New Reddit theory: Girls develop early in order to entrap guys and send them to prison

Rutee- while there are many states that allow mistake as a possible defense for stautory rape (i.e. the fake ID example), it is not all of them

Yes, what I said is that it is not ‘usually’ anything, nott hat ignorance is always a defense (However REasonable it may be)

But, let’s face it, that isn’t really what the reddit post was talking about. It wasn’t saying that stat. rape laws should be amended to create some type of mens rea.

When have these idiots ever taken the reasonable position potentially available when there was room to go into full-on jackassery?

How many child porn apologists or outright supporters do there need to be before we can say that there are too many child porn apologists on Reddit? Personally, even a handful is enough for me to avoid a site.

@Cliff Pervocracy – Again, I’m not saying this kind of thing happens all the time. But there exist mature-looking young teenagers- that is, physically mature, not emotionally. They’ll go out to a bar (where, of course, the mangina bouncers will let ‘em in), and later regret their decision.

LOL, what makes the bouncer a mangina? I mean, when in doubt, always quote Whitney, “I wanna see the receipts!” Most stores card anyone who looks under 35 to avoid getting in trouble for selling to minors, maybe you should start taking up the same practice.

Also, glad I have the reverse problem. I’m 26 but still get rejected purchasing alcohol without an ID because I “look like a teenager” to some people still. I mean, jesus, is it that hard to deduce someone’s actual age from simply speaking to them?

Seriously- Reddit hates SRS. The pedo groups, the racist groups, r/beatingwomen and SRS are the dregs.

But the MRAs are the champions of truth, justice, and the American way! Because grown men who taunt a 14 year old who might have just gotten raped are way better than the people who criticise them for doing it.

For 5000 years of recorded history in virtually every diverse culture, it was normal for men to marry girls aged 13 to 16. It’s really only been the last half century or so that men have been vilified for what was considered natural and good since the dawn of time.

The feminist faith simply takes any action or drive a man has and legislates it to be a crime. To imprison men and portray men as evil just make mens natural instincts criminal.

It’s called science, dipshit. They did these little tests that determined the age of consent, tests which were formerly not possible. They also used to burn people at the stake for fear of being witches. There were times in which slavery was acceptable. People used to not be allowed to sit in the same chairs as women. But I mean, they did it back then, why isn’t it ok now?

For thousands of years, women were considered property in many cultures. Then along came evil feminists who made it a crime for a man to treat women like that. What a shame.

Oh wait, that’s actually something NWO believes.

My culture of origin used to burn people alive. Would it be OK if we still did that now? I’m going to vote no on that.

Milkboy probably doesn’t have a problem with that, so long as you don’t do it to white christians.

@Missy: If you’ve been around little kids you’ve probably had the experience where you tell them they can’t grab another kid’s toy/steal something/take an extra piece of cake and their response is “But I want it!” Their moral sense isn’t developed enough that they understand “I want” does not automatically trump all other considerations, like fairness or others’ feelings.

These guys are exactly the same. “But I want it!”

Also, bullshit on the argument that until the mid-1950s, men everywhere routinely married 13-16 year old girls and this was considered ‘natural and good’.

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/family/marriage.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-09-delayed-marriage_N.htm

Big Momma, I’m not sure what’s going on…I tried to post and I won’t let me either…. I’ll look into it and see what’s up.

I said usually because I meant usually.

This Article argues that, fueled in part by a misplaced reliance on dicta from the landmark decision of Morissette v. United States, most states have concluded that statutory rape is a strict liability offense.

…In the majority of states, the prosecution bears no burden to prove that defendant knew, or should have known, the victim’s underage status, and consequently, defendant is precluded from mounting the affirmative defense of mistake-of-age to refute the issue of guilt.

The majority of states, either by legislative enactment or court interpretation have rejected defendant’s good faith defense regarding the age of the victim.

From, On Statutory Rape, Strict Liability, And the Public Welfare Offense Model: American University Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2003. Catherine L. Carpenter

I’m going to sum up some of the supporting citations, because the article is 92 pages (and I encourage the entire piece, because some of the attendant issues related to the ways in which the second order effects of the strict liability standard play out; which has been used by some of the MRAs we see to attempt to sweep away all laws relating to age of consent are worthy of discussion, esp. as one of the reasons for blanket registration of any sexual offender who was over the age of 18 [per the Wetterling Act, which was used to strongarm states into creating registries, even when they wished not to] is that such offenders have, “a guilty mind”, which makes registering them a public good)

In Robinson v. Pennsylvania, 457 U.S. 1101 (1982) the Court refused to hear an appeal based on a mistaken age defense. The US Supreme Court has never accepted request for cert in a statutory rape case based on a mistake of fact. This has been used in Texas, among others, (Johnson v. State, 967 S.W. 848, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) to affirm the principle of strict liability in statutory rape.

