I'm trying to reconcile how the law on holding bartenders meets the basic requirements of Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
This required element, requires the bartender to intentionally and willfully accept a fake ID as the real thing; which pre-supposed that he knew the ID was fake to begin with. I honestly don't know how any judge who attended law school (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer) can arbitrarily disregard one fundamental principle of criminal law.
Still, the last sentence "The exception is strict liability crimes" means that bartenders are liable for any action their customers take.
However, Statuatory Rape is not a criminal liability crime - so that defense doesn't work in this case (it shouldn't work in the bartender case either, IMHO).
It IS glorified baby-sitting! I wouldn't recommend the job AT ALL!
Great system,isn't it,where a guy just trying to do an honest job isn't as protected at his job as rapists are?