A unique sort of court case. It's riddling.

I had an interesting thought. Please do help me answer this riddle.

A 15-year-girl has had intercourse with a 19-year-old male. The female has contracted a venereal disease from the male. The parents become upset, and attempt to sue him for underage sex crimes. They take this to court. The male had not known that the girl had been underage [and the female had claimed she was not a minor]. They both were not under the influence of any drug-related substances. The male of course claimed he was told she was of age. The was evidence to support his claim, as well as a claim from the girl that she had lied about her age.

Who would be guilty? I can't figure it out myself.

But the parents are the ones suing, and the daughter is witness to the claim that she had lied about her age.

And no, it's not a personal situation (Thank god!), But even if it were, I would get to know her well enough before intercourse. I am a very minimalistic drinker, and honest man. If she has parents, it's my duty to have their consent.

I think the law would say the man is guilty, it doesn't matter what the girl claimed. She was underage and he should have checked it.

If there is evidence, physical evidence to support his claim, which you said there was evidence. That means she had a fake ID or something, than he is off the hook and not guilty for having sex with someone under age.

If the court system is to find him guilty of having sex with a minor, than she must be tried with posession of a fake ID, or whatever she had to "prove" she was older than she was.

Now the second part about the STD. Did he know that he had the STD? Did she know that he had an STD? Those are crucial questions to be answered.

The venereal disease doesn't really apply to the case, unless it is being used to try and demonize the defendant. That being said, the general rule of law (in the US at least) is that regardless of whether or not you knew she was underage, whether she lied or not, you still engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Now as to parental aspect (as they are the ones suing him), they are allowed to seek legal action on her behalf whether she wants them to or not. This is simply because she is a minor and thus (not a person) not able to make the "right decisions". In other words, her guardians (as they are legal adults) can act in her "best interest", depending on whatever they may believe it is. The entire idea behind this is that children must be protected, and also that they do not have enough life experience to make the right decision.

The only think you can really take from this is to both know the age of consent of your location, and to make DAMN certain that the girl is of legal age.

Now time for one of my little fun facts. Even if the girl is of the age of consent in your location (I'm using the US as the basis, as I can't be certain of other countries), let's just say 16, her guardians can still file charges against you if you are 18 or older. This is where the law can be a bit vague, as the age of consent means the consent of both the girl AND her guardians. Kind of a messed up system, but really nothing that can be done about it.

Under the law the man is guilty, even if the lied about her age. its sucks but that's the law.

I found myself quite amused.

The law states that regardless if she wanted it or not, having sex with a minor is against the law and is punishable.

It sucks, but it's just something everybody has to deal with.

The lesson here for guys is get to (really)know us girls first before having sex, guys want to go into our pants so quick they forget that we girls can also lie with our age if we like the guy so much... Unfortunately the girl's parents are in control of this case because she is a minor and the guy will go to jail, unless... His parents try to make an out of court settlement and bribe the girl's parents with money...

In truth, as to if one goes to jail is more up to due process.

However, the venereal disease doesn't matter at all to the courts, in any case. It could be used as evidence that intercourse was had, but cannot change the sentencing (except with sadistic/corrupt judges/prosecutors/jurors).

It doesn't matter if the girl was lying; there was still a crime and the male WILL be arrested.

Of course, "arrested" and "prosecuted" are two different things. Due to the gray nature that all statutory rape(underage intercourse) is, the case, even if proven, will go to trial.

The rest depends on the judge, juror, and prosecutors (but they typically don't look fondly on "rape", no matter how convoluted it is. A few get luck though).

Said person will likely go to jail. He shouldn't have to worry to much about rape in the prisons after he tell him his story, "The Adventures of Gonorrhea Jack", but a few wont care and make the story "Shower time and the Beast from Behind".

Hope that answers your "question". Your totally rhetorical "question". ;)

I don't think the male will be charged on the offence of having sex with a minor, maybe on the drug use. Evidence shows that the male did ask about her age, and she lied about her age. Who the fuck would ask for an ID before having sex anyway?

OP:


So he wouldn't get charged with that. Sorry. :/

It doesn't matter if evidence showed that the girl lied. She could've lied everyday about her age for the rest of infinity and the man would still be charged; it happens, pretty much, every day in the U.S., and people are arrested and charged for it every time they get found out. The "we know the girl was lying" thing, in U.S. courts anyway, would literally mean absolutely nothing; nothing incriminating the girl would change the charges. Even if the girl was at fault, and/or actually cared for the guy, it wouldn't matter; the precedent for statutory rape was already set, many years ago (in the U.S.) and could only be change would the case in question go to the Supreme Court (which, considering how many times this happens, is very unlikely).

The biggest hole in the case, as is with most cases of this kind, would be establishing of evidence. If there is no physical evidence showing that the defendant (the boy) had sexual intercourse with the victim (the girl), no matter how "sure" the parents feel (or if they know and just cant prove it), the case would immediately be dismissed by the writ of Habeus Corpus. The only evidence, would they not have DNA/video recording/what-have-you, would be witness testimony, the only witnesses being the victim, who could choose to remain silent (which is not Obstruction of Justice until she intentionally misleads the investigation), and the defendant, who could also practice their Fifth Amendment Right to protect themselves from self-incrimination.

The question of how it "should" be, or which is "right" is a moral topic, as opposed to a legal one, which what I said above is meaningless to.

The age of consent is, also, not only different country to country, but in the U.S., changes every state to state (but ALMOST all of them are 18 years of age).

All the above only applies to the U.S., though; I know bollocks to nothing about every other countries precedents.

Hmm... Just as I'd expect from the Serious Discussion forum, you've given me some interesting perspective. I though there might have been a simple loophole that I didn't think about, and that would have entailed the answer. However it looks to be that there quite a lot of variables I've missed.

if she does not show you ID or birth certificate, Then it is the mans fault for not confirming her age. and hence is guilty. Even if he was mislead.

The male had sex with an underage girl so;

The STD would have no influence on the case.

The "I thought/she told me she was 18" defense doesn't work anymore.

It is cut and dry that in the end, he would be found guilty of statutory rape and be sent to jail.

I have read a case before where a guy sued the parents of a girl who lied about her age
can't seem to find it though...

YEAH RIGHT... A 19 YEAR OLD GUY WANTS TO MARRY A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL WHOM HE INFECTED WITH STD THAT HE PROBABLY GOT FROM SOME OTHER CHICK?? GET REAL... AND A GUY WHO DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH A GIRL HE LIKES?? AND IS ONLY AFTER MARRIAGE?? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?? YOU ARE A VERY WEIRD BOY...

WOW THAT CAPS LOCK



Sure, why not? At that age I was in a relationship which lasted for about 5 years, before the girl got tired of me because I didn't want real life sex until after marriage. Ofcourse, even then(and now) real life sex scared me to death, and wasn't something I fantasized about.

Probably not this guy's case, but it isn't that strange.