NationStates Jolt Archive

So, in civil suits, a lot of times the term "reasonable precautions" is thrown around. In essence, did the person act negligently or were there reasonable precautions to prevent the situation which occurred.

Now, to apply this to criminal court:

There was this guy whom I used to work with who got arrested for statutory rape (having sex with someone below the age of consent). He's 19 and the girl in question was 15 (in that state - 16 is age of consent, 3 year "close in age" exception).

Here's the kicker: he checked her ID to see if she was 18 because he was suspicious (said she looked 16-17 to him - still legal, but he was cautious because of the way these things have a tendency to go). She had a fake ID that apparently fooled him into thinking she was a young-looking 18.

Now, it has yet to go to trial, but apparently the girl in question has admitted that she provided a fake ID that she normally uses to buy cigarettes to prove her age. However, the prosecution is still pursuing the case - apparently it's irrelevant to the facts of the case (according to the prosecution). I'm sure the defense will raise that in trial.

NSG, what is the legal precedent for things such as that?

I wonder what crime she is charged with.

I wonder what crime she is charged with.

Well, she should be charged with illegally buying cigarettes (by her own admission) and carrying a fake ID (also by her own admission) for starters. However... as of yet, she has not been charged with anything.

Well, she should be charged with illegally buying cigarettes (by her own admission) and carrying a fake ID (also by her own admission) for starters. However... as of yet, she has not been charged with anything.

What about an accessory to rape? That I'd like to see.

What about an accessory to rape? That I'd like to see.

An accessory to... raping.... yourself.

I like the way you think. :p

An accessory to... raping.... yourself.

I like the way you think. :p

It's harder than it looks. :)

I think he should probably get off on this one.

It's harder than it looks. :)

:confused:
raping yourself?

or the way you think?

:D


it's probably been used before... the younger person using a fake ID and all. but I really don't know how well of a defense that would work. guess it's up to the skills of both lawyers...

I wonder what crime she is charged with.

Should be: forging an official document, and inciting statutory rape.
My, she's going to pay through the fork for that.

I think he should probably get off on this one.it's probably been used before... the younger person using a fake ID and all. but I really don't know how well of a defense that would work. guess it's up to the skills of both lawyers...

See, he should, especially as she admitted it in the official statement. (I suppose I should clarify that it's the parents pushing for charges - not her, not that it matters)

I just wonder (if it goes to trial) if a jury can be brought to see that he took every reasonable precaution, or if it will become "OMGZ think of the children!!!" in the jury room.

Where does your friend live, by the way?

I'll see if I can't find something or other in teh rulez about this.

Where does your friend live, by the way?

I'll see if I can't find something or other in teh rulez about this.

Arkansas. He's not my friend - he's creepy and annoying and awkward like most teenagers - he just likes me, for some unknown reason.

I feel compelled to assist due to the fact that I find the situation distasteful, not due to any friendship.

Arkansas. He's not my friend - he's creepy and annoying and awkward like most teenagers - he just likes me, for some unknown reason.
Birds of a feather? :p

:confused:
raping yourself?

or the way you think?

:D


Can't it be both?

Birds of a feather? :p

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/janelah/Bush.jpg

<SNIP APPROPRIATE IMAGE>

I'll take that as a maybe...

See, he should, especially as she admitted it in the official statement. (I suppose I should clarify that it's the parents pushing for charges - not her, not that it matters)

I just wonder (if it goes to trial) if a jury can be brought to see that he took every reasonable precaution, or if it will become "OMGZ think of the children!!!" in the jury room.

I am no lawyer. But your friends lawyer should push for her to be charged with fake ID, accessory to statutory rape, and what ever else they can get.
Then see if the parents will back off on pushing for prosecution if your weirdo does the same.

I think if you are having enough doubts that you have have to ask for proof of age, it is probably best not to sleep with the jailbait.

I think if you are having enough doubts that you have have to ask for proof of age, it is probably best not to sleep with the jailbait.

but then you would be discriminating based on looks.
The ID exist for what should be solid proof. Maybe he can sue the state of Florida for making their IDs too easy to forge.


would you deny someone tobacco because they look young even if they show ID???
OR alcohol if their ID says 21 but they look 18 ???

Some states allow for the accused to be acquitted on the grounds that he reasonably thought she was old enough. The problem is that effectively shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, although in this case it seems it will actually be possible to prove a negative...

