Rape victim ordered to pay her abuser child support

[Jokodo]

He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,

He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom

He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,

He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom

He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,

He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21. Tom

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

Where are you getting this? The OP says "restaurant". I don't know about Lousiana, but where I live, the age limit for restaurants is unrelated to the drinking age. In fact it is 0 before the 11pm curfew and 14 after.

Be that as it may, and again I don't know about Lousiana, but where I live it is common knowledge (in the sense that every adult, or in fact anyone over the age of 12, can be expected to know) that teenagers will sometimes try, and occasionally succeed, to get drinks before they are legal to do so. If his defence were - and I haven't even seen anything suggesting that it is - that he concluded she must have been 21+ because he found her at a bar, her is declaring himself mentally 11 and clearly unfit to raise a child arguably more mature than himself.

I am *not* arguing that statutory rape and rape ss should be equated, or that 17 is the one right age of threshold. There's arguments both for a higher and a lower threshold. Where I live, the age of consent us 14 and I'm not buying the story that that makes us autilomatically more barbarian than Lousiana. If you want, I can try to compile a list of reasons why LA is more barbarian then us (though you may not like it).

I'm exclusively arguing arguing for his hypocrisy. Someone who fucks 16-year-old strangers is not someone to cry foul when a mother trusts her 15-year-old daughter to do the right thing when alone with her boyfriend she's met and trusts. That judgement does not depend on our moral or legal classification of fucking-a-16-year-old, and it still holds in places where the age of consent is 14.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh fuck, not this again.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh fuck, not this again.

Rape apologists never rest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

This. I think the state should have to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that the person he had consensual sex with was underage. Something like picking up somebody at a bar should be considered sufficient defense and lead to a judge to dismiss charges.

Your argument was already refuted. You can't just expect everyone to have amnesia.

I also think 16, rather than 18, is a better age of consent. Most of the developed world agrees, or goes even lower.

When they go low, ...

you create an ad populum fallacy that has minimal relevance to the facts.

 

[Derec]

Your argument was already refuted. You can't just expect everyone to have amnesia.

No, it wasn't. My argument is about the general case - the government should have to prove that the defendant knew or should have known about the girl's age. Do you disagree?

When they go low, ...

... illiberals on both sides go high. Those that advocate 18 as age of consent agree with the likes of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Iraq.

you create an ad populum fallacy that has minimal relevance to the facts.

I offered an international comparison as is often done on here on a variety of issues.
TI do not think it is irrelevant. Especially when people on here clutch pearls and call it "rape" as if age of consent at 18 was some sort of law of nature and not a more or less arbitrary line.

 

[laughing dog]

Your argument was already refuted. You can't just expect everyone to have amnesia.

No, it wasn't. My argument is about the general case - the government should have to prove that the defendant knew or should have known about the girl's age. Do you disagree?

When they go low, ...

... illiberals on both sides go high. Those that advocate 18 as age of consent agree with the likes of Turkey, Kazakhstan, Sudan and Iraq.

you create an ad populum fallacy that has minimal relevance to the facts.

I offered an international comparison as is often done on here on a variety of issues.
TI do not think it is irrelevant. Especially when people on here clutch pearls and call it "rape" as if age of consent at 18 was some sort of law of nature and not a more or less arbitrary line.

Any line is arbitrary, so what is your point?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

I cannot believe this has to be said.

 

[Derec]

Any line is arbitrary, so what is your point?

My point is to not be so Helen Lovejoyesque and judgmental, like calling people who disagree with aoc=18 "rape apologists".

 

[Derec]

It is the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

If the minor lied about her (or his for that matter) age in order to have consensual sex with somebody older, then that person should not be liable.

 

[laughing dog]

Any line is arbitrary, so what is your point?

My point is to not be so Helen Lovejoyesque and judgmental, like calling people who disagree with aoc=18 "rape apologists".

So you really had no point about where the line is drawn.

Why are you babbling about AOC? Rape apologists are people who excuse rape - statutory or otherwise.

 

[TomC]

Why are you babbling about AOC? Rape apologists are people who excuse rape - statutory or otherwise.

You do realize that aoc is "age of consent", not AOC the firebrand in Congress, right?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Why are you babbling about AOC? Rape apologists are people who excuse rape - statutory or otherwise.

You do realize that aoc is "age of consent", not AOC the firebrand in Congress, right?
Tom

No. AOC has many meanings. For example, Architect of the Capital, and Area of Concern are some.

But regardless of the meaning of aoc, rape apologists are people who excuse rape.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

If the minor lied about her (or his for that matter) age in order to have consensual sex with somebody older, then that person should not be liable.

It does not fucking matter. The responsibility falls on the adult. All the time. 100% of the time.

It is the responsibility of the adult to not give alcohol to a minor, no matter how convincing they are. It's the responsibility of the adult to not give cigarettes to a minor. It's the responsibility of the adult to not let a minor sign a contract. And it's the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

There's no wiggle room on this. Sure, some may end up being decieved. They should be more vigilant. Failure to do so does nothing except to give perdators an easy out "Well gee, your honor, I didn't know she was only 13, I thought she was 22! She had a fake ID and everything!"

No. Just straight up No.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He had sex with a 16-year-old when he was 30 and never even bothered to check back up on her,

He had sex with a woman he picked up in a bar with a minimum age requirement of 21.
Tom

And this has been proven where?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

This. I think the state should have to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that the person he had consensual sex with was underage. Something like picking up somebody at a bar should be considered sufficient defense and lead to a judge to dismiss charges.

