How to Repeal Strict Liability for Statutory Rape

Quote:

---

What's the best way to approach legislators about bringing state codes into compliance with the Model Penal Code?

---

I answered that long ago.

Quote:

---

Nope, they allow it in certain situations.

---

but your statement was written such that it was allowed in all situations. That is obviously not true.

Quote:

---

Only if the child is under the age of twelve. For the ages of 12 and above, it agrees with me and that's all that's relevant.

---

No, that isn't all that is relevant. You now want to qualify your statement and restrict it to certain situations. Before, your blanket statement was that the ECMJ allowed it, without qualification. Then we got into the discussion of what crimes you were including in your application. Then I showed you where the rape of a <12 yo could fall under your definition of the crimes in the discussion. Then I showed you that your claim that the claim the ECMJ agrees with you is wrong because the defense of a mistake of age is specifically removed from being an available defense in the rape of a child <12 (that obviously can call within your definition of sexual assault).

The fact is, they only allow it in specific situations but specifically disallow it in others. That is very different than what your claim implied.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I answered that long ago.

---

Not about the best way. Unless I missed a post, you basically just said to look up their phone numbers and call them. I appreciate the advice, but I'm looking for something more specific.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

No, that isn't all that is relevant. You now want to qualify your statement and restrict it to certain situations. Before, your blanket statement was that the ECMJ allowed it, without qualification.
The fact is, they only allow it in specific situations but specifically disallow it in others. That is very different than what your claim implied.

---

Either way, it's very relevant because this defense could have been used to acquit Morris Williams and Mark Fleming.

I guess it's necessary to say it again....

Sorry, but you're simply not going to convince either the public or the various state legislatures that "I thought the tween or very young teen was an adult" is a valid defense for men who can't keep their hands off of twelve-, thirteen-, fourteen-year-old children. As much as that may pain you.

Quote:

---

Astrodude;644820]Not about the best way. Unless I missed a post, you basically just said to look up their phone numbers and call them. I appreciate the advice, but I'm looking for something more specific.

---

actually, yes, I did give you the best way. If you do not know a legislator well enough to give them a call, or know somebody that can, you get to do the same thing every other nameless constituent does; write a letter or call their office and leave a message. Seriously, that is how it works.

Quote:

---

Either way, it's very relevant because this defense could have been used to acquit Morris Williams and Mark Fleming.

---

I don't know how unless they were tried under the ECMJ.

Morris Williams slept with her and then said that things did not sound right. He checked her out AFTER he did the deed. Your examples are horrible. You are using people that by their own admission, they should have been more dilligent about who they were doing.

So, you want a mulligan for sex offenders? Once I hit, then I find out that my partner was underage, I get a reprieve? How logical is that. I'm not concerned about the consequences with someone who looks young, but says she's older. I sleep with her and then I start putting two and two together and discover the truth!?! That's a little too little, too late for most of society. If I have to question whether or not to get in bed with you, apparently, I don't need to get in bed with you. It's that simple!

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Morris Williams slept with her and then said that things did not sound right. He checked her out AFTER he did the deed. Your examples are horrible. You are using people that by their own admission, they should have been more dilligent about who they were doing.

---

He didn't think things were suspicious until after he did the deed. He was far more responsible than much of the public not on the registry who just wouldn't have said anything and gone on with their lives. He showed legitimate concern. Also, it doesn't seem to be too late for the US Military, California, South Carolina, Alaska, Tennessee, Indiana, and several other states.

Also, how does his negligence make him a serious threat to society deserving of the sex offender registry? He's not a willing child-predator. I got a hold of my state-rep and he said it would take time though he supports amending strict-liability where legitimate mistake-of-age is concerned. I need to get more reps to agree with me and a few Supreme Court judges wouldn't hurt.

Quote:

---

Astrodude;644847]He didn't think things were suspicious until after he did the deed

---

.Oh, you mean his hormones caused him to act like a little kid that couldn't control himself and when that urge subsided and he realized; hey, I just banged a little kid, his conscience got to him?

Quote:

---

Also, how does his negligence make him a serious threat to society deserving of the sex offender registry? He's not a willing child-predator

---

.because his thought process is flawed. Rather than screwing then thinking, he should be thinking first. That means he might "accidentally" schtupp a kid again, but of course realize it after he does it. For some reason, you seem to think that makes it alright.

.

Quote:

---

I need to get more reps to agree with me and a few Supreme Court judges wouldn't hurt.

---

got a million bucks in your pocket you are willing to devote to this?

If so, go get yourself a kid that looks old enough and do whatever it takes to get arrested for schtupping her. Then start throwing the money to lawyers who can defend you and file appeals until it (hopefully) reaches the SCOTUS. Then you will get to hear the Supremes position on the issue.

Given your positive attitude, you an ignore the possibility you would lose.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

If so, go get yourself a kid that looks old enough and do whatever it takes to get arrested for schtupping her. Then start throwing the money to lawyers who can defend you and file appeals until it (hopefully) reaches the SCOTUS. Then you will get to hear the Supremes position on the issue.

Given your positive attitude, you an ignore the possibility you would lose.

---

We have plenty of people to rally around already. There's no need for me to risk law-breaking. We could lose initially on the grounds that many judges oppose strict liability, but consider it constitutional nevertheless. If Catherine Carpenter's arguments gained more publicity, sex-offender registration for strict-liability offenders would likely be struck down. Perhaps more unbiased media exposure would encourage more reform. I don't have a million bucks, but I'll make it. Lawrence Taylor also has a million bucks and a vested interest in overturning strict liability so perhaps he would contribute.

Quote:

---

Astrodude;644852]We have plenty of people to rally around already. There's no need for me to risk law-breaking.

---

To get the Supremes input, somebody, who is actually charged with a crime and argues strict liability is unconstitutional is going to have to have their case escalated through the courts, hopefully, eventually reaching the SCOTUS. Who better to do this than you, as you are such an advocate for the issue. After all, if you aren't willing to sacrifice for the cause, why should anybody help you?


.

Quote:

---

I don't have a million bucks, but I'll make it.

---

then I guess you won't be getting anything from the Supremes

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

To get the Supremes input, somebody, who is actually charged with a crime and argues strict liability is unconstitutional is going to have to have their case escalated through the courts, hopefully, eventually reaching the SCOTUS. Who better to do this than you, as you are such an advocate for the issue. After all, if you aren't willing to sacrifice for the cause, why should anybody help you?

---

They should help me because they'll also want to see strict liability for statutory rape/sexual assault repealed once they're persuaded. I'm willing to sacrifice time and effort, but I'm not going to intentionally hurt a minor because it isn't worth the minor's well-being. Also, you have posed a paradox. One cannot intentionally or willfully commit an act that is defined by his ignorance. If someone were to intentionally break the laws in question to challenge strict liability, it would be meaningless because they would possess mens rea anyways, and thus still be culpable for their crime. Barring a Romeo and Juliet situation, I would advocate imprisonment and a period of sex-offender registration for these perpetrators.