Man has consensual sex with '17' year old, now a crime

[Gauthier]

Because the definition of consistency is decrying judicial overreaction and then continuing as if the affected was a hardcore serial rapist who deserved it anyways:

That was in response to his overall comment, Improving comprehension skills would help. See aren't insults fun. But seriously learn to read.

My comprehension skills are quite sufficient, thank you. And your "response" to his comment that the American Justice System is obcessed with punishment over rehabilitation just reinforces the notion that you think Zach Anderson is a hardcore criminal who needs to suck it up and that any semblance of reason and mens rea are just coddling serial killers and rapists.

So why don't we just give convicted criminals flowers and ask them nicely not to do it again.

[Meryuma]

"Permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences". The same as we use in the medical industry.

In other words, the young man did not consent.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Really? I was just agreeing with him. Get over it. People say far worse than that, so if that offends you, I'm worried about how you get around General at all.

We either have a discussion or hurl insults. I don't mind it but it does mean the conversation is over. And it shows you off in a poor light. Both are ok by me.

I know it's a cop-out, but I have to go, and probably won't be back before the topic has moved on, but I'm glad to hear you're open to discussion. I'm sorry that what I said insulted you.

Adios.

[BK117B2]

The evidence is already there in the articles. She admits that she did it.

Do you have any evidence that she did not actually deceive him in order to have sex?

Are you trying to shift the goalposts, or are you really not understanding what I'm saying?

There's no precedent for a case like this to lead to supporting a 'rape by deception' charge.

Which would be more interesting if it was relevant. You seem very intent on ignoring my posts in favor of going on and on about the very different issue of precedent.

[BK117B2]

The evidence is already there in the articles. She admits that she did it.

Do you have any evidence that she did not actually deceive him in order to have sex?

That does not make it rape on her part.

Yes, it does. That is called rape by deception or rape by fraud.

[Grave_n_idle]

That does not make it rape on her part.

Yes, it does. That is called rape by deception or rape by fraud.

And, again - no, it's not.

You have yet to show any evidence at all that it has ever been interpreted that way.

[Grave_n_idle]

Are you trying to shift the goalposts, or are you really not understanding what I'm saying?

There's no precedent for a case like this to lead to supporting a 'rape by deception' charge.

Which would be more interesting if it was relevant. You seem very intent on ignoring my posts in favor of going on and on about the very different issue of precedent.

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:

Of course, I actually gave a rationale for the position. You didn't provide one for how such a lie to get sex would NOT be rape by deception.

We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

[Galloism]

Yes, it does. That is called rape by deception or rape by fraud.

And, again - no, it's not.

You have yet to show any evidence at all that it has ever been interpreted that way.

Well, one of Israel's high court justices stated:

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/jurists-say ... t-1.303109

Now, in this case, it was because a man misrepresented himself as a jew but was really an arab in an effort to sleep with a Jewish woman.

Now, obviously the statement itself is sexist, but if one corrects its sexist element, one would just have to figure out whether the girl's age rises to the level of a "critical matter". Is it a critical matter to a sexual act if you might go to jail for having it or not?

I'm not saying this is a particularly good interpretation, mind you, but there IS precedent somewhere for rape by fraud that's actually of a less critical nature than "you might go to jail for having sex".

[Fartsniffage]

Which would be more interesting if it was relevant. You seem very intent on ignoring my posts in favor of going on and on about the very different issue of precedent.

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:

Of course, I actually gave a rationale for the position. You didn't provide one for how such a lie to get sex would NOT be rape by deception.

We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

I think an interesting question here is should it be rape by deception?

[Galloism]

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:



We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

I think an interesting question here is should it be rape by deception?

I don't particularly care for rape by deception statutes unless the bar is set extremely high. A person performing a gynecological or prostate exam who's fraudulently pretending to be a doctor was proposed. I'm pretty ok with that one.

A person who, in a dark room, impersonates a person's boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse I would be ok with.

What I don't want to see is every time a person makes a white lie they get prosecuted for saying they're 23 instead of 27, or wearing makeup, or renting a ferrari, or getting plastic surgery without disclosing it, or.... any one of any of the other really silly things people do to make themselves look better.

[Grave_n_idle]

And, again - no, it's not.

You have yet to show any evidence at all that it has ever been interpreted that way.

Well, one of Israel's high court justices stated:

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/jurists-say ... t-1.303109

Now, in this case, it was because a man misrepresented himself as a jew but was really an arab in an effort to sleep with a Jewish woman.

Now, obviously the statement itself is sexist, but if one corrects its sexist element, one would just have to figure out whether the girl's age rises to the level of a "critical matter". Is it a critical matter to a sexual act if you might go to jail for having it or not?

I'm not saying this is a particularly good interpretation, mind you, but there IS precedent somewhere for rape by fraud that's actually of a less critical nature than "you might go to jail for having sex".

I've read this story before, and there are a number of problems with trying to bring it in as a precedent here, not least being that it's an entirely different legal system.

And, as your article says - 'that approach is not accepted around the world'. It's not a good argument for precedence in this case.

[Galloism]

Well, one of Israel's high court justices stated:



http://www.haaretz.com/beta/jurists-say ... t-1.303109

Now, in this case, it was because a man misrepresented himself as a jew but was really an arab in an effort to sleep with a Jewish woman.

Now, obviously the statement itself is sexist, but if one corrects its sexist element, one would just have to figure out whether the girl's age rises to the level of a "critical matter". Is it a critical matter to a sexual act if you might go to jail for having it or not?

I'm not saying this is a particularly good interpretation, mind you, but there IS precedent somewhere for rape by fraud that's actually of a less critical nature than "you might go to jail for having sex".

I've read this story before, and there are a number of problems with trying to bring it in as a precedent here, not least being that it's an entirely different legal system.

And, as your article says - 'that approach is not accepted around the world'. It's not a good argument for precedence in this case.

I didn't say it was, but you asked for evidence that it had EVER been interpreted that way. You didn't say "ever in michigan" or "ever in the united states" or "ever in north america". You said "ever". So, yes - there's a legal interpretation existing somewhere that would work for his theory.

I gave you an interpretation, provided by a judge somewhere, that would fit right in the middle of this case. I don't think it's a GOOD interpretation, mind you, but it HAS been interpreted that way.

[Grave_n_idle]

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:



We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

I think an interesting question here is should it be rape by deception?

I'd lean towards 'no', because it's such a legal gray area.

Looking at the story Galloism linked, for example - it's being argued that this guy raped the woman because he didn't say he wasn't Jewish.

It's an unrealistic - no, unattainable - standard.

And I think that's why the legal system has been so careful about how it expands the definition. We really don't want to get into a situation where people are getting arrested because they picked a favourable picture to use on their profile.

[Grave_n_idle]

I've read this story before, and there are a number of problems with trying to bring it in as a precedent here, not least being that it's an entirely different legal system.

And, as your article says - 'that approach is not accepted around the world'. It's not a good argument for precedence in this case.

I didn't say it was, but you asked for evidence that it had EVER been interpreted that way. You didn't say "ever in michigan" or "ever in the united states" or "ever in north america". You said "ever". So, yes - there's a legal interpretation existing somewhere that would work for his theory.

I gave you an interpretation, provided by a judge somewhere, that would fit right in the middle of this case. I don't think it's a GOOD interpretation, mind you, but it HAS been interpreted that way.

I see what you're saying, but a legal precedent in Israel is not a legal precedent that would be arguable in this case.

[Fartsniffage]

I didn't say it was, but you asked for evidence that it had EVER been interpreted that way. You didn't say "ever in michigan" or "ever in the united states" or "ever in north america". You said "ever". So, yes - there's a legal interpretation existing somewhere that would work for his theory.

