Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

[Bob001]

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.

She's also a high-profile public figure in her mid-70s. I suspect she is as likely to consider the damage to her reputation that would result from losing a big case as much as her bottom line. She certainly needs money to run her business and support her causes (and live), but she could easily make more if that was her primary focus.

 

[3point14]

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?

I would say that depends on how much money is in the case, however, please see my further response below.

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.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Arcade22]

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

This is what this guy says:

Paul Shechtman, a veteran criminal law attorney who teaches criminal procedure at Columbia University Law School, said that while pursuing a case against Maxwell probably appeals to the federal prosecutors who arrested Epstein, targeting Andrew might not.

“Everything points to the fact that she is a serious subject of the southern district [of New York]’s investigation and at the same time, and for a variety of reasons, I don’t think he is,” Shechtman said.

Authorities would have to prove Andrew knew someone was underage, Shechtman said, and “as a general matter, having sexual relations with someone who’s underage is a state crime and not a federal crime.

“I think his exposure for a federal prosecution is quite small indeed,” he said, adding. “I think he can continue to be a prince.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rew-friend-jeffrey-epstein-controversy-hiding

Now maybe he's wrong, but he still reiterates one of the basic principles of justice that people shouldn't be punished just for doing something illegal, rather the most important thing is whether they intended to do something illegal, that they acted with negligence or with recklessness. Otherwise there would be no need to prosecute people for attempted crimes, since they didn't do anything criminal even if they sought to.

Again, it's utterly bizarre to somehow treat underage sex as being so exceptional that people cannot be allowed to do so accidentally, while at the same time permitting people to kill each-other through accidents without legal consequences.

If the point of the law is discourage people from having sex with anyone that's "young" then they should've explicitly required people to formally establish their sex partner(s) ages and criminalized the failure to do so in all cases, rather enacting a legislative atrocity contrary to justice.

 

[Checkmite]

Now maybe he's wrong, but he still reiterates one of the basic principles of justice that people shouldn't be punished just for doing something illegal, rather the most important thing is whether they intended to do something illegal, that they acted with negligence or with recklessness. Otherwise there would be no need to prosecute people for attempted crimes, since they didn't do anything criminal even if they sought to.

But it's not so cut and dried as that; "no intention, no crime" may work for some crimes but pointedly does not in others. Adults having sex with underage kids happens to be illegal because it typically causes damage, damage that can happen regardless of the perpetrator's intent (as in this case; at least one of the victims has definitely asserted they've been damaged). In other words, the crime has an effect, and that intention or lack thereof doesn't change the effect. That effect calls for a consequence. I would allow that a demonstrated lack of intent should probably have an effect on sentencing; but I don't think it should preclude society's recognition via the judicial system that this person did something wrong and damaging to that person.

That's all speaking generally. Specifically, given Epstein's apparently widely-known reputation for liking and "employing" underage girls, I don't think Andrew's "lack of knowledge" that the particular girl he had relations with was underage would or should necessarily be exculpatory. There's a difference between innocently not knowing, and choosing not to know because you're well aware of the potential of illegality and want to rules-lawyer yourself a way to partake without liability.

 

[Information Analyst]

This is what this guy says:

Paul Shechtman, a veteran criminal law attorney who teaches criminal procedure at Columbia University Law School, said that while pursuing a case against Maxwell probably appeals to the federal prosecutors who arrested Epstein, targeting Andrew might not.

“Everything points to the fact that she is a serious subject of the southern district [of New York]’s investigation and at the same time, and for a variety of reasons, I don’t think he is,” Shechtman said.

Authorities would have to prove Andrew knew someone was underage, Shechtman said, and “as a general matter, having sexual relations with someone who’s underage is a state crime and not a federal crime.

“I think his exposure for a federal prosecution is quite small indeed,” he said, adding. “I think he can continue to be a prince.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rew-friend-jeffrey-epstein-controversy-hiding

Now maybe he's wrong, but he still reiterates one of the basic principles of justice that people shouldn't be punished just for doing something illegal, rather the most important thing is whether they intended to do something illegal, that they acted with negligence or with recklessness. Otherwise there would be no need to prosecute people for attempted crimes, since they didn't do anything criminal even if they sought to.

Again, it's utterly bizarre to somehow treat underage sex as being so exceptional that people cannot be allowed to do so accidentally, while at the same time permitting people to kill each-other through accidents without legal consequences.

