The opinion of the Court was delivered by

HANDLER, J.

Under New Jersey law a person who commits an act of sexual penetration using physical force or coercion is guilty of second-degree sexual assault. The sexual assault statute does not define the words “physical force.” The question posed by *425this appeal is whether the element of “physical force” is met simply by an act of non-consensual penetration involving no more force than necessary to accomplish that result.

That issue is presented in the context of what is often referred to as “acquaintance rape.” The record in the case discloses that the juvenile, a seventeen-year-old boy, engaged in consensual kissing and heavy petting with a fifteen-year-old girl and thereafter engaged in actual sexual penetration of the girl to which she had not consented. There was no evidence or suggestion that the juvenile used any unusual or extra force or threats to accomplish the act of penetration.

The trial court determined that the juvenile was delinquent for committing a sexual assault. The Appellate Division reversed the disposition of delinquency, concluding that non-consensual penetration does not constitute sexual assault unless it is accompanied by some level of force more than that necessary to accomplish the penetration. 247 N.J.Super. 254, 588 A.2d 1282 (1991). We granted the State’s petition for certification. 126 N.J. 341, 598 A.2d 897 (1991).

I

The issues in this case are perplexing and controversial, We must explain the role of force in the contemporary crime of sexual assault and then define its essential features. We then must consider what evidence is probative to establish the commission of a sexual assault. The factual circumstances of this case expose the complexity and sensitivity of those issues and underscore the analytic difficulty of those seemingly-straightforward legal questions.

On Monday, May 21, 1990, fifteen-year-old C.G. was living with her mother, her three siblings, and several other people, including M.T.S. and his girlfriend. A total of ten people resided in the three-bedroom town-home at the time of the incident. M.T.S., then age seventeen, was temporarily residing at the home with the permission of the C.G.’s mother; he slept *426downstairs on a couch. C.G. had her own room on the second floor. At approximately 11:30 p.m. on May 21, C.G. went upstairs to sleep after having watched television with her mother, M.T.S., and his girlfriend. When C.G. went to bed, she was wearing underpants, a bra, shorts, and a shirt. At trial, C.G. and M.T.S. offered very different accounts concerning the nature of their relationship and the events that occurred after C.G. had gone upstairs. The trial court did not credit fully either teenager’s testimony.

C.G. stated that earlier in the day, M.T.S. had told her three or four times that he “was going to make a surprise visit up in [her] bedroom.” She said that she had not taken M.T.S. seriously and considered his comments a joke because he frequently teased her. She testified that M.T.S. had attempted to kiss her on numerous other occasions and at least once had attempted to put his hands inside of her pants, but that she had rejected all of his previous advances.

C.G. testified that on May 22, at approximately 1:30 a.m., she awoke to use the bathroom. As she was getting out of bed, she said, she saw M.T.S., fully clothed, standing in her doorway. According to C.G., M.T.S. then said that “he was going to tease [her] a little bit.” C.G. testified that she “didn’t think anything of it”; she walked past him, used the bathroom, and then returned to bed, falling into a “heavy” sleep within fifteen minutes. The next event C.G. claimed to recall of that morning was waking up with M.T.S. on top of her, her underpants and shorts removed. She said “his penis was into [her] vagina.” As soon as C.G. realized what had happened, she said, she immediately slapped M.T.S. once in the face, then “told him to get off [her], and get out.” She did not scream or cry out. She testified that M.T.S. complied in less than one minute after being struck; according to C.G., “he jumped right off of [her].” She said she did not know how long M.T.S. had been inside of her before she awoke.

*427C.G. said that after M.T.S. left the room, she “fell asleep crying” because “[she] couldn’t believe that he did what he did to [her].” She explained that she did not immediately tell her mother or anyone else in the house of the events of that morning because she was “scared and in shock.” According to C.G., M.T.S. engaged in intercourse with her “without [her] wanting it or telling him to come up [to her bedroom].” By her own account, C.G. was not otherwise harmed by M.T.S.

At about 7:00 a.m., C.G. went downstairs and told her mother about her encounter with M.T.S. earlier in the morning and said that they would have to “get [him] out of the house.” While M.T.S. was out on an errand, C.G.’s mother gathered his clothes and put them outside in his car; when he returned, he was,told that “[he] better not even get near the house.” C.G. and her mother then filed a complaint with the police.

According to M.T.S., he and C.G. had been good friends for a long time, and their relationship “kept leading on to more and more.” He had been living at C.G.’s home for about five days before the incident occurred; he testified that during the three days preceding the incident they had been “kissing and necking” and had discussed having sexual intercourse. The first time M.T.S. kissed C.G., he said, she “didn’t want him to, but she did after that.” He said C.G. repeatedly had encouraged him to “make a surprise visit up in her room.”

M.T.S. testified that at exactly 1:15 a.m. on May 22, he entered C.G.’s bedroom as she was walking to the bathroom. He said C.G. soon returned from the bathroom, and the two began “kissing and all,” eventually moving to the bed. Once they were in bed, he said, they undressed each other and continued to kiss and touch for about five minutes. M.T.S. and C.G. proceeded to engage in sexual intercourse. According to M.T.S., who was on top of C.G., he “stuck it in” and “did it [thrust] three times, and then the fourth time [he] stuck it in, that’s when [she] pulled [him] off of her.” M.T.S. said that as *428C.G. pushed him off, she said “stop, get off,” and he “hopped off right away.”

According to M.T.S., after about one minute, he asked C.G. what was wrong; she replied with a back-hand to his face. He recalled asking C.G. what was wrong a second time, and her replying, “how can you take advantage of me or something like that.” M.T.S. said that he proceeded to get dressed and told C.G. to calm down, but that she then told him to get away from her and began to cry. Before leaving the room, he told C.G., “I’m leaving ... I’m going with my real girlfriend, don’t talk to me ... I don’t want nothing to do with you or anything, stay out of my life ... don’t tell anybody about this ... it would just screw everything up.” He then walked downstairs and went to sleep.

On May 23, 1990, M.T.S. was charged with conduct that if engaged in by an adult would constitute second-degree sexual assault of the victim, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(l). In addition, he faced unrelated charges for third-degree theft of movable property, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a, third-degree escape, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5, and fourth-degree criminal trespass, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3.

