S21.E09: Can't Be Held Accountable

[wanderingstar]

I see Vincent Kartheiser still plays the sleaze exceptionally well. :::shudder:::

Why do I feel like Hadid will be revealed as a full-on villain in the concluding episode?

I was pleased to see Nick Turturro was in the episode. But then the episode continued, and well...

I dunno, the whole episode felt a bit ramshackle to me.

[kicotan]

53 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

The comment about abortion was simply to further troll the audience.

Exactly.

The cliff-hangers to lure viewers back after the holidays must inspire the writers to break out their most controversial dialogue-reality be damned.

I was actually surprised they bent reality so far that not one social service representative was called upon to investigate the father’s initial complaint about his daughter’s involvement with the “modeling”. Nope, just frustrated handwringing that nothing could be done without a complaining witness except to follow the UC Kat down her rabbit hole.

My head hurts from rolling my eyes so much during this episode.

[CrystalBlue]

How did Mrs. Bucci get out of rehab in time to escort the two girls to Not Epstein's victory party?  Ivy had to have called her mother and somehow the mother was free to leave.  Although Ivy started out as innocent, how could she want the same thing for her little sister?

I wonder if Not Epstein was paying the "models" in cash, which would bypass any work permits and records of minors being in his employ.  The Griselle/Granya Girlfriend had lots of cash to hand out.

[dttruman]

15 hours ago, preeya said:

"MESS" is putting it mildly. Nick Turturro should be ashamed of himself. After playing stand up cops Martinez (NYPD Blue) & Renzulli (Blue Bloods) he takes on a role as Bucci that is so foolish. The show runners and writers need to take a long hard look in the mirror because with this "Epstein case" they have failed miserably. 

I don't think we can blame Turturro for this. He probably took this role to test his range as an actor. It didn't turn out so well, but I want to put more blame on the premise and then the dialogue. They had the character behaving so inconsistently

[dttruman]

14 hours ago, Gillian Rosh said:

I dunno, the whole episode felt a bit ramshackle to me.

13 hours ago, kicotan said:

I was actually surprised they bent reality so far that not one social service representative was called upon to investigate the father’s initial complaint about his daughter’s involvement with the “modeling”. Nope, just frustrated handwringing that nothing could be done without a complaining witness except to follow the UC Kat down her rabbit hole.

My head hurts from rolling my eyes so much during this episode.

Why is it we can see the obvious deficiencies in the premise and the flow of the action, yet some of SVU's dedicated fans just love it and over praises some of the actors that is mediocre at best?

[MamaMax]

19 hours ago, dttruman said:

I guess we have to accept the fact that the father is a little distraught and it's not his fault that he is making an unwise decision. Yeah, everybody is going to buy that subplot premise. It's not like we haven't seen anything like that before.

It would have been 1000% more believable that he, as a retired detective, would realize that there was no chance of this uber-rich guy being held responsible, and shooting him. Then claiming "extreme emotional disturbance" and hoping the jury would pretty much hate the pedo so much that they nullify. I mean, I think I've heard of that before. Like on a Law & Order episode. 

8 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

How did Mrs. Bucci get out of rehab in time to escort the two girls to Not Epstein's victory party?  Ivy had to have called her mother and somehow the mother was free to leave.  Although Ivy started out as innocent, how could she want the same thing for her little sister?

I wonder if Not Epstein was paying the "models" in cash, which would bypass any work permits and records of minors being in his employ.  The Griselle/Granya Girlfriend had lots of cash to hand out.

I did start to wonder though, is Detective Nick really a stand-up guy? They made the mom such a mess, and we are supposed to believe he is a good guy cuz he's a cop and not in rehab? Maybe those 2 girls have been living in a super dysfunctional home since forever? And this turn of events is related to that? Would explain Ivy's willingness to throw her little sis into the mix. 

[SarahPrtr]

3 minutes ago, MamaMax said:

It would have been 1000% more believable that he, as a retired detective, would realize that there was no chance of this uber-rich guy being held responsible, and shooting him. Then claiming "extreme emotional disturbance" and hoping the jury would pretty much hate the pedo so much that they nullify. I mean, I think I've heard of that before. Like on a Law & Order episode. 

