Solicitation of a Minor Without Knowledge of Age

[BerretSO4]

My question involves criminal law for the United States of America

Hi there,

I'm a student in law school, and I'm very interested in advocating for children, protecting them from predators and, internationally, being a force against sex trafficking and slavery. Enough about me - I am learning about the law and am having some trouble with specifics in this category.

When it comes to the act of soliciting a minor online, where it is a felony, I have not found a good answer on a specific stipulation regarding the perpetrator. Generally, a sting operation will explicate that the "child" the perp is contacting is under-age, often 12-14 (which is different in different states, according to their laws of course), and the act of "sex-chatting" with such minor is a punishable offense (although they wait to arrest upon also having evidence of travel, it seems). HOWEVER, what if the sting does not explicate the age of the fictional person?

I think I know the answer to that first question (of course there are no ramifications to the perp. The person sex-chatting with the "child" had no way of knowing it was a child, as ages were entirely anonymous), so here is a follow up: Assuming the perp cannot be held in the circumstance I specified supra, does this apply to a real life situation (NOT a sting)? For example, perpetrator "John McDoe" chats in graphic sexual terms with minor "Jane McMinor". Neither John NOR Jane have disclosed their full names OR their ages. John assumes that Jane is not a minor because he has no reason to believe otherwise, but in FACT Jane is a minor, having not disclosed this information for whatever reason. If the FBI were to investigate and charge John with a felony, what would the crime be, and would the fact that he had no knowledge at any point of Jane's age matter?

I have not seen any cases like this example so far, in my minimal research (I have not looked into a JP or the ALR yet, though I will soon to learn more on the whole matter and practice legal research), so it honestly seems as though because John has no knowledge of Jane's age or reason to expect Jane to be a minor, John cannot be justly accused of soliciting a minor. Am I missing something here?

I appreciate your help on this! It is important to know the specifics of the law if we wish to enforce it appropriately. Please try to avoid "it should be this way" statements, as I am looking for the black letter reason for why or why not, not the moral implications of the law as it stands. Please do your best to quote laws/cases that your answer is supported by. Thanks!

Edit: my title seems to have been cut off. Sorry for any confusion. Should have read "Specific Disclosure-Based Questions Pertaining to Solicitation of a Minor"

[Disagreeable]

We don't do homework.

[indybail]

Why not ask about age? It would seem foolish not to.

As far as not asking, I'm pretty sure not asking if it's illegal to rob a bank before doing so is a defense.

[PandorasBox]

Um....my job is to pour wine samples in stores. I check the ID of everyone - even if they could have been 90 when the Titanic sailed.....

[BerretSO4]

I appreciate your input, and furthermore I agree with both of you ethically, but does anybody have any real world examples of this situation? I'm at a loss for a case to quote...

[cdwjava]

I do not have any case law immediately at hand, but one need look little further than state statutes (and modifying/clarifying case law) to determine what elements need be met in such a sting.

In general, the state would have to show that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person they were conversing with was a minor AND that they engaged in unlawful conduct (chat, images, etc.). This can often be shown in a number of ways. A direct reference to age is best as it leaves no wiggle room. Other times conversations about a school mascot, or playing on the junior varsity softball team, or the 8th grade basketball team are sufficient to meet the requirement of knowledge.

I have never worked a case that was pursued by the DA where NO age was mentioned and no inference was made. But, as this issue may well be state specific, and certain aspects might vary by state and region (through application of decisions by the various Circuit Courts of Appeal) it might be difficult to find a "one size fits all" answer. Don't overthink the issue, look to the basics ... the elements of the specific offense that the state must show including both the actus rea and the mens rea.

[indybail]

I appreciate your input, and furthermore I agree with both of you ethically, but does anybody have any real world examples of this situation? I'm at a loss for a case to quote...

Any argument made that an absolute lack of knowledge about age is not credible to me. It sounds like your research bears this out.

[BerretSO4]

cdwjava -

I appreciate your insight very much. Your first two paragraphs seems to apply really to stings only, but the third paragraph is certainly more relevant to the entire issue. I was not aware that mens rea was required for this, which would definitely imply that without reasonable knowledge of the age there would be no crime, but that just seems too open to question for me. Common law might dictate mens rea, but you're right that the states and regions each will have laid out their way of dealing with that specific topic. For instance, I would not be surprised if, Constitutionally or not, a state passed a law saying "lack of knowledge of the age of the child is not a valid defense" or something along those lines.

inybail -
Wouldn't be credible to me either, but my research is minimal. I don't think we can use it yet as a stepping stone. I plan to get more done today, time permitting. Thanks for your insight though.

[cdwjava]

These are specific intent offenses, for the most part. Explicit sexual conversation between adults is not unlawful. For it to be a crime to have such a conversation with a minor, one generally has to show that the offender knew or reasonably should have known the other party was a minor. At least in my state we cannot simply show that an explicit conversation took place with a minor, we also have to show knowledge. I cannot speak for all states, but I imagine they are all similar.