Following a two-day trial on the sexual assault charge, M.T.S. was adjudicated delinquent. After reviewing the testimony, the court concluded that the victim had consented to a session of kissing and heavy petting with M.T.S. The trial court did not find that C.G. had been sleeping at the time of penetration, but nevertheless found that she had not consented to the actual sexual act. Accordingly, the court concluded that the State had proven second-degree sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, following the imposition of suspended sentences on the sexual assault and the other remaining charges, the Appellate Division determined that the absence of force beyond that involved in the act of sexual penetration precluded a finding of second-degree sexual assault. It therefore re*429versed the juvenile’s adjudication of delinquency for that offense. 247 N.J.Super. at 260-61, 588 A.2d 1282.

II

The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(l), defines “sexual assault” as the commission “of sexual penetration” “with another person” with the use of “physical force or coercion.” 1 2345An unconstrained reading of the statutory language indicates that both the act of “sexual penetration” and the use of “physical force or coercion” are separate and distinct elements of the offense. See Medical Soc. v. Department of Law & Pub. Safety, 120 N.J. 18, 26, 575 A 2d 1348 (1990) (declaring that no part of a statute should be considered meaningless or superfluous). Neither the definitions section of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 to -8, nor the remainder of the Code of Criminal Justice provides assistance in interpreting the words “physical force.” The initial inquiry is, therefore, whether the statutory words are unambiguous on their face and can be *430understood and applied in accordance with their plain meaning. The answer to that inquiry is revealed by the conflicting decisions of the lower courts and the arguments of the opposing parties. The trial court held that “physical force” had been established by the sexual penetration of the victim without her consent. The Appellate Division believed that the statute requires some amount of force more than that necessary to accomplish penetration.

The parties offer two alternative understandings of the concept of “physical force” as it is used in the statute. The State would read “physical force” to entail any amount of sexual touching brought about involuntarily. A showing of sexual penetration coupled with a lack of consent would satisfy the elements of the statute. The Public Defender urges an interpretation of “physical force” to mean force “used to overcome lack of consent.” That definition equates force with violence and leads to the conclusion that sexual assault requires the application of some amount of force in addition to the act of penetration.

Current judicial practice suggests an understanding of “physical force” to mean “any degree of physical power or strength used against the victim, even though it entails no injury and leaves no mark.” Model Jury Charges, Criminal 3 (revised Mar. 27,1989). Resort to common experience or understanding does not yield a conclusive meaning. The dictionary provides several definitions of “force,” among which are the following: (1) “power, violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing,” (2) “a general term for exercise of strength or power, esp. physical, to overcome resistance,” or (3) “strength or power of any degree that is exercised without justification or contrary to law upon a person or thing.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 887 (1961).

Thus, as evidenced by the disagreements among the lower courts and the parties, and the variety of possible usages, the statutory words “physical force” do not evoke a single *431meaning that is obvious and plain. Hence, we must pursue avenues of construction in order to ascertain the meaning of that statutory language. Those avenues are well charted. When a statute is open to conflicting interpretations, the court seeks the underlying intent of the legislature, relying on legislative history and the contemporary context of the statute. Monmouth County v. Wissell, 68 N.J. 35, 41-42, 342 A.2d 199 (1975). With respect to a law, like the sexual assault statute, that “alters or amends the previous law or creates or abolishes types of actions, it is important, in discovering the legislative intent, to ascertain the old law, the mischief and the proposed remedy.” Grobart v. Grobart, 5 N.J. 161, 166, 74 A.2d 294 (1950); accord Key Agency v. Continental Casualty Co., 31 N.J. 98, 155 A.2d 547 (1959) (noting that ambiguous statutory phrases should be interpreted in light of the occasion and necessity of the law, mischief felt, and remedy in view). We also remain mindful of the basic tenet of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused. Nevertheless, the construction must conform to the intent of the Legislature. See State v. Des Marets, 92 N.J. 62, 68-70, 455 A.2d 1074 (1983); State v. Brown, 22 N.J. 405, 126 A.2d 161 (1956).

The provisions proscribing sexual offenses found in the Code of Criminal Justice, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(l), became effective in 1979, and were written against almost two hundred years of rape law in New Jersey. The origin of the rape statute that the current statutory offense of sexual assault replaced can be traced to the English common law. Under the common law, rape was defined as “carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.” Cynthia A. Wicktom, Note, Focusing on the Offender’s Forceful Conduct: A Proposal for the Redefinition of Rape Laws, 56 Geo. Wash.L.Rev. 399, 401 (1988) (Offender’s Forceful Conduct). American jurisdictions generally adopted the English view, but over time states added the requirement that the carnal knowledge have been forcible, apparently in order to prove that the act was against the victim’s will. Id. at 402 *432(citing Rollin Perkins & Ronald Boyce, Criminal Law 211 (3d ed. 1982)). As of 1796, New Jersey statutory law defined rape as “carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will.” Crimes Act of March 18, 1796 § 8, [1821] N.J.Rev.Laws (Pennington) 246. Those three elements of rape — carnal knowledge, forcibly, and against her will — remained the essential elements of the crime until 1979. Leigh Bienen, Rape III— National Developments in Rape Reform Legislation, 6 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. 170, 207 (1981) (Bienen, Rape III).

Under traditional rape law, in order to prove that a rape had occurred, the state had to show both that force had been used and that the penetration had been against the woman’s will. Force was identified and determined not as an independent factor but in relation to the response of the victim, which in turn implicated the victim’s own state of mind. “Thus, the perpetrator’s use of force became criminal only if the victim’s state of mind met the statutory requirement. The perpetrator could use all the force imaginable and no crime would be committed if the state could not prove additionally that the victim did not consent.” National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Forcible Rape — An Analysis of Legal Issues 5 (March 1978) (Forcible Rape). Although the terms “non-consent” and “against her will” were often treated as equivalent, see, e.g., Wilson v. State, 109 A.2d 381 (Del. 1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 983, 75 S.Ct. 574, 99 L.Ed. 765 (1955), under the traditional definition of rape, both formulations squarely placed on the victim the burden of proof and of action. Effectively, a woman who was above the age of consent had actively and affirmatively to withdraw that consent for the intercourse to be against her will. As a Delaware court stated, “If sexual intercourse is obtained by milder means, or with the consent or silent submission of the female, it cannot constitute the crime of rape.” State v. Brown, 83 A. 1083, 1084 (O.T. 1912); 75 C.J.S. Rape § 11-12 (1952).

