• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the law about booze doesn't explicitly say "You have to check every ID." It just says you can't sell to an underage buyer, and the bar or store decides how to comply. Same thing about sex: you're expected to understand the law and comply with it. How you proceed is up to you.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
But the law about booze doesn't explicitly say "You have to check every ID." It just says you can't sell to an underage buyer, and the bar or store decides how to comply. Same thing about sex: you're expected to understand the law and comply with it. How you proceed is up to you.
Click to expand...



Several places in the USA do require ID to purchase alcohol, no matter what. The USA has multiple and overlapping legal territories, so it varies from town to town, state to state, etc. O’Hare airport is such a jurisdiction. At the airport you have to present ID to buy an alcoholic drink no matter the apparent age of the buyer. Conveniently, everyone at the airport has an ID.
 
The standards of how to demonstrate behavior that will not be considered negligent is probably located in language relating to the liquor licensing authority for that jurisdiction and not spelled right out in the law itself.

Another of the many ways that "it's a free country!" as an overriding mantra is perhaps not quite the ideal way of running things.

"I'm about to do something involving activities I am totally unfamiliar with and perhaps I should show some humility and check to make sure it is safe or under what conditions to operate in order to prevent harm to others" is just utterly foreign to a lot of people I come across.

Shockingly this is also true in the sexual realm. Just ask almost any woman.
 
Arcade22 said:
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.


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" ********.



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!
Click to expand...


I was injured in a car crash. Nobody went to jail. Nobody broke any laws. Killing someone in a car crash is not automatically a crime. Not in the US anyways.

ETA: Maybe I'm missing some part of the argument ... I don't know wtf point is being made with his car crash stuff.

Ahaaa...Looks up at thread title because I forgot the subject - "Sex TRAFFICKING"
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...


To be honest, upon reflection, I can't say for sure that is what they are typing in.

They are taking my DL ("Remove it from the wallet, please."), looking at it, and typing in something. It could just be my b'day. Roughly the same number of characters.

It's still a PITA.
 
quadraginta said:
To be honest, upon reflection, I can't say for sure that is what they are typing in.

They are taking my DL ("Remove it from the wallet, please."), looking at it, and typing in something. It could just be my b'day. Roughly the same number of characters.

It's still a PITA.
Click to expand...
It's definitely your birthday. That way the have a record of having asked for ID. They don't need your DL number to keep track of how much booze you buy; that's what the store loyalty card is for.
 
mgidm86 said:
I was injured in a car crash. Nobody went to jail. Nobody broke any laws. Killing someone in a car crash is not automatically a crime. Not in the US anyways.

ETA: Maybe I'm missing some part of the argument ... I don't know wtf point is being made with his car crash stuff.

Ahaaa...Looks up at thread title because I forgot the subject - "Sex TRAFFICKING"
Click to expand...

'Sex trafficking' is just the US euphemism for procuring an underage prostitute.
 
Arcade22 said:
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!
Click to expand...

I did - which was that forseeable damage is still caused.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
'Sex trafficking' is just the US euphemism for procuring an underage prostitute.
Click to expand...


No, it's a "euphemism" for rape, kidnapping and false imprisonment.

From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:
Human sex trafficking is the most common form of modern-day slavery. Estimates place the number of its domestic and international victims in the millions, mostly females and children enslaved in the commercial sex industry for little or no money.1 The terms human trafficking and sex slavery usually conjure up images of young girls beaten and abused in faraway places, like Eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa. Actually, human sex trafficking and sex slavery happen locally in cities and towns, both large and small, throughout the United States, right in citizens’ backyards.
Click to expand...
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/human-sex-trafficking
 
Arcade22 said:
....
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!
Click to expand...


You don't seem willing to grasp that what you think should be is not the way it is. Have you ever heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" We are expected/required to comply with the law. Try telling a cop he can't write you a speeding ticket because you didn't know what the speed limit was. Try telling the IRS you didn't know you had to declare all your income. If the law says you can't sell booze to someone who's underage, it's up to you to figure out how to comply, which might include demanding ID before every sale or even not selling booze at all. And if the law says sex with someone who's underage can't be consensual, it's up to you to figure out how to comply, which might include keeping your pants zipped. It's not like there's any necessity to have sex with any particular young stranger.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Arcade22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it is pretty rare; the only case I know of involves Praxiteles' Aphrodite of Knidos.