I did start to wonder though, is Detective Nick really a stand-up guy? They made the mom such a mess, and we are supposed to believe he is a good guy cuz he's a cop and not in rehab? Maybe those 2 girls have been living in a super dysfunctional home since forever? And this turn of events is related to that? Would explain Ivy's willingness to throw her little sis into the mix. 

^^^^ Everything you said.

Btw, is your screen name from an episode of Veronica Mars? 

[preeya]

5 hours ago, SarahPrtr said:

It would have been 1000% more believable that he, as a retired detective, would realize that there was no chance of this uber-rich guy being held responsible, and shooting him. Then claiming "extreme emotional disturbance" and hoping the jury would pretty much hate the pedo so much that they nullify. I mean, I think I've heard of that before. Like on a Law & Order episode. 

Yes, this ↑ but that would have eliminated the Not Epstein suicide scene, which IRL has been disputed [by forensic experts] as an unlikely event.

They should have had Bucci ordering/paying for a hit on Not Epstein while in his cell. That would/could have been more realistic and likely closer to the real truth.

[HunterHunted]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:56 AM, CrystalBlue said:

How did Mrs. Bucci get out of rehab in time to escort the two girls to Not Epstein's victory party?  Ivy had to have called her mother and somehow the mother was free to leave.  Although Ivy started out as innocent, how could she want the same thing for her little sister?

We know from the younger sister that Ivy was keeping the mom updated about the everything that was happening. Unless it's court-ordered and it rarely is, rehab is voluntary and mom is free to leave when she wants to. The reason it's not often court-ordered is because the outcomes are terrible. By court-ordered I mean a choice of jail or rehab. It often feels like the same thing to an addict. Court-ordered to get custody of one's children back is a different story. 

On 11/23/2019 at 3:56 AM, CrystalBlue said:

I wonder if Not Epstein was paying the "models" in cash, which would bypass any work permits and records of minors being in his employ.  The Griselle/Granya Girlfriend had lots of cash to hand out.

Cash only solves part of the problem. And actually it doesn't solve the problem at all. He owns and runs a business that employs people. It's known he employs these models. His company has advertising campaigns and takes in revenue. He has to create fake employees and launder the money going to the models. He doesn't even have the sense God gave the mafia or Jeffrey Epstein to at least put a real buffer in between himself and the illegal activity.

[Iguessnot]

On 11/22/2019 at 9:19 PM, txhorns79 said:

It's the end of November sweeps.  The stations start airing new episodes in January to help goose the ratings for February sweeps. 

I think the argument being made was that because he pled guilty to a lesser, included charge, double jeopardy attached to the bigger charges and he cannot be tried again.  The reality is that no New York City Judge who wanted to stay on the bench would say those kind of things in open court about a 15 year old rape victim in the middle of what appeared to be a very prominent case.  The backlash would be severe.  The comment about abortion was simply to further troll the audience.

And yes, if one party in a case is seeking to recuse a Judge, there's no way that happens without the other party's knowledge.   You don't just show up at Court and find that a Judge has been recused.  

Finally, I don't even begin to understand the bonkers logic of taking Amanda and her shrink hostage as a way to try and get at Pete Campbell.      

How did the prosecution not know about the change but Bucci and his family knew?

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Cash only solves part of the problem. And actually it doesn't solve the problem at all. He owns and runs a business that employs people. It's known he employs these models. His company has advertising campaigns and takes in revenue. He has to create fake employees and launder the money going to the models. He doesn't even have the sense God gave the mafia or Jeffrey Epstein to at least put a real buffer in between himself and the illegal activity.

I wonder how many (or the percentage) of the models were actually on the books and how many were paid under the table, or maybe a combination of both for each model? This maybe left unknown or maybe explained in the next episode.

I wonder how easy it might be to pay the models under the table? Easier or harder than paying college athletes under the table?

[dttruman]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:25 PM, Iguessnot said:

How did the prosecution not know about the change but Bucci and his family knew?

Yes, it would seem like they should get some kind of prior notice, since they were expecting everybody else to be there. One thing I don't understand is, why the new judge let Bucci make an impact statement, since he made it painfully clear that he was blaming the underage girls instead of Getz? I hope in the next episode this judge gets taken down too!

As for Bucci and family appearing to know about the change of judges, I don't think they did. The writers (and producers) more or less jumped the time frame ahead to the point of the supposed sentencing. Everybody was on the same page at that point.

Edited November 26, 2019 by dttruman
Added a second paragraph

[dttruman]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:57 AM, HunterHunted said:

What Kat did was incredibly stupid. Kat was the first person to talk about payment to ignore what Getz was doing. Dumb. It's a thing we call entrapment and it taints EVERYTHING else you find after it and makes that evidence inadmissible. So bravo Kat. However, the stupidity standing ovation goes to Fin and Olivia who scolded Kat, but still tried to go along with this scheme. Getz could have been raping toddlers and there wouldn't have been shit they could do other than rush in to get the children, but he couldn't have been prosecuted for any of it.

When would Getz and his attorney get to see the video, when the charges are filed? Then they would say it's "entrapment", right? Were the writers thinking that SVU wouldn't use that for prosecution, but would keep digging with more undercover and wait for something more serious to come up with? I am trying to figure out their logic, but it seems like it all falls back to what HunterHunted said that it's all tainted and inadmissible.

Edited November 26, 2019 by dttruman

[Xeliou66]

The writing for the legal stuff on SVU has just become incredibly poor. Like others said, the prosecutors would be notified about the judge recuse herself, that would be discussed in chambers with both the prosecutors and the defense, remember on the Mothership whenever one side would ask a judge to recuse themselves, they would discuss it in chambers. The current writers obviously don’t like writing legal/court stuff, and it shows, because the writing for it is full of holes. It makes me question why they made Carisi an ADA if they don’t like writing legal stuff, while I like seeing Carisi with more authority and all, it bugs me how poorly the legal stuff is usually done and it seems like a waste of Carisi. 

[wknt3]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The writing for the legal stuff on SVU has just become incredibly poor. Like others said, the prosecutors would be notified about the judge recuse herself, that would be discussed in chambers with both the prosecutors and the defense, remember on the Mothership whenever one side would ask a judge to recuse themselves, they would discuss it in chambers. The current writers obviously don’t like writing legal/court stuff, and it shows, because the writing for it is full of holes. It makes me question why they made Carisi an ADA if they don’t like writing legal stuff, while I like seeing Carisi with more authority and all, it bugs me how poorly the legal stuff is usually done and it seems like a waste of Carisi. 

I think the move was because that Leight realized that they needed to do something to shake up the squad dynamics and bring in somebody new as astute viewers such as the ones on this forum had been saying for a couple years now. This was a way to do that and open up some new story possibilities (which was also badly needed) without spending any more money and with an escape hatch if it didn't work out since they could always have Carisi go back to being a detective if necessary. You would hope that having one of "his" characters as ADA would overcome WL's lack of interest in the legal side and encourage the writers to up their game a bit like it seemed to happen with Barba at least for some time, but that hasn't seemed to be the case.

[dttruman]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

The current writers obviously don’t like writing legal/court stuff, and it shows, because the writing for it is full of holes. It makes me question why they made Carisi an ADA if they don’t like writing legal stuff, while I like seeing Carisi with more authority and all, it bugs me how poorly the legal stuff is usually done and it seems like a waste of Carisi. 

I wonder if Carisi could set a L & O record by having all his cases pleaded out? It sure would cut down on all the extras they would need for the courtroom gallery and the jury.

[preeya]

2 hours ago, dttruman said:

I wonder if Carisi could set a L & O record by having all his cases pleaded out? It sure would cut down on all the extras they would need for the courtroom gallery and the jury.

Carisi has a short fuse, I'd like to see his presence in a courtroom.

[HunterHunted]

On 11/24/2019 at 4:04 PM, dttruman said:

I wonder how many (or the percentage) of the models were actually on the books and how many were paid under the table, or maybe a combination of both for each model? This maybe left unknown or maybe explained in the next episode.

I wonder how easy it might be to pay the models under the table? Easier or harder than paying college athletes under the table?

Payment in the modeling industry is a mess. Girls are sometimes paid in clothes. It's sometimes so late and so little that being a model ends up like being smuggled by coyote. A model can find herself working just to repay her agency for her pictures, book, and apartment. This is what made me so irritated by the choice to make Getz employ the girls directly. Being a customer of an agency provides him a level of protection that being a direct employer does not.

Paying college athletes under the table is harder because it's still completely ok to not pay models anything or pay them in a dress. Like the dress she just walked in. "It will be 6 months before I get you that $100 I promised to pay you, but here's a dress. It's about $15 of fabric. Hope it helps keep the lights on." This is true of big brands too.

[dttruman]

6 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Paying college athletes under the table is harder because it's still completely ok to not pay models anything or pay them in a dress. Like the dress she just walked in. "It will be 6 months before I get you that $100 I promised to pay you, but here's a dress. It's about $15 of fabric. Hope it helps keep the lights on." This is true of big brands too.

I feel sorry for the models. With college athletes I was told by one that it's more legitimate now, but still kind of outrageous. He would go to a car dealer (a booster)  and for $10/hr, he would paint a small wall and this was back in 1985. He was told to take his time and milk it. He said those who got $5000 in an envelope were greedy idiots and would get busted sooner or later. More sooner than later.

[SarahPrtr]

On 11/27/2019 at 6:10 AM, Xeliou66 said:

The writing for the legal stuff on SVU has just become incredibly poor. The current writers obviously don’t like writing legal/court stuff, and it shows, because the writing for it is full of holes.

I was watching an earlier season of LO and it had a LOT of courtroom stuff in it.  One of the closing arguments by McCoy was almost 5 minutes long, which is a long time for an episode.  There's been very little courtroom stuff for a long time.  I miss the days of SVU where there were regular characters with designated positions doing their jobs for each case.

On 11/27/2019 at 9:25 AM, wknt3 said:

I think the move was because that Leight realized that they needed to do something to shake up the squad dynamics and bring in somebody new as astute viewers such as the ones on this forum had been saying for a couple years now.

Remember when Peter Scanavino started on SVU, he said that Carisi is unpolished and he's there to shake things up a bit, but he didn't really do that?  I think he's doing more of that now, than back when he was starting in SVU.

On the upside, PS got to play a character with two different roles within the same show, so that's good for his acting experience.

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, SarahPrtr said:

I was watching an earlier season of LO and it had a LOT of courtroom stuff in it.  One of the closing arguments by McCoy was almost 5 minutes long, which is a long time for an episode.  There's been very little courtroom stuff for a long time.  I miss the days of SVU where there were regular characters with designated positions doing their jobs for each case.

When they do those closing argument scenes, it makes me wonder if they are doing the actor a favor by letting him (or her) ham it up for a few minutes? Or if they have a couple of minutes left, do they throw in an emergency closing argument just to kill the rest of the time?

On LO, I remember them doing that at first. IMO, it was OK, but then it became a little tiresome and I wonder if that is why they started to cutback on the summations. I am not trying to be overly critical, but it just seem to be kind of uninteresting.

Edited November 28, 2019 by dttruman

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, SarahPrtr said:

Remember when Peter Scanavino started on SVU, he said that Carisi is unpolished and he's there to shake things up a bit, but he didn't really do that?  I think he's doing more of that now, than back when he was starting in SVU.

On the upside, PS got to play a character with two different roles within the same show, so that's good for his acting experience.

I think they wanted to add another character, but apparently it kind of conflicted with the Benson and Rollins characters when it came to how much camera time and dialogue each got. Since they were the senior characters and Hargitay was an executive producer, we knew he wasn't to get that much time. But now he'll get to argue with them at his current position, so that means more dialogue and face time. It just depends how they will portray him now, as spineless jellyfish or a no nonsense ADA?

