How to Repeal Strict Liability for Statutory Rape

[cdwjava]

Well, almost every time.

Well, there was that one time ... about 2,045 years ago ...

[Astrodude]

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

It's not a good place to go looking for suspects because the petition merely concerns strict liability and nothing else.

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.

It might depend on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, but in that case, you wouldn't be willingly speeding. I've heard of people who have successfully used the lack of a visible speed limit sign as a defense before though. I'm against strict liability for speeding too, but a defense would have to be founded on a reasonable basis such as a false or vandalized sign. Of course, the penalties for speeding are much less significant than those for statutory rape.

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?

I don't know all of the details here, but it seems like you knew it would be considered loud. It's not like your alarm clock went off by accident. If you were hard of hearing and got a ticket for playing loud music, I definitely would sympathize.

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).

Since polls suggest that the majority of the American population has had a one night stand, such sense cannot be considered "common" by definition.

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.

Thanks for the info here. I thought you had to officially declare someone a suspect.

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?

Abstinence prevents statutory rape, pregnancy, and reduces the risk of std, but it also prevents good things. It prevents normalcy, cultless-marriage, and of course, family.

[jk]

It might depend on the jurisdiction and the circumstances, but in that case, you wouldn't be willingly speeding.

would you willingly be driving the speed you are? If so and it is above the limit, then you are willingly speeding.

I've heard of people who have successfully used the lack of a visible speed limit sign as a defense before though.

really? Who? If there is no sign, all states I am aware of have default limits. As such, even if there is no sign, there is an enforceable limit.

I'm against strict liability for speeding too, but a defense would have to be founded on a reasonable basis such as a false or vandalized sign.

wrong. there is still a default limit.

I don't know all of the details here, but it seems like you knew it would be considered loud

.How would you know? I don't have a dB meter built into my head.

If you were hard of hearing and got a ticket for playing loud music, I definitely would sympathize.

but that would not mean the ticket wasn't valid.

Since polls suggest that the majority of the American population has had a one night stand, such sense cannot be considered "common" by definition.

Do you really believe in polls? I love taking polls. The poll takers haven't gotten an honest answer from me yet. It has become a game of how much I can screw with them because I really don't want them calling me.

Abstinence prevents statutory rape, pregnancy, and reduces the risk of std, but it also prevents good things. It prevents normalcy, cultless-marriage, and of course, family.

Ok, how about abstinence outside of marriage then. That would take care of everything.

[cdwjava]

JK's explanation of abstinence was what I was striving for ... though I had not thought my reference would be extended beyond what was moral and good common sense to the fringe of being likened to cults, family, and "normalcy" (however that might be defined).

[free9man]

Abstinence prevents statutory rape, pregnancy, and reduces the risk of std, but it also prevents good things. It prevents normalcy, cultless-marriage, and of course, family.

What in the heck are you smoking dude? Being abstinent prevents normalcy? What on earth is a cultless-marriage and what does it have to do with abstinence? It might cause a sexless marriage, although if ya listen to comedians most marriages are already sexless. Why does abstinence prevent family? You don't have to have kids to be a family, some couples can't have kids in the first place. Further if one or both parties doesn't want to engage in the normal baby-making activities and children are desired, there are other ways to have kids. Adoption, fostering, buying one on the street in some places.

[Dogmatique]

I'll make us some tea and crumpets. Cbg has scones and clotted cream. Sausage rolls and tea sandwiches available on request.

(That's pretty much where this thread is headed; I figured I'd at least feed y'all while we're laughi..I mean discussing...Astrodude's posts).

[cbg]

Astrodude is deliberately being obtuse - he knows quite well what I meant.

And if he didn't, he's so far off the wall that he shouldn't be walking around loose without a keeper.

[Astrodude]

How would you know? I don't have a dB meter built into my head. but that would not mean the ticket wasn't valid.

I oppose strict liability for those minor infractions too, but the burden of proof would be high and their still would have to be a very reasonable belief. Plus, the penalties are minor.

Do you really believe in polls? I love taking polls. The poll takers haven't gotten an honest answer from me yet. It has become a game of how much I can screw with them because I really don't want them calling me.

Yes, I definitely believe those polls.

Ok, how about abstinence outside of marriage then. That would take care of everything.

Nope. If the partner lied about his/her age at the time of the marriage and then coitus were performed, even though the individual would believe that the sex is within marriage, the marriage wouldn't be legally recognized and therefore he would be committing statutory rape. Your scenario fails. Also, fornication is the accepted standard cultural precursor to marriage outside of a few minor religions.

[jk]

Astrodude;650953]I oppose strict liability for those minor infractions too, but the burden of proof would be high and their still would have to be a very reasonable belief. Plus, the penalties are minor.

what difference does it make what the penalties are? That does not alter anything.

Yes, I definitely believe those polls.

wow, I intentionally lie when taking polls. I wonder how many others do the same thing either for fun or to intentionally skew the results. A poll can be skewed by the poll taker so easily it is nothing more than a means to prove the poll takers position is correct.

Nope. If the partner lied about his/her age at the time of the marriage and then coitus were performed, even though the individual would believe that the sex is within marriage, the marriage wouldn't be legally recognized and therefore he would be committing statutory rape.

but that isn't sex within a marriage. But a problem with your scenario: the parties to the marriage must prove their age.

Also, fornication is the accepted standard cultural precursor to marriage outside of a few minor religions.

a few MINOR religions? How about it is not accepted in the oldest Christian and possibly the most prevalent religion in the world.

[free9man]

Also, fornication is the accepted standard cultural precursor to marriage outside of a few minor religions.

I've called you out on this BS before. There is no reliable, accepted research proving this. Just because you see it on TV does not mean that it translates to the real world. If that were the case, police would be shooting just about every criminal they ran into. That's just the tip of the iceberg on how TV does not necessarily reflect the cultural norms.

And premarital sex is frowned upon by ALL the major religions.