Thanks Faith!

I have issues with this case. The indictment that I saw said "minor" females. It may have said girls; I don't remember for sure. The problem is that "age of consent" and "minor" are two different legal terms. The states named were New York(17), Florida(18), and New Mexico(16). London(16) was also listed. [I looked this up months ago and may have the ages wrong.]

I'm not sure about the legal status of "grooming". Be very nice to a girl from 12 to 15, celebrate sweet 16 in New Mexico or London. Legal?

Also, I'm not advocating for any of this. I'm just not sure that this is illegal.

I'm looking at this from being a juror point of view. Gruler is licensed in AZ and CA; two states were 18 is age of consent. In TX, it is 17. In NJ and NM, it is 16. I don't think there is any state with under 16.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/statutory-rape-guide-state-laws-and-reporting-requirements-summary-current-state-laws/sexual-intercourse-minors

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

I just noticed that our two links disagree on age of consent in AZ. Yours says it is 17; mine says it is 18. I suspect mine is correct since Gruler's response suggested it is 18 in AZ.

says 18 in the table but 16 on the map, think the table is up-to-date

I didn't notice the table. It seems to agree with my link's table as well.

New channel...

Yeah, looks like its new. I truly hope she spends the rest of her life in jail. More importantly, I hope the victims can find a way to sue Epsteins estate and get into the pockets of every public official that aided those scuzzy people.

Agreed.

I'm interested in her getting a fair trial!

I'm interested in her living long enough to get a fair trial!!

And what part of my statement indicates I don't also want those things?

I absolutely believe that we should risk 100,000 guilty go free as a single innocent person be convicted. But, that is in no way contrary to my opinion in the matter. The public evidence is extensive. So, I absolutely believe she is as guilty as sin. But, yes of course I want her and every other person to get a fair trial.

I also oppose the death penalty and vigilante justice - so not sure what you mean by "living long enough to get a fair trial"

What part of what I said excludes what you said. But it's hard to look at her in terms of a fair trial if we don't check out the defense?

And what is her defense? That "technically" some of these children were at the age of consent by the time Epstein raped them?

That appears to be what you are saying. And if that, in fact, is true then maybe she skates a few counts. But, I hardly think that her plan was to con this poor girls often from broken homes and in dire situations to help them out of their situations by selling their bodies to a pervert - but only after they reached the age of consent.

If that is established at trial then by all mean well done defense team. But I seriously doubt that being the case.

Grooming is treated differently to "consensual" intercourse, IIRC.

Or exploitation of a minor.

And for the record here I am very very defense oriented. The idea that prosecutors are out there saving the world from all the horrible criminals is utter horseshit.

If our laws do not protect the least of us, the worst of us then they will eventually fail to protect the best of us....

So absolutely she gets her defense... and absolutely she can walk on a technicality and I would defend that result. Because those "technicalities" are there for a reason. They are there to protect us from over zealous prosecutors and the like....

I am simply stating that my opinion is that she is guilty and I hope she will get found guilty after a fair trial. But I will absolutely support a not guilty verdict even on something as technical as age of consent laws.

Yeppers... I am aware.

And while the "grooming" laws are different than the actual act of sex you do bring up an interesting point. The "exploitation of a minor" was locked in not long after Maxwell met the girls.

I put "consensual" in quotes because I firmly believe anyone under 18 cannot consent to sexual intercourse with a 30+ year old man. The power dynamics are way to prevalent.

If she met a girl and began to interact with the intent of offering her up to Epstien at a later date that is exploitation of a minor even if the girl never meets Epstein

Im a bit more liberal. I was having sex before 18 and baring one incident it was all consensual and I feel I did not suffer adversely from those sexual encounters (save the 1 but that did not involve consent)

But, I do agree that we have to pick an age

If it's with people your age, that's less a power dynamic than if the person is an established adult.

I agree

which is why Tennessee's law on the matter is pretty good

If the "victim" is less than 16 (I think) and the accused is 3 years or less older then its a defense.

I might have the numbers off but that is essentially the way it works

And of course it does not apply to any form for forced sex regardless of age

A lot of states do not call it "rape of a child" unless the victim is like 12 or under. So anyone charged in that situation regardless of their age is going to go away from a long time.

