If there is a legal consequence for an action like this, there should be a grave legal consequence to misrepresenting your age. The girl deserves punishment too because yes, she entrapped him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay! so you are wrong he did not "commit statutory rape" ... Different states have different laws. Some states have exceptions for different ages, some states don't.

You feel okay telling somebody he is a rapist without knowing all the fact.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

In which state(s) is it legal for a 20-year-old to have sexual relations with a 15-year-old?

15 AND 19 ... almost all of them.. .MD it is legal.

Anonymous wrote:

Okay! so you are wrong he did not "commit statutory rape" ... Different states have different laws. Some states have exceptions for different ages, some states don't.

You feel okay telling somebody he is a rapist without knowing all the fact.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

In which state(s) is it legal for a 20-year-old to have sexual relations with a 15-year-old?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, the problem with this case is that
1) a 19 had sex with a 14 yo.
2) 14 yo lied, said she was 16.
3) 19 yo though he was having sex with a 16 yo.

The intent of the law was to criminalize people like me (50 yo) from preying on 15 yo's....

He needs to appeal. this is cruel and unusual punishment.

No, the intent of the law is to make it illegal for people over 18 to have sex with people who are 14. If you live in Indiana and want to change the law -- for example, to make it illegal for people over 30 to have sex with people who are 14, but anybody under 30 may do so legally -- then contact your state legislator. Or look up the law in your own state and, if you don't like the law, contact your state legislator.

The intent of the law is to criminalize people taking advantage of younger people to get what they want. The idea is that if the two are close in age, there is no power imbalance. And in some states, 14-18 is ok, 16 -12 is not, but 14-12 is.

We look at the arbitrary years...at 18, they are an adult...but a 17 yo molesting an 11 yo would be treated as an adult. So would a 16 yo. Sometimes 14 yo's have. So the 14 yo was old enough to serve as an adult when molesting an 11 yo (correct, I will add), but too young to be held responsible of lying about her age.

If you read the article, the police looked at him because there was a creep with a similar name who was preying on underage girls. It was not him. But he was charged anyway. The DA should be fired. The judge should be censured. And the boy should be completely exonerated -- and reimbursed for legal fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Still the law has an intent, Not the intent the person said above. The intent is that a 14 yo is impressionable and can be groomed to want to have sex when they are too young to make that decision. This guy did not groom the 14yo, she was going to have sex with whomever she met next. He just happened to be the "next".

Where did you get this from? The legislative history of the statutory rape laws in Indiana? Thin air?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

you are fucked up. You see, I am in a situation where there should not be youth present.

So what? There is no exception in the age-of-consent laws for situations where people too young to consent should not be present.

If you have sex with somebody you just met in a bar, and you're assuming that person is old enough based on their presence in a bar, then you run the risk of committing statutory rape, and being charged with it. If you want to reduce your risk of committing statutory rape, don't have sex with somebody you just met in a bar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

Actually. NO. He did not "commit statutory rape". A 15 yo can consent to sex if the person is not more than 4 years older... 15+4=19

so... all is well

That depends on the specific state's specific law. Different states have different laws. Some states have exceptions for different ages, some states don't.

Okay! so you are wrong he did not "commit statutory rape" ... Different states have different laws. Some states have exceptions for different ages, some states don't.

You feel okay telling somebody he is a rapist without knowing all the fact.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, the problem with this case is that
1) a 19 had sex with a 14 yo.
2) 14 yo lied, said she was 16.
3) 19 yo though he was having sex with a 16 yo.

The intent of the law was to criminalize people like me (50 yo) from preying on 15 yo's....

He needs to appeal. this is cruel and unusual punishment.

No, the intent of the law is to make it illegal for people over 18 to have sex with people who are 14. If you live in Indiana and want to change the law -- for example, to make it illegal for people over 30 to have sex with people who are 14, but anybody under 30 may do so legally -- then contact your state legislator. Or look up the law in your own state and, if you don't like the law, contact your state legislator.

Still the law has an intent, Not the intent the person said above. The intent is that a 14 yo is impressionable and can be groomed to want to have sex when they are too young to make that decision. This guy did not groom the 14yo, she was going to have sex with whomever she met next. He just happened to be the "next".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

Actually. NO. He did not "commit statutory rape". A 15 yo can consent to sex if the person is not more than 4 years older... 15+4=19

so... all is well

That depends on the specific state's specific law. Different states have different laws. Some states have exceptions for different ages, some states don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

Actually. NO. He did not "commit statutory rape". A 15 yo can consent to sex if the person is not more than 4 years older... 15+4=19

so... all is well

I was not 19 then. The drinking age was 19. I was 20.

Anonymous wrote:Again, the problem with this case is that
1) a 19 had sex with a 14 yo.
2) 14 yo lied, said she was 16.
3) 19 yo though he was having sex with a 16 yo.

The intent of the law was to criminalize people like me (50 yo) from preying on 15 yo's....

He needs to appeal. this is cruel and unusual punishment.

No, the intent of the law is to make it illegal for people over 18 to have sex with people who are 14. If you live in Indiana and want to change the law -- for example, to make it illegal for people over 30 to have sex with people who are 14, but anybody under 30 may do so legally -- then contact your state legislator. Or look up the law in your own state and, if you don't like the law, contact your state legislator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

Actually. NO. He did not "commit statutory rape". A 15 yo can consent to sex if the person is not more than 4 years older... 15+4=19

so... all is well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

you are fucked up. You see, I am in a situation where there should not be youth present.

Anonymous wrote:I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.

That was fortunate for you, given that you committed statutory rape.

I am going back to my college days...when there was common sense. I met a girl in a bar. She was drinking. We hit it off. She "pleased" me. We were caught....turns out she was 15. I said we were in a bar. I assumed that she was of legal drinking age (19 then).

I was not charged with statutory rape.