763
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
763 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1923 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
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.