I gave you an interpretation, provided by a judge somewhere, that would fit right in the middle of this case. I don't think it's a GOOD interpretation, mind you, but it HAS been interpreted that way.

I see what you're saying, but a legal precedent in Israel is not a legal precedent that would be arguable in this case.

It really is. Any common law system can use legal precedent from any other common law legal system. The precedent isn't binding or as influential as a case from the same legal system, but it can certainly be argued if the law in question is the same/very similar.

[BK117B2]

Yes, it does. That is called rape by deception or rape by fraud.

And, again - no, it's not.

You have yet to show any evidence at all that it has ever been interpreted that way.

Yes, it is. Look up the bleeding concept if you are really don't know anything about it.

[BK117B2]

Which would be more interesting if it was relevant. You seem very intent on ignoring my posts in favor of going on and on about the very different issue of precedent.

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:

Of course, I actually gave a rationale for the position. You didn't provide one for how such a lie to get sex would NOT be rape by deception.

We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

So you're still confused by the difference between a concept and current laws.

I notice that you still refuse to describe how it could not be considered rape by deception. I made my case, go ahead and try actually making one yourself

[United States Kingdom]

She should be punished for lying about her age, and ultimately ruining this guy's life. This guy did not deserve to have this happen to him. The girl is an asshole for lying about her age(which she did), and tricking the boy into thinking that she was above the age of consent so yeah, I don't see anything wrong with punishing the girl.

I'm not really seeing the logic of saying she's not mature enough to consent to sex, but she's still mature enough to be criminally responsible for lying. Either she's mature enough to understand what she's doing or she's not.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation where the guy was not punished because he thought she was old enough to consent. Would he be harmed in any way by this experience if he wasn't punished as a sex offender? Not really. So I don't see any logic in punishing her if you don't want to punish him.

Just because you are not mature enough to have sex doesn't mean that you can't be criminally responsible for lying. Your basically stating that you have to be at, or above the age of consent to lie, which is a wrong notion.

There is nothing wrong with the girl being criminally charged for lying. She ultimately was the reason why the guy got wrongfully sent to jail. Furthermore, she destroyed the guy's life, so I practically don't see any reason with her getting punished if the guy is getting punished. You state that you don't see any logic in her being punished(in regards to your hypothetical situation), if the guy is not getting punished. Well, I don't see her getting punished if the guy is being punished.

[United States Kingdom]

1. The mother's opinion isn't irrelevant.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not telling you I think it's irrelevant, I'm saying that the mother's opinion is not relevant because it makes no difference to the case.

You have been stating multiple times you don't believe it makes no different in the case. Therefore, you have the notion that if their is another case like this, a mother's opinion can't potentially influence the jury, or the judge. In addition to that, you also therefore have the notion that if a person kills someone, and a lot of people want him to get the death sentence, the dead victim's mother cannot influence the outcome of the case, by asking the jury, and the judge not to give the killer a death sentence. That notion is the same as practically stating that the victim's mothers, and family members at the tragic Charleston shooting cannot influence the case at all when the death sentence is certainly on the table for the guy that shot the people in the church.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Clicking back through the links, this is what we are discussing:



We are absolutely discussing why this would not be rape by deception - and the point I've made over and over (that YOU have failed to address, actually) is that it would not be rape by deception because there is no precedent that it has ever been interpreted in a way that would be arguable as applying to this case.

I'm sorry to have to embarrass you, but you're just 100% plain wrong.

I think an interesting question here is should it be rape by deception?

It's interesting, because if you say the man is a rapist for having sex with a 14 year old, he didn't consent to having sex with a 14 year old. He said that, had he known she wasn't 17, he would have never gone to her house, let alone had sex with her.
So, that's what's interesting... She legally couldn't consent, but he DIDN'T consent. Did they rape each other?
Both should be cleared. Full stop.