The presence or absence of consent often turned on credibility. To demonstrate that the victim had not consented to the *433intercourse, and also that sufficient force had been used to accomplish the rape, the state had to prove that the victim had resisted. According to the oft-quoted Lord Hale, to be deemed a credible witness, a woman had to be of good fame, disclose the injury immediately, suffer signs of injury, and cry out for help. 1 Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown 633 (1st ed. 1847). Courts and commentators historically distrusted the testimony of victims, “assuming that women lie about their lack of consent for various reasons: to blackmail men, to explain the discovery of a consensual affair, or because of psychological illness.” Offender’s Forceful Conduct, supra, 56 Geo. Wash.L.Rev. at 403. Evidence of resistance was viewed as a solution to the credibility problem; it was the “outward manifestation of nonconsent, [a] device for determining whether a woman actually gave consent.” Note, The Resistance Standard in Rape Legislation, 18 Stan.L.Rev. 680, 689 (1966).

The resistance requirement had a profound effect on the kind of conduct that could be deemed criminal and on the type of evidence needed to establish the crime. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 127 Wis. 193, 106 N. W. 536 (1906) (overturning forcible rape conviction based on inadequate resistance by the victim); People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y. 374 (1874). Courts assumed that any woman who was forced to have intercourse against her will necessarily would resist to the extent of her ability. People v. Barnes, 42 Cal.3d 284, 228 Cal.Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110, 117 (1986) (observing that “[hjistorically, it was considered inconceivable that a woman who truly did not consent to sexual intercourse would not meet force with force”). In many jurisdictions the requirement was that the woman have resisted to the utmost. “Eape is not committed unless the woman oppose the man to the utmost limit of her power.” People v. Carey, 223 N.Y. 519, 119 N.R 83 (N.Y.1918). “[A] mere tactical surrender in the face of an assumed superior physical force is not enough. Where the penalty for the defendant may be supreme, so must resistance be unto the uttermost.” Moss v. State, 208 Miss. 531, 45 So.2d 125, 126 (1950). Other states *434followed a “reasonableness” standard, while some required only sufficient resistance to make non-consent reasonably manifest. Forcible Rape, supra, at 5.

At least by the 1960s courts in New Jersey followed a standard for establishing resistance that was somewhat less drastic than the traditional rule. In State v. Harris, 70 N.J.Super. 9, 174 A.2d 645 (1961), the Appellate Division recognized that the “to the uttermost” test was obsolete. Id. at 16, 174 A.2d 645. “The fact that a victim finally submits does not necessarily imply that she consented. Submission to a compelling force, or as a result of being put in fear, is not consent.” Id. at 16-17, 174 A.2d 645. Nonetheless, the “resistance” requirement remained an essential feature of New Jersey rape law. Thus, in 1965 the Appellate Division stated: “[W]e have rejected the former test that a woman must resist ‘to the uttermost.’ We only require that she resist as much as she possibly can under the circumstances.” State v. Terry, 89 N.J.Super. 445, 449, 215 A.2d 374.

The judicial interpretation of the pre-reform rape law in New Jersey, with its insistence on resistance by the victim, greatly minimized the importance of the forcible and assaultive aspect of the defendant’s conduct. Rape prosecutions turned then not so much on the forcible or assaultive character of the defendant’s actions as on the nature of the victim’s response. Note, Recent Statutory Developments in the Definition of Forcible Rape, 61 Va.L.Rev. 1500, 1505-07 (1975) (Definition of Forcible Rape). “[I]f a woman assaulted is physically and mentally able to resist, is not terrified by threats, and is not in a place and position that resistance would have been useless, it must be shown that she did, in fact, resist the assault.” State v. Terry, supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 449, 215 A.2d 374. Under the prereform law, the resistance offered had to be “in good faith and without pretense, with an active determination to prevent the violation of her person, and must not be merely passive and perfunctory.” State v. Terry, supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 450, 215 A.2d 374. That the law put the rape victim on trial was clear.

*435The resistance requirement had another untoward influence on traditional rape law. Resistance was necessary not only to prove non-consent but also to demonstrate that the force used by the defendant had been sufficient to overcome the victim’s will. The amount of force used by the defendant was assessed in relation to the resistance of the victim. See, e.g., Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 21.02 (1974) (repealed 1983) (stating that “the amount of force necessary to negate consent is a relative matter to be judged under all the circumstances, the most important of which is the resistance of the female”). In New Jersey the amount of force necessary to establish rape was characterized as “ ‘the degree of force sufficient to overcome any resistance that had been put up by the female.’ ” State v. Terry, supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 451, 215 A.2d 374 (quoting jury charge by trial court). Resistance, often demonstrated by torn clothing and blood, was a sign that the defendant had used significant force to accomplish the sexual intercourse. Thus, if the defendant forced himself on a woman, it was her responsibility to fight back, because force was measured in relation to the resistance she put forward. Only if she resisted, causing him to use more force than was necessary to achieve penetration, would his conduct be criminalized. See, e.g., Moss v. State, supra, 45 So.2d at 125. Indeed, the significance of resistance as the proxy for force is illustrated by cases in which victims were unable to resist; in such cases the force incident to penetration was deemed sufficient to establish the “force” element of the offense. E.g., Pomeroy v. State, 94 Ind. 96 (1884); State v. Atkins, 292 S.W. 422 (Mo.1926); Lee v. State, 322 So.2d 751, 752 (Miss.1975).

The importance of resistance as an evidentiary requirement set the law of rape apart from other common-law crimes, particularly in the eyes of those who advocated reform of rape law in the 1970s. See, e.g., Note, The Victim in a Forcible Rape Case: A Feminist View, 11 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 335, 346 (1973). However, the resistance requirement was not the only special rule applied in the rape context. A host of evidentiary *436rules and standards of proof distinguished the legal treatment of rape from the treatment of other crimes. Many jurisdictions held that a rape conviction could not be sustained if based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. See, e.g., Allison v. United States, 409 F.2d 445, 448 (D.C.Cir.1969). Often judges added cautionary instructions to jury charges warning jurors that rape was a particularly difficult charge to prove. Courts in New Jersey allowed greater latitude in cross-examining rape victims and in delving into their backgrounds than in ordinary cases. State v. Conner, 97 N.J.L. 423, 424, 118 A. 211 (Sup.Ct.1922). Rape victims were required to make a prompt complaint or have their allegations rejected or viewed with great skepticism. Some commentators suggested that there be mandatory psychological testing of rape victims. E.g., 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 924a (Chadboum rev. ed. 1970).

