Bengals Cheerleader, Teacher Sarah Jones Accused of Sex with Student

[Texsox]

Would switching from laws where (in a given state) that all sex between a 21 year old and a 17 year old was illegal to a law where it is only sometimes legal be an improvement? I just don't see how that would work. Having a jury decide what is, and isn't, consent, on an individual basis, is unworkable.

[knightni]

What if Jerry Sandusky was a hot cheerleader?

Must. Resist. Photoshopping.

[Soxbadger]

Tex,

 

There is no definitive answer, I just know which to me is preferable.

 

 

This is the fact pattern that scares me:

 

16 year old can uses a fake id to get into a bar, they go home with someone they met at the bar and have consensual sex (for the sake of argument lets just say there is no question that its consensual). The next day dad of the 16 year old finds out, calls the police and the police charge the person over 21 with a statutory sex crime.

 

If you follow the law of many states, the 21+ year old is guilty, no questions asked. I just cant agree with such a black and white rule, which is why I generally dont like statutory laws.

[StrangeSox]

Tex,

 

There is no definitive answer, I just know which to me is preferable.

 

 

This is the fact pattern that scares me:

 

16 year old can uses a fake id to get into a bar, they go home with someone they met at the bar and have consensual sex (for the sake of argument lets just say there is no question that its consensual). The next day dad of the 16 year old finds out, calls the police and the police charge the person over 21 with a statutory sex crime.

 

If you follow the law of many states, the 21+ year old is guilty, no questions asked. I just cant agree with such a black and white rule, which is why I generally dont like statutory laws.

Can you find a case where someone was convicted under those circumstances?

 

And juries can always nullify.

[Soxbadger]

Strange Sox,

 

You may want to read Sparf v US in regards to Jury Nullification. Judges do not tell the jury they can nullify, they tell the jury what the law is and that they have to apply the law. Nullification almost NEVER happens, if you want to rely on the hope that a jury nullifies and goes explicitly against the Judge, that is your option, but in my experience that would be a terrible risk for your client to take.

 

As for any case where that occurred, it would be basically impossible. Circuit Court decisions are not really reported so the only way to do would be to go through basically every single criminal case and try and find one. That being said, it is a common example used by many criminal attorneys for the absurdity of statutory laws (the fact the person lied to you about being underage is not a defense.)

[StrangeSox]

some random googling brought up several law blogs that explained that the onus is on the adult and that ignorance isn't a defense. An adult is aware that fake ID's exist and can't outsource age verification to the bouncer at a bar. Nothing forces or compels you to sleep with a random stranger whose age you cannot readily verify, keeping in mind that official documentation is forgeable.

 

I understand the concerns you're raising here and think that sometimes statutory laws are overly strict and do not allow enough individual judgement for unique and unexpected cases, but I think removing any and all bright line distinctions creates far more problems than it solves.

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

Dont get me wrong, I think you could write statutory laws that were better, unfortunately legislatures dont do a really good job of thinking before they act.

[farmteam]

some random googling brought up several law blogs that explained that the onus is on the adult and that ignorance isn't a defense. An adult is aware that fake ID's exist and can't outsource age verification to the bouncer at a bar. Nothing forces or compels you to sleep with a random stranger whose age you cannot readily verify, keeping in mind that official documentation is forgeable.

 

I understand the concerns you're raising here and think that sometimes statutory laws are overly strict and do not allow enough individual judgement for unique and unexpected cases, but I think removing any and all bright line distinctions creates far more problems than it solves.

 

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, particularly the part about having +- buffer that would supersede the age of consent, but the trouble I have with this scenario is that usually, a person who gets into a bar using a fake ID is 18+ anyway (don't have any data on this, but it seems like a fair assumption).

 

The fact that a person can't use the "but I thought she was 21 because we were in a bar" defense is sort of ridiculous. If things like that were allowed, I think it would alleviate a lot of problems people have with the bright-line rule. Essentially, make it kinda backwards from most instances -- treat it as a presumption there was no mistake of fact, and that would then have to be refuted.

 

I agree with Soxbadger in that statutory crimes lack mens rea...which is a really important of committing a crime. I understand there's subsets that society says should be enforced anyway (ie, no sex with minors, even with consent), but when there are enough instances that says enforcement of the law leads to poor results, we should definitely take a closer look at it.