[spunky]

Rollins is SVU’s equivalent to Natalie on Chicago Med, she’s unethical in almost every way and hypocritically judges others. She’s the absolute last person who should lecture Kat. Kat is over zealous and trying to prove herself to saint Olivia, hence her pushing to get the win. It would’ve made more sense for Frank to go after Kat since he kept blaming her for the case not going as planned. But then we wouldn’t get the Rollins is in danger “angst”. Frank is total idiot who somehow made it to detective. Those poor girls have an unhinged father and a mother who is willing to pimp them out. I loved Carisi telling SVU to figure it out. They act like he’s supposed to do their jobs while simultaneously being the ADA.

[incandescent]

LMAO at Rollins harping on Kat for going with her gut as if Rollins' gut didn't tell her to  take a hit of DMT (or whatever was in that pipe) last week. As if SVU doesn't have a long and storied history of senior detectives making terrible decisions on the fly to go undercover for investigations.

[dttruman]

4 hours ago, spunky said:

Rollins is SVU’s equivalent to Natalie on Chicago Med, she’s unethical in almost every way and hypocritically judges others. She’s the absolute last person who should lecture Kat. Kat is over zealous and trying to prove herself to saint Olivia, hence her pushing to get the win. It would’ve made more sense for Frank to go after Kat since he kept blaming her for the case not going as planned. But then we wouldn’t get the Rollins is in danger “angst”. Frank is total idiot who somehow made it to detective. Those poor girls have an unhinged father and a mother who is willing to pimp them out. I loved Carisi telling SVU to figure it out. They act like he’s supposed to do their jobs while simultaneously being the ADA.

4 hours ago, incandescent said:

LMAO at Rollins harping on Kat for going with her gut as if Rollins' gut didn't tell her to  take a hit of DMT (or whatever was in that pipe) last week. As if SVU doesn't have a long and storied history of senior detectives making terrible decisions on the fly to go undercover for investigations.

These two comments along with a couple of others point out so well the major problems of Rollins. I don't exactly know who should be criticized the most, the character Rollins herself for being so unlikable or the writers and producers for being so nonprofessional and inconsistent when trying  to develop a character.

[spunky]

2 hours ago, dttruman said:

These two comments along with a couple of others point out so well the major problems of Rollins. I don't exactly know who should be criticized the most, the character Rollins herself for being so unlikable or the writers and producers for being so nonprofessional and inconsistent when trying  to develop a character.

My vote is for the writers and producers. They make the characters and the show unrealistic.

[incandescent]

ALSO they gave literally zero explanation as to what motivated those girls to get on that boat???? The little one was clearly not under this man's spell, seeing as she called her dad to take her home on day one of exposure to the model/escort lifestyle, and my interpretation was that the older sister had snapped out of it upon seeing her father have a near-breakdown during which he repeatedly demanded his gun. Sure, they explained how Bad Guy Billionaire played things so he could legally have access to them again, but unless their mother had a gun to their back and the SVU cops missed them blinking SOS in Morse Code, it made no sense whatsoever (and not in a "traumatized people do unpredictable things" way, in a "I guess minor characters will just do what the plot line dictates with no regard to prior characterization because the writers dgaf" way) for both of them to accept the party invitation— so immediately that they're both still in their courtroom outfits— an actually attend.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, incandescent said:

because the writers dgaf"

Well put!

I just have one simple request and a little piece of advise for the writers and producers of SVU, do your homework and don't skimp on the money.

[spunky]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:55 AM, dttruman said:

I wonder how many will be hoping she survives this ordeal and how many will be hoping she doesn't?

I wonder how many of us don't care?

[HunterHunted]

On 11/28/2019 at 5:51 AM, dttruman said:

When they do those closing argument scenes, it makes me wonder if they are doing the actor a favor by letting him (or her) ham it up for a few minutes? Or if they have a couple of minutes left, do they throw in an emergency closing argument just to kill the rest of the time?

On LO, I remember them doing that at first. IMO, it was OK, but then it became a little tiresome and I wonder if that is why they started to cutback on the summations. I am not trying to be overly critical, but it just seem to be kind of uninteresting.

