undefined | Better HN

0 pointsineffectivtopos6y ago0 comments

I mean, let's put aside whether the person might have reasoned the other party was willing. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If someone appears 100% willing to you, and there's absolutely nothing different from a genuinely willing person, why should you be at fault because somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise).

If someone does a 100% legal thing according the information they know, and is not otherwise negligent, there is no crime they should be charged with. As it happens, in the US, statutory rape is the only one I'm aware of that does not follow this criterion; even manslaughter requires negligence (although I'm not making a point about that).

0 comments

3 comments · 3 top-level

lgeorget6y ago

> somebody else put that person under duress, or because they were lying (under duress or otherwise)

It's like benefitting from any other kind of traffic, isn't it? If you benefit from a money laundering scheme or a fraud, you'd be charged with complicity, even if you took a lot of care into not inquiring about the provenance of the money. At least, that's how it's be judged in my country (France, and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me on that). I can't tell for other countries.

drusepth6y ago

Another analogy that might work: trying to pay for something at a store with bills you don't know are counterfeit. Do you still go to jail?

solidsnack90006y ago

There are a few other strict liability crimes (crimes where intent to commit the crime is not part of the burden of proof) in the US.

They are, for the most part, very minor crimes — things like parking violations.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse