Mrphilly made an important point... certain crimes, statutory rape inclusive, are "strict liability crimes", i.e. the state of mind, or intentions, of the one accused of such a crime are not to be taken into consideration when guilt is determined.
Very well, but what happens if, and when a girl is working, she is actively soliciting business, or she is placing herself in a context where sexual buisness is generally understood to be conducted, and she either represents herself as an adult, or nothing is said about her age, and the customer is given to believe that she is an adult
Assume an arrest is made and the customer pleads his innocence. He had no way of knowing that she is underage, and she had a strong incentive for misrepresenting her legal status.
Is the prosecution of the customer bound by "strict liability",
it is of no moment what he did or didn't know, the fact that she was a minor the only determining factor, or is this tempered by mitigating circumstances, as when a customer has used an incall business where he can reasonably assume that the management will screen employees for their own protection ?
In criminal law, it is referred to as Specific Intent, or General Intent. The easy way to assess this situation is to compare your scenario with selling alcohol to a minor. Even though the minor attempts to purchase alcohol on his own volition, and appears to be of legal age, it is still a violation for the clerk to sell alcohol to the minor. Specific intent is not required to violate this law. The mere selling of alcohol to a minor is a crime.
One of the elements of rape is having sexual intercourse with a minor. The violation does not require specific intent.
Burglary requires specific intent. The elements of burglary: Every person who enters a structure with the INTENT to commit grand or petty theft, or any other felony is guilty of burglary.
If you run a red light, it is a violation of the law regardless of your reason. Specific intent is not required.
If you shoplift merchandise in a store, it is a misdemeanor, unless you entered the store with the intent to commit theft. In that case it would be burglary, a felony. The burden to prove specific intent rests with the state. If you entered the store with some sort of apparatus designed to assist you in shoplifting, that item could be used as probable cause to charge you with burglary.
These are very basic examples of the difference between specific intent and general intent. The best way to determine if a crime is specific intent, or general intent, is to apply the test of other related crimes. Of course, you could always refer to the penal code.
Don't confuse the elements of a crime with a defense.
-- Modified on 4/19/2003 10:25:22 AM
if you have sex with a minor and you get arrested for it you could be convicted of statutory rape without regard to what you believed or had good reason to believe. If a house employs a girl who represents herself as an adult and you happen to be there when a police action takes place, and they discover that she isn't an adult, you will face greatly more severe consequences. What you are saying is that the law is totally indifferent to what you knew, or thought. If she's below the age of majority, you are in serious trouble.
Have you ever heard the term, “Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law?”
but this specific point never gets talked about. Not around here at least. These are two distinct issues, though. It is one thing to know the law, have sex with a minor and the law will kick your ass. You have to be pretty obtuse not to have an inkling about that. But the other thing is what does the law do with a guy who didn't know... a different story from a guy who goes out with the intent of having sex with a minor... this is almost the opposite, the girl, or the people who work with her, have the intent of disguising the fact that she is a minor, or she looks old for her age and the question never arises ? I guess that if you got caught up in that, the system would give you a severe whipping regardless of what you believed.
the bottom line here is that you assume the risk of the girl's age and don't expect the prosecutors to cut you some slack because she was soliciting and looked older - for them statutory rape is a layup of a conviction so they will nail you a.. t o keep the conviction stats up. So maybe those older providers look a little more attractive!
Depending on the laws of your jurisdiction, if you reasonably believed that the girl was of legal age, you could have a defense to the strict liability crime of statutory rape. If you know she is a minor and she consents to the act, it is still a crime. However, if she misrepresents her age and you have no reason to disbelieve her, then you would generally have a viable defense. Furthermore, depending on your jurisdiction, you might have an affirmative defense, which you would have the burden to prove.
I recall a case in Indiana a few years ago where a suspect was prosecuted for statutory rape. He had picked the underage girl up in a bar. The case was dismissed by the judge because he felt it was reasonable for the suspect to assume any woman he picked up in a bar was of legal age.
What you just described was a defense, not the law. The law is very specific regarding minors. A trier of fact can accept almost any defense, but it has no bearing on the law. A defense that is accepted by a court, has no effect on case law.
Well, although I’m not a practicing attorney, I can state with a very high degree of certainty, successful defenses do affect case law. It’s called setting a precedent. Legal theory not withstanding, any CAPABLE attorney would point to this case in defense of a similar case. Additionally, the outcome of this specific case blows your earlier statement “Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law” out of the water, doesn’t it?
OK, I’ll try this one more time. I don’t mind giving advice pro bono on this board, but I really don’t like repeating myself over and over again. I try to avoid legalese and write in plain, ordinary English. Apparently you still don’t understand the difference between a defense and a decision that could become case law.
When laws are enacted by the legislature, they are called statutes. They are very basic and leave room for interpretation. When a court renders a decision that would clarify the meaning of the statue, that decision could become case law. The decision would have no standing outside of the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the decision unless it was appealed and upheld by the appellate court.
If the decision was upheld by the appellate court, the decision would be law for the jurisdiction of the appellate court only.
If the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, it would become the law of the land.
A defense is just that; a defense. In the aforementioned example, the author cited a case wherein the court found a defendant who was charged with statutory rape not guilty. The author opined the defendant was found not guilty because he did not know the victim was a minor. First of all, very seldom does a court explain why a defendant is found not guilty. The jury, by law, does not have to explain why or how they reached a decision. Let’s say for the sake of argument, the defendant’s ignorance of the victim’s age was considered when rendering a not guilty verdict. That would not have an effect on the law.
If the court found that the statue was flawed, or unconstitutional because of the minor clause, then that decision could be appealed to become case law.
An easy way to remember the difference: A defense does not challenge the validity, either in part, or in its entirety, of a statue. It is merely an explanation by the defendant that has been accepted by the court.
Case Law either challenges the statue, or further defines the meaning of the statue.
If a decision was appealed in a state court, and upheld by that state’s supreme court, that would become law for that state only. E.g. if the process occurred in Ohio, it would mean nothing in California. There are Bell Weather decisions, but it would be too difficult to explain on this board. Go to a law website for additional information.
those posts were useful and educative in general... I wish I had you as a prof when I was in college...
If I remember what I heard, some countries, like France, have different standards than we do for what constitutes jurisdiction. For instance, their courts can prosecute a French national for underage sex crimes comitted anywhere in the world, e.g. if you are a French citizen and you go on a sex tour in Thailand, you can be prosecuted in a French court (as well as a Thai court, in theory)
Meanwhile, back in the USA, my flawed understanding may be built around the idea of the "reasonable man"... could be that's part of of heritage of English common law ( is there a concept of "reasonable" in the Napoleanic Code ?? 
The idea is to look to what a "reasonable man" would believe given the circumstances. If the context of the situation is that a reasonable man would interpret another person as an adult, then his position has some merit. (in theory, again)