4 ms·

The entire system, as described is horribly broken. Underage girls working as prostitutes should be treated as victims, not criminals. Statutory rape should be

by Zak 17y ago

The entire system, as described is horribly broken. Underage girls working as prostitutes should be treated as victims, not criminals. Statutory rape should be an available charge in that situation, but there needs to be a state of mind with respect to the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age. Criminal negligence (a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have known) seems appropriate. With strict liability, even examining a seemingly authentic government ID card or passport wouldn't serve as a defense. That's wrong. Edit: this is an issue of policy and mechanism. The policy of trying to punish those who don't care that they're abusing very young or enslaved girls is a good one. The mechanism of strict liability is extremely flawed, and the precedent of having any strict liability laws on the book opens the door for less clearly black and white policies to be applied using that mechanism.

DaniFong 17y ago
I would posit that having strict liability laws, in this case, might be the best of bad options. If you can get an out by looking for an authentic looking ID, pimps will find ways to issue fake IDs. It's not hard.
- Zak 17y ago
  The person punished in that case should be the pimp. I realize that's sometimes hard to accomplish, but I can't see any amount of harm as justification for punishing people who weren't aware of their actions.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    The survey in the O.P. seems to indicate that most of those surveyed where quite aware of the possibility that they were participating in a harmful and coercive relationship. They thought it was more likely than not. And yet any of them will claim that they were not aware of their actions, were not aware of the possibility, were they to arrive in court. In Canada, if I don't clear the ice on my side of the sidewalk, and someone slips and gets hurt, I am liable. As a result, people clear their sidewalks. If one is engaged in soliciting prostitution, which is already illegal, one should accept and avoid the risks that they are participating in something highly unethical. Those who won't should at the least be forced to avoid doing something highly illegal. People already do this. Bar Bouncers. Medical Doctors. Military Officers. Public Officials. Heads of Public Companies. It is a philosophical argument, but I just don't buy the idea that we are responsible only for what we know about, only what we intend, only for the consequences of our actions that we do anticipate. I believe we're responsible for the consequences of all of our actions, whether we like it or not. And, legally, I think that there's much potential value in stating that, if you engage in an activity that risks creating or perpetuating serious harm, then it up to you to make sure that you aren't. --- As a related matter, have you heard of the Seven Dwarves of Big Tobacco? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs And the testimony of Jeffrey Wigand http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php

by Zak 17y ago

DaniFong 17y ago

I would posit that having strict liability laws, in this case, might be the best of bad options. If you can get an out by looking for an authentic looking ID, pimps will find ways to issue fake IDs. It's not hard.

Zak 17y ago
The person punished in that case should be the pimp. I realize that's sometimes hard to accomplish, but I can't see any amount of harm as justification for punishing people who weren't aware of their actions.
- DaniFong 17y ago
  The survey in the O.P. seems to indicate that most of those surveyed where quite aware of the possibility that they were participating in a harmful and coercive relationship. They thought it was more likely than not. And yet any of them will claim that they were not aware of their actions, were not aware of the possibility, were they to arrive in court. In Canada, if I don't clear the ice on my side of the sidewalk, and someone slips and gets hurt, I am liable. As a result, people clear their sidewalks. If one is engaged in soliciting prostitution, which is already illegal, one should accept and avoid the risks that they are participating in something highly unethical. Those who won't should at the least be forced to avoid doing something highly illegal. People already do this. Bar Bouncers. Medical Doctors. Military Officers. Public Officials. Heads of Public Companies. It is a philosophical argument, but I just don't buy the idea that we are responsible only for what we know about, only what we intend, only for the consequences of our actions that we do anticipate. I believe we're responsible for the consequences of all of our actions, whether we like it or not. And, legally, I think that there's much potential value in stating that, if you engage in an activity that risks creating or perpetuating serious harm, then it up to you to make sure that you aren't. --- As a related matter, have you heard of the Seven Dwarves of Big Tobacco? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs And the testimony of Jeffrey Wigand http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php