If the point of the law is discourage people from having sex with anyone that's "young" then they should've explicitly required people to formally establish their sex partner(s) ages and criminalized the failure to do so in all cases, rather enacting a legislative atrocity contrary to justice.

What has all that about US law got to do with what I was saying about English law specifically?

 

[Arcade22]

But it's not so cut and dried as that; "no intention, no crime" may work for some crimes but pointedly does not in others.

I think I've pointed out quite clearly that there are different levels of culpability^WP, ranging from doing something intentionally (for example, murder) to acting with negligence (Involuntary manslaughter). It seems that at least in parts of the US, there is no need to determine any culpability at all for "statuary rape". Why this offence is so exceptional is very peculiar.

Adults having sex with underage kids happens to be illegal because it typically causes damage, damage that can happen regardless of the perpetrator's intent (as in this case; at least one of the victims has definitely asserted they've been damaged). In other words, the crime has an effect, and that intention or lack thereof doesn't change the effect. That effect calls for a consequence. I would allow that a demonstrated lack of intent should probably have an effect on sentencing; but I don't think it should preclude society's recognition via the judicial system that this person did something wrong and damaging to that person.

No, that's not how criminal law works. If criminal law were to follow this kind of reasoning, then anyone who causes harm to someone would be convicted of crimes even if the court was to find that it was done completely by accident and that they were really at no fault. The driver(s) in every single car crash that caused personal injuries would end up in court every single time, no matter how safe and secure everyone's driving was.

After reading about it, the reason why the crime of having sex with someone that's underage is such a noteworthy exception to the requirement of culpability in some legal systems is apparently because this defense is hard to disprove in court. Absolutely preventing people from using that defense is just a way to secure convictions by denying the plaintiff the use of a reasonable defense. However it has a far greater effect in that it makes having sex with anyone who could be underage potentially subject to legal penalties, even when there was no reason they should even have suspected that they were underage. That is where the big problem lies.

Again if were we to follow your kind of reasoning then driving a car would be legal, but if you were to cause an accident then you would be guilty of a crime no matter how safe and secure your driving was or whether your actions could've prevented it. The only way to prevent yourself from potentially facing criminal charges would be to not drive cars at all, even-though you are notionally allowed to do so. ******* ridiculous.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I think I've pointed out quite clearly that there are different levels of culpability^WP, ranging from doing something intentionally (for example, murder) to acting with negligence (Involuntary manslaughter). It seems that at least in parts of the US, there is no need to determine any culpability at all for "statuary rape". Why this offence is so exceptional is very peculiar.







No, that's not how criminal law works. If criminal law were to follow this kind of reasoning, then anyone who causes harm to someone would be convicted of crimes even if the court was to find that it was done completely by accident and that they were really at no fault. The driver(s) in every single car crash that caused harm would end up in court every single time, no matter how safe and secure everyone's driving was.



After reading about it, the reason why the crime of having sex with someone that's underage is such a noteworthy exception to the requirement of culpability in some legal systems is apparently because this defense is hard to disprove in court. Absolutely preventing people from using that defense is just a way to secure convictions. However it's effect is to make having sex with anyone who could be underage potentially subject to legal penalties even when there was no reason they should even have suspected that they were underage, which is where the big problem lies.



Again if were we to follow your kind of reasoning then driving a car would be legal, but if you were to cause an accident then you are guilty of a crime no matter how safe and secure your driving was or whether your actions could've prevented it. The only way to prevent yourself from potentially facing criminal charges would be to not drive cars at all, even-though you are notionally allowed to do so. ******* ridiculous.

How does one "cause an accident" and yet not have been capable of preventing it?

Again this wasn't some "gee I got suckered into something" issue. A supposedly intelligent adult was interacting with a known sex offender. Claiming ignorance doesn't cut it.

One does not have to wilfully intend to violate the law to be liable. Otherwise "I didn't know that even was a law" would be a valid defense.

 

[autumn1971]

Reasonable belief can work where the younger party was 13-15, but the defence has to present a compelling case. Under-13 it can never work.

I have a friend who, even with thirty years of hindsight, looked eighteen at twelve. She hit puberty hard and early. It happens.

Not defending anyone, just pointing out that young people occasionally look much older than they are.

 

[autumn1971]

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.

Lawyers get paid win or lose.

Maybe they don’t get high profile and high profit cases if they lose too much, but they get paid a ******** either way.

 

[Arcade22]

How does one "cause an accident" and yet not have been capable of preventing it.

Someone is driving a car while following all the rules of the road when someone unexpectedly walks or runs on the road.

Of course one could have avoided it by never driving a car in the first place, but it's not as if the law requires that you never cause any accidents because you will be held legally responsible for them.

Hell, if drivers were held responsible for anything and everything that happens while they are driving, according to the standards of "strict liability", they would be convicted of killing someone even if that someone was intentionally trying to kill themselves by jumping in-front of their car before they could stop.

Again this wasn't some "gee I got suckered into something" issue. A supposedly intelligent adult was interacting with a known sex offender. Claiming ignorance doesn't cut it.

The alleged sex that Prince Andrew is supposed to have been engaged in would have occurred before Epstein was convicted of anything. You could very well argue that he should have suspected that she might have been underage, but the law shouldn't assume that. It's up to the prosecution to prove this, or at least that's how it should work in any decent legal system.

One does not have to wilfully intend to violate the law to be liable. Otherwise "I didn't know that even was a law" would be a valid defense.

There's a difference between "mistake of law" and "mistake of facts". The fact that this distinction exists in the first place is just because people are (or at least should be) allowed to commit crimes accidentally without any legal consequences, assuming that they are not proven to have acted negligently or recklessly based on what they knew or should have known.

The reason why "mistake of law" are so very rarely accepted as an acceptable defense is simply because one of the basic assumptions is that everyone should know what the law is. They can't be expected to know everything, but they can be expected to know the law.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Someone is driving a car while following all the rules of the road when someone unexpectedly walks or runs on the road.

Of course one could have avoided it by never driving a car in the first place, but it's not as if the law requires that you never cause any accidents because you will be held legally responsible for them.

Hell, if drivers were held responsible for anything and everything that happens while they are driving, according to the standards of "strict liability", they would be convicted of killing someone even if that someone was intentionally trying to kill themselves by jumping in-front of their car before they could stop.

That's not an example of "causing an accident" that was "unavoidable." Your generic description probably won't ever match a specific scenario because it is internally inconsistent.

The alleged sex that Prince Andrew is supposed to have been engaged in would have occurred before Epstein was convicted of anything. You could very well argue that he should have suspected that she might have been underage, but the law shouldn't assume that. It's up to the prosecution to prove this, or at least that's how it should work in any decent legal system.



There's a difference between "mistake of law" and "mistake of facts". The fact that this distinction exists in the first place is just because people are (or at least should be) allowed to commit crimes accidentally without any legal consequences, assuming that they are not proven to have acted negligently or recklessly based on what they knew or should have known.

The reason why "mistake of law" are so very rarely accepted as an acceptable defense is simply because one of the basic assumptions is that everyone should know what the law is. They can't be expected to know everything, but they can be expected to know the law.

I feel someone in his position has far less room for claiming ignorance than the everyman. His attempts at playing that narrative require far too much suspension of disbelief for me to sustain.

YMMV.

ETA: the equivalent of "pedestrian jumped in front of my car" in this cse would be along the lines of "she stripped and mounted me before I could stop her!"

 

[Checkmite]

No, that's not how criminal law works. If criminal law were to follow this kind of reasoning, then anyone who causes harm to someone would be convicted of crimes even if the court was to find that it was done completely by accident and that they were really at no fault. The driver(s) in every single car crash that caused personal injuries would end up in court every single time, no matter how safe and secure everyone's driving was.

No, for two reasons. Firstly because car accidents, even deadly ones, aren't crimes in and of themselves. Secondly because as I already stated in the sentence immediately prior, "no intention, no crime" may work for some crimes, just not all.

I think you're mistaking my explanation for why illicit sexual activities with minors was made illicit for some kind of overarching tautology. I did not contend that anything that potentially causes any kind of harm to someone is or should be a crime. It is the reason that one particular crime, is a crime; that is all.

 

[quadraginta]

Lawyers get paid win or lose.

Maybe they don’t get high profile and high profit cases if they lose too much, but they get paid a ******** either way.

Well ... sort of.

In most cases this is true. However, if a lawyer accepts a civil case on contingency they don't get paid if they lose. If a lawyer takes a criminal case pro bono they don't get paid whether they win or lose.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

None the less, accidentally sell cigarettes or alcohol to someone under age and see what happens. "I thought they looked old enough" is not a defense.

 

[Arcade22]

None the less, accidentally sell cigarettes or alcohol to someone under age and see what happens. "I thought they looked old enough" is not a defense.

