“If she steps out and looks like she’s 18 years old, that’s on her. That’s just how I feel about it,” one man said during jury selection.
The mistake-of-age defense is still viable in several states, notably Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The defense is premised on the idea of mens rea as a requirement for all crimes. To wit: If you did not know you were having a sex with a minor, did you commit a crime? There is a high requirement of proof for this defense, generally, but it is a solid one.
Source: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AgeGapProvisions.pdf
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I can see that. And morally I feel it's a shitty defense. I understand it legally. But at the same time, it's the way that was phrased, re: the potential jury member.
Especially compared to another statement in the article, in which another person felt that since she could be a witness, clearly she's old enough to give consent.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
And I agree with you.
To be fair ...
When I was underage, I had a fake ID and did NOT look underage at all. So even if a guy checked my ID ... well... so I can see a legal reasoning.
This does not excuse this particular event though.
I can see that. And morally I feel it's a shitty defense.
Morally I think it's a fine defense, given the sheer volume of business in things like fake ID out there. Any law that requires psychic powers as its sole means of protection from prosecution is a stupid law.
But at the same time, it's the way that was phrased, re: the potential jury member.
Of course this doesn't appear to apply in this case. I don't see any hint of due diligence from the perp.
Sorry. Legal fiction to maintain here. Alleged perp.
Here's the thing... This is not a case of 'girl went out and pretended to be someone she wasn't.'
This is the story of the original case:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/maryville/article329412/Nightmare-in-Maryville-Teens’-sexual-encounter-ignites-a-firestorm-against-family.html
Hmm. Reading the details of the two articles you posted, I do not believe they are related. Not to say I do not feel a sense of moral outrage at either incident. They just do not seem related.
To be fair ...
When I was underage, I had a fake ID and did NOT look underage at all. So even if a guy checked my ID ... well... so I can see a legal reasoning.
This does not excuse this particular event though.
From what I'm reading the same thing's happening with Tinder now only it's worse since that's explicitly meant for dating/hooking up. So if you go out with someone who claimed they were 22 and turned out 17 the lines are pretty blurry.
But yeah, nothing excuses this one particular (potential) juror. What someone's wearing is no statement of anything.
Morally I think it's a fine defense, given the sheer volume of business in things like fake ID out there. Any law that requires psychic powers as its sole means of protection from prosecution is a stupid law.
Have you ever asked for ID before having sex? If so, I think there's a hole in your defense.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
Morally I think it's a fine defense, given the sheer volume of business in things like fake ID out there. Any law that requires psychic powers as its sole means of protection from prosecution is a stupid law.
Have you ever asked for ID before having sex? If so, I think there's a hole in your defense.
Personally, no. I've never been the kind of guy who set out to "get laid".
I have associated with people who have done ID checks before getting it on, though. Which is utterly pointless given how easy it is to get a fake ID.
Have you ever asked for ID before having sex? If so, I think there's a hole in your defense.
Personally, no. I've never been the kind of guy who set out to "get laid".
Right. I don't think many people do. So, if they make a mistake, they haven't engaged in an objectively-reasonable practice to determine if a sexual partner is of age. And if they do, it suggests that they are aware of the possibility the victim may be underage, which connotes an attraction to underage sexual partners.
I mean, it's sort of a circular argument, full of innuendo and fueled by speculative stereotypes. That's why the defense has problems in practice, and why some states decided fuck it all bad no defense.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede The problem I have with that line of thinking is that things like the Traci Lords case start to rear their ugly heads. Traci Lords was underage when doing her most famous works. WAY underage. Like scary levels of underage: 15 when she started and 17 by the time she quit the industry. She accomplished this through the use of fake ID and a ... how to put this? ... body developed well in advance of her actual age.
People went to jail over this. And despite committing a serious crime in stealing and forging a birth certificate, and despite having committed active fraud--to the point of lying to police investigators--for a period of two years, she wasn't one of them. This is fucking idiotic. Essentially people were thrown in jail for not being psychic while a fraudster was given a pass. This despite the fact that they had, in fact, done due diligence and had engaged in "objectively-reasonable [industry] practice" to determine if their actress was of age.
So, today I was supposed to contact the doctor to let them know if I was tolerating the Trokendi (migraine med). My expectation was we'd then schedule the infusions.
I have been. The side effects are what's expected. I've even had two days over the last week and a half that were better than normal. To me, that's a pretty big improvement.
I guess the doctor expected a greater level of improvement. He wants me to spend another couple weeks on higher dosages and then the infusions.
won't lie. I cried for a bit.
The problem I have with that line of thinking is that things like the Traci Lords case start to rear their ugly heads. Traci Lords was underage when doing her most famous works. WAY underage. Like scary levels of underage: 15 when she started and 17 by the time she quit the industry. She accomplished this through the use of fake ID and a ... how to put this? ... body developed well in advance of her actual age.
I'm not saying I'm against the idea of a defense based on mistake. I'm just trying to explain the mentality towards not having such a defense. The Traci Lords case is isolated and extreme; the average case is much more mundane.
I hate when people make appointments and "forget" that they've been made. Professionally, I mean - it's annoying in my personal life, but sometimes it happens and whatever. But my job is pretty dependent on making and keeping my appointments, and sometimes I have to say no to one because I've made a prior arrangement. When that one gets no-showed, I lose out on two opportunities.
Seriously, people... write it on your hand, if you don't know what a phone's calendar is for.
I even had appointment setting software that would send emails/texts 1 week and 3 days before and then morning-of reminders, but would have no shows on occasion. 
Some people I know require cc on file for first time/unknown appointments so at least they get some compensation, but luckily I always got most of my biz through word of mouth so that helped.
I use to work in an industry that was appointment based. So I wouldn't get paid if people no showed. Then we got the policy that we'd get paid half time of the appointment but management was always overturning it. "Oh, we'll let it go this one time." So I had a three strike rule. The first time. I understand things happen. The second time. I'm annoyed now. The third time. I refuse you.
It is very annoying though. So I feel for you.
@Catsmeow I fortunately don't get paid per appointment, but it's a major part of my job. So, if I don't have enough on my "List of Crap I did this Week" my boss wonders why not - as he should because that's part of his job and frankly I can use the help in making it a priority.
Anyway, just a complaint of mine.
I have been passed over for promotion for the second time in almost four years. For a position I actually listed in my annual review as the one I wanted to move into.
It's all I can do not to say "fuck it" and walk out the door.
I can see that. And morally I feel it's a shitty defense. I understand it legally. But at the same time, it's the way that was phrased, re: the potential jury member.
Especially compared to another statement in the article, in which another person felt that since she could be a witness, clearly she's old enough to give consent.
