Being lied to about age not defense in sex crime cases, why?
If you try to meet a person who you believe is a minor (such as through the internet), to have sex but they turn out to be a cop, that is a crime. I don't oppose this practice, along as the police aren't the ones making the first move or entrapping someone into a crime that they wouldn't have committed in the first place. Along as it targets actual people who would have committed the crime, than I am fine with that.
After all, the actions go to intent. Did you intend to have sex with someone not of age. But, if you didn't intend to have sex with someone under age, but you do and didn't know she or he was under the legal age at that time, your ignorance of the law in most states can't be used as a defense! Unfortunately, this goes also for Wisconsin law.
Indeed, in a case out of Seattle, a pimp trying to prostitute two undercover police officers who he believed to be underage, was convicted of child prostitution. So in that case, it is intent that matters and not actual age, but it can't be used as a defense if accused of sex with a minor. Amazing
Yes, the government has stated that defendants accused of a crime of having sexual relations with a minor cannot state they thought or believed or were even told by the girl or boy, that they were 18 or older, when they weren't. So, even if someone who was 16 told you she, or he, was 18 and produced a fake I.D., you are barred by a matter of law from using that as a defense. That is simply and completely absurd and frankly, stupid.
The purpose of these laws are to punish those who violate the law and intend to violate the law. If their belief was that the other person was not a minor than it is pointless to prosecute them. Because the law is supposed to be crafted to punish someone who harms another person. Indeed, for virtually all things to be a crime, there must be some showing of intent. If there is no intent to commit a crime and there is actual evidence that the person went out of their way to ensure they didn't commit a crime, it is absurd to bar that evidence.
Indeed, this is what got former NFL star Lawrence Taylor, that the sex worker he had hired was under age, though he didn't believe it so. Of course, when prostitution is illegal and not regulated, the underground black market will exploit underage girls.
This would be like barring someone from using as a defense of their robbing a bank, the fact that their mother or brother was threatened with being shot if the person didn't commit the bank robbery. That is something I would want to know as a juror, and that a person had a reasonable belief (and especially saw evidence) that the other person was in fact of age, would be something I would also want to know as a juror.
If not, than the law is idiotic. Yes, the law can be idiotic and unjust. In fact, I would recommend to anyone on trial and barred from using this defense, to state it in open court while testifying. Barred or not, you than can't erase a juror's memory. Why does the government want jurors stupid and ignorant anyway? This is a waste of money.
Every year throughout the U.S. we are locking up people who aren't a threat or who do not harm other people. It is unreasonable and irrational for someone to be required to know the exact age of their sexual partner, even if that person is lying. A 17 year old might like 25 in some cases. Effectively that makes it dangerous to have consensual sex with anyone who might look, under 30.