How to Repeal Strict Liability for Statutory Rape

[Astrodude]

Dude, get some progress on this thing. Show some results on your quest to legalize predatory rape. Then, you can fill everybody in on what magic you've been able to spin that no other molester on earth has been able to pull off. Until then, sign off.

I strongly favor the laws that call for strict sentencing for predatory rape and I strongly support the current strict laws against mens rea "statutory rape" when the older partner's age is greater than four-thirds of the younger partner's age. I simply want to have the Model Penal Code mistake-of-age defense to be the standard for the nation, especially because the registry often results in de facto life imprisonment. Mens rea should have to be demonstrated for sex-offender registration and its associated restrictions to apply. I will post on this topic again once I obtain 1,000 signatures.

Better yet, take a long walk off a short pier. We don't give a damn about your cause and would be perfectly happy if we never heard from you again.

Seriously, dude. Go away. For real.

We've already scored huge victories in 19 states so why would we stop? There's a chance that you could be duped into committing statutory rape under strict liability standards.

[jk]

see ya in a couple years.


hey, when you get that petition, can I have a copy? I think police in the respective areas of the signatories would love to have a ready made list of people to check on when certain crimes are reported.

[Astrodude]

see ya in a couple years.


hey, when you get that petition, can I have a copy? I think police in the respective areas of the signatories would love to have a ready made list of people to check on when certain crimes are reported.

You certainly may, but the police actually wouldn't profile based on a petition signing to change a liability standard. Your idea that people who want to change a strict liability standard want to break the law is simply bigotry. It has no rational basis. Keep in mind that strict liability offenders, unlike mens rea offenders, don't willingly break the law. Plus, you'd want many voters in the 19 states who have voted for at least some mistake-of-age defenses to be deemed likely offenders, so your bigotry is very extreme.

I'll still be posting on unrelated topics anyways.

[jk]

Astrodude;650611]You certainly may, but the police actually wouldn't profile based on a petition signing to change a liability standard.

You think not? Sorry kid but that is a huge source of "people of interest" no matter what you are doing whether it be criminal issues or wanting to sell windows.

Keep in mind that strict liability offenders, unlike mens rea offenders, don't willingly break the law.

Ah, see that is where you are wrong. They are willingly breaking the law. The point to your situation is they are not realizing it (kind of like when I get that ticket for a loud stereo in my town because they posted signs on the main entry ways to my town but nothing else).

[Astrodude]

You think not? Sorry kid but that is a huge source of "people of interest" no matter what you are doing whether it be criminal issues or wanting to sell windows.

Evidence? Police have to follow standards procedures and gather evidence to declare people suspects. Signing a petition voicing opposition to a liability standard doesn't provide any reasonable evidence of committing a crime.

Ah, see that is where you are wrong. They are willingly breaking the law. The point to your situation is they are not realizing it (kind of like when I get that ticket for a loud stereo in my town because they posted signs on the main entry ways to my town but nothing else).

Dead wrong! That's a completely invalid analogy. In order to willingly commit an act, one must know the act he is committing. If you believe with rational basis that a sexual partner is of the age of consent specified by law, then you cannot willingly commit statutory rape because you cannot identify the specific act at the time the act was committed. The concept of willful choice is predicated upon the assumption of knowledge of specific choices.
You're confusing two fundamentally different concepts. Ignorance of the law is not usually a defense for breaking the law, but ignorance of the act committed is usually a defense with statutory rape being a rare serious exception. You knew that your stereo was loud and you're just at fault for not knowing that there was a law against loud stereos.

[cbg]

And you're a pain in the ass.

[jk]

=Astrodude;650660]Evidence? Police have to follow standards procedures and gather evidence to declare people suspects. Signing a petition voicing opposition to a liability standard doesn't provide any reasonable evidence of committing a crime.

did I say it did? I merely said it is a good place to start looking for suspects.

Dead wrong! That's a completely invalid analogy. In order to willingly commit an act, one must know the act he is committing.

so it is a valid defense that if I didn't know the speed limit and drive 55 mph everywhere in my state? Ya mean I can get out of a ticket because I didn't know the limit was 35 where I got the ticket? Great.

I gotta go racing. bye.

If you believe with rational basis that a sexual partner is of the age of consent specified by law, then you cannot willingly commit statutory rape because you cannot identify the specific act at the time the act was committed.The concept of willful choice is predicated upon the assumption of knowledge of specific choices.

Ok, so as long as I believe the speed limit is 55 I can drive 55.

You're confusing two fundamentally different concepts. Ignorance of the law is not usually a defense for breaking the law, but ignorance of the act committed is usually a defense with statutory rape being a rare serious exception. You knew that your stereo was loud and you're just at fault for not knowing that there was a law against loud stereos.

but I didn't know it was too loud though. I mean, how many people do you know carry around a dB meter with them and check every time they adjust their volume?

[cbg]

Of course, one could avoid needing a defense of any kind if one simply kept their pants zipped occasionally and only unzipped them with partners they actually know, rather than indiscriminately dispensing their favors all over the place. Responsible adults are supposed to be able to exercise a measure of self-control.

Now that would be a concept I could get behind. How about it, Astrodude? Want to advocate for abstinence as a preventive measure?

[cdwjava]

We've already scored huge victories in 19 states so why would we stop? There's a chance that you could be duped into committing statutory rape under strict liability standards.

It's impossible to be "duped" into committing statutory rape if one adheres to certain principles, some common sense, and actually <gasp> gets to know the person with whom they might one day engage in coitus.

The CREDIBLE and believable claims of some poor dude being tricked into believing a girl was of age are markedly few, and all of those I have heard of could have been avoided by utilizing some common sense (which includes keeping it one's pants at least for a couple of dates).

- - - Updated - - -

Evidence? Police have to follow standards procedures and gather evidence to declare people suspects. Signing a petition voicing opposition to a liability standard doesn't provide any reasonable evidence of committing a crime.

As a point of clarification, there is no legal definition of a "suspect." We can have a suspect based solely on a hunch. I could look at a list of supporters and look into the names there if I thought that I might actually find something on the list. Chances are that won't happen, but there is nothing to prevent the police from doing so. Granted, the presence of a name on the list would not by itself constitute probable cause to support an arrest or even reasonable suspicion to support a detention, but it might be enough to warrant a deeper look ... depending on what the "petition" or list was about. Take the NAMBLA membership rosters, for instance. Those names could be VERY helpful to the authorities.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, one could avoid needing a defense of any kind if one simply kept their pants zipped occasionally and only unzipped them with partners they actually know, rather than indiscriminately dispensing their favors all over the place. Responsible adults are supposed to be able to exercise a measure of self-control.

Now that would be a concept I could get behind. How about it, Astrodude? Want to advocate for abstinence as a preventive measure?

Here, here!

And, abstinence works EVERY TIME IT IS TRIED!

[jk]

Here, here!

And, abstinence works EVERY TIME IT IS TRIED!

Well, almost every time.