he said where did he go? She said he went home. At that time I had my dick so hard she wanted to touch my stomach but she touched my duck. She said what’s that I said my duck she said it’s so hard. She started going up and down and it feels so good. I said can we something else she said omg yes. So she got up and she started to give me a blowjob and I didn’t mean this but I let her finish. So I rolled her on her stomach and I laid on top of her and put my dick in side off her and she started yelling more so I went in more and more I got so deep in and her mom came in and she said she was playing a game on her phone and I was still inside of her at the time and her mom left and I went so fast I was done in no time. She have me a hand job and I couldn’t stop her. Then we did 69 she was also sweet I couldn’t atop her mom came in and pulled me off and at the same night we got back together and she let me eat her out and I could not stop I keep going and going she pushed me away then pulled me back in. Now every time we see each other kiss and cuddle we both have our baby we live together.