Can underage people who commit a crime while underaged but are later charged with the same crime after turning 18 be tried as an adult? U.S federal law specifically but are there other countries that do this and in USA is an affirmative defense possible in these cases where they are tried as an adult?
germany Defendants who are later accused of a crime committed when they were minor (under 18, or under 21 if the court finds that they had juvenile mental maturity) will be tried under juvenile rules. That can lead to people almost 90 years old being sentenced to juvenile detention. (A suspended sentence, not least because of the time that had passed.) [...] On July 23th, 2020, D. was given a suspended sentence of two years of juvenile detention for 5232 counts of accessory to murder and one count of accessory to attempted murder. [...] (my translation)
Considering that the US legal system is more or less similar in practice to the English Courts, yes it is possible to plea bargian a deal. I'm linking to the wikipedia article on the matter with a specific link to the England and Wales for guidence. Normally, I'd explain, but I'm an American and the differences between Magistrate and Crown courts are big enough differences that I can't tell you what the differences in the case is. I should point out this is a legal area where America differences with much of the world. 90% of the United States criminal cases (and a good number of civil cases, which are settled privately before discovery phase) are plea bargained to lesser sentences. Additionally remorse has nothing to do with the plea bargain. You might only be sorry that you got caught breaking the law and can still plea. The lighter sentence is sort of a "thank you" for saving the state money in not having to build their case against you. It is also used to coerce cooperation with the police, as they may have the accused dead to rights and can prosecute him successfully, but he's a little fish who can give intel to a big fish (this usually comes with the caveat of it being a sworn statement, so they can still prosecute you for something if you're lying... OR that the deal holds on condition that everything is factually true. If evidence contradicts you, you're charged as if you never made a deal). It's also important to note that the police will not honor their deals made for your confession... but they will offer you deals (In the United States, police are allowed to lie to you and do it all the time). However, the prosecutor will honor their deals. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. Finally, most jurisdictions allow the judge final say at sentencing, so if the prosecutor does honor the deal and advises the sentence, don't get upset if the judge is tougher and gives you a harsher sentence on the crime, or rejects your plea outright (expect him to scold the prosecutor for wasting his time with a horrible deal, too. Watch the Law and Order SVU episode Raw for a particularly wonderful instance of this rare event occurring). As a part of US federalism, the rules about this change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so make sure you understand this. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. I would definitely do some leg work into the English Legal system's opinions on plea bargains. Just because they have it does not mean the state lawyers like employing it and many jurisdictions see it as full on corruption in other parts of the world, even the Common Law jurisdictions.
Yes, maybe australia In Australia, child abuse material is classified as the sexualised depiction of persons under 16 (or in some cases 18). This applies under both State and Commonwealth laws. Common charges in NSW will be possessing, disseminating or producing child abuse material under s 91(H) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Further Commonwealth offences can be found in circumstances where a communications carrier has been used for the purposes of delivering child abuse material. Within this field, there are subtle variations in circumstances. The court would need to decide if the pictures were a “sexualised depiction”. Context matters. I don’t know of any cases on point but convictions have been secured for sexualised cartoons of children and pictures of fully-clothed children in sexual poses.
If the younger person starts a civil suit against the older person for statutory rape, can the older person countersue for &quot;actual&quot; rape? There is no civil action counterpart to statutory rape. Is there any way that the older person can use the &quot;actual&quot; rape as a defense in either a civil or criminal charge? Statutory rape does not give the person who is defined as a victim of statutory rape to bring a civil action for money damages against the adult with whom that individual had sex. Sometimes there might be a civil action for breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, or intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrageous conduct. But that would be the exception, rather than the rule, and the civil action tort would not be a strict liability offense. While statutory rape is sometimes a &quot;strict liability crime&quot; in the sense that actual subjective consent is not a defense, and reasonable mistake of age is not a defense, a prosecution for statutory rape still requires proof of a voluntary act by the defendant charged with the offense. The claim that someone did not voluntarily have sex with the underaged person and instead was forced to engage in sex with the underaged person without their consent would be a valid defense to the crime. This is because it would prevent the prosecutor from proving that the defendant committed the voluntary act element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This kind of defense could also be conceptualized as the affirmative defense of duress which would still apply to this offense. My understanding is that if the older person has been convicted criminally for statutory rape, that would bar that person from prevailing in a civil suit for &quot;actual&quot; rape. Would this be true[?] One could bring a civil action for assault and battery in connection with a rape not implied in law by virtue of age (i.e. what you mean when you say &quot;actual&quot; rape). A criminal conviction for statutory rape (for which all appeals have been exhausted) would probably be a valid defense to such a civil action pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel (i.e. because a binding determination of the same issue with the same or stronger burden of proof was finally resolved on the merits in another case involving the same people). This is only true, however, because the lack of voluntary act defense would have been available in the criminal case for statutory rape. has such a sequence of events actually happened anywhere in the United States? Probably. The United States has had states with statutory rape laws for many, many decades and many hundreds of millions of people, if not billions of people, have lived in that time period. So, almost anything that could happen with respect to a widely enacted law involving activities that are possible for ordinary people to engage in has probably happened. This said, however, I've never heard of a legal case with this fact pattern in the news media