During the 1970s feminists and others criticized the stereotype that rape victims were inherently more untrustworthy than other victims of criminal attack. See, e.g., House [of Delegates] Urges New Definition of Rape, 61 A.B.A.J. 464 (1975); Note, Toward a Consent Standard in the Law of Rape, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 613, 638 (1976) (Toward a Consent Standard); see also People v. Barnes, supra, 721 P.2d at 117 (discussing influence of distrust of female rape victims on legal standards). Reformers condemned such suspicion as discrimination against victims of rape. See, e.g., The Legal Bias against Rape Victims, 61 A.B.A.J. 464 (1975). They argued that “[d]istrust of the complainant’s credibility [had] led to an exaggerated insistence on evidence of resistance,” resulting in the victim rather than the defendant being put on trial. Toward a Consent Standard, supra 43 U. Chi.L.Rev. at 626. Reformers also challenged the assumption that a woman would seduce a man and then, in order to protect her virtue, claim to have been raped. If women are no less trustworthy than other purported victims of criminal attack, the reformers argued, then women should face no additional burdens of proving that they had not consented to or had actively resisted the assault. *437See Linda Brookover Bourque, Defining Rape 110 (1989) (declaring objective of reform to “bring[ ] legal standards for rape cases in line with those used in other violent crimes by normalizing requirements for evidence”).

To refute the misguided belief that rape was not real unless the victim fought back, reformers emphasized empirical research indicating that women who resisted forcible intercourse often suffered far more serious injury as a result. Menachem Amir, Patterns in Forcible Rape, 164-65,169-171 (1971); Definition of Forcible Rape, supra, 61 Va.L.Rev. at 1506; Note, Elimination of the Resistance Requirement and Other Rape Law Reforms: The New York Experience, 47 Alb.L.Rev. 871, 872 (1983). That research discredited the assumption that resistance to the utmost or to the best of a woman’s ability was the most reasonable or rational response to a rape.

The research also helped demonstrate the underlying point of the reformers that the crime of rape rested not in the overcoming of a woman’s will or the insult to her chastity but in the forcible attack itself — the assault on her person. Reformers criticized the conception of rape as a distinctly sexual crime rather than a crime of violence. They emphasized that rape had its legal origins in laws designed to protect the property rights of men to their wives and daughters. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape 377 (1975); Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime 318 (Andrea Parrot & Laurie Bechhofer, eds. 1991). Although the crime had evolved into an offense against women, reformers argued that vestiges of the old law remained, particularly in the understanding of rape as a crime against the purity or chastity of a woman. Definition of Forcible Rape, supra, 61 Va.L.Rev. at 1506. The burden of protecting that chastity fell on the woman, with the state offering its protection only after the woman demonstrated that she had resisted sufficiently.

That rape under the traditional approach constituted a sexual rather than an assaultive crime is underscored by the spousal *438exemption. According to the traditional reasoning, a man could not rape his wife because consent to sexual intercourse was implied by the marriage contract. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 N.J. 193, 426 A.2d 38 (1981); see also Bienen, Rape III, supra, 6 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. at 184, 207 (noting that common-law principles excluded spouses from prosecution in New Jersey as in most other jurisdictions). Therefore, sexual intercourse between spouses was lawful regardless of the force or violence used to accomplish it. Offender’s Forceful Conduct, supra, 58 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. at 402; Note, To Have and to Hold: The Marital Rape Exemption and the Fourteenth Amendment, 99 Harv.L.Rev. 1255, 1258-60 (1986); see also Hale, supra, at 629 (noting that “a ‘ravished’ woman could ‘redeem’ the convicted offender and save him from execution by marrying him”).

Critics of rape law agreed that the focus of the crime should be shifted from the victim’s behavior to the defendant’s conduct, and particularly to its forceful and assaultive, rather than sexual, character. Reformers also shared the goals of facilitating rape prosecutions and of sparing victims much of the degradation involved in bringing and trying a charge of rape. There were, however, differences over the best way to redefine the crime. Some reformers advocated a standard that defined rape as unconsented-to sexual intercourse, Towards a Consent Standard, supra, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 613; others urged the elimination of any reference to consent from the definition of rape, Offender’s Forceful Conduct, supra, 56 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. at 401. Nonetheless, all proponents of reform shared a central premise: that the burden of showing non-consent should not fall on the victim of the crime. In dealing with the problem of consent the reform goal was not so much to purge the entire concept of consent from the law as to eliminate the burden that had been placed on victims to prove they had not consented. Ibid.

Similarly, with regard to force, rape law reform sought to give independent significance to the forceful or assaultive conduct of the defendant and to avoid a definition of force that *439depended on the reaction of the victim. Traditional interpretations of force were strongly criticized for failing to acknowledge that force may be understood simply as the invasion of “bodily integrity.” Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J. 1087, 1105, (1986). In urging that the “resistance” requirement be abandoned, reformers sought to break the connection between force and resistance.

Ill

The history of traditional rape law sheds clearer light on the factors that became most influential in the enactment of current law dealing with sexual offenses. The circumstances surrounding the actual passage of the current law reveal that it was conceived as a reform measure reconstituting the law to address a widely-sensed evil and to effectuate an important public policy., Those circumstances are highly relevant in understanding legislative intent and in determining the objectives of the current law.

In October 1971, the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission promulgated a Final Report and Commentary on its proposed New Jersey Penal Code. New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, The New Jersey Penal Code, Vol. I: Report and Penal Code (1971). The proposed Code substantially followed the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (MPC) with respect to sexual offenses. See M.P.C. §§ 213.1 to 213.4. The proposed provisions did not present a break from traditional rape law. They would have established two principal sexual offenses: aggravated rape, a first-degree or second-degree crime involving egregious circumstances; and rape, a crime of the third-degree. 1971 Penal Code, § 2C:14-l(a)(l). Rape was defined as sexual intercourse with a female to which she was compelled to submit by any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution. Id. at § 14-1(b)(1). The comments to the MPC, on which the proposed Code was based, state that “[cjompulsion plainly implies non-con*440sent,” and that the words “compels to submit” require more than “a token initial resistance.” A.L.I., MPC, § 213.1, comments at 306 (revised commentary 1980).