[Cenetra]

It's interesting, because if you say the man is a rapist for having sex with a 14 year old, he didn't consent to having sex with a 14 year old. He said that, had he known she wasn't 17, he would have never gone to her house, let alone had sex with her.So, that's what's interesting... She legally couldn't consent, but he DIDN'T consent. Did they rape each other?
Both should be cleared. Full stop.

Let's be honest here, it's because he's a man and she's a woman girl. In cases where under some definitions both parties could be considered rapists or not rapists, there is a MASSIVE bias towards considering males rapists and females victims.

Anyway, I agree with you: neither party should face charges. The girl's actions, in my opinion, could be reasonably considered "rape by fraud" similar to how intentionally lying about having a disease like HIV could be considered rape by fraud: in both cases there are life-ruining consequences to having sex with the liar such that would cause any sane person to not consent if they were aware of the circumstances. HOWEVER, because the girl is 14, she should not be held criminally responsible for the deception any more than teenagers should be charged with distribution of child pornography for sending each other nude photos of themselves. Essentially, I would consider her actions a "dishonest mistake" (obviously not an honest one).

The only time I would support prosecuting a minor for lying about their age in order to have sex with an adult is if there was evidence that the liar was deliberately trying to get his/her partner in legal trouble. I assume this is not the case her since the girl testified in the guy's defense.

[Ayreonia]

It's interesting, because if you say the man is a rapist for having sex with a 14 year old, he didn't consent to having sex with a 14 year old. He said that, had he known she wasn't 17, he would have never gone to her house, let alone had sex with her.So, that's what's interesting... She legally couldn't consent, but he DIDN'T consent. Did they rape each other?
Both should be cleared. Full stop.

Let's be honest here, it's because he's a man and she's a woman girl. In cases where under some definitions both parties could be considered rapists or not rapists, there is a MASSIVE bias towards considering males rapists and females victims.

Anyway, I agree with you: neither party should face charges. The girl's actions, in my opinion, could be reasonably considered "rape by fraud" similar to how intentionally lying about having a disease like HIV could be considered rape by fraud: in both cases there are life-ruining consequences to having sex with the liar such that would cause any sane person to not consent if they were aware of the circumstances. HOWEVER, because the girl is 14, she should not be held criminally responsible for the deception any more than teenagers should be charged with distribution of child pornography for sending each other nude photos of themselves. Essentially, I would consider her actions a "dishonest mistake" (obviously not an honest one).

The only time I would support prosecuting a minor for lying about their age in order to have sex with an adult is if there was evidence that the liar was deliberately trying to get his/her partner in legal trouble. I assume this is not the case her since the girl testified in the guy's defense.

Yeah, but how would the judge get his revenge on them darn kids and their hookup culture then?

[Kaitjan]

I have to ask - if you are tricked into taking drugs, does that make you a drug offender? Just a few days ago there was an article from Norway when a few students in a school made cannabis cupcakes and gave it to their unsuspecting teachers. Two of the teachers later got into hospital. Are the teachers now drug offenders?

[Imperializt Russia]

I have to ask - if you are tricked into taking drugs, does that make you a drug offender? Just a few days ago there was an article from Norway when a few students in a school made cannabis cupcakes and gave it to their unsuspecting teachers. Two of the teachers later got into hospital. Are the teachers now drug offenders?

Taking drugs is not a crime.
They never were truly in possession of the drugs, and were fed them maliciously.

[Kaitjan]

I have to ask - if you are tricked into taking drugs, does that make you a drug offender? Just a few days ago there was an article from Norway when a few students in a school made cannabis cupcakes and gave it to their unsuspecting teachers. Two of the teachers later got into hospital. Are the teachers now drug offenders?

Taking drugs is not a crime.
They never were truly in possession of the drugs, and were fed them maliciously.

How come its not a crime? To my knowledge many countries punishes those that take narcotics. In Sweden (not Norway, I know but still an example) its illegal.

The guy in the article was literally frauded and his sentence is bloody bonkers.