I am no lawyer. But your friends lawyer should push for her to be charged with fake ID, accessory to statutory rape, and what ever else they can get.
Then see if the parents will back off on pushing for prosecution if your weirdo does the same.

It's an interesting approach, and when I call him back I'm going to mention it. However, if the DA in that little town declines to prosecute her, what can he do after that? Is it possible to have it broached on a state or federal level by the state attorney general's office or the Federal DOJ?

The reason I ask is that if the local DA is declining to prosecute her on the forging of an official document, I doubt he can get him to go after her for inciting to statutory rape on herself.

Some states allow for the accused to be acquitted on the grounds that he reasonably thought she was old enough. The problem is that effectively shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, although in this case it seems it will actually be possible to prove a negative...

Arkansas has no such rule, that I am aware of at any rate.

I personally think that the man deserves to have the charges dismissed.

Personally, I suggest that in the future, everybody use a video camera to document both partners signing a waiver of consent for the approaching encounter, and show proof of age to the camera. Chappelle's Show had it right, and everybody should follow Dave's advice on the issue.

It's an interesting approach, and when I call him back I'm going to mention it. However, if the DA in that little town declines to prosecute her, what can he do after that? Is it possible to have it broached on a state or federal level by the state attorney general's office or the Federal DOJ?

The reason I ask is that if the local DA is declining to prosecute her on the forging of an official document, I doubt he can get him to go after her for inciting to statutory rape on herself.
Hmmm...

Sue her for Fraud, since she did have a falsified legal document which she did present to mislead him. (not a lawyer.)

Hmmm...

Sue her for Fraud, since she did have a falsified legal document which she did present to mislead him. (not a lawyer.)

Don't know how much effect that will have considering she is a minor.

Don't know how much effect that will have considering she is a minor.

The parents would be liable.

I think he should probably get off on this one.
He did, which is where the problem started.

He did, which is where the problem started.

I was going to go there, but I decided the double entendre was too much.

I think he should probably get off on this one.

I think that's how this whole mess got started.

but then you would be discriminating based on looks.

Trust me, that's not a crime, if it was, I'd be a billionaire.

Trust me, that's not a crime, if it was, I'd be a billionaire.

It is not good or bad looks which is the normal get laid thing. It is age appearance, and age discrimination is a crime. Just because someone looks 15 if her ID says 21 I better sell her Beer, and sleep with her if she gets my motor running.

Never mind I might have given her that ID.

In England the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has a "reasonable belief" clause in it; i.e. a person is only guilty of an offence if "A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over". (s9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_2#pt1-pb5-l1g9))

Although if B is under 13 there is no reasonable belief involved; in the unlikely event of a guy having sex a 12 year old who looks like a 16 year old and has ID to apparently prove she is 16, he is guilty of an offence regardless of whether or not he thought she was 16 or over.

If the law in the jurisdiction your friend is in is similar to that, he should be fine.

So, in civil suits, a lot of times the term "reasonable precautions" is thrown around. In essence, did the person act negligently or were there reasonable precautions to prevent the situation which occurred.

Now, to apply this to criminal court:

There was this guy whom I used to work with who got arrested for statutory rape (having sex with someone below the age of consent). He's 19 and the girl in question was 15 (in that state - 16 is age of consent, 3 year "close in age" exception).

Here's the kicker: he checked her ID to see if she was 18 because he was suspicious (said she looked 16-17 to him - still legal, but he was cautious because of the way these things have a tendency to go). She had a fake ID that apparently fooled him into thinking she was a young-looking 18.

Now, it has yet to go to trial, but apparently the girl in question has admitted that she provided a fake ID that she normally uses to buy cigarettes to prove her age. However, the prosecution is still pursuing the case - apparently it's irrelevant to the facts of the case (according to the prosecution). I'm sure the defense will raise that in trial.

NSG, what is the legal precedent for things such as that?

All criminal law is statutory. Each statute clearly defines the mens rea for each crime.

In other words, each crime clearly defines the minimum "state of mind" necessary to have committed the crime. It would entirely depend on what the statute says. If it's a strict liability crime, then taking all the precaution in the world is no defense. And statutory rape is pretty often a strict liability crime.

Galloism, let us know what happened... ok?

Galloism, let us know what happened... ok?

Well, he's not scheduled to appear in court until June 12, and of course there are a bunch of pre-trial motions to consider, I suppose, but I will do.

I think this is well within the realm of the judge or the jury to determine.