The Legislature did not endorse the Model Penal Code approach to rape. Rather, it passed a fundamentally different proposal in 1978 when it adopted the Code of Criminal Justice. L.1978, c. 95 § 2C:14-1 to -7; N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 to -7. The new statutory provisions covering rape were formulated by a coalition of feminist groups assisted by the National Organization of Women (NOW) National Task Force on Rape. Bienen, Rape III, supra, 6 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. at 207. Both houses of the Legislature adopted the NOW bill, as it was called, without major changes and Governor Byrne signed it into law on August 10, 1978. Id. at 207-08. The NOW bill had been modeled after the 1976 Philadelphia Center for Rape Concern Model Sex Offense Statute. Leigh Bienen, Rape II, 3 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. 90 (1977). The Model Sex Offense Statute in turn had been based on selected provisions of the Michigan Criminal Sexual Conduct Statute, Mich.Stat.Ann. § 28.788(4)(b) (Callaghan 1990), [M.C.L.A. § 750.520d] and on the reform statutes in New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Bienen, Rape III, supra, 6 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. at 207. The stated intent of the drafters of the Philadelphia Center’s Model Statute had been to remove all features found to be contrary to the interests of rape victims. John M. Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code Annotated 279 (1991). According to its proponents the statute would “ ‘normalize the law. We are no longer saying rape victims are likely to lie. What we are saying is that rape is just like other violent crimes.’” Stuart Marques, Women’s Coalition Lauds Trenton Panel: Tough Rape Law Revisions Advance, Newark Star Ledger, (May 10, 1978) at 1 (quoting Roberta Kaufman, New Jersey Coalition Against Rape).

Since the 1978 reform, the Code has referred to the crime that was once known as “rape” as “sexual assault.” The crime now requires “penetration,” not “sexual intercourse.” It requires “force” or “coercion,” not “submission” or “resistance.” *441It makes no reference to the victim’s state of mind or attitude, or conduct in response to the assault. It eliminates the spousal exception based on implied consent. It emphasizes the assaultive character of the offense by defining sexual penetration to encompass a wide range of sexual contacts, going well beyond traditional “carnal knowledge.”2 Consistent with the assaultive character, as opposed to the traditional sexual character, of the offense, the statute also renders the crime gender-neutral: both males and females can be actors or victims.

The reform statute defines sexual assault as penetration accomplished by the use of “physical force” or “coercion,” but it does not define either “physical force” or “coercion" or enumerate examples of evidence that would establish those elements. Some reformers had argued that defining “physical force” too specifically in the sexual offense statute might have the effect of limiting force to the enumerated examples. Bienen, Rape III, supra, 6 Women’s Rts.L.Rep. at 181. The task of defining “physical force” therefore was left to the courts.

That definitional task runs the risk of undermining the basic legislative intent to reformulate rape law. See Susan Estrich, Real Rape 60 (1987) (noting that under many modern formulations of rape “[t]he prohibition of force or ‘forcible compulsion’ ends up being defined in terms of a woman’s resistance”). That risk was encountered by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Patterson, 428 Mich. 502, 410 N.W.2d 733 (1987). That court considered the sufficiency of the evidence of force or coercion in the prosecution of a sexual contact charge against-a defendant who had placed his hands on the genital area of a seventeen-year-old girl while she was sleeping. A majority of *442the court concluded that the defendant had not used force as required by the statute because there was “no evidence of physical overpowering ..-. [and] there was no submission.” Id. 410 N.W.2d at 740. Justice Boyle, in dissent, soundly criticized the majority’s position as a distortion of the legislature’s intent to protect the sexual privacy of persons from the use of force, coercion, or other undue advantage. Concluding that the statute did not require a showing of any extra force, Justice Boyle pointed out that in “definpng] force by measuring the degree of resistance by the victim,” the majority had effectively “reintroduc[ed] the resistance requirement, when the proper focus ought to be on whether the contact was unpermitted.” Id. at 747-49.

*441Sexual penetration means vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse between persons or insertion of the hand, finger or object into the anus or vagina either by the actor or upon the actor’s instruction. [N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1.]

*442Unlike the Michigan statute interpreted in Patterson, the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice does not refer to force in relation to “overcoming the will” of the victim, or to the “physical overpowering” of the victim, or the “submission” of the victim. It does not require the demonstrated non-consent of the victim. As we have noted, in reforming the rape laws, the Legislature placed primary emphasis on the assaultive nature of the crime, altering its constituent elements so that they focus exclusively on the forceful or assaultive conduct of the defendant.

The Legislature’s concept of sexual assault and the role of force was significantly colored by its understanding of the law of assault and battery. As a general matter, criminal battery is defined as “the unlawful application of force to the person of another.” 2 Wayne LaFave & Austin Scott, Criminal Law, § 7.15 at 301 (1986). The application of force is criminal when it results in either (a) a physical injury or (b) an offensive touching. Id. at 301-02. Any “unauthorized touching of another [is] a battery.” Perna v. Pirozzi, 92 N.J. 446, 462, 457 A.2d 431 (1983). Thus, by eliminating all references to the victim’s state of mind and conduct, and by broadening the definition of penetration to cover not only sexual intercourse *443between a man and a woman but a range of acts that invade another’s body or compel intimate contact, the Legislature emphasized the affinity between sexual assault and other forms of assault and battery.

The intent of the Legislature to redefine rape consistent with the law of assault and battery is further evidenced by the legislative treatment of other sexual crimes less serious than and derivative of traditional rape. The Code redefined the offense of criminal sexual contact to emphasize the involuntary and personally-offensive nature of the touching. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-l(d). Sexual contact is criminal under the same circumstances that render an act of sexual penetration a sexual assault, namely, when “physical force” or “coercion” demonstrates that it is unauthorized and offensive. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). Thus, just as any unauthorized touching is a crime under traditional laws of assault and battery, so is any unauthorized sexual contact a crime under the reformed law of criminal sexual contact, and so is any unauthorized sexual penetration a crime under the reformed law of sexual assault.

