If you haven’t heard about the Sioux Falls Doc who is sitting in the Jail in Sioux Falls on a million dollar bond…..From the Argus Leader:
A Sioux Falls doctor accused of human trafficking is being held on $1 million cash-only bond.
Jonathan David Cohen, 36, appeared in court Thursday afternoon on charges of human trafficking, procuring or promoting prostitution, sexual exploitation of a minor and solicitation of a minor.
The victim in the case was a runaway from Georgia who was reported missing in August, Lt. Michael Colwill said. She had visited and stayed with Cohen for four days in September and again this week after meeting him on an online dating website. The two were engaged in a sexual relationship, Colwill said.
and..
Prosecutors said Thursday that Cohen, who is a doctor with the Sanford Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic, had sex with the girl on his desk at work. They said Cohen admitted to buying a plane ticket for the girl using the victim’s birth date, meaning he knew the girl’s age.
An observant reader pointed out that ‘the good doctor’ has been busy writing checks to Hillary Clinton..(From OpenSecrets.org)…:
….and has been busy on his Facebook page railing against Donald Trump, most recently posting about how he’s “holding judgement against his supporters.”
Somehow, I think he picked a bad time to talk about holding judgement against anyone.
Wonder if this guy attended Brendan Johnson’s Hillary fundraiser the other night? He and Brendan probably [redacted…. come on guys, you don’t have to try to defend this stuff, so don’t post it, please -pp] Yeah let’s not forget that happened.
If a person tries to buy beer and looks under the age of 30, the clerk has an affirmative duty to check their ID. If a person buys a plane ticket for a person wants to have sex with a person under these circumstances, shouldn’t they also have an affirmative duty to confirm they are of age before engaging in sex? If not, there should be (which would make Butlter’s “defense/excuse” he didn’t know her age a mute question.
Makes sense to me since the penalty for selling beer to a minor or contributing to the delinquency of a minor is significantly lower than that of statutory rape, kidnapping, coercing a minor to engage in illicit behavior or human trafficking.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s bad enough asking for voter ID, now you want a SEX ID? You’ve spent too much time alone in your office with nothing to do today. Go for a walk. Or a cold shower.
I wonder how many there are just like him at Sanford. Seriously.
I just talked to two people. Person at Sanford said he has a good practice and total surprise. A person in my building who talked to someone said he is a jack —.
P.S. Unless Sanford overlooked indicative behavior (which would surprise me and I’m an Avera guy), I don’t think this reflects on Sanford or its other employees. It could happen anywhere.
I would agree. I don’t think anyone thinks this has anything to do with Sanford.
If you think it a joke that a sex predator preying on, transporting across state lines and harboring runaway teenagers can have as a defense “I didn’t know she/he was 16”, you are one sick human being and likely to be darn poor parent. I wouldn’t post with my name either if I were you.
P.S. Your linking this with the voter ID law only gives me greater resolve to have it because there are sick people out there who appear to be willing to support shady, nefarious people willing to beat the system.
Let’s make voter registration automatic upon turning 18 and give everyone the corresponding ID. Otherwise, no poll tax.
Everyone who has a right to vote because they are a legal citizen of the country.
I didn’t know there was a poll tax. Where is that found?
Yeah, no. I made no joke – YOU did. I was laughing at your utterly naive and unworkable ID-for-sex baloney. Sometimes something so profoundly ignorant passes before me that my only coping mechanism is to laugh at the sheer folly of my fellow humans.
What is more serious? Statutory rape of trying to buy booze under age? I would say statutory rape. Troy was trying to make a point-from the way I read it-that the claim that a “I didn’t know she wasn’t old enough” doesn’t relieve the person of the liability for statutory rape. Perhaps you think that all these age restrictions for consensual sex are old-school, but they are still the law. Your coping mechanism needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t make you sound foolish.
Actually, my point was “I didn’t know” appears to be a defense for solicitation of a minor and exploitation of a minor. I don’t think it should be and I’m wondering if this person who might have a nervous giggle thinks it should be.
16 is the age of consent in sd. Not saying it’s right it’s just the law. Maybe we need to change that.
Anonymous 9:46,
You are anonymous and making light of the thrust of my comment regarding Cohen’s attorney asserting he didn’t know her age and was surprised. My point is not knowing the age should not be a defense. And, the only way not to know is to set a standard the person made a reasonable effort to determine age, which might be to have examined an ID.
The reality is I could parade in front of you a dozen 16 year-olds and a dozen 18 year olds where observation would be insufficient to accurately determine age. And, since the person could lie, without some legal affirmative duty on a person of age to determine age, the “I didn’t know” assertion may be an effective defense.
Personally, i don’t think there should be no such defense just as there isn’t such a defense to a clerk who sells alcohol or cigarettes to a minor. If you have a better idea to remove this as a defense, I’m open to hearing it.
Otherwise, I will assume you oppose eliminating the “I didn’t know defense” and support legal loopholes for sex predators. Additionally, I will wonder if your position is grounded in “he is a Clinton supporter and immune from prosecution” or you are also a sex predator. There must be a reason you won’t sign your name in dismissing protection of the young from sex predators.
P.S. For the sake of brevity, the “I didn’t know” defense includes “She looked 18″ defense” and “she said she was 18” defense, defenses not afforded to clerks who sell alcohol to minors.
“I didn’t know” Is not, will not, and never has been a valid defense. Statutory rape is statutory rape. Depending on circumstances, the prosecutor can offer a deal to a lesser charge or throw the book, but “she told me she was 20” doesn’t matter to the law.
Could someone ask for ID? Sure. Mandating it? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
By the way, I *really* like your false choice in that I’m either firmly in the Clinton camp in defense of this dirtbag, or that I’m a sex predator. By this same logic, you’re either willfully ignorant, or mentally incompetent. Fun, innit?
Anonymous laugher about sexual predation,
This person is not charged with statutory rape but among other things, he is charged with exploitation of a minor and solicitation of a minor.
These are not “statutory matters” but matters where knowledge and intent are potential defenses. I don’t think this defense should be available in these situations because victims are minors. Do you think “knowledge” and “intent” should be a defense?
If not, do you have an idea to remove these defenses short of a making them ‘statutory” offenses?
Not sure what your point is, actually. If he knew she was underage (evidence points to the fact that he did, since he bought the plane ticket), he’s toast. If he didn’t, he’s off the hook. Requiring anyone to get an ID before such interactions is laughable, unworkable, and naive.
While you attempt to falsely equivocate selling liquor to a minor, that is not remotely the case here. A more appropriate analogy would be a minor talking to an adult about drinking.
And again, since you’ve missed it like 3 times already: I am NOT laughing about sex predators. I am laughing at YOU for thinking requiring folks to get an ID before talking to another person about sex is actually a solution. Your attempt to demonize me as some sort of defender of child rapists is repugnant and waaaaaaaaaaaay off-base.
Boy, what an idiot this guy is. See, it just goes to show that a fancy degree doesn’t mean that you have any brains (look who he supports for president). He should have written a bigger check to the Foundation so Chelsea can continue to rake in a big, totally-undeserved salary.
http://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clinton-made-900000-working-for-her-parents/
Anonymous,
You said this in reference to his knowledge of her age: “If he didn’t, he’s off the hook.”
Thus, you think it is a currently legal defense. If you are correct that it is a defense, do you think it is a defense that should remain in law or should be changed? If you think it should be changed, do you have any suggestions since you think requiring the person of legal age confirming the person is not a minor is something to laugh at?
Two very simple questions. You know where I am and you laughed at it. I want to know where you are at.
I believe firmly that if a person doesn’t know the age of the other party, they are not responsible. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULDN’T ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT, either by asking or reasonably making such an assumption (did he pick up the underage girl in a bar where she’d shown a fake ID to gain admittance for example). If a reasonable person believes what another reasonably tells them, why would you suspect anything? Is a world where reasonable people can’t trust one another *really* the kind of world we want to live in? Think of it like this: say you need a cheap lawnmower. You go on craiglsist and find an old 20″ snapper push mower for $50. You make the arrangements, go meet the guy at the Wal-Mart parking lot, hand over the money and take your mower home. Next day, the cops show up and tell you the mower is stolen. Are YOU responsible for receiving the stolen goods? Should you be prosecuted, even though you asked the other party if the mower was rightfully theirs and they lied to you?
Again: I am NOT laughing at reasonably identifying someone as a consenting adult – I am laughing at the notion that there should be a legal framework requiring folks to ask for another person’s ID before initiating ‘adult’ conversation.
Well, it appears we have a policy agreement.
If one wants to enter “initiate ‘adult’ conversation” with another, I think one should know they are conversing with an adult and be prepared to face the consequences if the person is not an adult. No “I didn’t know, I thought they were an adult, or they said they were an adult” defense.
If I have a backyard party for my neighborhood and a minor consumes my beer, there is no such defense. By statute, I have provided alcohol to a minor and contributed to their delinquency. Period.
Further, if we don’t “trust” people are telling the truth when they buy alcohol or cigarettes, I don’t think we should have a lower standard if you are going to solicit them for prostitution or exploit them. Period.
I support having the same standard for solicitation, exploitation, etc. that we have for providing alcohol and cigarettes to minors. So, if you don’t want to check ID and you do any of these things (solicit, exploit, provide alcohol/cigarettes) to a minor, there is no “I didn’t know or they said they were of age” defense.
Policy disagreement. OOPS
I was gonna say… ;-p
Again, your alcohol equivalence is bogus. One word added (and the one you are equivocating no less):
If one wants to enter “initiate ‘adult [beverage]’ conversation” with another, I think one should know they are conversing with an adult and be prepared to face the consequences if the person is not an adult. No “I didn’t know, I thought they were an adult, or they said they were an adult” defense.
Do you see a problem here? It’s completely unenforceable, and no reasonable person would assume anything other than their co-conversant being of age if this were to happen in a bar. I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if your notion of mandatory ID checks for sex talk were to somehow come about on college campuses, high school locker rooms, internet forums…. Why haven’t you asked me for proof of age since we’re talking about sex….? By your example, I might be underage and you could be having an inappropriate conversation right now, pervert! 😉
Predator Protector,
Regarding your last comment, I have a two questions?
1). Do you realize prostitution and solicitation are illegal? Thus, all of your above “conversation” is already illegal. If you ask for sex for money in a locker room, you have violated the law already whether you ask a teacher or a student. I am at a loss why you want to create a “I didnt know” defense for a person who asks the student.
2). Do you realize by arguing against my proposal you are equating prostitution related behavior between adults with prostitution related behavior between an adult and a child?
What’s money got to do with anything? Is Tinder considered illegal as well? Slow to the punchbowl again.