 

That last bit isn't even saying that these cases in the gray area are predominant -- rather, I'm guessing they're very much in the minority. However, I'm curious if the majority of these cases that can be tried using a statutory law and that do not lead to an ostensibly poor result (like these gray area scenarios) could not also be tried under another law that leads to the same result for them, but would not lead to that result for a case in the gray area.

[StrangeSox]

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, particularly the part about having +- buffer that would supersede the age of consent, but the trouble I have with this scenario is that usually, a person who gets into a bar using a fake ID is 18+ anyway (don't have any data on this, but it seems like a fair assumption).

 

Right, I'm not sure how often statutory cases arise from someone picking up a minor in a bar.

 

The fact that a person can't use the "but I thought she was 21 because we were in a bar" defense is sort of ridiculous. If things like that were allowed, I think it would alleviate a lot of problems people have with the bright-line rule. Essentially, make it kinda backwards from most instances -- treat it as a presumption there was no mistake of fact, and that would then have to be refuted.

 

I think it comes down to not being able to outsource your personal responsibilities of age verification to someone else, like the bartender checking Id's. You're still responsible for your own actions.

 

I agree with Soxbadger in that statutory crimes lack mens rea...which is a really important of committing a crime. I understand there's subsets that society says should be enforced anyway (ie, no sex with minors, even with consent), but when there are enough instances that says enforcement of the law leads to poor results, we should definitely take a closer look at it.

 

It goes back to the idea (well-supported imo) that minors are incapable of consent.

 

That last bit isn't even saying that these cases in the gray area are predominant -- rather, I'm guessing they're very much in the minority. However, I'm curious if the majority of these cases that can be tried using a statutory law and that do not lead to an ostensibly poor result (like these gray area scenarios) could not also be tried under another law that leads to the same result for them, but would not lead to that result for a case in the gray area.

 

 

These sorts of issues can definitely be interesting discussions.

[iamshack]

Good conversation.

 

I have to agree with Badger as to the ridiculously arbitrary nature of some statutory laws.

 

I just don't know that I have a better solution than the current one other than that the ages should be lowered so that there is less of a question as to whether consent occurred.

 

We ask a lot of our teenagers these days, and we expect a lot. I find it a bit odd that we could entrust a person to operate a motor vehicle but not be intimate with another human being, even if they happen to be over the age of 17.

[farmteam]

It goes back to the idea (well-supported imo) that minors are incapable of consent.

 

You're right that minors are incapable of consent; my mistake. It still doesn't change the essence of my argument, though. It just rewords/adds to it so that the minors in the "gray area" SHOULD be capable of consent (this ties more into my last paragraph that you quoted).

[Jenksismyhero]

some random googling brought up several law blogs that explained that the onus is on the adult and that ignorance isn't a defense. An adult is aware that fake ID's exist and can't outsource age verification to the bouncer at a bar. Nothing forces or compels you to sleep with a random stranger whose age you cannot readily verify, keeping in mind that official documentation is forgeable.

 

I understand the concerns you're raising here and think that sometimes statutory laws are overly strict and do not allow enough individual judgement for unique and unexpected cases, but I think removing any and all bright line distinctions creates far more problems than it solves.

 

But what societal interest is there to defend a 16 year old who is sophisticated enough to get into a bar illegally and consensually have sex with someone?

 

I'm 100% in agreement with badger here. The black/white laws are good for efficiency but terrible for justice.

[Steve9347]

We ask a lot of our teenagers these days, and we expect a lot. I find it a bit odd that we could entrust a person to operate a motor vehicle but not be intimate with another human being, even if they happen to be over the age of 17.

Well, yeah, there's a lot of stupid laws out there. An 18 year old can die for his country but can't drink alcohol in his country (mostly).

[Texsox]

Well, yeah, there's a lot of stupid laws out there. An 18 year old can die for his country but can't drink alcohol in his country (mostly).

 

We don't mind the 18 year old killing people in other countries, we do mind the 18 year old killing people in this country drunk driving.

[Soxbadger]

Then make the punishment for drunk driving more severe.

 

Why punish people who dont commit a crime?