The understanding of sexual assault as a criminal battery, albeit one with especially serious consequences, follows necessarily from the Legislature’s decision to eliminate non-consent and resistance from the substantive definition of the offense. Under the new law, the victim no longer is required to resist and therefore need not have said or done anything in order for the sexual penetration to be unlawful. The alleged victim is not put on trial, and his or her responsive or defensive behavior is rendered immaterial. We are thus satisfied that an interpretation of the statutory crime of sexual assault to require physical force in addition to that entailed in an act of involuntary or unwanted sexual penetration would be fundamentally inconsistent with the legislative purpose to eliminate any consideration of whether the victim resisted or expressed non-consent.

*444We note that the contrary interpretation of force — that the element of force need be extrinsic to the sexual act — would not only reintroduce a resistance requirement into the sexual assault law, but also would immunize many acts of criminal sexual contact short of penetration. The characteristics that make a sexual contact unlawful are the same as those that make a sexual penetration unlawful. An actor is guilty of criminal sexual contact if he or she commits an act of sexual contact with another using “physical force” or “coercion.” N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). That the Legislature would have wanted to decriminalize unauthorized sexual intrusions on the bodily integrity of a victim by requiring a showing of force in addition to that entailed in the sexual contact itself is hardly possible.

Because the statute eschews any reference to the victim’s will or resistance, the standard defining the role of force in sexual penetration must prevent the possibility that the establishment of the crime will turn on the alleged victim’s state of mind or responsive behavior. We conclude, therefore, that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by the defendant without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes the offense of sexual assault. Therefore, physical force in excess of that inherent in the act of sexual penetration is not required for such penetration to be unlawful. The definition of “physical force” is satisfied under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(l) if the defendant applies any amount of force against another person in the absence of what a reasonable person would believe to be affirmative and freely-given permission to the act of sexual penetration.

Under the reformed statute, permission to engage in sexual penetration must be affirmative and it must be given freely, but that permission may be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, para. 12-17 (1984) (defining consent as “freely given agreement”); see also, People v. *445Patterson, supra, 410 N.W.2d at 749 (Boyle, J., dissenting) (reasoning that “force” may include “a sexual touching brought about involuntarily,” and may consist of “a contact which occurs before consent can be given or refused”); cf. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-10(e)(3) (indicating that “consent” does not constitute a defense sufficient to negate an element of a crime if consent was induced or accomplished by force or coercion). Persons need not, of course, expressly announce their consent to engage in intercourse for there to be affirmative permission. Permission to engage in an act of sexual penetration can be and indeed often is indicated through physical actions rather than words. Permission is demonstrated when the evidence, in whatever form, is sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed that the alleged victim had affirmatively and freely given authorization to the act.

Our understanding of the meaning and application of “physical force” under the sexual assault statute indicates that the term’s inclusion was neither inadvertent nor redundant. The term “physical force,” like its companion term “coercion,” acts to qualify the nature and character of the “sexual penetration.” Sexual penetration accomplished through the use of force is unauthorized sexual penetration. That functional understanding of “physical force” encompasses the notion of “unpermitted touching” derived from the Legislature’s decision to redefine rape as a sexual assault. As already noted, under assault and battery doctrine, any amount of force that results in either physical injury or offensive touching is sufficient to establish a battery. Hence, as a description of the method of achieving “sexual penetration,” the term “physical force” serves to define and explain the acts that are offensive, unauthorized, and unlawful.

That understanding of the crime of sexual assault fully comports with the public policy sought to be effectuated by the Legislature. In redefining rape law as sexual assault, the Legislature adopted the concept of sexual assault as a crime against the bodily integrity of the victim. Although it is *446possible to imagine a set of rules in which persons must demonstrate affirmatively that sexual contact is unwanted or not permitted, such a regime would be inconsistent with modern principles of personal autonomy. The Legislature recast the law of rape as sexual assault to bring that area of law in line with the expectation of privacy and bodily control that long has characterized most of our private and public law. See Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Paint Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81, 94-96, 609 A.2d 11 (1992) (recognizing importance of constitutional and common-law protection of personal privacy); id. at 106, 609 A.2d 11 (Pollock, J., concurring) (emphasizing that common-law right of privacy protects individual self-determination and autonomy). In interpreting “physical force” to include any touching that occurs without permission we seek to respect that goal.

Today the law of sexual assault is indispensable to the system of legal rules that assures each of us the right to decide who may touch our bodies, when, and under what circumstances. The decision to engage in sexual relations with another person is one of the most private and intimate decisions a person can make. Each person has the right not only to decide whether to engage in sexual contact with another, but also to control the circumstances and character of that contact. No one, neither a spouse, nor a friend, nor an acquaintance, nor a stranger, has the right or the privilege to force sexual contact. See Definition of Forcible Rape, supra, 61 Va.L.Rev. at 1529 (arguing that “forcible rape is viewed as a heinous crime primarily because it is a violent assault on a person’s bodily security, particularly degrading because that person is forced to submit to an act of the most intimate nature”).

We emphasize as well that what is now referred to as “acquaintance rape” is not a new phenomenon. Nor was it a “futuristic” concept in 1978 when the sexual assault law was enacted. Current concern over the prevalence of forced sexual intercourse between persons who know one another reflects both greater awareness of the extent of such behavior and a growing appreciation of its gravity. Notwithstanding the *447stereotype of rape as a violent attack by a stranger, the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Acquaintance Rape, supra, at 10. One respected study indicates that more than half of all rapes are committed by male relatives, current or former husbands, boyfriends or lovers. Diana Russell, The Prevalence and Incidence of Forcible Rape and Attempted Rape of Females, 7 Victimology 81 (1982). Similarly, contrary to common myths, perpetrators generally do not use guns or knives and victims generally do not suffer external bruises or cuts. Acquaintance Rape, supra, at 10. Although this more realistic and accurate view of rape only recently has achieved widespread public circulation, it was a central concern of the proponents of reform in the 1970s. Id. at 18.

The insight into rape as an assaultive crime is consistent with our evolving understanding of the wrong inherent in forced sexual intimacy. It is one that was appreciated by the Legislature when it reformed the rape laws, reflecting an emerging awareness that the definition of rape should correspond fully with the experiences and perspectives of rape victims. Although reformers focused primarily on the problems associated with convicting defendants accused of violent rape, the recognition that forced sexual intercourse often takes place between persons who know each other and often involves little or no violence comports with the understanding of the sexual assault law that was embraced by the Legislature. Any other interpretation of the law, particularly one that defined force in relation to the resistance or protest of the victim, would directly undermine the goals sought to be achieved by its reform.

