To be clear, you wouldn't be charged with a crime for the sex, but blackmail is a crime in many jurisdictions. It is often a felony to attempt blackmail even when the blackmail is reporting a 'actual' crime.
Really? If someone used blackmail against Osama Bin Laden and decided to turn them into the US military, the US military wouldn't punish them. Same thing if someone used blackmail on Jeffery Epstein or any pedophile that has sex with kids.
If you want the blackmail to lose it's power, legalize the thing that is giving the blackmail the power because of that thing being illegal (and felonious).
Of course minors often get away with things adults can't, but the window of opportunity is very small if you only receive payments for 1-2 years as a minor.
The law is the law and should be enforced 100% while it is the law (and I think bad laws should get changed). If you don't like it, change it. It's not set in stone. But the law says the 17 year old female in this situation is the victim, while the 25 year old that got tricked is the predator.
If you don't like the law, change the law (or advocate for the law to be changed). In this situation, it means either advocating for at least one of the following:
- repealing age of consent laws entirely
- For women who claim to be 18 or older while 17 or younger and have sex with a 25 year old guy that thinks they are 18 or older to not get treated as a child in that situation (meaning the guy who had sex with her legally wouldn't be liable for child rape, so the 17 year old female loses her blackmail power).
Blackmail for the sake of the law should be 100% legal and if the thing that is being used for blackmail shouldn't be illegal, then the law should change to legalize the thing that is currently illegal.
One of the reasons bars are locations to hit on people is because it would be illegal for minors to be drinking.
You can really do this anywhere; it doesn't have to be a bar. An 18 year old passing 17 year old female can literally look like a prostitute and some guy asks her her age, she says 18, she forges a driver's license as "proof", illegal sex happens, and the jury is going to have to decide whether to allow at least some pedophilia or for a deceived guy to face charges for child rape. Either the law should be upheld 100% of the time on a particular issue or it should be changed.
Most people can see through a fair amount of BS if you focus their attention for longer than 5 minutes (such as in court).
The whole country would know the court case and the whole country's opinion would change at the same rate about as the jury.
The question is not whether they support pedophilia but whether they are so blinded by outrage as to recognize the difference between pedophilia and a young woman committing the crime of blackmail.
The female would be a child legally speaking. To claim the 25 year old dude should be innocent would be the same as making some exceptions for generic adults having sex with younger people (like if the young person said they are a legal age, and not every 17-18 year old has a driver's license as proof. Like I knew a 20 year old college kid that didn't have a license; probably the majority of Manhattan's population doesn't have driver's licenses). There should be an exception made if you want to spare the man in this situation.
Behind closed doors (like in a jury) and forced to focus for hours, most would be a bit more rational and it only takes one.
The jury is going to be part of the public. With court cases where virtually everybody is going to pick the same side (State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin), we know how the court case will turn out; everyone was against Chavin. Although if Chavin gets convicted, Qualified immunity should be repealed in that state; because they repealed it for Dereck Chavin. Otherwise, the standard is inconsistent. For other cases (Kyle Rittenhouse), the public wasn't as unified, so his fate could have gone either way.
Whether the man in this situation is more like Rittenhouse or Chavin is determined by how the public reacts, and how the public reacts will largely be determined by if they have the parties backing them.
If the democrat and republican media pick the same side, society will follow that side.
If the democrat media sides with the man (criminal justice reform) and the republican media sides with the girl (law and order), the democrats (and the democratic leaning "independents") will follow their party. The same will be true for the republicans (and the republican leaning "independents").
If the democrat media sides with the woman (feminism) and the republican media sides with the man (Men's rights activism), the democrats (and the democratic leaning "independents") will follow their party. The same will be true for the republicans (and the republican leaning "independents").
I don't know which party would pick what side, but I am fairly confident that I would pick the Man's side no matter which party backs which side (unless both parties pick the woman's side, then I will kind of have to keep those opinions to myself). I support an unconditional age of consent at 16; if a 16 year old can consent to sex with a 17 year old (the law in most US states), they are mentally capable enough to consent to sex with anyone of any age.
Pedophilia isn't a crime
Acting on pedophillia is a crime. You can prefer it to not be a crime. But it would be like a pro choice Texan saying abortion isn't a crime in her state. It is a crime in Texas, and it would be more accurate if you said, "Abortion is a crime in Texas, but it shouldn't be" if it's what you believe.
You would say, "Pedophillia is a crime, but it shouldn't be" if it's what you believe.
be upfront with it if it's what you believe.
Says the pro-pain absolutist... I wasn't convinced by your denial. (lol)
Why? How is all of the bullet points I mentioned then even arguably an endorsement of pain?
