How to Repeal Strict Liability for Statutory Rape

[jk]

Astrodude;644888]They should help me because they'll also want to see strict liability for statutory rape/sexual assault repealed once they're persuaded

that is not how the SCOTUS works. Just like every other court, they listen and opine on issues brought to them via the channels in place i.e. the court system.

. 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

.Maybe there's hope for you yet.

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

well, I would suggest just running out and sleeping with anybody that you think might fit the bill. That would remove the ignorance issue. As long as you didn't do it knowing they were underage, your good to go.

[aaron]

The Supreme Court has frequently used statutory rape as an example of when scienter is irrelevant, with Justices Thomas and Scalia referencing it as a basis for why certain other strict liability offenses should be noncontroversial if the legislature deems the benefit to society (such as the protection of minors) to significantly outweigh the cost to the defendant. I'm not sure who you're hoping is going to vote your way, but strict liability statutory rape laws have been around for centuries and by all appearances the Supreme Court sees them as noncontroversial.

[Astrodude]

I'm not sure who you're hoping is going to vote your way, but strict liability statutory rape laws have been around for centuries and by all appearances the Supreme Court sees them as noncontroversial.

Strict liability has been around for centuries, but compulsory sex-offender registration and the de facto life-imprisonment that it brings has not been around for centuries as a punishment for a crime committed only because of strict liability. If a person was legitimately duped, how could he/she realistically pose a threat to society?

The Supreme Court of California struck strict liability down in 1964 as unconstitutional in that state. Also, Scalia and Thomas are the two fringe justices on the court. There clearly in the minority. They thought Texas had a right to jail people for consensual sodomy in Lawrence(2003).

that is not how the SCOTUS works. Just like every other court, they listen and opine on issues brought to them via the channels in place i.e. the court system.

When I said 'they', I wasn't just referring to judges. I was referring to voters and law-makers.

[cbg]

You really are delusional if you think voters and law makers are going to give you a free pass to have sex with a minor as long as you say, "Oh, I thought she was older" with a straight face.

[Astrodude]

You really are delusional if you think voters and law makers are going to give you a free pass to have sex with a minor as long as you say, "Oh, I thought she was older" with a straight face.

First of all, your statement is a gross misconstruing of my position. I think the person should have to have been mislead and defrauded into "reasonable belief" that the person was of age.

Secondly, voters and judges have already sided with me in California, South Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Alaska, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other states and countries. In Canada, strict liability for statutory rape was struck down in R. v Hess; R. v. Nguyen. In Germany, there is no strict liability.

[jk]

and Germany and Canada are important why?


Neither country has the death penalty either but guess what; we do.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you can't get your basic facts straight, do you expect to have any credibility?

Your essential position is that the statutory rapists of older tweens and younger teens, age 12 - 14, should be able to claim, "She looked old enough to me."

That's not the law in California.

That's not the law in South Carolina.

That's not the law in Tennessee if the child is below the age of 13. Tn. Code. Sec. 39-11-502, 39-13-504(a)(4), 39-13-522.

That's not the law in Indiana if the child is under the age of 14. I.C. 35-42-4-5.

That's not the law in Pennsylvania for children below the age of 14. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3102.

That leaves you with Alaska.

[cdwjava]

Just a quick check of CA and federal case law with regards to our underage sex laws, it seems that the 9th Circuit has also found that a mistake of age is no excuse when we talk about children UNDER age 16.

People v. Hernandez, 393 P.2d 673, 677 (Cal. 1964), United States v. Gomez-Mendez, 486 F.3d 599, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2007) ... among others.

Granted, a true mistake of age defense does appear to be possible in instances where the victim is 16 or 17 (though it had better be pretty darn convincing ... picking her up at her high school might blow it), but it seems that if the victim is UNDER 16 the mistake of age defense falls flat.

[amlebede]

Just a quick check of CA and federal case law with regards to our underage sex laws, it seems that the 9th Circuit has also found that a mistake of age is no excuse when we talk about children UNDER age 16.

People v. Hernandez, 393 P.2d 673, 677 (Cal. 1964), United States v. Gomez-Mendez, 486 F.3d 599, 603-04 (9th Cir. 2007) ... among others.

Granted, a true mistake of age defense does appear to be possible in instances where the victim is 16 or 17 (though it had better be pretty darn convincing ... picking her up at her high school might blow it), but it seems that if the victim is UNDER 16 the mistake of age defense falls flat.

I personally think the standard should be recklessness but strict liability will apply if risk of harm if high since criminal laws are designed to protect. Mens reas is not always a constitutional requirement.

[cdwjava]

In the many cases I have investigated, the few claims of mistaken age were weak and fell flat. In one case, the suspect claimed he was clueless even though he would pick up his girlfriend a block from a local high school only 15 minutes after school let out - and she was carrying her backpack and schoolbooks! In another case, the suspect claimed he was clueless even though the girlfriend mentioned that she "had a curfew" ... he argued that he believed she had controlling parents but that she was still of age. Unless it was a hookup for sex, there are always clues ... it's just that the guys do not WANT to see the clues. See-no-evil, hear-no-evil, I suppose.

It really does not take a lot to figure this stuff out. And while I am sure it has happened, the dedicated young teen with the capability and resources to produce a fake ID, sustain a false story and identity, and possessed of a sufficient gift of gab to pull off a good fraud just to let some older guy get down her pants would be a truly rare thing indeed.