(I suspect you meant "statutory".)
 
I see with my own eyes that some girls who are underaged don’t look underaged. I know that some of these girls are in environments where one might not suspect that they are indeed underaged: they are in a bar drinking. It can be too easy to make the mistake of fact that the “woman” one is trying to bed is a woman and not actually a girl. I think this mistake is easier to make the older one is. I think it’s normal for men to be attracted to youthfulness.

However: I have no problem punishing men who take this risk and end up being wrong because of the risk of harm to the girl and the risk that the girl may be in a situation where she is being coerced or otherwise being taken advantage of. It’s incumbent on reasonable and mature men, who must realize this proclivity towards youthfulness and the risk it entails, to tread very carefully. I think this is even more so for men who have elevated public status.
 
xjx388 said:
....
I think this mistake is easier to make the older one is. I think it’s normal for men to be attracted to youthfulness.
....
Click to expand...

I just note that the older he is, it's (much) less likely a sweet young thing will find him irresistible just on the basis of his looks and personality. He should suspect that something isn't right. Even if he's negotiating with a hooker of legal age, he can be arrested for that, and he can't be sure that she isn't being trafficked or coerced.
 
xjx388 said:
I see with my own eyes that some girls who are underaged don’t look underaged. I know that some of these girls are in environments where one might not suspect that they are indeed underaged: they are in a bar drinking. It can be too easy to make the mistake of fact that the “woman” one is trying to bed is a woman and not actually a girl. I think this mistake is easier to make the older one is. I think it’s normal for men to be attracted to youthfulness.

However: I have no problem punishing men who take this risk and end up being wrong because of the risk of harm to the girl and the risk that the girl may be in a situation where she is being coerced or otherwise being taken advantage of. It’s incumbent on reasonable and mature men, who must realize this proclivity towards youthfulness and the risk it entails, to tread very carefully. I think this is even more so for men who have elevated public status.
Click to expand...
Your point would be easier to swallow if Epstein and his ilk had been picking up girls who were out sampling the night life, or even if his accomplices had been working the bars. But one of the characteristics of this whole operation was that Epstein was supplied with girls by recruiters, who, it seems, were finding them in high schools and other locations that are not (presumably, we hope) bars.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Your point would be easier to swallow if Epstein and his ilk had been picking up girls who were out sampling the night life, or even if his accomplices had been working the bars. But one of the characteristics of this whole operation was that Epstein was supplied with girls by recruiters, who, it seems, were finding them in high schools and other locations that are not (presumably, we hope) bars.
Click to expand...



I was addressing the idea that Prince Andrew might not be guilty because he didn’t know the girls were underage. I call ******** on that.
 
xjx388 said:
I was addressing the idea that Prince Andrew might not be guilty because he didn’t know the girls were underage. I call ******** on that.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed a step there I think, and thought you were speaking of Epstein. I suppose if Andrew were an ordinary bloke and it happened once there would be a hope of an excuse, but the more public you are and the more often it happens, the harder the sell.
 
Checkmite said:
I did - which was that forseeable damage is still caused.
Click to expand...

But somehow you forgot to explain why that element would be exceptional with this criminal offence, as compared to every other criminal offence involving personal injuries (physical or otherwise). That's the important bit. The reason that this kind of special pleading doesn't work is because you don't explain why this is crime is so special that the normal rules of criminal law shouldn't apply.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
But somehow you forgot to explain why that element would be exceptional with this criminal offence, as compared to every other criminal offence involving personal injuries (physical or otherwise). That's the important bit. The reason that this kind of special pleading doesn't work is because you don't explain why this is crime is so special that the normal rules of criminal law shouldn't apply.
Click to expand...

The normal rules do apply.

You need to familiarize yourself with concepts like negligence, recklessness, and willful blindness, and why they are sufficient to establish both civil and criminal culpability for some crimes in the absence of strict intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom