MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

This Teen Had Sex with Another Teen, So a Judge Tore His Family Apart

Same judge, same story.

TeenDreamstimeAt last America is realizing how Taliban-esque our sex offender laws can be. First came the story of Elkhart, Indiana’s Zach Anderson, which hit the front page of the The New York Times on Sunday (you read it here first). Zach, 19, had sex with a girl who told him she was 17 but turned out to be 14, and a judge decided that makes Zach a sex offender for life. Learning about his case, another family in Elkhart couldn’t believe it.

Their son was living out the exact same story.

As Fox28 reports, Darian Yoder, also a 19-year-old, met a girl on the same app Zach used, "Hot or Not." The girl said she was 17 but turned out to be 13—a fact Darian learned months after the encounter, when he was arrested for sexual misconduct.

Judge Dennis Wiley, the same judge who sneeringly told Zach, "That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior,” presided over Darian’s trial and sentenced him to the same draconian fate. Darian, like Zach, is now officially a sex offender, for life. As such, he cannot be around anyone under the age 18, as if he were some insatiable child molester. That includes his younger brother and sister, whom he has not seen since he was sentenced. His devastated family has been torn apart.

According to Fox28:

"I know I'm not a sex offender," said Yoder. "Had I known her age, I never would have even talked to her."

The young man can't go to church, a park, or even a mall.

"It's just far too much," said Yoder.  "I have no life. I can't do anything."

"It's not a family anymore," said Yoder's mother Vanissa Messick. "And it just doesn't feel like it ever will be."

Darian says he can't be near anyone under age 18, including his younger brother and sister, whom he hasn't seen since his arrest.

"I mean we can't have Christmas," said Messick. "He cant see them on his birthday, he can't... anything"

Darian was a teen who had sex with another teen—one he thought was his own age. If there’s a predator in this story, it’s the judge who keeps ruining the lives of these young men.

That is the power we give judges and prosecutors with our all-encompassing definition of what constitutes a sex offender. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the sex offender registry who bear no resemblance to the monsters we fear. Of the 800,000 registered sex offenders, roughly a quarter of them were added as minors, because young people have sex with other young people.

The sex offender list is a dungeon we can throw people in on the slightest pretext. Politicians and grandstanders exhort us to fear those on it. But it’s a lot scarier to think about how easy it is for our sons to end up on that list themselves.

Watch FOx28's video here.

Photo Credit: Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Pack up and move to another country? Only way I can see this young man escaping being branded for life. Maybe a kickstarter campaign to get him to Hong Kong.

  • Jay Dubya||

    developed countries wont let sex offenders emigrate, either. half the governments of countries left over from that want death to america and whats left over from that will still be damn hard to get buy on if you cant pick up foreign languages. Im not on some registry but I have looked into getting out of the States many times. Takes a lot of money to not suck completely

  • Quixote||

    Great. Judges should have this power in a strong, ordered liberty such as ours. Some of them are doing an excellent job at keeping our more bestial inclinations in check. But more work needs to be done, especially in stamping out that there juvenile Internet hanky-panky that we really don't like. Anything that twists words and stirs up controversy should be rigidly and rapidly suppressed, until the more recalcitrant youngsters of our towns and cities learn to behave properly and stop posing a menace to their fellow American citizens. See the many examples at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpr.....rsonation/

  • Tionico||

    these kids are only acting along the lines they have been taught in our gummint skewlz.... sex with anyone any way any time is right and good, don't suppress your animal urges, there is no danger..... and no moral standareds are ever allowed to be taught in those courses, as that would "violate separation of church and state".
    So, promote, recommend, encourage, any thing, and you will get more of it.
    Yes this judge is nuts... I'm imagining HE has some dirty laundry in his closet and is vicariously meting out the punishment HE deserves. It is sick that he takes delight in destroying the families and individuals involved.
    The "more recalcitrant youngsters in our towns" are trained to be that way by the feminazi inspired moral cesspools posing as our schools with their Planned Babydeath "health education" courses beginning in kindergarten. Is there any wonder the 13 year olds are so stirred up they will entrap boys by lying about their age? Selfish little tarts need a good spanking, by their DADDIES who have failed to love and care for them, thus making them seek false affection from any male that will pay attention to them.

  • Chuck in CR||

    I'm living (fairly well) on $1,000 a month in Costa Rica. It's like living in Mayberry©

  • Robert||

    Get a new identity. This is exactly the situation false papers were made for.

  • BigT||

    Dennis Wiley I have a woodchipper with your name on it.

  • SimonJester||

    Oh, is that the new model from FreedomChippers? Is it the Wiley 2000, or the 2000FJ that also plays recordings of The Federalist?

    Personally, I prefer the Gadsden Brand chppers. They have a "fine" "Extra Fine" and "Draconian Sentancing" settings, which is nice, and a special sensor for "Authoritarian" in case I forget to set it up right.

  • Tionico||

    and we now know of at least two nineteen year olds who can't get work doing anything else. I'm sure they'd be happy to lend a hand or two, each.

  • Moridin||

    I love you.

  • Jordan||

    Looks like there's a serious shortage of woodchippers in this country.

  • SQRLSY One||

    WHERE is the socialist hue and cry for "woodchipper access for all"???

  • ImanAzol||

    This guy has been campaigning for them since 2008.

    http://www.madmikein2016.com/

  • Theoretical Bi Irish||

    "Darian says he can't be near anyone under age 18, including his younger brother and sister, whom he hasn't seen since his arrest."

    This is amazing because even if he had known she was 14, there's no evidence whatsoever that this guy has any interest in incest.

    One of the biggest problem with sex crime legislation and the sex offender registry is that it's a blunt object that is incapable of judging people by the sex crime they actually committed. So you end up with someone who sexually assaulted an adult woman not being allowed to live within certain distances of schools even though there's no evidence he has pedophilic tendencies, and things like that.

  • ||

    Very good point. It's a one-size-fits-all punishement.

  • R C Dean||

    he can't be near anyone under age 18

    Outside of prison or the military, how is this even possible?

  • Theoretical Bi Irish||

    Well, if they can punish you for having sex with someone who lied about their age, why can't they punish you for being near a person whose age you didn't know?

  • ||

    In an awesomely ironic twist, you just have to turn your porch lights off on Halloween.

  • ||

    That's a good way to get a bunch of kids within egging distance.

  • ||

    Maybe you could fabricate some sort of totem or ward and, IDK, set it on fire in order to scare the little devils and other evil spirits off.

    It might be interesting to see what the outcome of a burning crucifix. Whether you could co-opt anti-racist sentiment and play the victim card to trump pedophilia in the SJW mind.

  • Tionico||

    17 year olds can be in adult prisons, and also in the military (I'll leave you to define the difference....)

  • ace_m82||

    Government is a sledgehammer in a fight. No-one ever did anything clever with a sledgehammer in a fight.

  • rac3rx||

    Well I apparently can't get the link to post, but this is out there:

    A 40 year old guy and his 21 year old lady friend get time AND have to register as sex offenders because they allegedly have consentual sex on a beach and a 4 year old saw it.

    Yeah...sex offender laws...

  • Tionico||

    what about the guy whose bladder was full and fit to bust wide open, he found a relatively sheltered place, hauled it out and let it dump. A cop saw him and arrested him.. not for urinating in public, but for indecent exposure. The difference? Yep, you're pretty sharp... indecent exposure is a sex crime, now he has to register. Justice? Nah, wee doan neeeed no steeeenkeeeeng justice.....

  • Rich||

    Judge Dennis Wiley, the same judge who sneeringly told Zach, "That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior,” presided over Darian’s trial and sentenced him to the same draconian fate.

    Hey, Judge, smile if you're getting any.

  • JRS1001||

    the whole "sex is evil" notion is ridiculous - where did this guy grow up - in a cave?

    Furthermore, why does he think that he has any right to push his morality on anyone else? He is a judge which means his role is to determine the law not morality.

    This is where I part ways with many conservatives. They attempt to determine what is moral and not which is not the role of government.

  • Ed Kline||

    What does that judge think he is punishing this boy for exactly?

  • sarcasmic||

    "He was a high school loser,
    never made it with a lady,
    and today he's still really pissed.

    Now he's a judge,
    and he'll punish kids cuz,
    they got laid based on something he missed."

  • FreeToFear||

    "The law says nay!"