While I don't like it being a strict liability offense (I don't believe they should exist at all) I think you're going too far here. I believe the older person has a responsibility to determine that their prospective partner is of legal age, same as there are age requirements for bars. I do not expect the older partner to be an expert at spotting fake ID, though, and I think that their presence in an age-restricted space is a reasonable determination of their age. If he really picked her up in a bar (and it's a state that doesn't let minors in bars) that's good enough in my book--but I'm not convinced he picked her up in a bar. "Should have known" is too high a bar. If he had any reason to suspect she's underage he should find out!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Be that as it may, and again I don't know about Lousiana, but where I live it is common knowledge (in the sense that every adult, or in fact anyone over the age of 12, can be expected to know) that teenagers will sometimes try, and occasionally succeed, to get drinks before they are legal to do so. If his defence were - and I haven't even seen anything suggesting that it is - that he concluded she must have been 21+ because he found her at a bar, her is declaring himself mentally 11 and clearly unfit to raise a child arguably more mature than himself.

If someone has a fake ID good enough to get into a bar I see no way a prospective partner can be expected to ascertain if someone young-looking is legal or not. And I will not hold people to an impossible standard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

If the minor lied about her (or his for that matter) age in order to have consensual sex with somebody older, then that person should not be liable.

It does not fucking matter. The responsibility falls on the adult. All the time. 100% of the time.

It is the responsibility of the adult to not give alcohol to a minor, no matter how convincing they are. It's the responsibility of the adult to not give cigarettes to a minor. It's the responsibility of the adult to not let a minor sign a contract. And it's the responsibility of the adult to not fuck minors.

Except look at how it's handled--alcohol and tobacco, they expect the store to check but they don't prosecute if they fall for a fake that passes the various security checks. And what if it's not fake? The US government ended up deciding not to prosecute in the Traci Lords case because of how much egg they would have on their face--because she had a genuine US passport showing she was of legal age.

You expect someone to determine something, provide an acceptable measure by which they can determine it because certainty does not exist in the real world.

There's no wiggle room on this. Sure, some may end up being decieved. They should be more vigilant. Failure to do so does nothing except to give perdators an easy out "Well gee, your honor, I didn't know she was only 13, I thought she was 22! She had a fake ID and everything!"

No. Just straight up No.

Take a picture of that ID, don't just claim you were shown it. I believe the burden should be to prove there was good reason to believe their partner was of age.

 

[TomC]

this has been proven where?

Which part?
Almost none of the details are proven.
She had an alcoholic beverage in a public place, minimum drinking age 21.
The age of consent, I presume is 17 or 18. Even if she told him she was underage to buy alcohol, she'd still have been old enough to have sex legally.

Heck, she could have "admitted" to only being 18. Nobody really knows what happened, probably not even Abelseth and Barnes. It was 16 years prior and alcohol was involved.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

this has been proven where?

Which part?
Almost none of the details are proven.
She had an alcoholic beverage in a public place, minimum drinking age 21.
The age of consent, I presume is 17 or 18. Even if she told him she was underage to buy alcohol, she'd still have been old enough to have sex legally.

Heck, she could have "admitted" to only being 18. Nobody really knows what happened, probably not even Abelseth and Barnes. It was 16 years prior and alcohol was involved.
Tom

No one really knows what happens, yet you continue to excuse his behavior.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes.
She was in a bar, drink in hand, minimum age requirement 21, and she got laid.

Those are the facts.
Tom

This. I think the state should have to prove that the defendant either knew or should have known that the person he had consensual sex with was underage. Something like picking up somebody at a bar should be considered sufficient defense and lead to a judge to dismiss charges.

While I don't like it being a strict liability offense (I don't believe they should exist at all) I think you're going too far here. I believe the older person has a responsibility to determine that their prospective partner is of legal age, same as there are age requirements for bars. I do not expect the older partner to be an expert at spotting fake ID, though, and I think that their presence in an age-restricted space is a reasonable determination of their age. If he really picked her up in a bar (and it's a state that doesn't let minors in bars) that's good enough in my book--but I'm not convinced he picked her up in a bar. "Should have known" is too high a bar. If he had any reason to suspect she's underage he should find out!

As discussed earlier in the thread, he did have reasons to believe she was a minor. 1. Her immaturity, 2. Her friends' immaturity, 3. Only the oldest one had a car, 4. There is lots of underage drinking in Louisiana and it's part of the culture to do it for decades such that the man in question would have observed or participated in it himself many many times, 5. This even extends to bars letting minors drink as in the earlier documented example of a bartender saying "if you can count to 21, you get a drink."

Therefore, the inference "in a bar" ==> "of legal age" depends upon an unsound assumption of legal compliance that is known to be commonly wrong.

If you choose a random person in a bar in Louisiana, you might have a 98% chance they are of legal age. But knowing these other factors, if you choose a random person in a bar in Louisiana who looks less than 23 yo, you might have an 80% chance they are of legal age. Of course, I can't say for certain what the probabilities really are, but they're not 100% certainties, they're not 50% certainties at the other extreme, and the latter is significantly different than the former because of how common and accepted underage drinking is in Louisiana. All of which would be known by the offender in his calculus of risk in choosing his behaviors.

To add--not knowing the age of a victim is not a legal defense in Louisiana, which is also a factor the offender would take into consideration of risk of choices he makes.