IV

In a case such as this one, in which the State does not allege violence or force extrinsic to the act of penetration, the factfinder must decide whether the defendant’s act of penetration was undertaken in circumstances that led the defendant reasonably *448to believe that the alleged victim had freely given affirmative permission to the specific act of sexual penetration. Such permission can be indicated either through words or through actions that, when viewed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, would demonstrate to a reasonable person affirmative and freely-given authorization for the specific act of sexual penetration.

In applying that standard to the facts in these cases, the focus of attention must be on the nature of the defendant’s actions. The role of the factfinder is not to decide whether reasonable people may engage in acts of penetration without the permission of others. The Legislature answered that question when it enacted the reformed sexual assault statute: reasonable people do not engage in acts of penetration without permission, and it is unlawful to do so. The role of the factfinder is to decide not whether engaging in an act of penetration without permission of another person is reasonable, but only whether the defendant’s belief that the alleged victim had freely given affirmative permission was reasonable.

In these cases neither the alleged victim’s subjective state of mind nor the reasonableness of the alleged victim’s actions can be deemed relevant to the offense. The alleged victim may be questioned about what he or she did or said only to determine whether the defendant was reasonable in believing that affirmative permission had been freely given. To repeat, the law places no burden on the alleged victim to have expressed non-consent or to have denied permission, and no inquiry is made into what he or she thought or desired or why he or she did not resist or protest.

In short, in order to convict under the sexual assault statute in cases such as these, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual penetration and that it was accomplished without the affirmative and freely-given permission of the alleged victim. As we have indicated, such proof can be based on evidence of conduct or words in light of *449surrounding circumstances and must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would not have believed that there was affirmative and freely-given permission. If there is evidénce to suggest that the defendant reasonably believed that such permission had been given, the State must demonstrate either that defendant did not actually believe that affirmative permission had been freely-given or that such a belief was unreasonable under all of the circumstances. Thus, the State bears the burden of proof throughout the case.

In the context of a sexual penetration not involving unusual or added “physical force,” the inclusion of “permission” as an aspect of “physical force” effectively subsumes and obviates any defense based on consent. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-10c(3). The definition of “permission” serves to define the “consent” that otherwise might allow a defendant to avoid criminal liability. Because “physical force” as an element of sexual assault in this context requires the absence of affirmative and freely-given permission, the “consent” necessary to negate such “physical force” under a defense based on consent would require the presence of such affirmative and freely-given permission. Any lesser form of consent would render the sexual penetration unlawful and cannot constitute a defense.

In this case, the Appellate Division concluded that non-consensual penetration accomplished with no additional physical force or coercion is not criminalized under the sexual assault statute. 247 N.J.Super. at 260, 588 A.2d 1282. It acknowledged that its conclusion was “anomalous” because it recognized that “a woman has every right to end [physically intimate] activity without sexual penetration.” Ibid. Thus, it added to its holding that “[e]ven the force of penetration might ... be sufficient if it is shown to be employed to overcome the victim’s unequivocal expressed desire to limit the encounter.” Ibid.

The Appellate Division was correct in recognizing that a woman’s right to end intimate activity without penetration is a *450protectable right the violation of which can be a criminal offense. However, it misperceived the purpose of the statute in believing that the only way that right can be protected is by the woman’s unequivocally-expressed desire to end the activity. The effect of that requirement would be to import into the sexual assault statute the notion that an assault occurs only if the victim’s will is overcome, and thus to reintroduce the requirement of non-consent and victim-resistance as a constituent material element of the crime. Under the reformed statute, a person’s failure to protest or resist cannot be considered or used as justification for bodily invasion.

We acknowledge that cases such as this are inherently fact sensitive and depend on the reasoned judgment and common sense of judges and juries. The trial court concluded that the victim had not expressed consent to the act of intercourse, either through her words or actions. We conclude that the record provides reasonable support for the trial court’s disposition.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the disposition of juvenile delinquency for the commission of second-degree sexual assault.

For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

Opposed — None.

MITCHELL, Justice.

The defendant raises on appeal the question whether the evidence of his guilt of kidnapping and second degree rape was sufficient to support his convictions of those crimes. For reasons discussed herein, we conclude the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of either crime.

The State’s evidence tended to show that at the time the incident occurred the defendant and the prosecuting witness in this case, Cottie Brown, had been involved for approximately six months in a consensual sexual relationship. During the six months the two had conflicts at times and Brown would leave the apartment she shared with the defendant to stay with her mother. She testified that she would return to the defendant and the apartment they shared when he called to tell her to return. Brown *401testified that she and the defendant had sexual relations throughout their relationship. Although she sometimes enjoyed their sexual relations, she often had sex with the defendant just to accommodate him. On those occasions, she would stand still and remain entirely passive while the defendant undressed her and had intercourse with her.

Brown testified that at times their consensual sexual relations involved some violence. The defendant had struck her several times throughout the relationship when she refused to give him money or refused to do what he wanted. Around May 15,1981, the defendant struck her after asking for money that she refused to give him. Brown left the apartment she shared with the defendant and moved in with her mother. She did not have intercourse with the defendant after May 15 until the alleged rape on June 15. After Brown left the defendant, he called her several times and visited her at Durham Technical Institute where she was enrolled in classes. When he visited her they talked about their relationship. Brown testified that she did not tell him she wanted to break off their relationship because she was afraid he would be angry.

On June 15, 1981, Brown arrived at Durham Technical Institute by taxicab to find the defendant standing close to the school door. The defendant blocked her path as she walked toward the door and asked her where she had moved. Brown refused to tell him, and the defendant grabbed her arm, saying that she was going with him. Brown testified that it would have taken some effort to pull away. The two walked toward the parking lot and Brown told the defendant she would walk with him if he let her go. The defendant then released her. She testified that she did not run away from him because she was afraid of him. She stated that other students were nearby.

Brown stated that she and the defendant then began a casually paced walk in the neighborhood around the school. They walked, sometimes side by side, sometimes with Brown slightly behind the defendant. As they walked they talked about their relationship. Brown said the defendant did not hold her or help her along in any way as they walked. The defendant talked about Brown’s “dogging” him and making him seem a fool and about Brown’s mother’s interference in the relationship. When the *402defendant and Brown left the parking lot, the defendant threatened to “fix” her face so that her mother could see he was not playing. While they were walking out of the parking lot, Brown told the defendant she wanted to go to class. He replied that she was going to miss class that day.