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    "Judge this waaaayyy,
    judge this wayyy,
    just give me a sentence,
    like this!"

  • Gary||

    Yea, I see I'm not alone, Judge Wiley couldn't get laid in high school.

  • LynchPin1477||

    If there’s a predator in this story, it’s the judge who keeps ruining the lives of these young men.

    I'm inclined to include the people deliberately lying about their age so that other people will have sex with them. That's fraud.

  • Jordan||

    I wouldn't say that makes them a predator, unless they are deliberately doing it to get their partners in trouble, which does not seem likely.

  • Rich||

    It may, however, make them a pre-dater.

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Where Switzy?

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Where's Switzy?

  • Agammamon||

    *squints menacingly*

  • Agammamon||

    I had one of my Marines end up in the brig because of something like this. Though (not) in his favor, he *knew* how old she was, but this wasn't the first Marine she'd gotten arrested either and the base CoC knew her and her problems.

    They just continually failed to intervene unless there was someone to through into jail.

  • John Deere WC-12||

    Thirteen and fourteen year old girls are generally not considered the brightest bulbs on the tree, especially as far as common sense goes.

    Tween girls lying about their age to get attention from an older boy has been going on for as long as there have been tween girls and older boys. The difference is that we've now criminalized the consequences for the boy, while the girls can continue to do what they've always done.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    So you're saying sex education doesn't work?

  • cavalier973||

    50 years ago, the girl's dad would have intervened prior to any sexual activity. 100 years ago, the girl would have been considered of marriageable age.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    25 years ago, the girl would have been bragging about her older boyfriend and how awesome he is.

    It wasn't uncommon for girls in junior high to have boyfriends that were much older.

  • ||

    ... with the help of dad's shotgun

  • Robert||

    Tween girls lying about their age to get attention from an older boy has been going on for as long as there have been tween girls and older boys.


    No, only as long as sex w kids has been considered outre. I'm sure if you go back a few centuries or millennia, subteens got at least most of the sex they wanted.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    That's what's puzzling. There's obvious fraud going on, and the dimwitted judge completely ignores the fact in sentencing.

    I'd expect the prosecutor to haul the website owners into court to defend their enabling fraud. But an outrageous fine apparently isn't as much fun as ruining a human life for some of these sociopaths.

  • Jordan||

    I don't think it's fair to say that the website owners are enabling fraud by not checking their clients' ages.

  • Number 2||

    Wait a minute...isn't there a bill pending in New Jersey that would define "rape" to include the use of false or fraudulent statements to induce another person to have sex?

    Think of it. If that bill becomes law, and these events occur in NJ, both the young men and the girls would be rapists and sex offenders.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Only applies to penises.

  • dbw1977||

    you should be able to sue the girls and their parents for fraud too.

    millions and millions of dollars, or whatever their trailer is worth, should help get this guy to another country.

  • Curt2004||

    What about the idiot prosecutors who think this is a good use of our tax dollars? Or the idiot politicians who passed these laws in the first place?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Darian was a teen who had sex with another teen—one he thought was his own age. "

    There are a number of problems, here, but the biggest is ignoring mens rea.

    Criminals willingly forgo their rights when they willfully violate someone else's rights in the commission of a crime.

    There's a legal term for willfully violating someone's rights, and that term is "mens rea".

    There was no mens rea in this case, and, therefore, there was no crime.

  • KerryW||

    ^ This

    I do have a problem with the headline, though; "This teen had sex with another teen..." makes it sound like both were minors. One was an adult and one was not. But you should still need intent.

  • dbw1977||

    The judge would say that a 13 year old is too young to be able to make this decision on their own, therefore the state will determine mens rea - hence statutory rape. She could be willing, sign paperwork stating the sex was consensual, and stand by it in court, but a 13 year old isn't considered capable of making THAT decision.

  • See Double You||

    Ken is referring to the mens rea of the so-called "criminal," not the so-called "victim."

    Statutory rape is simply a malum prohibitum type of crime, not a malum in se crime like actual rape.

    Malum prohibitum laws tend to make a person strictly liable for his act, hence why such laws ignore the person's mental state.

  • Ed Kline||

    But if she grabbed a shotgun and wiped out a kindergarten class you bet they'd say she should be prosecuted as an adult.

  • John Galt||

    Would you like extra ISIS on that wedding cake?

  • ||

    In all seriousness...he can't see his brother and sister during Christmas? Who's gonna complain?

  • ||

    Good question!

  • ||

    I am wondering if this is part of a strategy by his defense team to make the sentence appear onerous. Not that I disagree with the tactic. 100% for it.

  • Veillantif||

    CPS will. Then he and his parents will be in jail.

    And the two younger kids would spend the remainder of their childhood in foster care, where they're probably 1,000 times more likely to be abused.

  • Ed Kline||

    In that regard he just got started early....lucky bastard.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    We all learned from the Silk Road trial (if not earlier) that the worst thing you can do is offend a judge's aesthetic sensibilities.

  • John Deere WC-12||

    Fire up the wood chippers, boys.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    And then tell Satan to crank up the thermostat.

  • Drake||

    Sounds like both of them plead guilty to some charge.

    With these kinds of sentences, it can't be worth pleading. May as well take your chances that a sane jury will just throw it out and tell the Judge to fuck-off. And if they do convict, at least the poor kid would have the ability to appeal.

  • ||

    good point

  • ||

    "I mean we can't have Christmas," said Messick. "He cant see them on his birthday, he can't... anything"

    How the fuck does that work? Are your neighbors and/or the local Police such asshats that if they see both kids in the yard on Christmas they'll haul him off to jail?

    Gotta love it when the government starts generating victims for victimless crimes.

  • ||

    that's what I am wondering about.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    How the fuck does that work? Are your neighbors and/or the local Police such asshats that if they see both kids in the yard on Christmas they'll haul him off to jail?

    Rhetorical question?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If his parole officer finds out that his parents let them associate with someone they knew was on the sex offenders list, the parole officer might be obligated to call CPS and have his brother and sister put into the foster care system.

    Hell, I've heard that sometimes they tear kids away from their families for letting them walk home by themselves from the playground.

  • Robert||

    He really needs to develop a new identity. If it's not known it's him, no problem.

  • FreeToFear||

    Sucks for the kid, but 13? And you didn't have the slightest inclination she might be fudging the numbers? Still not a case deserving of a lifetime of defamation though

  • ||

    I was wondering the same thing too. I'm trying to keep in mind the stupidity that was clouding my judgement when I was 19...about everything...but 13? wow.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Dude, my daughter doesn't turn 11 until January and is already wearing a bra. Her mother wears a size FF bra. My daughter is going to be tall and thin and built by the time she is 12. I will probably die from alcohol poisoning by the time she is 14.

    It isn't that she will pass for 19 when she is 12 but she might be able to convince a 19 year old that she was 16 when she was 12. Anyone know of a good convent?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Her mother wears a size FF bra

    uhhhh...pics?

  • MichaelL||

    LOL!!

  • Al Bendova||

    It's gonna be hard to advise on your situation without complete photographic documentation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ten years or so ago I was working at a movie theater where parents would drop their kids off for the evening with a wad of cash. So on the weekends it was a zoo of teenagers. There were a few girls who looked to me to be sixteen or seventeen who would flirt with me a lot. One day I asked one of them her age, and she said she was twelve. I couldn't fucking believe it. So, yeah. I could see how this guy got fooled. They grow up early these days.

  • ||

    "Ten years or so ago I was working at a movie theater where parents would drop their kids off for the evening with a wad of cash. So on the weekends it was a zoo of teenagers."

    As an aside, speaking as a 45-year old, THAT sounds like some kind of hellish punishment!!

  • sarcasmic||

    The place was a dinner and a movie style theater, and I worked as a waiter. It was actually a pretty fun job, and the money wasn't bad either. I made a good five hundred bucks a week working three nights. Got me through my last couple years of college.

  • ||

    well, that puts in a better light than the nightmarish scenario I was considering.

  • Jerryskids||

    That would have been about the time I had to pick my nephew up at school one day and asked him who his friend was he was talking to as I drove up and he gave me an odd look and said, "That's not my friend, that's my math teacher." Give it another decade or two and you too won't be able to tell the difference between a 13-year old and a 25-year old. They'll all just be those damn kids on your lawn.

  • Galane||

    I've seen a girl who looked like she was 16 but was only NINE. Yes, her mother had to frequently inform various boys of that datum. (No, I wasn't one of them.)

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    As if everyone physically matures at the same rate.

  • Theoretical Bi Irish||

    I was about to check if it were possible for a 13 year old to look old enough to be mistaken for 17 or 18, but then I realized that googling "13 year old who looks older" on a work computer would probably be a bad idea.

  • Agammamon||

    Or even on your home computer. The wife would likely not take it well to find that autocomplete in your search history.

  • ||

    Did you *marry* one of the neighbors above who'd call the Police to report a 'siblings in their own yard on Xmas', WTF?

  • Robert||

    a

  • Robert||

    http://tinyurl.com/px42m2a

    You're welcome.

  • Ed Kline||

    Bwahahaha! Yeah, there's that.

  • Agammamon||

    13 can look a lot like 17, depending on the girl.

  • Curtisls701||

    I can assure you that both my daughters could have easily passed for 17 at the age of 13. I'm so glad we made it through those years with me ending up using a woodchipper.

  • perlchpr||

    I had to shave off a full beard for graduation. From the 8th grade. Got my first pair of size 13 shoes when I was 12. Yeah, I looked older than I was.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Girls are maturing faster today than before. Diet? More food = faster maturation?

  • McKenna||

    Actually, yes. Better nutrition means they're hitting 'that age' faster. Several of my sisters hit it at age 10. By the way, have I mentioned I have a lot of sisters? It's madness.

  • Careless||

    I suspect you meant to say you were glad you made it through those years without using a woodchipper. Wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong impression through an omitted word

  • ||

    Shouldn't this be a Supreme Court case?
    Cruel and unusual punishment?

    In theory the sex offender registry is only supposed to exist so that other people know where the sex offenders are. But if it's being used to attach additional punishements, like being excluded from jobs or housing or social activity(and not just because people voluntarily exclude sex offenders, but because the law requires them to), then that can be contested, I would think.

    I know the sex offender registry has been upheld in the past, but it might be possible to challenge all of the extra punishments that have been glommed onto sex offender status to punish sex offenders beyond their status. Or to challenge the standards used for assigning sex offender status.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Advocates for the homeless need homeless to advocate for.

    All part of the grand scheme to make everyone dependent on government. One offense at a time.

  • FrankDavis||

    #TeamWoodChipper

  • Seamus||

    It's woodchippin' time! /Ben Grimm voice

  • Deli-bro||

    The judge's "critique" on modern hook up culture does not belong in the court room where matters of propriety have no place. That it was used to justify the verdict and sentencing on a legal matter is a travesty.

    Is there a reason office bet going on to see who can publish the most nut punches? If so, Lenore might be in the lead.

  • Wood Chipper||

    F33t f1rst? Lolz.

  • Jerryskids||

    You have to have affirmative consent and minors cannot legally give affirmative consent. Neither can the mentally defective, and having sex with an (ugh) man or (horrors!) a white, straight male is proof of being mentally defective. After all, all sex with a man is rape and you must be crazy to say you are willing to consent to rape. I for one am glad that raping pedophile rapists like this one are being dealt with and only wish all raping pedophile rapists were dealt with the same way. Not to mention which, locking up all the men and keeping them from reproducing would go a long way toward healing Mother Earth by getting rid of the cancer that is Humanity. (How the hell you people can keep seeing this shit every day and still think they are the aberration instead of us is beyond me. As a wise man once said, "I hesitate to question the wisdom of the Almighty, but I sometimes think He made a mistake by warning Noah of the Flood.")

  • ||

    0.4 Blighters.

    Solid effort.

  • WoodchipperFocus(ed)||

    Blighters awarded are reason? Is this a first?

  • Marshall Gill||

    a wise man once said

    -10. The proper wording here would have been a wise woymn once said.

  • thinkmore||

    13 is a child. He bears some responsibility for this. However if I were him or his family I would sue or whatever the girls family, for fraud or whatever this is exactly, for misrepresenting her age.

  • BearOdinson||

    I believe that the app in question states that people are supposed to be over a certain age. If so, the kid bears NO responsibility. She lied to him and commited fraud by lying on the app information. This is similar to (though not the same I know) that if a 21 yo guy at a bar hooks up with a girl at the bar. She managed to convince the bouncer or bartender that she was over 21, but was only 14. Should the guy be held responsible?

  • Theoretical Bi Irish||

    https://hotornot.com/terms/

    According to their terms of service, you CAN join if you're over the age of 13, but the app stops you from being able to talk to anyone over 18. So someone had to have lied about their age in order for them to be able to communicate using that app because the app itself disallows communications between people over the age of 18 and people under 18.

  • ssgcmw||

    Pretty sure in one of my high school law class we saw a case of a guy successfully prosecuted for statutory rape of a girl he picked up in a bar, even though the girl had used a fake ID to get in.

  • ||

    13 is a child.

    So is 25 according to Obamacare. Your point?

  • SimonJester||

    And, as someone above points out, Relatively recently, 13 was considered "adult" age, or at least "responsible for his/her own actions." You think bar mitzvahs happenng at 13 is crazy random happenstance?

  • ||

    IANAJ, but bat Mitzvahs actually happen at 12, right?

  • SimonJester||

    Some. Depends. I believe some are at 12 and some are at 13, depending on the branch of Judaism.

  • Ed Kline||

    Make up your mind guy.

  • Mance Spooner||

    This is fucking sick and there is a special place in hell for that judge. (Yes, lest there be any doubt, I am LITERALLY THREATENING TO CONDEMN HIM TO HELL.)

  • ||

    I'm fairly confident that I'm going to hell, so I'll let you know if I see the judge there.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    I'm fairly confident that I'm going to hell, so I'll let you know if I see the judge there.

    Yeah, but it won't be the same circle. He'll be in lower circles for hypocrites, cruel ass-hats and despots. You'll probably just be in the first level with the rest of us where it's just one long Cosmotarian cocktail party but with lots of decent rapscallions like Capote, Twain, O'rourke etc

  • Moridin||

    LOLz

  • Muhammad Finkelstein (widget)||

    Judge Wiley

    Last names, at least among Europeans, are not totally random. If your last name is Shoemaker, and your family settled in Indiana, your great-great grandfather was probably a shoe maker.

  • Jordan||

    Last names, at least among Europeans, are not totally random.

    Fun fact: the judge legally changed his surname when he was younger. It used to be "Slaver".

  • cavalier973||

    So...the judge is descended from a coyote?

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    And inherited a large sum of stock in ACME corporation from said coyote.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The judge should be put on the sex offender's registry. You just know he had to have a serious woody going when he fucked over this kid. "Ah the power the power! It feels so good!"

  • blondrealist||

    If we could have all judges, state attorneys, and DAs honestly answer the question "did you have sex before you were 18?" -- what you do think the results would be? I'm guessing some where around 40-50 percent would have to yes (if they were truthful). If we included oral sex and hand jobs, then it would exceed 50 percent.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Most of them are frigid motherfuckers who couldn't tell their goddamn dick from their goddamn pinky toe. And if they are female the fuckers have a miniature iceberg clamped between their cheesy thighs. Fuck all these insidious humanity haters. Fuck them.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    Yeah a better question would be, "did you ever J/O to girls (or boys) who wouldn't touch you when you were a teen?" If the answer is yes, then they admit to sexual thoughts about underage CHILDRENZ and can go straight to the nearest Federal Rape Pens.

    Oh yeah, also ask them is they ever smoked a joint. If so, then they can have all their shit taken away because - drug trafficking.

    In a truly decent and reasonable world, a judge or DA who didn't admit to snatching some of Dad's beers as a kid, hooking up as a teen, lighting up a joint and/or leaving their kids in the car for 5 minutes to run into a store would never get the job of doling out judgement and punishment for actual crimes.

  • Erisian||

    Agile, as that late great philosopher George Carlin said, approximately, one shouldn't say fuck XYZ because you dislike them. Fucking is fun so you have damned them to have fun. One should say "unfuck XYZ instead.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Dead puppy fucker judge what-the-fuck on this case is either a goddamn card-carrying member of the American Law Institute or the robe-wearing shit slurper is working feverishly to get at the insidious level of brain evisceration required to be accepted with open arms by the American Law Institute which hates humans.

  • SimonJester||

    No no, AC, no need to hold back. Tell us how you really feel... You are among friends here...

