694
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
694 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1970 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You know, I'm willing to believe that Gaetz genuinely didn't know the girl's age the first time they had sex. The report acknowledges as much. And I'm unwilling to accuse anybody, even someone as detestable as Gaetz, of something that they didn't do especially when there's evidence supporting their claim. And right now, there is plenty of evidence that he did not know she was underage when they had sex.
The first time.
Then he went back for seconds. Anyone who has ever been in an FWB relationship knows how it works. You don't just sit there and make an appointment for every Tuesday afternoon to just get together and quietly fuck like you're in a clinical trial or something. You don't get into an FWB relationship without getting to know someone. There's going to be small talk involved. Playful banter. Genuine conversation. And at some point in that conversation, age is going to come into play. Even if she doesn't directly say "I'm 17!!!", she's going to mention how much she hates the classes she's taking. Or her plans after she graduates. Or what she plans on being when she grows up. Or the fact she still lives at home. Something. Something is going to give away her age, or at the very least cause a reasonable person to at least start asking questions like "So what college do you go to?" to attempt to figure out how old she is.
And even if she's just being paid by an intermediary or something, small talk is still going to be involved. Even the most highly paid prostitute is going to engage in casual conversation to break the ice.
However it ended up, if it just happened once, I'd be willing to bet he genuinely didn't know her age. Then he went back for seconds. At that point, any reasonable person is going to believe he knew, and just didn't care.
The law specifically doesn’t make a distinction in cases like Gaetz’ because he paid her for it. The moment it becomes prostitution, any “I didn’t know” defense gets immediately disregarded. It’s to prevent child sex traffickers from claiming ignorance to plea down to a lesser charge.
In a case of procurement involving a person under 18 years of age, the defendant's lack of knowledge regarding the person's age is not a defense
I know how strict liability crimes work. I'm saying that the fact that it's a strict liability crime takes a valid option away from the defendant and is akin to railroading. If you're at an event available only to wealthy, connected adults and their companions and you happen to get together with one of them, it's reasonable to assume that the person you're connecting with is a consenting adult. In fact, barring evidence to the contrary such as something she said, I would actually consider it unreasonable to assume that a 17 year old girl would have access to that party, or the wealth and connections needed to gain access. And I would consider it unreasonable and in fact rude to ask someone to verify their age at that particular type of gathering. With that said, I am well aware that the law doesn't agree with me. I just think that the law happens to be wrong.
I would consider it unreasonable and in fact rude for a 35 year old to even attempt to fuck a 17 year old who may look a few years older.
Add payments into the mix and reasonableness goes out the window.
Read my previous statements.
His subsequent encounters? Yeah, that's all on him. I'm just saying that in the specific context of their first encounter, he did not intend to have sex with a 17 year old girl, and had no reason to believe the girl was underage given the circumstances.
The fact that he paid for sex is a different circumstance than paying for sex with a minor. They weren't paying 17 year old girls $400 a whack for sex. They were paying girls $400 a whack for sex, and one of them happened to be 17 years old. I doubt the people who hired these girls were checking IDs or doing background checks. Regarding that first encounter, should Gaetz be held accountable for paying for sex and drugs? Absolutely. But he shouldn't be getting extra punishment because she was a minor when there is no evidence he was searching for one.
Everything after that is all on him.
And this is one of the problems with strict-liability crimes like this. Again, say what you will about being at a drug-fueled party in the first place, but Gaetz had every reason to believe he was engaging in consensual (if abhorrent) sexual activity with a willing adult. Everything else he did is 100% on him, but in this specific case, I can't help but feel that the guy is getting railroaded. Especially since that is by far the most serious charge he is facing.
what reason?
He was at a drug-fueled party with wealthy, well-connected people. There would be no reason to believe that a 17 year old girl would have the wealth or connections needed to gain access to that party. Most of the women attending the party were regular attendees. Gaetz had absolutely no reason (that we know of) to believe that the one girl that he randomly hooked up with at this party happened to be a minor that nobody had realized was 17. The report says as much. Now if anyone has any evidence that this specific girl was hired for Gaetz with the knowledge she was 17, then that's a different story. But given everything we know, there was no reason to believe she was anything other than a consenting adult.
That said, it's kinda moot anyway. He only has a valid defense for the first time they hooked up. They had apparently met multiple times and while the report gives no indication that he knew of her age for over a month, I don't think a reasonable person would hook up with someone multiple times and either not say how old she was or never give any indication that something may not be right. Something is going to slip in casual conversation. If they only hooked up the one time, I'd say the case was overblown and actually be on his side. But once he started going back for more, any defense of him not knowing her age becomes less and less believable.
are you new?
of course a party like that would have underage girls. it is a situation that FAMOUSLY has underage girls.
can you at least tell me they were IDing at the door?
Hot take: the difference between 17 and 18 doesn't actually matter, and the real problem is Matt Gaetz abused his position of power to coerce young, relatively powerless women into sex with him. Crossing the line of 17 vs 18 is so unimportant in this particular case. Matt Gaetz fights to maintain a system where young women have no power, and utilizes his socio-economic position in that system to sexually abuse those women. Whether she's just finishing up high school, or in her first year of university, we're still talking about a young women who feels like she needs that money to step forward in her life, and Matt Maetz, and many others like him, are responsible for creating that need. To then use that need to get sexual gratification from those same young women is fucking disgusting, whether or not she's crossed the socially dictated line of "adulthood."
Oh it absolutely matters in 12 states in this country, including Florida.
i think the person you’re replying to is making a normative claim. they’re talking about how there really isn’t much difference in maturity/development between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. both ages are way too young for this guy, not to mention the power imbalances, etc. but you’re right that as far as the law is concerned, there is a big difference between 17 and 18 year olds.
That much I agree with. There's little to no practical difference. And in his defense, if anyone has been to a drug-fueled party, they can tell you how common anonymous (and sometimes public) sex happens. Say what you will about him being at a drug-fueled sex party in the first place, but if you're at a drug-fueled party with a whole bunch of wealthy and well connected adults and engage in sexual activity, it's not unreasonable to assume that the person you're screwing is an adult.
The difference between 17 and 18 can't be brushed off, though, when that difference almost singlehandedly makes the difference between you getting the side-eye and getting a prison sentence.