Can an adult sue someone who violated them as a child? If a 10 year old was violated by two adults around 18 years old then can the victim sue 23 years later? What is the process? Would it, for example, make any difference if the victim is from, say, Morocco now living in France and one of the alleged offenders is in Italy?
That is happening all the time. Accusations of historic child abuse are often made, often investigated, and often punished. Where the victim is from doesn't make a difference in most countries. Most crimes are prosecuted in the country where they happen. Some crimes, especially sexual abuse of children, will often also be prosecuted in the country that the offender is a citizen of, especially if the country where it happened is hesitant to prosecute. In your example, if the abuse happened in Switzerland, Switzerland will try to get the offender extradited from Italy, and will ask witnesses to come to Switzerland to make statements in court. Italy might prosecute the alleged offender if he is Italian, they might even prosecute an Italian resident, but I don't know their laws.
The statute of limitations 775.15(13) extends the period, tolling from the victims 18th birthday per (a), or, without limitation under (c) If the offense is a violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 16 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before July 1, 2010. Subsection 2 states the general limitations, which are severity-related: (a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed. (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed. (c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed. (d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed. A death-penalty or life-imprisonment offense has no time limit, and some forms of sexual battery do carry those penalties, but not the situation described. There is also a provision (16(a)) for prosecution at any time after the date on which the identity of the accused is established, or should have been established by the exercise of due diligence, through the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, if a sufficient portion of the evidence collected at the time of the original investigation and tested for DNA is preserved and available for testing by the accused which we may assume is not applicable in the instant case. We may assume from the description that the violation took place before 2003, and the longest limit (for a first degree felony) is 4 years i.e. 2006. However, subsection (b) states a different complicating factor: If the offense is a first degree felony violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before October 1, 2003. In other words, if it is a first degree felony, then it can be prosecuted anytime (given the presumption that the violation was not before about 1999, which seems to be what you're describing). The age of the parties at the time matters, so I assume the minor was under 16 but above 12, and the adult was over 24. Florida Code 794.011 subsumes all forms of sexual battery, and different sections assign punishments (including death) and degree of felony. Subsection (5) defines the possibly-applicable second-degree felony sexual battery charges, which either involve a victim 18 and over, or a perpetrator under 18, which we assume is not the case here. Under (5)(a): (a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age, without that person’s consent, and in the process does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115. It should be mentioned that a minor is legally deemed incapable of giving consent, thus the "without consent" part is true. There is a further wrinkle in the law: (8) Without regard to the willingness or consent of the victim, which is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection, a person who is in a position of familial or custodial authority to a person less than 18 years of age and who: ... (b) Engages in any act with that person while the person is 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age which constitutes sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable by a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. If a teacher is "in a position of custodial authority", then that also applies (and constitutes a life felony). This all said, the opinion of the internet seems to be that the limit is 4 years. Either I'm missing something else, or the specifics of the case matter: first degree violation, took place around 2001 which put it within the SOL on October 1, 2003.
The definitive answer to the question "could I be charged" is always YES. I refer you to the Manassas City teen charged with child pornography. Child pornography laws were put in place to protect children and prevent them from being exploited by having sexual pictures of them taken and distributed. In this case, the picture in question is of the young man’s own genitals, which would make him both the perpetrator and the victim. Apparently the lead detective in the Manassas City teen's case was himself a pedophile and just wanted an excuse to use force to photograph the teen's erect penis. Why would you assume this "girl" is a "17 year old girl" or a "15 year old girl" and not a 39 year old pedophile Manassas police officer?
Whether or not one holds the opinion that the adult morally should be prosecuted, there are only two legal questions – can the adult be prosecuted, and must the adult be prosecuted? The easiest question to answer is the &quot;must&quot; one – prosecution by the government is always discretionary. It is settled law that the government can decline to prosecute a crime. The decision to prosecute is entirely political. It seems likely that the government can prosecute, if they conclude that the action was not legally justified under §418 of the Crimes Act 1900, as defense of another against a criminal assault. The government won't prosecute if they conclude that such a defense is likely to succeed.
There is a defense of provocation This doesn’t apply in this instance because the provocation must be such that it would case a reasonable person to lose control. No reasonable person shoots a six year old.
Affirmative defenses generally have a subjective or objective factual test for the jury to consider. In this case, the test may be something along the lines of &quot;Given the totality of the circumstances, did the defendant take objectively reasonable precautions to make sure the victim was not underage, or would the defendant in particular have any additional reason to believe the victim was underage despite their precautions.&quot; So to answer the original question more specifically, a person could still be guilty of the rape even if the victim took steps to try to trick them if the jury is unconvinced that the defendant acted objectively or subjectively reasonably (depending on the local statutes). A prosecutor could show the jury the fake ID card, for example, and argue that it is obviously fake, or argue that there are other factors that should have led to the defendant knowing that the person was underage - for example, because the defendant has met the victim before and would have known their approximate age.
Etiquette is not &quot;above&quot; the law in the sense that an etiquette rule excuses a violation of law. However, at least in the US, the police are not required to investigate every alleged violation of law, nor is a prosecutor required to proceed against every lawbreaker, and the decision to proceed may be influenced by a perceived etiquette violation. It should also be mentioned that while a third person has no right to prevent you form talking to anyone who is willing to talk to you (unless the 3rd person is the parent of guardian of an underage person you wish to address), it is not in any way illegal to instruct you not to do so, even if the instructions are incorrect as a matter of law. Assaulting you is, of course, a different matter.
The relevant law in England and Wales is the Protection of Children Act 1978. Under section 1 of the Act, it’s a defense to distributing, showing, or possessing indecent images of children if you had a “legitimate reason” to distribute, show, or possess them. It’s also a defense if you had not seen the images, didn’t know they were indecent, and didn’t have any cause to suspect they were indecent. However, the 1999 case of R v. Bowden held that downloading a digital copy of an image counts as “making” an image. This is not subject to the “legitimate reason” defense by statute (although I don’t know if it’d count as “making” if you have no reason to know the contents, like if a computer repair shop backs up a customer’s hard drive without looking at what’s on the drive). However, it is explicitly still subject to defenses in sections 1A and 1B of the Act. 1A covers spouses and partners. If you are the spouse or partner of a child between 16 and 18, then with their consent you can legally make indecent images of them (although this doesn’t apply if anyone but the two of you is in the image). You can also possess those images with their consent and give them a copy. Section 1B covers criminal proceedings, investigations, etc., and was added after R v. Bowden. Because copying a digital image counts as “making” an image, it would generally be illegal for people to work with digital copies of indecent images even if done for a good reason. To avoid that, Parliament made an exception for making an indecent image when necessary to prevent, detect, or investigate crimes, as well as for criminal proceedings anywhere in the world. Parliament also exempted the UK’s intelligence agencies (MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) when carrying out their duties. These are specific statutory exemptions, so they can’t really be generalized to “if you have a legitimate reason.”