Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

[Arcade22]

In the case of having sex with a 15-year-old, it wouldn't be "accidentally", it would be "recklessly" or "negligently".

No, there's a difference between doing something accidentally and doing something negligently. Or at least there should be. That's the kind of thing courts of justice are established to determine.

Otherwise you might as well do the same for every other criminal offence, since it seems demented to treat having sex with a underage person as somehow being so exceptional compared to homicide, for example. Surely we want people to think twice before doing something, anything, that could conceivably result in the someone's death no matter how unlikely it is?

 

[Matthew Best]

No, there's a difference between doing something accidentally and doing something negligently. Or at least there should be. That's the kind of thing courts of justice are established to determine.

Not quite sure what the word "No" is doing at the start of that paragraph, as it seems to be in agreeance with what I said.

Otherwise you might as well do the same for every other criminal offence, since it seems demented to treat having sex with a underage person as somehow being so exceptional compared to homicide, for example. Surely we want people to think twice before doing something, anything, that could conceivably result in the someone's death no matter how unlikely it is?

Yes, if you recklessly or negligently do something that results in someone's death, it can definitely be a crime.

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this conversation as you seem to be agreeing with me, while telling me I'm wrong. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Bob001]

It would be utterly unfair and contrary to basic principles of justice to make it illegal to accidentally commit a crime. You don't punish people for complete accidents, as that signify that doing notionally legal acts might still result in legal penalties. Essentially, following the law is no longer enough to avoid committing crimes.

But breaking the law isn't "following the law."

Here's one case where your strategy didn't work:

Former football star Lawrence Taylor claims he did not know the prostitute he had sex with was underage in an exclusive interview to Fox News Tuesday.

"I didn't pick her up on no playground," the former New York Giant great told Fox News' Shepard Smith.

Taylor was sentenced Tuesday to six years of probation for having sex with an underage prostitute.
The Hall of Fame ex-linebacker pleaded guilty in January to sexual misconduct and having sex with the teen.

The girl, now 17, appeared in court with well-known attorney Gloria Allred and said afterward that Taylor should have gone to jail. The girl has been identified in court and by Allred only by her initials, C.F.

Taylor told Fox News he did not know how old she was.

"This was a working girl who came into my room. She told me she was 19. It is what it is," Taylor said.
"I don't card them. I don't ask them for a birth certificate," he added.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lawrence-taylor-i-didnt-pick-underage-prostitute-up-on-a-playground

People are expected to exercise reasonable caution in all -- and particularly questionable -- circumstances. You don't get to say "I didn't know better, so it must be okay."

 

[Arcade22]

Not quite sure what the word "No" is doing at the start of that paragraph, as it seems to be in agreeance with what I said.



Yes, if you recklessly or negligently do something that results in someone's death, it can definitely be a crime.

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this conversation as you seem to be agreeing with me, while telling me I'm wrong. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick.

Except for the fact that you apparently treat unintentionally having sex with someone who was underage as by itself being proof of negligence, which would be no different from assuming that if one causes a death unintentionally as being proof of negligence.

Or at least that's how I interpreted what you wrote, since I by no means sought to imply that merely claiming that by acting accidentally that was the case.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nobody (who's not being raped) can unintentionally have sex.

Therefore, if you have sex with someone under age, you were either doing it deliberately or you were reckless or negligent about the age of the person you had sex with.

And, yes, oftentimes if you do something that causes another person's death, you can be prosecuted for it, even if you didn't mean to cause their death - that's why we have crimes like manslaughter and culpable homicide. If you cause someone's death by accident, you would expect to be investigated to find out if you were reckless or negligent, and if you were, to be prosecuted.

 

[angrysoba]

Except for the fact that you apparently treat unintentionally having sex with someone who was underage as by itself being proof of negligence, which would be no different from assuming that if one causes a death unintentionally as being proof of negligence.

Or at least that's how I interpreted what you wrote, since I by no means sought to imply that merely claiming that by acting accidentally that was the case.