But, to me 12 is too young. Its really hard for me to imagine even a 14 year old capable of making those sorts of decisions regardless how old the other party is

It's the same sort of opinion I have about shady things in Hollywood. People have power dynamics and they abuse those to take advantage of people from a young age that are looking to make their footprint in life. A lot of the offers are simply **unable to be refused**, no matter how much they may not want to do a particular act with someone.

And I firmly believe that sort of behavior is incredibly predatory.

I do completely understand and agree.

But then at some point we have to at least assume that it was a consensual thing.

I totally get that young women (adults) wanting to make it in Hollywood or whatever were taken advantage of by the likes of Wienstein (or whatever his name was).... but I also see how a person should be able to assume or rely that another sober, mentally sound adult they are having sex with is ok with having sex.

But I am not discounting your point. In that situation he was clearly taking advantage of his position and what he could do for these women and their careers and livelihood. So was their duress? Im sure there was in most if not all those cases.

But at what point does duress remove consent? And how is a potential defendant suppose to knwo that?

I hate this topic because every time I try to defend either side I feel like I am saying something I shouldnt

I'm not judging you for wanting a reasonable bar, it's not something that can be answered in a black and white way I don't think.

I think it has to be a case by case basis

As the law should be handled.

Yeppers, but of course we have to first draft the law before we get there.... so how important are we going to make the "power dynamic" in the text of the law?

I just try to put myself in the shoes of my 17 year old self those 13 years ago and say: If some old guy came up to me and said "hey I'll pay your college tuition if you just (do something)" I'd probably feel pretty disgusted by it, but at the same time, if I knew they probably could do that, I'd probably go along with it, because I didn't know better at the time. I wasn't at an age where I understood complex social dynamics.

Absolutely. I totally get it. But what about the 18 year old? I mean, you see what I am saying the passing of some number of months or days does not remove that "durress"

@JD~Jordan That's the state's attempt to say "Well we need to have something specific at least."

Right.... and I honestly didn't follow the Weinsten crap.... but weren't many of his accusers adults at the time he made advances?

Dunno.

Never followed it myself.

And I also do recognize that at some point we have to draw a red line... anyone under X years of age simply cannot give consent for any sort of sexual intercourse, period. For me, I would put it at anyone under 14 instead of 12 like in many states.

I also see the logic of having it on the other end, 18. Of course, our laws are so batty . At 18, 19 and 20 I can buy a gun, have sex with anyone, enter into contracts, go to war.... but I cant buy a bear or a pack of cigs

its seems so random

Depends on the state, I think one state age of consent is actually 21.

Wow, really? That's crazy. So, I could travel to the wrong state hook up with a 20year old and potentially be charges with Stat. Rape? Yikes

Yup.

I was told that once upon a time the drinking age in Louisiana was 18 but they had to bump it up because the federal government was refusing to give them money toward roads ..

not sure if that is true tho

I thought it was 21 federally-enforced in all states?

Maybe, like I said... it something I was told... just found it interesting

No, it's 18 to 16 in every state. Be careful when travelling internationally.

What bugs me is that a 14 year old girl can choose to do it with every boy in her class but if she seduces a 24 year old, he goes to prison! Or a 15 year old doing it with a 18 year old - no problem. But if she does it with a 28 year old, prison for him. What happened to "equal protection"?

@GregInHouston2, you just advanced to level 11!

I'm all for this. (:

Adults should know better.

14 and 15 year olds should not be seducing 24-28 year olds, and 24-28 year olds should NOT be accepting any sort of offers, at all. Ever.

Period, end of story.

I don't disagree. But we do not live in a world of "shoulds and should nots". And for the record, the youngest I've ever had sex with was 29 when I was 23. She was my bride. I have no desire to change that.

We absolutely live in a world where there are things you should and shouldn't do.

Is there a short guy yelling "da plane! da plane!" there?

What?

Google it.

I still wonder about this idea that a 14 year old girl can choose a 16 year old for sex but cannot choose a 26 year old. If she were to get pregnant, which of the 2 could actually support her and the baby? Of course, she could legally choose to get an abortion.