 

I guarantee you that if drunk driving resulted in an automatic jail sentence of X years, no one would risk drunk driving. The problem is that the laws are only created to be enforced against those who cant afford to break them.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I think we can all agree that this is approximately 1 trillion times worse:

 

Berndt, who was being held in lieu of $2.3-million bail, regularly told his students that they were going to play a "tasting game," in which children were blindfolded and, in some cases, gagged with tape, authorities say. The semen appears to have been ingested by the children on a blue plastic spoon and, according to one alleged victim's father, on cookies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-02...0,5063298.story

[MexSoxFan#1]

The HAS law got to realize that when a hot adult woman approaches a teen male, that isn't a crime, that's a fantasy come true.

Edited February 2, 2012 by MexSoxFan#1

[DrunkBomber]

We don't mind the 18 year old killing people in other countries, we do mind the 18 year old killing people in this country drunk driving.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. The main reason 18 year olds are driving around drunk is because they cant legally hang out at a bar or drink at home a lot of the time because theyre underage. So instead if they want to drink, which a lot of 18-20 year olds do and will regardless of the law, they will drive around trying to find something to do or try to find some shady party.

[Texsox]

One thing has nothing to do with the other. The main reason 18 year olds are driving around drunk is because they cant legally hang out at a bar or drink at home a lot of the time because theyre underage. So instead if they want to drink, which a lot of 18-20 year olds do and will regardless of the law, they will drive around trying to find something to do or try to find some shady party.

 

 

I was speaking to why we raised the age to 21 from 18 back in the 1970s and early 1980s. IIRC states would be denied federal road doallars if their drinking age was under 21. But you confirm my point.

 

But to your point, are you suggesting that 18-20 year olds are forced into irrespossible behavior? If they are getting drunk and driving because they can't get into a bar they will then drink less at a bar and not drive drunk? They have to get home from the bar.

 

The best argument I have heard from university presidents for a return to 18 is it drives the drinking underground where there is less supervision. They believe with a lower drinking age they can better monitor kids drinking and when they have a problem they will be more willing to seek out help.

[Jenksismyhero]

I was speaking to why we raised the age to 21 from 18 back in the 1970s and early 1980s. IIRC states would be denied federal road doallars if their drinking age was under 21. But you confirm my point.

 

But to your point, are you suggesting that 18-20 year olds are forced into irrespossible behavior? If they are getting drunk and driving because they can't get into a bar they will then drink less at a bar and not drive drunk? They have to get home from the bar.

 

The best argument I have heard from university presidents for a return to 18 is it drives the drinking underground where there is less supervision. They believe with a lower drinking age they can better monitor kids drinking and when they have a problem they will be more willing to seek out help.

 

The best way to curb drunk driving is to ban liquor ads on television. Stop making alcohol the be all, end all of a fun night out. See also, smoking.

[GoodAsGould]

I was speaking to why we raised the age to 21 from 18 back in the 1970s and early 1980s. IIRC states would be denied federal road doallars if their drinking age was under 21. But you confirm my point.

 

But to your point, are you suggesting that 18-20 year olds are forced into irrespossible behavior? If they are getting drunk and driving because they can't get into a bar they will then drink less at a bar and not drive drunk? They have to get home from the bar.

 

The best argument I have heard from university presidents for a return to 18 is it drives the drinking underground where there is less supervision. They believe with a lower drinking age they can better monitor kids drinking and when they have a problem they will be more willing to seek out help.

 

I can understand it being 19, only because at 18 you have some kids who are still in highschool and probably not the best idea to have kids in highschool having such an easy access to alcohol but at this point being over 21 I guess the law doesn't bother me as much.

[GoodAsGould]

The best way to curb drunk driving is to ban liquor ads on television. Stop making alcohol the be all, end all of a fun night out. See also, smoking.

 

They banned smoking commercials and taxed the hell out of it yet people still tend to be smoking

[StrangeSox]

Our drinking laws are terrible. We make it such a taboo and then wonder why kids binge drink in college.

[StrangeSox]

They banned smoking commercials and taxed the hell out of it yet people still tend to be smoking

 

Smoking rates are way down from what they used to be.

 

[iamshack]

Our drinking laws are terrible. We make it such a taboo and then wonder why kids binge drink in college.

Well we celebrate it everywhere in our culture and then expect people to get home at night without having drank anything