I think there is probably a reasonable man standard here somewhere.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 15, might be considered reasonable if she really does look over 16 (or much older than that) to a reasonable person.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 12 is almost always likely to be beyond belief to any reasonable person. Or, it might be that she could just about pass for 16, in which case the person saying, "I thought..." is at the very least reckless, negligent, or lying.

 

[3point14]

Lets not turn this into some pointless, multi-page thread of pedantic word games arguing over the minutiae of correct definitions.

Who cares whether their victims are pre or post pubescent...just refer to all of these vile scumbags as "kiddie fiddlers", then everyone will know what we mean, i.e. people who rape/molest under age victims.

Clear communication is important.

"Let's not bother with definitions, it's too difficult." is not a good way to debate.

If you're saying 'pedophile' and the person you're talking to thinks that means something different then you may as well not be talking at all.

Then again, in this instance, it's probably a feature not a bug.

 

[Arcade22]

I think there is probably a reasonable man standard here somewhere.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 15, might be considered reasonable if she really does look over 16 (or much older than that) to a reasonable person.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 12 is almost always likely to be beyond belief to any reasonable person. Or, it might be that she could just about pass for 16, in which case the person saying, "I thought..." is at the very least reckless, negligent, or lying.

That's pretty much how it works where i live. I remember an extremely problematic news article in the Guardian titled something like "Man in Sweden acquitted of raping a child because she looked mature enough". In reality he was acquitted of having sex with someone who was underage, beecause the court found he had no reason to suspect she was underage because of how physically developed she was for her age (14).

Since it's legal to have sex with anyone aged 15 and over in Sweden, people can't be expected to take extraordinary precautions to prevent one from breaking that law, simply because that would deter people from exercising their freedom to do what is legal.

It's one thing to claim that you did something illegal without any intent of doing so, and without there being any good reason to suspect that you might break the law. It's another to convince a court of law that this actually was the case.

Or rather, it's up to the prosecution to prove that you either knew, should've known or at least should've reasonably suspected that your actions were illegal. That's what presumption of innocent entails in practice. Maybe that's just a formality in the US, seeing as it's legal system is apparently just a long line of atrocities after another.

 

[Information Analyst]

It would be utterly unfair and contrary to basic principles of justice to make it illegal to accidentally commit a crime. You don't punish people for complete accidents, as that signify that doing notionally legal acts might still result in legal penalties. Essentially, following the law is no longer enough to avoid committing crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)#English_law

 

[Information Analyst]

I think there is probably a reasonable man standard here somewhere.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 15, might be considered reasonable if she really does look over 16 (or much older than that) to a reasonable person.

"I thought she was over 16!" when she was 12 is almost always likely to be beyond belief to any reasonable person. Or, it might be that she could just about pass for 16, in which case the person saying, "I thought..." is at the very least reckless, negligent, or lying.

Yes, pretty much this. Someone who picks up a 15 year old in a nightclub and ends up having sex with them can reasonably claim that they thought they were older, because obviously 15 year old generally don't get into nightclubs.

Someone who picks up a 12 year old in the park and has sex with her can't reasonably claim to think she was 16 or over, even if they lied about their age or presented as older. They might be taken as mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing, but not as a defence.

 

[zooterkin]

I disagree with you. What is statutory rape in the US (but only in some states is it 18; in other states it is 16) may not be in Europe. In the UK you are considered an adult with your own mind and right to consent to sex and even leave home at age 17.

Age of consent in the UK is 16.

In some states in the US, while there is a specified age of consent, that doesn't apply if the couple is married, and there are many states where there is no lower age limit on getting married, or it's as low as 12.

 

[Vixen]

But breaking the law isn't "following the law."

Here's one case where your strategy didn't work:

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lawrence-taylor-i-didnt-pick-underage-prostitute-up-on-a-playground

People are expected to exercise reasonable caution in all -- and particularly questionable -- circumstances. You don't get to say "I didn't know better, so it must be okay."