I grew up with a girl whose mother brought a 32 year old guy in and had him sleeping with her at the time 12 year old daughter until she hit 16. That is insane at the same time I knew young women that were able to pass as adults by 14 who were going out with much older guys that had no clue how old they actually were, even having fake ids either end of that is messed up.

Myself I chose a guy 7 years older than I am but if we had been together as young people, when he hit 19 I would have been jailbait.

Granted age difference matters less at the other end of the spectrum.

It's easy to con a youth into sexual activity just look at boycotts and Catholic priests or Epstein. Or Dahlmer or. John Wyne Gacy. We adults should be encouraging youth to remain virgin till the age of adulthood and to take their time learning the character of the person they are attracted to before that miraculous event of consummatting a life long bond and child rearing. Ethics, morals and values no matter wgmhat your sexual preference. OH MY GOD

Well.... I mean lets be honest. A 24 year old should know better. We can't hold a 24 year old to the same standard as we hold 14 year olds regardless of gender.

Damn looks like a lot of people here seem to favor sex with minors. What the hell

I do get your point here... but as @Maw mentioned yesterday there is a power and experience dynamic going on as the age gaps get larger.

I honestly find it a bit shocking that you don't see a clear difference between a 14 year old having consensual sex with a 16 and a 14 year old having consensual sex with a 26 year old.

I will be 26 next month and it is blinding obvious to me why we should discourage 26 year olds from having sexual intercourse with 14 year olds regardless of who seduced whom.

I'm vehemently against it, I believe most people are?

To be fair, I think he's talking about mentally handicapped 26 year olds, which I think is covered under the fact they're not usually treated as adults in a lot of things, as they tend to be purely dependent on others and are not considered able to be self-arbiters.

Even then, I see no reason whatsoever to lower the bar for adults.

Seems extremely dangerous to do that.

Yeppers... I am with @Maw. I am completely against sex with minors. I understand its hard to make bright line rules in this area. So I do believe that the when we are talking about the 15,16 and 17 age ranges that we should also look at the age of the accused. There is a massive difference, imo, of a 15 year old and an 18 year old having consensual sex than a 16 year old and a 26 year old.

I not studied this subject and I do agree that the all of my consensual sexual encounters before the age of 17 did not adversely affect me even though I was always the younger partner. BUT.... there is just too much risk involved in not heavily and strictly enforcing these laws.

Statutory Rape in my State is one of the very few "Strict Liability Laws" (meaning there is no requirement of mens rea - intent or even knowledge)

I like Washington's take on it, and Arizona's take on it. I wish the "by relationship" in Washington was 18 though.

Ah... I see. I might have missed that.... Depending on the level of the handicap there is a built in defense in most states... at least as to criminal intent. But as I just mentioned with Strict Liability Laws... in my State they would probably still be convicted so long as they were competent to stand trial

I think it's a good sort of system they have in that aspect.

Because I think age has a pretty key factor in positions of authority/power, so I don't think you could say a 16 year old wouldn't feel obliged to do stuff with someone older and more established.

Hence why I squint at 16.

The real point is pretty simple. Barring some sort of mental impairment we need to legislate against adults having sexual intercourse with minors. That has to be where we start. Then we can carve out some specific defenses or mitigating factors such as the age gap and mental ability of the adult in the situation.

But we also need to realize that a 17 year old having sex with a 12 year old, though both minors, is something we need to legislate against.

Agreed.

Nice points.

Parents can fail their child in this regard. Surely we can be logical prosecutors lawyers and adults when imposing justice in these and all bad choices

Thanks, it's actually a misconception I think people have that the left is easy on this sort of stuff, when they really aren't.

Because usually people on the left are very adamant about bringing up relationship power dynamics.

(Which is relative to the ability of being even able to consent)

Im a godless progressive liberal and I am very much for strict laws related to this sort of issue

@Massie1223

Oh... and a snowflake as well

Good to hear snow flake. I'm just messing with you JD. After all you labeled yourself. I love this social site. I love hearing or reading the differing and logical views

Power dynamics are why a lot of lefties feel like Trump was talking about the r-word when he said his infamous 'locker room talk'.

They have a sort of social equation that they equate that behavior to 'r-word'.