or in reported case law (although admittedly, this isn't my area of practice). The more common case which does come up from time to time is a case of brother-sister incest where there is dispute over who should be charged (usually, but not always, the older sibling, and in rare instances, both are charged). Historically, in the overwhelming majority of cases where statutory rape charges could easily be proven, they are not brought by prosecutors. Sometimes this is because that is what the victim wants. Historically, victims have frequently wanted this outcome, either out of hope for an ongoing relationship with the adult, or doesn't want to relive a traumatic event, or out of the well founded believe of the victim that the case would do more to harm her reputation and well being than it would to suitably punish the adult (and keep in mind that statutory rape is often a misdemeanor offense which might be punished fairly lightly at sentencing depending upon the judge). Sometimes this is because the prosecutor sees keeping the perpetrator employed and able to pay child support when a pregnancy results as a preferable options. Sometimes this is because proving that sexual intercourse happened with someone beyond a reasonable doubt in cases that did not result in pregnancy, when the only witnesses are the alleged defendant and the allege child victim whose credibility may be questioned, was very difficult prior to DNA evidence, widespread use of rape kits, and cheap, ubiquitous video and photography use. Furthermore, factually, it is exceedingly uncommon for young minor girls to rape adult men, and until quite recently, the statutory rape laws applied only to female victims. Even now, with gender neutral statutory rape laws being the norm, prosecutors are much less likely prosecute an alleged statutory rape involving a male victim than a female victim. Finally, many prosecutors feel morally justified in invoking their authority to press statutory rape charges only when they believe that there was a non-consensual sexual act committed against the victim which happened even if it was hard to prove and are reluctant to bring such charges if the prosecutor believes under the circumstances that the act was consensual in fact, even if legally the defendant is still legally guilty in those circumstances. Generally speaking, attitudes towards this have grown more harsh towards men who have sex with young minors in recent years, but historically, this was a pretty important factor.
Double jeopardy does not bar him from facing federal charges, although U.S. Justice Department policy reserves such prosecutions for exceptional cases. Also, it depends to some extent upon whether there is a suitable federal crime that fits the conduct.
Aiden4's answer about Winconsin's statute 948.60 is correct, but incomplete and the complete reason is interesting/funny, so I'll expand on it: The statute reads: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. (1) In this section, “dangerous weapon&quot; means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends. (2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony. (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another. (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183. (3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision. (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty. (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. 2 things to note: (1) takes care to include, in the list of dangerous weapons: nunchaku, shuriken and manrikigusari. While the first 2 are more or less familiar to everyone knows anything about Japanese martial arts, the last one had to be looked up by everyone following the case to discover that it's the &quot;secret weapon of the Ninja&quot;(even more than the shuriken). (3.c) says that the whole of this entire section applies[adding the brackets to make following the formal logic easier] only if (the person under 18 is in violation of 941.28[barrel length under 16 inches]) or (is not in compliance with ss. 29.304[Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age] and 29.593[Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval]). In programming terms(for those so inclined), 3.C could be written as: IF ((barrelLengthInches &lt; 16) OR (huntingUnder16Applies AND huntingCertificateApplies)) THEN statute948.60Applies ELSE statute948.60DoesNotApply Since the barrel length is over 16'' and Rittenhouse is over 16 and no hunting permit was required for his activities, the whole section of the law did not apply. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. In essence, that the legislators drafting that law spent too much time watching cheesy early 90's action movies and thinking of how to save Wisconsinites from the Ninja threat, to draft the law properly, so it should be read according to its intent from the title of the section. However, there is a binding Common Law precedent, dating back from the 16th century called the &quot;Rule of Lenity&quot;, also called &quot;Strict Constructionism&quot; in the US, whereby if the legislature screws up, it's the legislature's problem. In the original case, the law in England forbade &quot;felonious stealing of Horses, Geldings or Mares&quot;. A thief was caught, but argued that since he only stole one horse and the law specified horses, the law didn't apply to him. He was let off and the law hastily rectified. Pre-revolutionary Common Law precedent is binding in the US and it was re-affirmed multiple times, e.g. United States v. Wiltberger, where a US sailor got off with killing another US sailor in a Chinese estuary, because the law only applied on the &quot;high seas&quot;. So, the charge was tossed and the defense didn't press the issue further. However, the really interesting bit is that even though it didn't get to be argued since Rittenhouse was 17, the way the law is actually written, this section only applies if (huntingUnder16Applies AND huntingCertificateApplies). That means that there is literally nothing in Wisconsin barring a 12 year old(under 12 is separately forbidden in the 29.304/huntingUnder16Applies section) from possessing and using an AR-15(or AK-47), as long as the barrel is &gt;16'' and a hunting license isn't required for the activity. I think that the legislature will amend the law with haste, before it can be tested on 12 year olds. P.S. the other guy who gave him the gun will get off with this precedent too, since the statute for his charge is: This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. i.e. the same 3 sub-sections as for Rittenhouse.
Modern legal systems frown on individual retribution. A victim of a crime is not allowed to punish the perpetrator of the crime; that falls to the state. The answer is therefore yes; the person could be arrested, tried, and punished, including by imprisonment.
In the United States, you can always choose to (try to) flee police. If the police subsequently assert that they tried to detain you, then they can choose to charge you with a number of crimes (which vary by jurisdiction). The assertion that you did not (or could not) in fact hear or perceive a lawful order to stop is a defense that you could raise in response to such charges. It is up to the triers of fact to determine whether, given the specifics of the case, they accept that defense.