  • Brochettaward||

    So, if I understand this correctly, the state says that anyone who ends up on these lists can never start a family of their own? Have kids? Or at the least, they are never allowed to see their own children?

    I would think that is grounds for a civil rights case.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The state that your neighborhood progressive and fucking Christian loves is the epitome of cruelty. Cruel governance is lauded by the so-called peaceful, loving, and thinking. Morality and social justice are supported by rivers of oppression.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    The state that your neighborhood progressive and fucking Christian Socon loves is the epitome of cruelty. Cruel governance is lauded by the so-called peaceful, loving, and thinking. Morality and social justice are supported by rivers of oppression.

    FIFY. Not nearly all of us are filthy Socons.

  • Cathaoir||

    I think the prohibition of being in the presence of a minor is only a condition of his probation and will end when that ends. The only restriction that comes with the Sex Offender Registration is a prohibition on residing, working or loitering within a "school safety zone." Apparently stopping your windowless white van briefly to pick up some kids is ok.

  • Cathaoir||

    I have put quite a bit of thought into these cases with input from others in the comments but I still can't bring myself to feel sorry for any of the defendants. Yes I think some of the punishments are over-broad, particularly in light of the lack of any evidence of a predatory nature to these particular defendants or their offenses, but their predicament is so easily avoided that I just don't have any sympathy for them. I believe a perfect analogy is: guy meets (adult) girl online, guy & girl consent to sexual activity, guy learns the hard way that girl lied about having no STDs. There are a lot of risks associated with hooking up with absolute strangers. It's called assumption of risk, if you engage in conduct with known (or easily knowable) risks then you have accepted in advance the consequences should one of those risks occur.

    These articles are justly seeking a change in the way these cases are handled but I don't think you'll get any actual results by putting the sole focus on sympathy for the defendant. There needs to be more work done exposing the ineffectiveness of the sex offender registry in protecting the public in these types of cases.

  • Mance Spooner||

    I don't think anyone denies that the kid was stupid and should have known better...doesn't mean he deserves to have his life ruined by the state, though, and I don't think that falls under "assumption of risk." So yeah, I do feel sorry for him.

  • Brochettaward||

    I don't think anyone denies that the kid was stupid and should have known better...

    I most certainly do.

    Criminalizing a natural part of human behavior is fucking stupid. Adults who pretend they didn't do the same thing when they were young are hypocrites. People who pretend they are above that are mostly hypocrites, and almost definitely sanctimonious cunts.

    I hope that wasn't too foul mouthed to be considered a serious opinion like criminalizing normal youthful behavior.

  • Cathaoir||

    Just for clarification, do you think that 19 year olds should be able to freely engage in sexual activity with 13 year olds without any penalty at all? How young is too young?

  • Jordan||

    Just for clarification, do you think that 19 year olds should be able to freely engage in sexual activity with 13 year olds without any penalty at all?

    If said 13 year old represents themselves as 17 years old, and the other person honestly believes them, then yes.

  • Brochettaward||

    No, I find your presumption of risk to be a moronic concept. It's benevolent of you to admit maybe the state went too far in a matter that has nothing to do with the state, however.

    There is more than enough room in the law for both not criminalizing people duped/punishing a victimless crime, and keeping adults away exploitative adults.

    Even if this kid had carded the girl he slept with, the punishment would have been the same. The judge argued that the punishment is more severe because he finds the moral culture of hooking-up to be repugnant to him. That isn't the law, and you are not reasonable.

    In all reality, you are a sock puppet account along the lines of Dunphy.

  • Cathaoir||

    It's assumption of risk and I didn't come up with it. Since it is also known by the fancy Latin moniker Volenti non fit injuria I assume it's been around a while.

    How would you distinguish a truly mistaken defendant from one who is only claiming he didn't know her real age?

    The judge argued that the punishment is more severe because he finds the moral culture of hooking-up to be repugnant to him. That isn't the law...


    Actually the judge refrained from giving any of the defendants a discretionary "youthful training" status. The result was the imposition of the statutorily required sanctions.

    In all reality, you are a sock puppet account along the lines of Dunphy.


    Not sure what you really mean here but I presume that you are confessing an inability to engage me on the issues and have thus resorted to Argumentum ad Hominem

  • Brochettaward||

    How would you distinguish a truly mistaken defendant from one who is only claiming he didn't know her real age?

    Gee, it's not like the courts don't look at similar questions to this on a regular basis.

    How about simply did the girl lie about her age or not, and did the defendant have any reason to suspect she was lying?

    Actually the judge refrained from giving any of the defendants a discretionary "youthful training" status. The result was the imposition of the statutorily required sanctions.

    How does this contradict anything I said or what you posted it in response to?

    Not sure what you really mean here but I presume that you are confessing an inability to engage me on the issues and have thus resorted to Argumentum ad Hominem

    No, I'm both responding to your points and calling you what you are. You can call it an ad hominem. I couldn't care less.

  • BearOdinson||

    "How would you distinguish a truly mistaken defendant from one who is only claiming he didn't know her real age?"

    In both of these cases, the girl was on an app that required her to be at least 17 to respond. And, in at least one case, the girl openly admitted she lied. Her parents even asked that the case be thrown out!

    And based on the Judge's own words he had it for the hook-up culture. Don't give the judge an out when his own words show him to be the fucking dick wad he really is.

    The better analogy is a 21 yo in a bar that doesn't allow underage folks. Sleeps with a girl he meets in the bar. He rightly assumes she is over 21. He should have absolutely no responsibility because she blew the bouncer to get in.

  • Cathaoir||

    the girl was on an app that required her to be at least 17

    Actually according to this Anderson met his fling "in the over-18 section." So when she told him she was actually 17 that was his first flag that honesty was not a priority for her.

    Her parents even asked that the case be thrown out!

    Actually only her mother asked, the victim's father isn't mentioned and I'm guessing he isn't in the picture. Typical victim profile of this sort of offense actually.

    Don't give the judge an out when his own words show him to be the fucking dick wad he really is.

    I should have said his reasons are *legally* irrelevant, and they are. The Youthful Trainee statute is purely discretionary.

    The better analogy is a 21 yo in a bar that doesn't allow underage folks. Sleeps with a girl he meets in the bar. He rightly assumes she is over 21. He should have absolutely no responsibility because she blew the bouncer to get in.

    Yeah, because no underage kids have EVER gotten into a bar before. ROFL

  • ||

    Just for clarification, do you think that 19 year olds should be able to freely engage in sexual activity with 13 year olds without any penalty at all? How young is too young?

    This requires a presumption of guilt. 13-yr.-olds (or any minors for that matter) having any sort of sex at all is a crime. When, in reality/spirit, the law was created to prevent exploitation of which there is no evidence.

    Where's Nikki? This 'sex is not a crime' spiel is her shtick.

  • Cathaoir||

    This requires a presumption of guilt. 13-yr.-olds (or any minors for that matter) having any sort of sex at all is a crime. When, in reality/spirit, the law was created to prevent exploitation of which there is no evidence.


    Am I to believe that you think there should be no minimum statutory age for sexual activity? Soooo you're ok with the greasy 40 year old guys who live in their mother's basement hanging around the middle school to give the little girls a "ride" in their windowless white vans? Do you believe an 8 year old is fully equipped to properly evaluate the pros and cons of sexual activity with an adult? Seriously?

  • ||

    Am I to believe that you think there should be no minimum statutory age for sexual activity? Soooo you're ok with the greasy 40 year old guys...

  • ||

    Am I to believe that you think there should be no minimum statutory age for sexual activity?

    I seriously don't think you know what the word statutory means (maybe even the word rape too). Believe it or not, it's possible to convict someone of rape without a statute.

    I don't believe a minor having sex is intrinsically a crime, or that if a minor has sex a crime has to have been committed, nor do I believe that to be the intent of the statute(s). Call me weird but I don't think being greasy, a guy, 40, living in your Mother's basement, hanging around middle schools, or giving 8-yr.-olds a ride is a crime either. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure my kids' middle school athletics van *is* white and many of the director's and coaches are 40-yr.-old white men. Until they unduly coerce my kids into doing something they don't want to do, I don't have a problem with it; and that applies plenty of other somethings besides sex. To my point, I don't think it's the states' job to tell me which somethings I can and can't approve of.

