She's Thirteen, but she lies that she's adult.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-06-01 03:09pm

Invictus ChiKen wrote:Okay where is that gif of Bugs Bunny cutting off Florida literally!?

You rang?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2008-06-01 03:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I've never liked the idea of jury nullification. What's the point of law if juries can throw it out the window at will?

That can happen at any level of the judicial system. A cop can look the other way. A DA could refuse to press charges. A judge could hand down a ludicrously low sentence.

There are mechanisms which can attempt to correct this, but even then it depends on the Internal Affairs investigator not looking the other way, or the FBI agent 'not finding anything substantial', or the appeals court not upholding the lower court's decision.

Now, we could make it harder for jury nullification to occur by making them all professionals and holding the threat of penalties over their heads for being grossly incompetent or inconsistent with the law. That would bring them into line with the other components of the system as far as deterrent and correction goes. But we shouldn't kid ourselves: they could still throw out the law "at will", if they're willing to live with the consequences, or if they think they can get away with it.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-06-01 04:44pm

Frankly I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you can be absolved of guilt in a murder based on circumstances, yet a child vixen like that who is deliberately lying and trapping older men to have sex with her will land you an automatic guilty conviction even if YOU approach the police.

That's so fucked up. When is this undercurrent of "evil sex" going to stop in America? It'd hard to believe they can denote something as so sacred and yet potentially abominable if not fitted in small approved categories.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2008-06-01 05:03pm

Enough people like the idea of being judged by a bunch of ignorant assholes that I don't think the idea is going to go away any time soon.

I had a friend who, at 13 could and did pass for 18. By 15 not only could she walk into at least some bars without getting carded, but she was sleeping with adults of both sexes. There was sometimes a certain amount of initial deception involved, but not nearly on the scale of the girl in this story. There were periods where she lived with these individuals rather than her parents. The good news for her partners was that her parents, though perhaps negligent, also approved of her behavior. She never contracted a disease or became pregnant, and by adulthood she had a much better grasp on life and relationships than most of her peers. Clearly she is an unusual individual, but because of her I've never been sure what to think of statutory rape laws.

Hipper: she couldn't keep her mouth shut, or someone saw her in a magazine? It always amazes me the way some things can be widely known among a peer group, but fail to attract the attention of adults.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-01 05:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I've never liked the idea of jury nullification. What's the point of law if juries can throw it out the window at will?

In defense of jury nullification.

I actually think of it as a safety net against injustice. In cases like this for example, where the law is clear, the judge's hands are tied, he has no legal basis to dismiss the charges and the evidence has him dead to rights, the jury can say "this is BS" and acquit. It enhances the rule of law by adding a check against legislative and judicial oversight.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2008-06-01 05:39pm

Darwin Mills and Morris Williams should have checked it out first and hit it later.

because even if mislead by the "victim" it is still the individuals responsibility to verify the legality of the other "consenting adult"

now, I agree this is gonna catch guys on accident, BUT the minute you start allowing anyone to use the "I thought she was 18" defense, then of course the actual child molesters will follow suit and use this kind of incident a precedent.

They should take the girl away from her parents and the guys should slap a civil suit on their asses for allowing her to continually seduce older men.

I have a hard time believing a 13 year old can really match an 18 year old in "mature conversation skills" though and THAT should have tipped the guys off.

Lord Insanity · Post by **Lord Insanity** » 2008-06-01 05:55pm

Darth Wong wrote: No, a common law society is supposed to work by judges setting precedent, not just any panel of 12 random assholes they pull off the street, none of whom were smart enough to get out of jury duty or trip the lawyers' smart person avoidance systems.

I would argue the whole reason the current system has the "smart person avoidance systems" is because of jury nullification. The OP is a perfect example of a case where it should have been used. That guy is probably going to be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life due to some serious legal bullshit.

From case US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969):
"We recognize . . . the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. . . . If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

Jury nullification is a check against the tyranny of the majority. In the 1800s it was used to prevent Abolitionist's from being prosecuted for possession of stolen property when they were caught with runaway slaves. As already mention it played a big part is eliminating Prohibition. Juries simply were not convicting Alcohol offenders. One could make a good case that jury nullification is one of the main reasons for the sixth amendment right to a jury trial. I am curious if Canadian law also has this right set in precedent too. Granted today in the US, judges generally do not inform juries of this right and some go so far as to actively discourage it. See the "war on drugs" or the OP for why that's a bad thing.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-01 05:57pm

Death from the Sea wrote:
Darwin Mills and Morris Williams should have checked it out first and hit it later.
because even if mislead by the "victim" it is still the individuals responsibility to verify the legality of the other "consenting adult"

now, I agree this is gonna catch guys on accident, BUT the minute you start allowing anyone to use the "I thought she was 18" defense, then of course the actual child molesters will follow suit and use this kind of incident a precedent.

They should take the girl away from her parents and the guys should slap a civil suit on their asses for allowing her to continually seduce older men.

I have a hard time believing a 13 year old can really match an 18 year old in "mature conversation skills" though and THAT should have tipped the guys off.

You will be surprised.... though this guy's behavior is inconsistent with someone using the "I thought she was 18" defense. At the very least it creates reasonable doubt that he possessed mens rea to commit a crime, namely had had to intend to commit one.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2008-06-01 06:21pm

Death from the Sea wrote:because even if mislead by the "victim" it is still the individuals responsibility to verify the legality of the other "consenting adult"

How should they do this? Check for ID? Perform background checks?

now, I agree this is gonna catch guys on accident, BUT the minute you start allowing anyone to use the "I thought she was 18" defense, then of course the actual child molesters will follow suit and use this kind of incident a precedent.

I actually think that actual child molesters going free because of the precedent would be a GOOD thing? Why? It would serve as an impetus for the legislatures to fix their own fuck ups. Something they have no motivation to do now. If molesters are repeatedly going free, the legislatures would have no choice but to make a law that protects innocent victims of deception, while at the same time closing a loophole that would allow actual molesters to go free. Sure temporarily it might suck for society, but in the long run society would be better off with better codified rape laws.

They should take the girl away from her parents and the guys should slap a civil suit on their asses for allowing her to continually seduce older men.

Given the fact that guys are convicted felons I doubt such a suit would go over well and could in fact be considered harassment. IANAL but I dont think someone convicted of rape suing the "Rape Victim" would go over well in court, and could conceivably be considered a criminal act in itself. The statutory rape conviction really screws things up.

I have a hard time believing a 13 year old can really match an 18 year old in "mature conversation skills" though and THAT should have tipped the guys off.

Maybe, but then again I'm in my late 20's and sometime *I* have trouble with "mature conversation skills" due to social anxiety. And regardless of that, I'm thinking if this was an "all sex and no substance" relationship, I doubt anyone would be paying attention to mature conversation skills.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-01 06:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I've never liked the idea of jury nullification. What's the point of law if juries can throw it out the window at will?

It basically serves as a check that the people have on the government. Like anything, it can be used for good or bad. We'd love to hear about a jury refusing to convict a gay couple of violating sodomy laws, for example. But there's also the danger that it could essentially legalize vigilantism or violence against certain groups of people.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-01 07:09pm

Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I've never liked the idea of jury nullification. What's the point of law if juries can throw it out the window at will?
It basically serves as a check that the people have on the government. Like anything, it can be used for good or bad. We'd love to hear about a jury refusing to convict a gay couple of violating sodomy laws, for example. But there's also the danger that it could essentially legalize vigilantism or violence against certain groups of people.

Thankfully the sodomy laws got struck down on '04

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-01 07:09pm

Lord MJ wrote:I never said that the legislature wasn't at fault, I was saying that the court system can't turn and point fingers at the legislature when despite the legislature's incompetance the courts could prevent crap like this from happening.

- Dismissal in the interests of justice.
- Jury Nullification (as in the Jury using some common sense)
- DA Dropping the Charges

Any of these things would've prevented this conviction in spite of whatever laws are on the books.

No one wants to be seen as soft on kiddie sex. The judge isn't about to throw out an open-and-shut case of statutory rape, and the DA has an election to worry about. And jurors generally aren't told that they have the power of jury nullification, because nobody, not the judge, not the prosecution, not the defense, wants them to know about it.

To be honest though, if there was a case that I was going to take to the Supreme Court to get a review on whether the inherent inflexibility of statutory rape laws is constitutional, this would be it. It's arguable that the girl is the sexual predator in this case, and the law clearly assumes that before the legal age of consent, minors are all innocent little angels, and any sexual activity they take part in much be due to coercion.

You can just watch MTV to find out whether this assumption holds water (hint: it doesn't). I don't mean to comment on moral depravity or anything, but female children are hitting puberty and developing much earlier now than in previous generations, and kids in general are becoming sexually active much sooner. Combined with a culture that glorifies spoiled whores like Paris Hilton and puts an emphasis on appearance (as opposed overall to health), these things are a recipe for minors having sex with adults. You might argue that the culture is to blame or that magazines shouldn't glorify looking like a Holocaust victim, but that's the situation. Making guys like the ones in this story pay the price for that culture's effects isn't right or fair.

