The "anything" thread
- Thread starter C_Gibby
- Start date
According to wikipedia it's illegal in some jurisdictions if you must believe the person is a minor and that's the case here, I'd say. Why it's illegal I don't know. Presumably to make those exact sting operations work.
What if you have sex with a minor but you believed she was over 18?
Also it's easy to say you didn't believe the whole set up in "to catch a predator" and you just went there fully aware of the whole scam. The condoms were just to make it seem you were taking the bait.
Upvote
0
*Head explodes trying to compute the maths behind this reasoning*
Upvote
0
It doesn't have anything to do with math. If you get a 5 you failed and did not pass the test, therefore you are "negative". In austria it's like this(both in school and university): 1 = Very Good, 2 = Good, 3 = Okay, 4 = Still sufficient, 5 = not sufficient
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If only one-third failed, the exam was too easy
Grades are the same here in Germany at least in my subject.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Completely other way around over here in Finland. There are failed and 1-5, 1 being barely passed and 5 being the best. You have to get half of the exam points to get 1 in our university.
Upvote
0
In Croatia it's 1-5, 1 being insufficient and 5 being excellent.
At our uni, the sufficiency threshold (i.e., for a passing grade) is usually 60%-70% of correct answers, with the exception of Russian l., where it's 80% D:
At our uni, the sufficiency threshold (i.e., for a passing grade) is usually 60%-70% of correct answers, with the exception of Russian l., where it's 80% D:
Upvote
0
Then, I assume, you still had sex with a minor and that's that.
What's your point? That because it's enough to get you in trouble if you believed you were hitting on a kid (!) suddenly only your interpretation of what happened counts?
I doubt even the most ever-so-ironic hipster would go to the length of hitting on little girls all night (which, I can only assume, must be a chore to begin with) and bringing condoms to their li'l rendezvous and acting the whole thing out until that Hansen dude showed up some day, at what, girl #2486's place?
If someone shows that much dedication to prank ole lemonde Chris they might actually have more brain sectors misaligned than some run-of-the-mill frothing pedophile and if they get forced into therapy even though they're technically innocent, all the better...
Upvote
0
But can you arrest someone based on assumptions that he was going to have sex with a minor if the girl wasn't a paid actress. It's like the movie Minority report, is it justified to punish someone for something he was about to do? It's even more of a question in "to catch a predator" since they dangle supposed jailbait infront of a guy's face and when he bites they arrest him.
It's just odd they can arrest you for thinking bad things.
Then, I assume, you still had sex with a minor and that's that.
What's your point? That because it's enough to get you in trouble if you believed you were hitting on a kid (!) suddenly only your interpretation of what happened counts?
It's just odd they can arrest you for thinking bad things.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They're probably going after them for attempted statutory rape. For general application principles in most United States jurisdictions (and probably most other jurisdictions whose heritage is English Common Law), the crime of attempt is complete when the actor makes an intentional overt and substantial act towards the completion of an illegal act. Attempt may, in general, be punishable to the same extents that the completed act would be.
Chatting with an underage girl about sex by itself would not qualify as attempted statutory rape. However, telling her that you're going to bring Jack, a Happy Meal, and a box of Trojan Magnums, and then showing up at her doorstep with said items is certainly "intentional," and could arguably be described as an "overt and substantial act" towards the completed act of playing hide the sausage with a kid. Therefore, it qualifies as attempted statutory rape.
You're quite right: it would be impossible for the guy to actually commit statutory rape with the woman with whom he was chatting online. However, at law, there are two types of impossibility. Only one of them is an admissible defense, and neither is applicable in this case.
First is legal impossibility. This is when a person commits an act which they believed to be illegal, but it turns out to not actually have been illegal. For instance, if you put the bone to a woman you believe to be 12 years old, but she's actually 27, then no matter how sincere your belief that she was 12, you are not, and cannot be held, guilty of statutory rape. (You might be liable for attempted statutory rape, though - see below.) This is applicable in virtually all crimes. If you smash a car window, hotwire it and go for a joyride, believing that you are stealing a car, but then find out that it was actually your car after you sober up ... then it is a legal impossibility for you to be found guilty of larceny.
Second is factual impossibility. If you are acting toward the commission of an act which would be illegal but for a fact or set of facts of which you were unaware, then you may be held liable for the attempt. In this case, the girl is over 18, but he is unaware of this and believes otherwise. But, because he still took that intentional overt and substantial act towards completion, he cannot use impossibility as a defense.
Again, this may be different outside of legal systems with other origins than English Common Law, but statutory rape is a strict liability crime in virtually all jurisdictions. It happened, therefore penalty. There is generally no requirement for intent. For example, California's definition, in penal code 261.5(a) states the following:
"Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age."
There's some more stuff afterward dialing in on minor-minor relationships, >3 years difference, etc., but this is the heart of the matter right here. It does not state that you must know you're doing it with a kid, or that you intended to do it with a kid, merely that there was "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person ... under the age of 18 years."
The guys aren't getting arrested for thinking bad things ... they're being arrested for thinking bad things and then taking an intentional and overt, substantial act towards accomplishing them.
Upvote
0
I love that in legalese you "accomplish" intercourse.
Achievement unlocked
150G - Get Your Dick Wet
150G - Get Your Dick Wet
Upvote
0
I love how if you're a model all you have to do to get laid is pretty much: a) look good, b) get laid. It really amazes me what simple-minded animals women essentially are. Mostly shocks me though.
(talking about a model friend here who gets pretty much any girl to undress by simply looking at her)
(talking about a model friend here who gets pretty much any girl to undress by simply looking at her)
Upvote
0
I was just about to say "Whoa, Peter Steele, are you a lawyer?"
Then I realised there is no way on God's earth a lawyer would put that much legal advice up for free.
Then I realised there is no way on God's earth a lawyer would put that much legal advice up for free.
Upvote
0
- Drakon Crane
- Nice to meet you. Peter Steele.
- Drakon Crane
- Ok. Got it.
- Drakon Crane
I don't think that's going to be the one tiny oversight that gets you in trouble.
- Nice to meet you. Peter Steele.
- Drakon Crane
- Ok. Got it.
- Drakon Crane
You know, even normal people who are not out to have sex with minors may carry condoms in their wallets. Sometimes even sadly optimistic people, but still!
I don't think that's going to be the one tiny oversight that gets you in trouble.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0