State v. Haywood, Lexis 2545 (Ohio App. 2001) finding that
defendant assumed the risk and noting that “American culture might glorify youthful sex appeal, but is at the same time rife with warnings against sexual conduct with children…Any person contemplating sexual conduct with a child in this age range should be cautious- the existence of statutory rape laws is hardly a secret

Which is a response to the idea that strict liability offenses require the violator to have a reasonable awareness the offense exists. Which is in keeping with the general defintions of the offense. Black’s Law Dictionary says it’s “unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent (as defined by statute), regardless of whether it is against that person’s will)”.

Which is what it’s been since the doctrine of statutory rape shows up in the Common Law in the 13th century (back when women ruled the world and wanted to keep men from doing, “what came naturally”*

In State v. Barlow, 630 A.2d 1299 (Vt. 1993). That court said, … the state has long recognised an obligation to protect its children from others, and from themselves

In Commonwealth v. McCutcheon, 748 N.E.2d 489, 493 (Mass. Ct. App. 2001) “Since the law presumes that a person under sixteen is incapable of consenting, the assumption that one who consents to a sexual act would not make a complaint is both inapt and irrelevant.”

I note the use of the word irrelevant. It obviates the question of an active participant, and implies that the victim’s willingness to engage in the act is immaterial.

Which, at law, it is. It doesn’t matter that the victim doesn’t think it was rape State v.
Thorp, 2 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 1986) As far as I am concerned, Justin didn’t do anything wrong. From the beginning I never thought that these charges should have been made against Justin. I still think that this whole thing is stupid and should have never been pursued. As far as I am concerned, I was never a victim of rape.

Specifically point is People v. Toliver, 270 Cal. App. 2d 492 (1969) [C]onsent can be an element of statutory rape, since a male may reasonably believe that a female is older than 18 and, therefore, can consent to an act of intercourse….

Montana, explicitly, allows for a, “reasonable belief” defense. Wyoming’s disallowance of an affirmative defense is scary: “[I]t is no defense that the actor did not know the victim’s age, or that he reasonably believed that the victim was twelve (12) years or fourteen (14) years of age or older, which implies someone attempted to say, “Yes, I had sex with her, but I thought she was older than 12 (or 14).

Eew.

The way a lot of states handle this is the “age gap” defense, which helps avoid some of the trickier issues of strict liability laws (and the requirement for the offendor to know there was an obligation), which makes it more than mere inadvertence Commonwealth v. Dennis, 784 A.2d 179, 182 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)

Those systems (see New Jersey, or Alaska) also usually make the severity of the offense, and the subsequent punishment, lesser as the age get higher; sometimes with a range of punishments based on the gap between the offender and the victim.

The real issue, and one that’s harder to address, is that the caselaw we have on the subject is appeals courts. In those cases the issue of mens rea is decided by the language used by legislatures discussing the statutes.

What can be said is that when a prosecution decides to go forward with a case mens rea isn’t (barring those states which allow an affirmative defense) an element of the crime, and saying, “I thoguht she was legal,” or, “She gave willing, and enthusiastic consent,” isn’t an issue. How many prosecutors choose to accept, “I thought she was legal” is a question difficult to resolve.

*that was for NWO

This is totally off-topic but I’m gonna have a go at it anyway: What is wrong with Men Going Their Own Way? How are they any worse than manhating separatist feminists? (Like the butt ugly hairy mary’s @ radfem. And if they aren’t then Futrelle has some explaining to do as to why he targets MGTOW instead) They are simply men who have decided that they don’t want to be with women. I honestly wonder why feminists(and many women in general) feel so threatened by this fringe movement. Is it because they feel that it might gain popularity and threaten their sexual power over men?

@Monsieur: Go your own way. Fine with us. Now go away.

Monsieur

Radical feminists are not posting their hate on the spearhead and other mra blogs. mgtow seem to spend their lives on sites that are supposed to be geared to women telling the women how awful they are.

If they didn’t do this no one would be complaining. Because they are doing this they are clearly not just going their own way.

I’m a lot more mainstream then a lot of the posters here, and I think pretty tolerant of others choices in life, and others viewpoints as strange to me as they sometimes are. For instance I spend a great deal of time in Nicaragua where it is very normal to see a young Nica on the arm of middle age or elderly man (occasionally women as well).

Except for the few men who seek the very young (who will end up in a Nica prison, which is the ultimate Karma got you) I’m friendly with these men. I would not choose to take a young man as a lover but that’s me.

I am disgusted my the mra’s and the mgtow simply because they will not stop trying to impose their choices and viewpoints on the rest of the world.

Ruby, I am not even a little bit surprised by that link. Police could easily do that every day probably. They could stop arresting people for drugs and focus that time on catching would be sex offenders.