Maybe that's the case where you live, but the law here is worded as thus:

Section 9 Anyone who intentionally or negligently sells or delivers alcoholic beverages in violation of Chapter 3, Section 7 or Section 8 to someone who has not attained the prescribed age or who is noticeably affected by alcohol or other intoxicants, or in the case of wholesale fails to act in the way which is prescribed in Chapter 4. § 3, to make sure that the buyer has the right to resell or buy the goods is convicted of illegal drink handling for a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months.

Now, you can argue what constitutes negligence inside and outside of the courtroom, but the law clearly requires more than just selling alcohol to someone who's underage. If it goes to trial, then the prosecutor has to prove they acted negligently.

The proper legal way of deter people from unintentionally having sex with someone that's underage would be to legally require that everyone who intend to have sex to establish each-others ages before engaging in sex. But such a law would obviously be highly unpopular, just like it would be an incredible hassle for the cashiers if they had to check everyone's ID's every single time.

 

[Arcade22]

No, for two reasons. Firstly because car accidents, even deadly ones, aren't crimes in and of themselves.

I'm pretty sure injuring people or causing them to die is a crime even where you live, whether it involves cars or not. Pleading innocence because of a mistake, that you accidentally caused someone to be injured or killed and thus cannot be held legally responsible, dose not stop the underlying act of being criminal itself.

Secondly because as I already stated in the sentence immediately prior, "no intention, no crime" may work for some crimes, just not all.

So pretty much every single crime except just this one? No, that's a lousy explanation that just reeks of post-hoc rationalizing. In truth it was, just as i said, a way to legally exclude a very persuasive defense in court so it would be easier to secure a conviction. Now the prosecution only has to prove that they had sex and that the victim was underage at the time.

All the better to fill up your gulag camps i guess. It's not as if anyone cares about these people after they are stamped as "sex offenders" anyways, as indicated by the fact that you somehow find this kind of travesty reasonable. It's just like with your "felony murder" ********.

I think you're mistaking my explanation for why illicit sexual activities with minors was made illicit for some kind of overarching tautology. I did not contend that anything that potentially causes any kind of harm to someone is or should be a crime. It is the reason that one particular crime, is a crime; that is all.

No, what i meant was that the existing crimes against persons should require the same level of intent as statuary rape. Which would be none. There's no good reason to treat this specific offence as being exceptional. You couldn't even mention one yourself!

 

[Darat]

None the less, accidentally sell cigarettes or alcohol to someone under age and see what happens. "I thought they looked old enough" is not a defense.

But that is because the law is explicit that you must have positive proof of the age, so.the onus is on the shopkeeper to ensure the age restrictions are not being breached. I don't think many of us would be keen for a system of having to have a " legally ******** " ID card to carry around with us until we hit 25.

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe that's the case where you live, but the law here is worded as thus:



Now, you can argue what constitutes negligence inside and outside of the courtroom, but the law clearly requires more than just selling alcohol to someone who's underage. If it goes to trial, then the prosecutor has to prove they acted negligently.

The proper legal way of deter people from unintentionally having sex with someone that's underage would be to legally require that everyone who intend to have sex to establish each-others ages before engaging in sex. But such a law would obviously be highly unpopular, just like it would be an incredible hassle for the cashiers if they had to check everyone's ID's every single time.

The Food Lions (a major supermarket chain) around here got popped for selling to an under-aged customer. They have instituted a policy of carding everyone, every single time for all alcohol sales. They have to call a manager over to okay the sale and enter your DL number into the cash register.

Every. Single. Time.

I'm sixty five. I don't look like I might be under age (I wish ). It was cute the first couple of times, but now it's a PITA if I want to buy the occasional beer.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

On the other hand, how terribly painful and debilitating it is to have to spend a whole minute or two participating in a system intended to prevent harm to others?

How many preventable murders happened until we said "hey, let's check to see if someone buying a gun has a record of using firearms for bad reasons?"

When doing the right thing might mildly inconvenience someone, there's little chance of finding support for it.

 

[Bob001]

The Food Lions (a major supermarket chain) around here got popped for selling to an under-aged customer. They have instituted a policy of carding everyone, every single time for all alcohol sales. They have to call a manager over to okay the sale and enter your DL number into the cash register.

Every. Single. Time.

I'm sixty five. I don't look like I might be under age (I wish ). It was cute the first couple of times, but now it's a PITA if I want to buy the occasional beer.

Checking ID is one thing. But entering your DL number into a database is way something else. I'm surprised there hasn't been a lot of pushback. People could certainly buy their alcohol at stores with a different procedure.