How to Repeal Strict Liability for Statutory Rape

[amlebede]

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.

An affirmative defense of providing an ID would be a good solution.

[cdwjava]

An affirmative defense of providing an ID would be a good solution.

Funny thing about that ... on the rare occasion the guy says the girl presented an ID that said she was of age, no ID was found and the girl denied having one or presenting a fake one.

Once again we fall back to the consept of actually dating rather than hooking up. Trust me, it works a lot better than dropping trou ten minutes into a meeting.

[Astrodude]

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."

Bologna! It should be based on reasonable belief.

That's not the law in California.

Yes, it is. If you are less than ten year older than the victim, mistake-of-age is a defense to sex with a 14 or 15 year old. This would have saved Fleming.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/D042017.PDF

That's not the law in South Carolina.

Tell that to Trey Gowdy, a SC prosecutor.
http://www.goupstate.com/article/200...NEWS/607050329
http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploa...uly14smith.pdf
There appear to be some ambiguities in their law, but the mistake of age defense is in their books.

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.

Irrelevant. This Tennessee law would have protected Fleming and Morris Williams if it were the national standard.

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

It would have at least protected Fleming.

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

Again, that law still protects a lot of people.

That leaves you with Alaska.

Another sane state.
What's important is that these states have some sanity and are on their way to conforming with the Model Penal Code. Of course, that is the goal.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing about that ... on the rare occasion the guy says the girl presented an ID that said she was of age, no ID was found and the girl denied having one or presenting a fake one.

Once again we fall back to the consept of actually dating rather than hooking up. Trust me, it works a lot better than dropping trou ten minutes into a meeting.

Did you obtain a warrant to search thoroughly for the ID? The individual could have very well discarded or hidden the fake ID and lied about using it. There have been several cases where a hookup at a 21+ club resulted in statutory rape convictions so fake ID use is part of the problem since bartenders are required to check ID often. Your premise that fake ID are not used to defraud people into committing statutory rape is flawed and the idea that these fraud-victims are threats to the community is even more absurd.

An affirmative defense of providing an ID would be a good solution.

Yes it would be. The law would be reasonable if that defense existed.

[jk]

Astrodude;645168]Bologna! It should be based on reasonable belief.

by whose definition?

I can see it now.


defendant; she looked 21 to me.

prosecutor: but she is only 12

defendant: but she looked 21 to me...I swear.

judge; well, he believed her to be 21 so case dismissed


so, please explain how you determine if the defendant had reasonably believed she was 21?

Yes, it is. If you are less than ten year older than the victim, mistake-of-age is a defense to sex with a 14 or 15 year old. This would have saved Fleming.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/D042017.PDF

really? The crime charged was with schtupping a child UNDER 14.

Irrelevant. This Tennessee law would have protected Fleming and Morris Williams if it were the national standard.

a national standard? That is called the US Constitution and until you can state a Consitutional basis for the elimination of strict liability for this issue, there is no national issue involved.

[Astrodude]

so, please explain how you determine if the defendant had reasonably believed she was 21?

Well, one clear way would be if they met at a bar or 21+ club. Another way would be to see if fake ID was used. Another way would be to examine witnesses.

really? The crime charged was with schtupping a child UNDER 14.

My mistake. She might have been 13, but this source suggests she was 14 at the time. Nevertheless, the Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Alaska law would have protected him.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...the-unwitting/

a national standard? That is called the US Constitution and until you can state a Consitutional basis for the elimination of strict liability for this issue, there is no national issue involved.

Nope, the Constitution says nothing about strict liability for statutory rape just as it says nothing about the drinking age being 21. However, the Federal Government can coerce the states into making the drinking age 21 so it can also coerce the states into abolish strict liability in these cases by adopting the Model Penal Code. Funding could be withheld until the other states copied Alaska, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. Since no mistake of age defense would likely work if a victim were to be younger than 13, the Tennessee standard is reasonable.

I brought up the examples of Germany and Canada earlier to show that other countries have abolished strict liability and actually have a lower rate of sex-crime.

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

This attorney says it's 13 now under Title 18 Section 3122.1. This law would have protected Fleming had he been in Pennsylvania.
http://philadelphiacriminaldefense.b...ke-of-age.html

Another issue is how a non-mens rea offender, who was a bona fide fraud-victim, is somehow a threat to society when its the fraudster and his/her enablers who should be punished.