  • Cathaoir||

    I seriously don't think you know what the word statutory means

    Thanks for the educational links. I do kinda remember hearing something about the differences between statutory and decisional law back when I was in law school before I graduated magna cum laude. I have not heard of a case in the United States of a man who had sexual intercourse with a girl (who gave full and vigorous assent to the sexual act) and was convicted of rape under the common law based solely on her incapacity to legally consent due to her age. You can simply provide the legal citation as I have full access to all US law and I will happily read it in full.

    I don't believe a minor having sex is intrinsically a crime

    It isn't, hence the need for statutes to set a statutory minimum age of consent.

    It seems I was being a bit to subtle when I only put quotes around the word "ride". Let me rephrase my example: Would you be ok with greasy 40 year old guys who live in their mother's basement hanging around the middle school to FUCK consenting 8 year old little girls up the ass in their windowless white vans? This example presupposes that the 8 year old girl freely wants, desires and consents to her full capacity to engage in everything that happens. There is no evidence of coercion or other undue influence applied by anyone in any manner to overbear her free will. What say you?

  • ||

    On top of your legal ignorance, you seem to be woefully underinformed about statutory rape statistics. A 40 yr. old stranger raping an 8 yr. old is exceedingly rare (hardly worth a statute). ~1/3 of the time, they have a pre-existing relationship. ~1/5 times the male rapist of a female is below the age of 18. The fact that the trend indicates that the younger a female victim is, the younger her perpetrator is likely to be clearly indicates that the picture you paint is the extreme rarity.

    You're literally pointing to the one instance in a thousand (quntillions if you just count adults interacting normally with minors), assuming there wouldn't otherwise be a conviction, and saying there ought to be a law against that. If the popularity of Title IX and "Yes means yes." continues to gain sway, it's easily conceivable that having sex while under the influence of alcohol (not necessarily drunk) could be considered statutory rape *at any age*? Still favor the notion of statutory rape?

  • Cathaoir||

    Thanks again for the informational links. So what you're saying is that most of the time the statutory rapist is over 18 and has no prior relationship with the girl? Not sure how that bit of info changes my hypothetical (revised above btw). Yes, it is rare. Let's say it just happens once. To your daughter. Is it still ok?

    The affirmative consent rules currently taking hold in "higher" education are only used to determine whether you can attend that particular school. Not really losing out on much because what kind of education are you really going to get from a school that thinks those sorts of rules are necessary? Anyway, it is irrelevant to this discussion as they will never be incorporated into the criminal law.

    If you think that the Anderson/Yoder situations (19/14 or 19/13) shouldn't be illegal and you'd prefer to move the line, where would you move it to? What is reasonable in your mind? If you *really* don't think that there should be any minimum age to legally consent to sexual activity then you should check out these guys, cause they agree with you.

  • ||

    Adults who pretend they didn't do the same thing when they were young are hypocrites. People who pretend they are above that are mostly hypocrites, and almost definitely sanctimonious cunts.

    Yup.

    "Had I known her age, I never would have even talked to her would've checked her out politely for a couple years before making any moves."

    Age is just a number and if your libido is 100% hardwired to it that's pretty fucked up too.

  • Careless||

    Adults who pretend they didn't do the same thing when they were young are hypocrites.

    Why am I a hypocrite for saying I never banged a 13 year old?

  • Cathaoir||

    I understand why people like you feel sorry for him, I'm just saying that this should not be the focus of the discussion if the goal is to get the law changed. In fact it is probably more likely to backfire making proponents of the laws think you are some kinda pervert-sympathizer and simply disregard everything you say after that. Reporting and discussion should focus on why putting defendants like this on the sex offender registry does not enhance public safety in any way (pretty sure lying teenage jailbait aren't screening their dates on the registry), and it may even enhance the risk to the public by diluting the seriousness of being on the registry in the first place.

  • Jordan||

    I believe a perfect analogy is: guy meets (adult) girl online, guy & girl consent to sexual activity, guy learns the hard way that girl lied about having no STDs.

    That is not a perfect analogy because viruses don't have a sense of morality. Judges on the other hand, should have one. There is nothing morally wrong with "hooking up", nor with mistaking somebody's age.

  • Cathaoir||

    There is nothing morally wrong with "hooking up"


    What is or is not morally wrong is a matter of opinion, and I believe that individual morality should take a back seat to the efficacy of the particular criminal sanction in enhancing the public safety.

    nor with mistaking somebody's age.


    All we know is that he claimed to be mistaken about her age. There is such a thing as willful ignorance

    I still think the analogy is appropriate. Negative consequences for risky action = no sympathy.

  • Brochettaward||

    and I believe that individual morality should take a back seat to the efficacy of the particular criminal sanction in enhancing the public safety.

    Your mendacity is showing. This judge is sentencing people purely based on his own personal morality. It's right there in his own words. He finds this behavior repugnant.

    Regardless of whether it is or isn't moral, the judge is interjecting his personal morality.

  • Cathaoir||

    Your mendacity is showing.


    Dem's big words mister. Too bad you're incapable of backing them up. You will be unable to establish any prevarication on my part.

    The judge imposed a legal sentence for the crime of conviction. His purported reason for imposing it is irrelevant. If you want the law to be changed you should not focus on sympathy for the defendant but articulate the weaknesses of the statute in accomplishing its purported ends.

  • Brochettaward||

    The judge imposed a legal sentence for the crime of conviction. His purported reason for imposing it is irrelevant.

    So, if the rest of us peons think there were (obvious) extenuating circumstances that make this prosecution and punishment wrong, we shouldn't voice them.

    But when said judge interjects his own morality to up the punishment beyond what is required of him by law, that doesn't matter at all?

    I want the law changed and the judge/prosecutor out on their ass. Judges and prosecutors both have discretion so their motivations are entirely relevant to attacking the law. Your argument that we *shouldn't* argue based on feeling bad for the defend is your own judgement and an irrational one at that. Unjust punishments are evidence of unjust laws.

  • Cathaoir||

    So, if the rest of us peons think there were (obvious) extenuating circumstances that make this prosecution and punishment wrong, we shouldn't voice them.

    No, I mean you shouldn't accuse me of lying when I haven't done so.

    But when said judge interjects his own morality to up the punishment beyond what is required of him by law, that doesn't matter at all?

    That might matter in a case where it did happen but, as I mentioned above, that didn't happen here. The judge declined to reduce the standard punishment with the "youthful training" statute available in Michigan. He could have sentenced them to up to 2 years behind bars but chose to give them less than 1/8th of that.

    Your argument that we *shouldn't* argue based on feeling bad for the defend [sic] is your own judgement and an irrational one at that.

    So you think that arguments based on facts and reason are irrational but those based exclusively on emotions (e.g. this makes me feel bad so it must be changed) are rational?

  • SimonJester||

    No. Bad analogy, since, in your case, there is no LEGAL responsibility.

    Perhaps a better analogy is a fellow who buys something on ebay with the understanding that it is not stolen goods. In fact, he checks specifically that it is not stolen, and is assured, at least once, that it is not. He has no reason to believe otherwise. Then he is arrested for purchasing stolen goods. He did his due dilligence, but is arrested anyway.

  • Cathaoir||

    a fellow who buys something on ebay with the understanding that it is not stolen goods. In fact, he checks specifically that it is not stolen, and is assured, at least once, that it is not.


    So you think that someone who purchases stolen property (presumably at a ridiculous discount) can rely on the fact that the guy he bought it from assured him it wasn't stolen?

  • ||

    I loathe the idea of one person being guilty based solely on another person's fraud. If you've got some evidence that he did know or should have known otherwise, you've got what's colloquially as 'a case'.

    But what you're suggesting means the degree to which I someone commits fraud/forgery/misrepresentation has no bearing on the other person's innocence/guilt.

    You're practically begging people (e.g. undercover officers) to fabricate cases.

  • Cathaoir||

    I loathe the idea of one person being guilty based solely on another person's fraud.


    But we don't really know that is what happened in this case, do we? Sure the defendant claimed he was lied to, but did he really believe the lie? In the Anderson case, after the cat was out of the bag, the girl texted Anderson "we're in a lot of trouble" and he replied "Why? How old are you really?" Kinda hints that he at least suspected she wasn't legal already...

    If you've got some evidence that he did know or should have known otherwise, you've got what's colloquially as 'a case'.


    The girl's actual age is proof that he should have known how old she is. Cases like this one should motivate horny guys to put a little more effort into establishing the real age of their hook-ups. It really isn't that difficult and doesn't take that long.