To quote your quote:

The girl, now 17, appeared in court with well-known attorney Gloria Allred and said afterward that Taylor should have gone to jail. The girl has been identified in court and by Allred only by her initials, C.F.

Gloria Alldred is the same attorney representing Epstein's 'five survivors'.

 

[Bob001]

To quote your quote:

Gloria Alldred is the same attorney representing Epstein's 'five survivors'.

What point do you think you are making? Gloria Allred is a leading women's-rights lawyer, and has been for 40+ years. She is associated with numerous high-profile cases, including representing some of Bill Cosby's victims. The fact that she chooses to take on a case is evidence of its merits.

And why the sneer about "survivors?" You think there's any doubt that Epstein was a vicious predator who systematically recruited naive, vulnerable young girls? They are in fact survivors of assault and abuse.

 

[3point14]

What point do you think you are making? Gloria Allred is a leading women's-rights lawyer, and has been for 40+ years. She is associated with numerous high-profile cases, including representing some of Bill Cosby's victims. The fact that she chooses to take on a case is evidence of its merits.

Surely it's evidence solely of how much money is in the case and that the risk/reward profile indicates she should take the case?

And why the sneer about "survivors?" You think there's any doubt that Epstein was a vicious predator who systematically recruited naive, vulnerable young girls? They are in fact survivors of assault and abuse.

 

[Bob001]

Surely it's evidence solely of how much money is in the case and that the risk/reward profile indicates she should take the case?

If she just wanted to make money she would defend tobacco companies. Yes, I'm sure she selects cases that she expects to win. She doesn't get paid otherwise. That's what I mean when I say for her to take a case says a lot about its merits.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There's some value to the typical "let's talk about all these edge cases" discussion in some aggregate form, I concede.

But let's also not get dragged away from the real world situation that spawned it.

Someone who was a minor elder statesman of sorts and had responsibilities in a public career on the world stage was interacting with Jeffery Epstein and not a 20 year old college dude lusting over a high school girl with a fake ID. I can certainly expect someone ought to be able to muster enough simplistic association to go "Epstein use young girls for bad stuff, oh he's having me meet some young girls, they all cute and like me a lot, hey wait a sec..."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If she just wanted to make money she would defend tobacco companies. Yes, I'm sure she selects cases that she expects to win. She doesn't get paid otherwise. That's what I mean when I say for her to take a case says a lot about its merits.

People seem to forget the part where a lawyer is running a business. There's a staff of people meticulously organizing a file 2" thick on anything more complicated than a traffic citation going on 12-16 hours a day. Having a keen sense of the cost-benefit analysis of a proposed "project" to "develop" isn't some miserly machination.

 

[3point14]

People seem to forget the part where a lawyer is running a business. There's a staff of people meticulously organizing a file 2" thick on anything more complicated than a traffic citation going on 12-16 hours a day. Having a keen sense of the cost-benefit analysis of a proposed "project" to "develop" isn't some miserly machination.

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that there's a risk /reward profile.

She's going to work out how much it pays, how likely she is to win and then work out if it pays enough at those odds.

Her calculation is not solely 'can I win this case', there's a financial factor.

'Is it worth risking thee odds for this money' is a more accurate presentation of the calculation.

 

[autumn1971]

OTOH He surely would not have made the 'no sweat' claim unless there was an element of truth in it.

The royals are a bunch of inbred morons without any accountability.
Why is Andy suddenly a model of a modern major-general?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I didn't say it was. I'm saying that there's a risk /reward profile.

She's going to work out how much it pays, how likely she is to win and then work out if it pays enough at those odds.

Her calculation is not solely 'can I win this case', there's a financial factor.

'Is it worth risking thee odds for this money' is a more accurate presentation of the calculation.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how relevant to the validity of a plaintiff's claims in a civil filing is the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer made a basic business calculation upon agreeing to represent them?

ETA: I'm not even particularly objecting to the discussion of it, but just checking to see if we've perhaps drilled down on the topic so far we overshot the mark.