An actor always wants dialogue. If there's long monologue allowing an actor to go nuts, it's a gift.

Back before people streamed everything, I used to be a huge commentary nut. I would listen to the commentary tracks for anything. Standouts were Schwarzenegger on Total Recall (he narrates the movie "Now I punch this guy. Then I run. Then I shoot this guy."), Ben Affleck on Armageddon, Blade 3 (all of the principals had stopped speaking to each other so there are 3 tracks, Blade 1 might have been that way too), and Underworld (just all around solid peek into filmmaking). Anyway, the track for the episode of the Sopranos where Dr. Melfi gets raped was unofficially titled "Lorraine Wants an Emmy." Lorraine Bracco was complaining that there were always good reviews of her performance on the show, but she felt her scenes were too brief to get awards consideration. So they decided to give her something big and meaty to work with. Monologues are for actors to shine. Middle distance staring and whispered promises are if an episode runs short AND Mariska's ego.

[wknt3]

7 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

An actor always wants dialogue. If there's long monologue allowing an actor to go nuts, it's a gift.

An actor almost always wants dialogue. There are a few out there that are comfortable enough with themsleves, their ability, and their place in the world that don't feel the burning desire to talk more. A great example is Steven Hill from the mothership. I remember an interview with one of the directors/producers who was amazed that he would suggest cutting his lines if he thought they weren't needed and just react. He was amazed because Hill was usually right and because actors never say "I can do less". The only SVU cast member I could see doing that is Ice-T not because he is the master Hill was, but because it means less time on set and more time for other projects...

 

Quote

Monologues are for actors to shine. Middle distance staring and whispered promises are if an episode runs short AND Mariska's ego.

I would say mostly the latter given the number of episodes where we had lots of whispering and staring and someone here later posted a deleted scene that resolved a dangling plot line or filled a gaping story hole.

[Joe Hellandback]

1. How many times are we going to have the same variation of Epstein/Weinstein (the latter looking like he's going to get off considering the latest victim admits to having a consensual relationship with him AFTER he allegedly raped her? And that she manipulated him?).

2. Why do they have to make the villains so ARCH? The bathroom confrontation scene is ridiculous? Just once I'd like the rich villain to be Tom Hanks.

3. How come Rollins doesn't want to take her kids to her dad's wedding? Hardly seems a tough request? 

4. Then again when she was taken hostage I realised if we had to have a team member killed I'd be perfectly happy for it to be her (Benson could adopt her kids and retire from the NYPD to raise her family).

5. Kat once again plays the wild rover but to be fair without her efforts they'd have had nothing?

6. If the girl had fake ID how is this a crime at all? I get it if she is obviously too young but if she deceived him? The Trainspotting moment? 

7. Vincet Karthesiser (or however you spell it?), yay! Totally unrecognisable from his Angel days, I wouldn't have know him if his name wasn't in the titles. 

8. Carisi and Fin once again at odds and I like it, break the groupthink.

9. Hadid was interesting this week, seemingly on side then turning on Carisi which I think is very human. Her criticisms of the SVU were very valid and even Benson seemed to accept that.

10. Some good acting from Nicholas Turturro in his freak out.

11.  So the girls after everything that happens go back to the villain? Just so he can have his Mwu-ha-ha moment?

12. Are we having a fake out? Does the villain not really die? Does his attempt fail? 

7/10

On 11/24/2019 at 5:25 PM, Iguessnot said:

How did the prosecution not know about the change but Bucci and his family knew?

Because it wouldn't have had the same drama?

[Joe Hellandback]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:04 AM, ams1001 said:

So....the judge thinks a 15 year old should be able to choose to have sex with adult men for money...so the actual law doesn't matter?

No, he is punished for underage prostitution it but purely by time served, her fake ID a mitigating factor. 

On 11/22/2019 at 5:57 AM, HunterHunted said:

What Kat did was incredibly stupid. Kat was the first person to talk about payment to ignore what Getz was doing. Dumb. It's a thing we call entrapment and it taints EVERYTHING else you find after it and makes that evidence inadmissible. So bravo Kat. However, the stupidity standing ovation goes to Fin and Olivia who scolded Kat, but still tried to go along with this scheme. Getz could have been raping toddlers and there wouldn't have been shit they could do other than rush in to get the children, but he couldn't have been prosecuted for any of it.