  • Brochettaward||

    Cases like this one should motivate horny guys to put a little more effort into establishing the real age of their hook-ups. It really isn't that difficult and doesn't take that long.

    Why, he should have just gone to the parents and asked! That's exactly the sort of thing I ask the parents of women I date.

  • Cathaoir||

    Why, he should have just gone to the parents and asked!

    As awkward a conversation as that is likely to be, it certainly would eliminate any confusion. Of course he could try to have a simple conversation with the girl. If her answer to the question "what's you favorite subject in school" is "spelling" then you probably aren't dealing with someone in high school.

  • SimonJester||

    This would have gone wonderfully.

    "Hi, Mr Johnson? This is Billy ... no you don't know me.

    ...

    Look, your daughter is Peggy, right? ... Sure, I know her. We met on a phone app for sex with random people. ... no no, dont hang up.

    ...

    Look, I want to F your daughter. .... Yes, she wants to F me, too. ... No, you can't talk to her at the moment, her mouth is full ... no, no ... no it is made of rubber ...

    Look, is that legal? Can I F your daughter legally, or will the state have a problem with me F'ing her, even though she wants to F me too ... "

    Remember, Bro, they aren't dating. They are hooking up. Nothing else.

  • Cathaoir||

    Remember, Bro, they aren't dating. They are hooking up. Nothing else.

    Yeah, I know. And as I have said many times before (though maybe not to you) hooking up involves lots of risks like getting STDs, being sued for child support a year later, oh and yeah, getting caught in a statutory rape situation. All obvious potential consequences of the fun times sought by guys hooking up. More power to the ones who succeed unscathed, but no tears from me for those who get stung.

  • BillEverman||

    And traveling in a bad neighborhood includes lots of risks like getting hit by a stray bullet. But if that happens, your decision to visit the bad part of town in no way relieves the person who shot you of responsibility. The kid took a risk, but it doesn't change the fact that the law is written in a way that can victimize people who did not have intent to commit the crime in question, and that the judge acted in a manner that demonstrates vindictiveness and a desire to impose his understanding of what's right, well beyond the intent of the law, on those who have the misfortune of coming before him.

  • Cathaoir||

    your decision to visit the bad part of town in no way relieves the person who shot you of responsibility

    I think you misunderstand my application of the assumption of risk here. I do not mean to imply that any other person should be absolved of criminal culpability, (that is the civil tort application of the principal) just that I do not see the need to feel sorry for the person who was injured. Of course the relative likelihood of the injury is important as well. Just going to a "bad part of town" may only have a slightly higher risk of being randomly shot than any other part of town, but if that part of town had on average 2-3 drive by shootings every hour then yeah, some guy getting his ass shot when he didn't have to be there in the first place isn't going to make me feel sorry for him. I do feel sorry for people who for one reason or another have to live in the "bad part of town" and end up getting shot by stray bullets. In either case, I would encourage the full prosecution of the criminal who did the shooting.

    Feeling sorry for a defendant is not a reason to change a criminal statute. Criminal statutes should be change if they fail to enhance the safety of the public at large. A very strong argument can be made against Sex Offender Registries without resorting to sympathy for those who are currently registered.

  • Jordan||

    The girl's actual age is proof that he should have known how old she is.

    What? You know that girls don't grow rings like trees do, right?

  • Cathaoir||

    You know that girls don't grow rings like trees do, right?

    Yeah, I never found any rings in the first few girls I dated so I stopped cutting them in half after that. LMFAO

  • ||

    But we don't really know that is what happened in this case, do we?

    So we resort to the presumption of guilt then, right?

    The old 'FYTW' gets 'em again!

    OT: How old?. Now we can just sue the shit out of a company for saying underage girls are over 18!

  • Cathaoir||

    So we resort to the presumption of guilt then, right?

    Um, no. He is presumed innocent of course, but there isn't a legal obligation to demonstrate his knowledge of the victim's age because he is held strictly liable on that element. The State still has to prove that he intentionally had sex with her.

    If there were an affirmative defense available in MI then we might have more detailed record about the particular circumstances in each case that would bear light on whether the defendants plausibly relied on the victim's bare assertion that she was really 17 years old. The current factual record is insufficient to support a claim that, if such a defense existed in MI, that these defendants would have prevailed.

  • Cathaoir||

    No. Bad analogy, since, in your case, there is no LEGAL responsibility.

    Oooh ooh ooh I just thought of a better analogy!!! (from other post below).

    Guy hooks up with random adult girl he meets on the internet. She assures him that she is on the pill and even shows him the prescription. Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am

    One year later he gets a summons for child support. He appears in court and says, "But Judge she told me she was on the pill!" The mother confirms his account on the record and under oath. The Judge replies, "How do you want to pay for the child you have just acknowledged is yours, by monthly check or pay roll deduction?"

    Me: Still not crying

  • Atma||

    Why are you equating a natural, physiological response with a criminal conviction? That analogy makes absolutely no sense.

    In general, criminal systems require guilt. There is no guilt in your analogy. Stupidity, maybe. But not guilt.

    This is the foundational precept of criminal law.

  • Cathaoir||

    My initial post in this thread was how I don't feel sorry for these guys. Engaging in sexual intercourse with a stranger who could be lying to you about important information carries known risks. Being found guilty of a criminal offense is simply one in a list of potential negative life-long consequences.

    Oddly enough, the criminal consequence is the easiest one to avoid! Ascertaining someone's STD status can be difficult even with lab work, especially if they too are in the habit of sleeping with random strangers. All forms of birth control, even when used properly, have failure rates that are more than zero. So unless the guy is sterile (or it's a gay hookup), impregnation is always a possibility. It is even physiologically possible for impregnation to occur in the absence of vaginal penetration, though that is very rare. (e.g. handjob, guy cums on her hand and she later fingers herself)

    In contrast to the other potential negatives, finding out someone's real age should be a cinch! Sure you may have to wait a couple of days before you seal the deal, or you can take a chance and possibly end up like these guys.

  • Atma||

    But that's precisely the point. There is indeed a "list of potential negative life-long consequences." Criminal prosecution should not one of them. That's the issue here.

    I usually lack the cleverness to be succinct, but your posts on the subject, above and below, repeatedly conflate either unrelated concepts or inconsistent principles addressing criminal law.

    In some posts, you seem to favor strict liability for these types of beefs. In others, as immediately above, you describe steps the defendant could have taken to find out this girl's age. But because it is virtually impossible to know someone's age as a matter of fact (e.g., fake licenses, her parents could lie, she could falsify records), these arguments are relevant only insofar as they speak to the reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs. This is kind of talk is grounded in negligence (or recklessness), not strict liability.

    In other words, you don't disagree with the principle that some level of guilt should be required. You just feel that the defendant wasn't reasonable in his belief, and therefore deserves what he got. That's fine, as far as that argument goes, but very few of your posts substantively address this point.

  • Cathaoir||

    it is virtually impossible to know someone's age as a matter of fact

    If that were true then no one would ever be convicted of a statutory sex crime since it is the government's burden to prove the victim's age beyond a reasonable doubt.

    your posts ... repeatedly conflate either unrelated concepts or inconsistent principles addressing criminal law

    Not really sure what you're referring to here. The four general levels of mental culpability; intent, knowledge, recklessness and negligence, are necessarily related to a discussion of strict liability which is just another way of saying that none of the mental states is required.

    You just feel that the defendant wasn't reasonable in his belief

    I have only said that we do not have sufficient facts to properly evaluate his belief.

  • Atma||

    If that were true then no one would ever be convicted of a statutory sex crime since it is the government's burden to prove the victim's age beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This conflates two issues: the requisite mens rea for the accused and the prosecution's burden at trial. Even if the defendant convinces himself beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's age is what she says it is, he is still guilty if, beyond every reasonable doubt, he is mistaken. That's my point. Above, you talk about talking to parents, trying to confirm ages, and all that. None of that matters. It is irrelevant how safe the accused is. That's why these laws are silly.

    Not really sure what you're referring to here. The four general levels of mental culpability; intent, knowledge, recklessness and negligence, are necessarily related to a discussion of strict liability which is just another way of saying that none of the mental states is required.

    Again, I'm just saying that all of your posts regarding the extents to which the accused should go is irrelevant in a strict liability regime. If you support strict liability, defend it on that basis. But talking about confirming ages, etc., is antithetical to your point.

  • Cathaoir||

    This conflates two issues: the requisite mens rea for the accused and the prosecution's burden at trial

    Your argument claims that it is unfair to impose strict liability because it is too hard to know someone's age, that it is a virtual impossibility for anyone to know another person's age. I pointed out that in every statutory rape prosecution one of the elements that the government must prove is the victim's age. How is it conflating issues when I have just demonstrated that the government routinely proves, at the highest possible evidentiary burden imposed under US law, what you claim is unknowable? This by itself vitiates your argument that it is too difficult for defendants to know someone's age. Your claim is objectively false and therefore does not support your argument that strict liability is inappropriate in these cases.

    My purpose in pointing out ways a defendant could determine the age of his conquests was to expose how light a burden strict liability places on him. It is so incredibly easy to NOT fuck a minor that all the protests to the contrary are becoming comical.

  • Atma||

    That is not my argument. That is your characterization of my argument. Perhaps I am being unclear, but given curious statements of yours (strict liability is a light burden? It is the highest burden.), and your penchant for pulling at irrelevant legal doctrines, it is likely a little bit of both.

    I'm taking my leave of this (I have a wedding to go to). No ill will whatsoever. But just know that the BARD standard is irrelevant. Here's why: no matter if the defendant is convinced BARD the victim is underage, he is guilty if she is so. This, of course, ignores the sheer reality that people don't interact in the way that your theories prescribe. And criminal law is premised on culpability, not mistake.

    Here is a scenario that is not uncommon. It even happened to an acquaintance of mine:

    A 17 yo girl walks into a bar by virtue of a fake ID, claiming she is 22. She orders drinks at the bar. She tells a 21 yo college student she is 22, and even shows him her license. Her friends are even there to falsely corroborate that they are local university students. They go home and have consensual sex. Every objective indicia of evidence informed the male student that the girl was over 18. She is not. He is guilty.

    The criminal law should concern itself with punishing the male student.

  • Cathaoir||

    I think we are talking at cross purposes here. My reference to BARD was only to show how easy it is to know someone's actual age. In fact it is so easy that the government shouldn't even have to waste any time proving that the defendant knew it.

    Your scenario lays bare the primary problem. Most guys don't really care what the girl's actual age is when they want to get laid RIGHT NOW. Sure they'll do simple things that only take a few seconds, like briefly look at an ID or ask one of her friends, but nothing that will substantially delay the bump and grind. If instead he got her number and met up with her a few times it would soon become clear that she didn't actually go to college and probably wasn't the age she claimed.

    I agree that most people, like the guy in your scenario, don't take the time to rationally assess any of the significant risks associated with hooking up, but they should. You have asserted that criminal liability under statutory consent laws should not be one of the potential negative consequences. Why? Do you disagree with those laws in general, or just with strict liability regarding the victim's age? Do you believe that a guy who conceived a child with a woman who lied about her own fertility should be exempt from the civil liability of paying 18 years worth of child support? If not, how are the situations different?

    Hope you had fun at the wedding. :)

  • cavalier973||

    Prude.

  • Cathaoir||

    Prude.


    How is it prudish to point out that hook-ups are very risky at best? How many comedy's involve a guy handcuffed to a motel bed while the girl steals everything he brought with him including his clothes? This case alone proves that people who hook up with random strangers are taking chances. Most of them work out well and more power to them, but this guy's luck ran out.

  • BillEverman||

    So your position is that our justice system--or perhaps this particular judge--has all the discretion, compassion and fairness of a sexually transmitted disease? That's tough, but fair.

  • Atma||

    Why on earth would you cite assumption of risk—a tort defense—for supporting a criminal conviction? Criminal law has entirely different legal constructs to deal with this sort of thing—concepts like mens rea and mistake of fact. But for the peculiar, historical oddities regarding statutory rape laws, no legal system of Anglo-American tradition would convict this man.

    One does not "assume the risk" of everything they do. Not in a civil sense. And certainly not in a criminal sense.

  • Cathaoir||

    This series of articles can be boiled down to "Look at this poor kid, his life is ruined, we need to change these laws." I cited assumption of risk to explain why I don't feel sorry for any of them. Not even a little bit. Also noted above.

    Strict liability has been a part of criminal law for a long time. I can't recall the first criminal statutes that included it but one involved something about selling "adulterated milk." While most criminal statutes require some form of mens rea, there are many, like DWI laws, where the defendant need not have any kind of intent on one or more of the elements of the offense. A drunk driver cannot get a judgment of acquittal because they intended/believed that their BAC was below the legal limit. Most instances of of strict liability are in regulatory areas but some of the higher crimes involve potential injury so great as to convince legislatures to include them. Statutory rape is one such example. The young, whose inexperience and naiveté tend to hamper their ability to properly weigh the potential negative consequences for sexual behavior, have been deemed in need of this additional protection.

    My purpose is to urge people focus their argument more on the efficacy of laws (like the Sex Offender Registry) in achieving their stated goal rather than just on sympathy for those who become subject to them.

  • Atma||

    The purpose of my posts have been to attack the wisdom of strict liability for statutory rape and to point out that your analogies to unrelated legal concepts don't get you where you need to go. Assumption of risk is irrelevant. Don't cite to it.

    The analogy to DUI is inapt because the accused must still purposefully undertake the actions to become intoxicated. One's BAC is merely an attendant number to the actions the law seeks to curb.

    In the statutory rape regime, it is the victim's age, and only his/her age, that makes the act a crime. That age is not attendant to some other inculpatory act. That's why these actions should be treated differently, even though the law doesn't say so.

    And you rightly acknowledge that statutory rape is not readily analogies to regulatory infractions, so these justifications don't hold water either.

    Someone above had the analogy to innocently possessing stolen goods. That analogy is on point. It is the status of the goods, not merely buying/possessing them, that makes up the crime. You don't run the risk of criminal conviction for buying stolen goods unless you know the goods or stolen, or are perhaps reckless along those lines. (Possession requires knowledge.) In the exact same way, the law should prescribe that one doesn't run the risk of criminal prosecution for having sex unless they know or perhaps should have known that the partner was underage.

    That's the point I'm trying to make.

  • Atma||

    analogous*

    Typing issues, as usual.

  • Cathaoir||

    Assumption of risk is irrelevant. Don't cite to it.

    I think we have a misunderstanding here. I did not intend to cite the assumption of risk principal in support of strict liability criminal statutes, but only to justify my absolute lack of sympathy for the defendants. Most of the reporting on these cases has been that the punitive sanctions used are unduly harsh and merely point to the effect the punishment has on the particular defendant. I believe that attempting to invoke sympathy for these defendants in an effort to change those laws is unlikely to be effective and may even be counterproductive.

    The DWI analogy is better than you have made it out. DWI laws seek to curb dangerous driving on the public roadways, not excessive drinking. I have seen dozens of cases where it was the BAC, and only the BAC, that made a defendant's conduct illegal.

    Statutory rape laws put the onus on the adult to accurately ascertain the age of their romantic targets. I posit that all defendants should have known that the victim was underage because they ARE underage. Absent some Truman Show level conspiracy it is extremely unlikely that anyone could not objectively determine that a particular individual was over/under the legal age of consent.

  • Ed Kline||

    You sir are an asshat.

  • The Grinch||

    The sex offender list, if it should exist at all, should be reserved for those found guilty of forcible rape. You know, the dangerous types. How does putting this guy on a lifelong list benefit society in any way whatsoever? For all intents and purposes, his life is over.

  • Jordan||

    I think there are a lot of people who'd rather see people's lives ruined than contemplate the fact that their precious snowflake is going to get pounded in some dude's car at some point in her young life.

  • OldMexican||

    Darian was a teen who had sex with another teen—one he thought was his own age [...]That is the power we give judges and prosecutors with our all-encompassing definition of what constitutes a sex offender.


    Just a couple of days ago our resident Marxian, Tony, made it clear that socialists like himself do not want to be burdened with the cost of their own decisions, and therefore justify the actions of the State of taking capital from owners to pay for several forms of insurance (police, courts, health care, roadz, you name it) that would serve to spread the risk publicly.

    Well, this dispensing of justice is nothing more than part of that socialist system that Americans have built either by complicity or unwittingly, where the costs of raising young girls to be "good girls" has been spread over the rest of the population through these "sex offender" laws. This is exactly what "spreading the responsibility" entails.

  • Veillantif||

  • Atma||

    A disgrace to the bench and bar.

  • MPB||

    Why didn't he take a jury trial? And if he did what ignorant jury convicted him?

  • Brochettaward||

    Because most people are horrified at the thought of doing time in prison as a sex offender where they are likely to be raped for real while under the government's protection.

    Beyond that, the judge would have instructed any jury to follow the letter of the law in making their decision. There aren't jury pools out there of libertarians looking to employ nullification of stupid and/or misused laws. The juries are selected for their obedience to the state.

    By the letter of the law, this kid is guilty. Not by the spirit or intent, but by the letter, yes. And that's what the average jury would find. So, the deal was better than prison rape and a likely more severe crime on his record.

  • bassjoe||

    Also: evidence of his knowledge/intent could easily have been ruled irrelevant and inadmissible at trial, thereby making any hope of jury nullification out of reach.

  • D. M. Michell||

    "Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzsche.

    The girls were young but they seemed to be complicit with the behavior. An impartial panel should have interviewed the girls to find out if they were willing and knew what they were doing. A true crime is when a person intentionally or negligently violates the rights of another person. If the girls were willing and knew what they were doing then their rights were not violated. What these two young men did was to commit a sin, they breached the religious/personal moral authority of the State. We are supposed to have secular government's not religious ones. Unfortunately, as the so-called war on drugs has taught us, many of the laws in the United States are based on the religious/personal moral beliefs of some and not on the principle of punishing secular, criminal, rights-violating behavior.

    I would like to know how this judge has punished a real criminal, like someone who was driving drunk and killed someone. Such a person, by the judges moral standards should have gotten life in prison without parole.

  • SimonJester||

    Don't give them any ideas.

  • The Grinch||

    This judge was publicly censured for tossing a woman in the clink for 10 days after overhearing her muttering a curse word while she was paying a ticket. He seems to be a moral prude who lets his own hangups get in the way of good sense and prudence.

  • Whahappan?||

    He seems like a power hungry monster who sought out a position of power in order to abuse it.

  • Orenv||

    The kid? Yes he was.

  • Tionico||

    if the tart responding to his post was 18, he'd have done nothing illegal. Morally wrong? Absolutely. Illegal, no. The site is supposed to screen for age, but does not. Perhaps the site is simplicit for harbouring underage minors playing whores? The kid merely sought a willing and legal partner for lawful activity. How does that make HIM the predator? Or a monster? EVERY female posting on that site is actively looking for sexual encounters. The males are merely providing the desired service. (same goes in the reverse.. males looking for sex are found by the females willing to service them).

    so WHO is preying upon WHOM? The site, for their profit made on the horney clients.

  • Tionico||

    the drug laws are presently in place through the lobbying efforts of two chemical companies and some pharmaceutical firms who were financially threatened by the relative low cost of the drugs, in some cases, and the fibre of the hemp plant, in the other. Go and look into how the Controlled Substances Act came about...... and WHO bribed the congresscritters that voted it into law. It had nothing to do with religion or morality unless your god is money and your morality dictates you protect your own profits at everyone else's expense.... actually, rather a too-common religious sect.

  • bassjoe||

    "That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara.

    Well... by THAT logic...

  • bassjoe||

    This guy is a poster child as to why judges shouldn't be elected. His "tough on crime" actions most likely are supported (or at least tolerated) by most of the voters in his county.

  • Robert||

    So what should they be, appointed? Why wouldn't the person doing the appointing have the same idea?

    No matter how you try, it's people all the way down.

  • Robert||

    In 1 way it's worse than Talibanesque: its lightning-strike nature. Our society makes sex "good-bad"; I got that from Alan Watts, who attributed it to I forgot whom. It'd be one thing if it were widely known, you can't have sex or you will suffer the consequences. Instead, they get encouragement to be sexually active with the slight possibility that something bizarre like the sequences of events brought out here will happen.

  • Robert||

    Judge Dennis Wiley, the same judge who sneeringly told Zach, "That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior,”


    But if it is part of our culture, doesn't that mean it's appropriate behavior?

  • Babylonandon||

    I would like all of you to pay attention to the group of people who have been MOST responsible for pretty much every ill or violation of the public will foisted on us in violation of the actual Constitution pretty much since the ink dried on the thing.

    They all wear robes and pretty much answer to no one.

  • Orenv||

    People need to pay attention to whom they have sex with. Sorry, but there is a huge maturity difference between a 19 and a 13 year old. In fact he used this to his advantage. But it did not turn out well for him. Nor should it have. He is a sex offender.

  • Whahappan?||

    You stupid fuck, he lied and she believed her. He's a victim of the evil people in government.

  • Whahappan?||

    Should be SHE lied and HE believed her.

  • Ed Kline||

    He didn't know she was 13 you fucking tard.

  • Tionico||

    Can't help but wonder about the little 13 year old jamtarts that deliberately lied about their age, thus entrapping (predator fits, too) these stupid horny young males. SHE lied to him, thus is complicit in the crime. Minors CAN commit sex crimes. SO.. she is deliberately trolling for "fresh meat" on this hot to trot website, giving herself to these horny boys, then somehow spilling the beans on who they are. Makes me wonder if there is not some sort of club of such whores, entrapping the stupid horneygoats then selling them down the river to this judge's court. Seems likely there is some sort of payback somewhere along the line. This judge is derelict in his duty, and should persue charges against both the entrapping tarts AND the website they use. The website should be charged with contributing to the delinquency of minor children. If the Silk Road guy is "resonsible" for the way his site was used by others, the same principle can/should be applied to this website. They know, or should know, such things are going on, facilitated by their site. They need to take steps, like Facebook etc do, to assure the age of those using it. If underage sex is illegal (and it seems to be... two incidents in the same town) the site admin need to take steps to assure it can't happen. If Silk Road are responsible so are these pervs.

    And the folks in this town need to get in the face of this uppity judge and see he does not serve anohter temm, better yet, impeach him. Or recall him.

  • Atma||

    I would argue that the minor is guilty of solicitation. She sure seems to have acted with the requisite intent. But good luck getting a prosecutor to go after her for it. Likely, she'll just be back on the same app in a week's time, doing the same thing again).

  • Downward Facing Dog||

    Atma "I would argue that the minor is guilty of solicitation. "
    -----------

    Not a defense, nor is ignorance or fraud. The "adult" has (under the law) an affirmative duty to insure that he/she is not engaging in sex w a minor. End of the analysis. Not saying its right or wrong, but that is the state of the law.

    Now that I think about it, fraud should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card, but it should certainly be a ameliorating factor in sentencing (which it is not now).

    Question What is the Libertarian position on the ability of minors to consent? Anyone?

  • Ed Kline||

    "Now that I think about it, fraud should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card,"

    Maybe you shoud rethink that.

  • ssgcmw||

    Maybe we should do a kickstarter campaign or some-such to make a cool jury nullification "commercial" to air on TV... maybe then the masses will finally get the info!

  • Johnimo||

    Judge Dennis Wiley, there's a grizzly bear waiting for you in the Fawn Pass area. Please go for a hike.

  • ||

    Admit it. Sometimes you pay for being foolish. The jokes on him if he did not verify the girls age.
    The law allows for some leeway, but not for stupidity.

  • Atma||

    In the criminal context, hundreds of years of Anglo-American common and statutory law do not support this proposition.

  • Moridin||

    ANYONE WHO DEFENDS THIS JUDGE IS A BOOOOOOOTLICKER.

  • Reverend Draco||

    My kid in this position = judge in a hole.

  • Josh M.||

    Shouldn't the underage girls be charged instead? This is basically entrapment, right?

  • Atma||

    Not unless she's an agent of law enforcement, which she is not.

    Instead, I'd argue that she's guilty of at least solicitation (encouraging a commission of a crime with the specific intent it occur), and possibly complicity (aiding and abetting commission of a crime with the intent to facilitate its commission). But I'm sure most jurisdictions carve out exceptions for the victim. Some might also exist in common law.

  • Downward Facing Dog||

    "The sex offender list is a dungeon we can throw people in on the slightest pretext. "
    ---
    This is the true goal of the authoritarian/surveillance state. Everyone under judicial supervision/constraint at all times.

    It makes it so much easier to control everyone when everyone is on conditional release. Then any violation of that release gets you tossed back into the slammer without additional due process.

    All criminals all the time!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online