The last issue is to make the states have their ID registries public so that we can verify ages.

[jk]

My mistake. She might have been 13, but this source suggests she was 14 at the time. Nevertheless, the Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Alaska law would have protected him.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...the-unwitting/

I made that point long ago ,remember?

The fact is, she was charged with a crime specific to children 13 and under.

Nope, the Constitution says nothing about strict liability for statutory rape

exactly my point thank you very much. Unless you can find some basis (right) to support the elimination of strict liability in the Constitution, the fed cannot impose such a directive.

I brought up the examples of Germany and Canada to show that other countries have abolished strict liability and actually have a lower rate of sex-crime.

you cannot compare US law to any other country. There just are too many differences in the basis of our laws compared to theirs.

[Astrodude]

exactly my point thank you very much. Unless you can find some basis (right) to support the elimination of strict liability in the Constitution, the fed cannot impose such a directive.

The Federal Government can pressure the states by withholding funding under the Constitution. This is how it made the drinking age 21 nationwide. It could also remove strict liability for the Mann Act. The Broad Interpretation of the Constitution is the overall law of the land anyways. There are also eighth amendment issues involved in punishing strict liability offenders and those who lacked mens rea. There are fourteenth amendment issues concerning the sex-offender registry for strict liability offenders. I've yet to see how non-mens rea offenders have been shown to pose a demonstrable threat to anybody.

you cannot compare US law to any other country. There just are too many differences in the basis of our laws compared to theirs.

Yes you can. You can always compare any two legal systems. Their validity may be disputed, but the laws can be compared.

[viol8te]

You are really reaching! and the logic that you are using is really scary. Not even arguing your flawed logic anymore. Alish Dean looks like a very developed 13 year old in the pictures from her Myspace page. 13 year olds have a way of talking that lets a man with common sense know that she is underage. You are acyually suggesting that the federal government withhold funding in order to force states to implement a safety net for child molesters! You seriously need help. An adunlt need not to be protected from a child. It's the other way around.

I dated a 19 year old when I was 23. I felt dirty. Without sleeping with her, I broke it off. I couldn't get past the age difference. You are suggesting that these men are too stupid to sort our discrepancies that the average person can see, so they should be protected!?! Really! Yet after the deed is done, they almost always say that something didn't seem right about the situation and that's when they investigated the girl's background. You can't have it both ways. How bout this, if a man is stupid enough to fall for age deception, then they should be committed for an indeterminate amount of time to safe guard young girls from them and vice versa?

[jk]

There are also eighth amendment issues involved in punishing strict liability offenders and those who lacked mens rea.

so, there ya go. Get yourself arrested and fight it to the SCOTUS. Let us know when they are hearing arguments. I'll listen in.

.

I've yet to see how non-mens rea offenders have been shown to pose a demonstrable threat to anybody.

well, you seem to like to try to find something to support your claims. Start with the recidivism rate of criminals convicted of the exact crimes you claim should not be ruled by strict liability.

Yes you can. You can always compare any two legal systems. Their validity may be disputed, but the laws can be compared.

well, it you want to go that way, you can also compare you with a rock. Both are physical objects. both appear to be void of the ability to reason yet, can you truly compare them since one just sets around never uttering an intelligent argument and the other one is a rock.

[Astrodude]

. well, you seem to like to try to find something to support your claims. Start with the recidivism rate of criminals convicted of the exact crimes you claim should not be ruled by strict liability.

The recidivism rate has not been recorded strictly for people who lacked mens rea. It's only been recorded for mens rea and non-mens rea offenders together. There's likely NO recidivism for non-mens rea offenders, but this statistic has not been analyzed. People are lumping criminals that likely possessed mens rea with those who likely did not to create the misleading statistic that roughly 6% re-offend, but the recidivism rate among non-mens rea offenders is probably much lower. A study needs to be done.

well, it you want to go that way, you can also compare you with a rock. Both are physical objects. both appear to be void of the ability to reason yet, can you truly compare them since one just sets around never uttering an intelligent argument and the other one is a rock.

Comparing legal systems of different countries is necessary for a scientific study of the law and allows us to gain insights into the effects of certain laws. False inferences can always be drawn from this, but the exercise is still beneficial for learning.