Hey Triple Threat Dad (he's not just a dad; he's a retired police detective AND a kidnapper), kids under 18 need work permits to model in New York. Inform SVU of what is happening. Neither your 15 nor 12 year have a work permits. Pester the New York Bureau of Labor so that Getz' company will ghost the girls because they're unnecessary headaches. And the company doesn't need audits of their books and records.

https://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/secure/ChildModelFAQs.shtm

Both sides would know that she had a fake ID. But as Carisi said, it's not an available defense for sexual contact with minors. It might be a defense for violating child labor laws. However, an actual employer would figure it out because her social and birth date wouldn't match when they had to withhold her earnings for taxes.

I disagree, if she had convincing ID it IS a valid defence

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

I disagree, if she had convincing ID it IS a valid defence

Not in Pennsylvania where I took the bar. Granted it might have changed in the past 15 years as I don't practice criminal law, but it wasn't then.

[Joe Hellandback]

9 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Not in Pennsylvania where I took the bar. Granted it might have changed in the past 15 years as I don't practice criminal law, but it wasn't then.

Circumstances depending, we had a stated case in the UK of a 20 year old man who had sex with an 11 year old but an 11 year old whom he met in a nightclub, the onus for the prosecution is to prove that the defendant would realistically been expected to know that they were underage.  

[balmz]

Just now, Joe Hellandback said:

Circumstances depending, we had a stated case in the UK of a 20 year old man who had sex with an 11 year old but an 11 year old whom he met in a nightclub, the onus for the prosecution is to prove that the defendant would realistically been expected to know that they were underage.  

what the hell kind of nightclub is that? are alcohol laws and entertainment laws much different in the uk then in the usa?

[Joe Hellandback]

7 minutes ago, balmz said:

what the hell kind of nightclub is that? are alcohol laws and entertainment laws much different in the uk then in the usa?

Yes, 18 is the drinking age in Britain. Girls can easily make themselves seem much older, Mila Kunis fooled the producers of That 70s Show that she was 18 when she was actually only 14 when she started the series. 

[dttruman]

20 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Not in Pennsylvania where I took the bar. Granted it might have changed in the past 15 years as I don't practice criminal law, but it wasn't then.

 

10 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

Circumstances depending, we had a stated case in the UK of a 20 year old man who had sex with an 11 year old but an 11 year old whom he met in a nightclub, the onus for the prosecution is to prove that the defendant would realistically been expected to know that they were underage.  

In America a while back, a famous retired football player had sex with an underage (16) prostitute. That was Lawrence Taylor and I think, he pled out, but his famous defense line was "I didn't card her".

It seems like it would be tough to prosecute a guy for this unless you got them in a sting or you got the prostitute and the pimp to testify.

[CrystalBlue]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:33 AM, dttruman said:

 

In America a while back, a famous retired football player had sex with an underage (16) prostitute. That was Lawrence Taylor and I think, he pled out, but his famous defense line was "I didn't card her".

It seems like it would be tough to prosecute a guy for this unless you got them in a sting or you got the prostitute and the pimp to testify.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  This includes taking a minor's word for them being of legal age.  Getting fooled can be a mitigating circumstance in a defendant's favor, but if you deal in that sort of thing, it's on you.  That's why they're called jailbait.

[Joe Hellandback]

18 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  This includes taking a minor's word for them being of legal age.  Getting fooled can be a mitigating circumstance in a defendant's favor, but if you deal in that sort of thing, it's on you.  That's why they're called jailbait.

Again, depends on the circumstances, Traci Lords started making porn at 15 because she fooled everyone with a phony passport. If the person has convincing ID or you encounter them in an environment where everyone is supposed to be of age then you have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and it's certainly not in the public interest to prosecute. Nothing wrong with being an ephebophile no matter what age you are, it's only when you are a hebophile things get awkward.