If we're allowed to define obscenity by saying "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it", I don't think it's at all unreasonable to apply this same standard to statutory rape and child rape laws. I know child rape when I see it, and this ain't it.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2008-06-01 07:18pm

Durandal wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I've never liked the idea of jury nullification. What's the point of law if juries can throw it out the window at will?
It basically serves as a check that the people have on the government. Like anything, it can be used for good or bad.

Jury nullification was certainly used to good effect in helping to demolish certain assholery on the part of a judge, who happened to be the Lord Mayor of London in 1670; not only did this asshole demanded that the jury hand in a guilty verdict, but also refused to let one of the defendants read the laws he was accused of breaking. The jury thought that was bullshit and refused to convict him on one of the charges, disturbing the peace. They got jailed too, until Chief Justice Vaughn released them on a writ of habeas corpus — he agreed that punishing a jury because they return a verdict you don't like was bullshit.

That jury did convict William Penn on the charge of preaching Quakerism. (You can see why I know that particular case.)

And I agree with Lord Insanity that the "smart person avoidance system" is because of jury nullification. My meeting had material to that effect, explaining the dirty little secret of the common law system. Using William Penn's trial as an example. (They didn't say that the jury handed down a guilty verdict for preaching Quakerism, tho'.)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-01 07:21pm

Yep, lawyers hate people smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. At the end of the day, the judge and lawyers are all part of the same system, and they all benefit from having an easily manipulable jury. Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2008-06-01 07:29pm

I don't have a link for it but someone on another board (where I posted this) stated that he read that two men were convicted of producing child pornography even though their models were over eighteen because she was presented as being younger.

It just happed to be in Florida as well according to the poster.

I wonder if you can be arrested as a pedophile in Florida if you have your girlfriend dress as a school girl?

The Big I · Post by **The Big I** » 2008-06-01 08:01pm

Did the "victim" receive any type of compensation being the victim of crime. Could this be part of the reason her parents were so quick to call the cops that they are “in” on the scam??

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-01 08:07pm

The Big I wrote:Did the "victim" receive any type of compensation being the victim of crime. Could this be part of the reason her parents were so quick to call the cops that they are “in” on the scam??

Victims aren't awarded damages in criminal cases.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-01 08:12pm

Durandal wrote:
The Big I wrote:Did the "victim" receive any type of compensation being the victim of crime. Could this be part of the reason her parents were so quick to call the cops that they are “in” on the scam??
Victims aren't awarded damages in criminal cases.

Well, they can be, usually for property crimes.

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2008-06-01 08:12pm

Out of curiosity, what is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? And if its a few years, did porn stars who had scenes with Tracy Lords get thrown to the wolves when her real age was revealed?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-01 08:13pm

That's restitution, not damages, I think. Criminal court won't get you the kind of gigantic payouts that civil court will, so it's hardly worth scamming for money.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2008-06-01 08:14pm

A good idea I had for a Law and Order or SVU episode is exactly the scenario where the parents were behind an exact same scenario in order to extort compensation from the "rapists." One of the convicted boys is killed in prison.

The parents are subsequently charged with fraud, rape, and manslaughter.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-01 08:17pm

NeoGoomba wrote:Out of curiosity, what is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? And if its a few years, did porn stars who had scenes with Tracy Lords get thrown to the wolves when her real age was revealed?

Usually between 5 and ten years depending on the state.

That's restitution, not damages, I think. Criminal court won't get you the kind of gigantic payouts that civil court will, so it's hardly worth scamming for money.

True

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2008-06-01 08:22pm

Death from the Sea wrote:I have a hard time believing a 13 year old can really match an 18 year old in "mature conversation skills" though and THAT should have tipped the guys off.

1) Did you read the article? That *is* what tipped the guy off. That is why he went to talk to her father, and subsequently got fucked over, for it.

2) Yes, many thirteen-year-olds *can* match the conversation skills of eighteen-year-olds simply because there are that many eighteen-year-olds out there with the apparent maturity of thirteen-year-olds.

3) Contrary to popular belief, most people do not actually have the ability to perform accurate background checks in their back pockets. If the girl is in a place/situation where it is often taken for granted that people are of legal age, looks/acts like she's legal age, and is actively trying to deceive people that she is legal age, then surprise surprise, people are going to think she's legal age.

Warsie · Post by **Warsie** » 2008-06-01 08:24pm

I remember a similar situation on the news involving a internet dating site; she said she was 18, had ID and fucked this guy. He got caught several months later, he showed the evidence to the judge and she still gave him a few years jail time.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-06-01 08:26pm

Oni is right. While spotting vacuous idiots is pretty easy, most 18 year olds (hell, many 22 year olds) STILL have that same demeanour. I've taken age on trust before and been ruled (nothing as serious as five years underage, however) and really, aside from carding someone, when you meet them you take a great deal on trust - like pretty much everything you know about them.