The two continued to walk away from the school. Brown testified that the defendant continually talked about their relationship as they walked, but that she paid little attention to what he said because she was preoccupied with her own thoughts. They passed several people. They walked along several streets and went down a path close to a wooded area where they stopped to talk. The defendant asked again where Brown had moved. She asked him whether he would let her go if she told him her address. The defendant then asked whether the relationship was over and Brown told him it was. He then said that since everyone could see her but him he had a right to make love to her again. Brown said nothing.

The two turned around at that point and began walking towards a street they had walked down previously. Changing directions, they walked in the same fashion they had walked before — side by side with Brown sometimes slightly behind. The defendant did not hold or touch Brown as they walked. Brown testified that the defendant did not say where they were going but that, when he said he wanted to make love, she knew he was going to the house of a friend. She said they had gone to the house on prior occasions to have sex. The defendant and Brown passed the same group of men they had passed previously. Brown did not ask for assistance because some of the men were friends of the defendant, and she assumed they would not help. The defendant and Brown continued to walk to the house of one of the defendant’s friends, Lawrence Taylor.

When they entered the house, Taylor was inside. Brown sat in the living room while the defendant and Taylor went to the back of the house and talked. When asked why she did not try to leave when the defendant and Taylor were in the back of the house, Brown replied, “It was nowhere to go. I don’t know. I just didn’t.” The defendant returned to the living room area and turned on the television. He attempted to fix a broken fan. Brown asked Taylor for a cigarette, and he gave her one.

*403The defendant began talking to Brown about another man she had been seeing. By that time Taylor had gone out of the room and perhaps the house. The defendant asked if Brown was “ready.” The evidence tended to show that she told him “no, that I wasn’t going to bed with him.” She testified that she did not want to have sex with the defendant and did not consent to do so at any time on June 15.

After Brown finished her cigarette, the defendant began kissing her neck. He pulled her up from the chair in which she had been sitting and started undressing her. He noticed that she was having her menstrual period, and she sat down pulling her pants back up. The defendant again took off her pants and blouse. He told her to lay down on a bed which was in the living room. She complied and the defendant pushed apart her legs and had sexual intercourse with her. Brown testified that she did not try to push him away. She cried during the intercourse. Afterwards they talked. The defendant told her he wanted to make sure she was not lying about where she lived and that he would not let her up unless she told him.

After they dressed they talked again about the man Brown had been seeing. They left the house and went to the defendant’s mother’s house. After talking with the defendant’s mother, Brown took a bus home. She talked with her mother about taking out a complaint against the defendant but did not tell her mother she and the defendant had had sex. Brown made a complaint to the police the same day.

The defendant continued to call Brown after June 15, but she refused to see him. One evening he called from a telephone booth and told her he had to talk. When he got to her apartment he threatened to kick her door down and Brown let him inside. Once inside he said he had intended merely to talk to her but that he wanted to make love again after seeing her. Brown said she sat and looked at him, and that he began kissing her. She pulled away and he picked her up and carried her to the bedroom. He performed oral sex on her and she testified that she did not try to fight him off because she found she enjoyed it. The two stayed together until morning and had sexual intercourse several times that night. Brown did not disclose the incident to the police immediately because she said she was embarrassed.

*404The defendant put on no evidence and moved at the close of the State’s evidence for dismissal of both charges based on insufficiency of evidence. The trial court denied the motions and the majority in the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Upon the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the question for the court is whether substantial evidence was introduced of each element of the offense charged and that the defendant was the perpetrator. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649 (1982). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E. 2d 164, 169 (1980). The issue of substantiality is a question of law for the court. If the evidence is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the perpetrator, the motion to dismiss should be allowed. State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 383, 156 S.E. 2d 679, 682 (1967). This is true even though the suspicion is strong. State v. Evans, 279 N.C. 447, 183 S.E. 2d 540 (1971).

The court is to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State in ruling on a motion to dismiss. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649 (1982). The State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and inference to be drawn from the evidence; contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal-they are for the jury to resolve. Id.

[l] In light of these principles, we examine first the evidence relating to the charge of kidnapping. Kidnapping is the unlawful restraint, confinement or removal of a person without that person’s consent, if the person is 16 or over, for one of the following purposes:

(1) Holding such other person for ransom or as a hostage or using such other person as a shield; or

(2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony; or

(3) Doing serious bodily harm to or terrorizing the person so confined, restrained or removed or any other person.

(4) Holding such other person in involuntary servitude in violation of G.S. 14-43.2.

*405G.S. 14-39(a). In order to convict the defendant of first degree kidnapping, the State must allege and prove as an additional element that “the person kidnapped either was not released by the defendant in a safe place or had been seriously injured or sexually assaulted. . . .” G.S. 14-39(b); State v. Jerrett, 309 N.C. 239, 307 S.E. 2d 339 (1983).

The indictment for kidnapping in the present case alleged that the defendant removed Brown for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the felony of second degree rape. When such an indictment alleges an intent to commit a particular felony, the State must prove the particular intent alleged. State v. White, 307 N.C. 42, 296 S.E. 2d 267 (1982). In order to withstand the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the State was, therefore, required to introduce substantial evidence tending to show that the defendant had the intent to rape Brown at the time he removed her.

The defendant argues that no substantial evidence was introduced tending to show either that he forcibly removed Brown or that he had the intent to rape her when he did so. Our review of the evidence introduced at trial leads us to the conclusion that, although there was substantial evidence of force, intimidation and removal of Brown by the defendant, the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant removed her with the intent to commit rape.

The evidence tended to show that when he approached Brown at the school on June 15, the defendant blocked her way and grabbed her arm, forcing her to walk with him towards the parking lot. He questioned her about where she was living and expressed a desire to see her again. There was no evidence that while he held her he had an intent to have sex with her. He made no sexual remarks but expressed a desire to talk about their relationship. The two then embarked on a walk through the neighborhood. The defendant and Brown continued on their walk, staying slightly apart, with the defendant neither holding Brown nor threatening her in any way with what might happen if she tried to leave. They talked about their relationship as they walked.

The defendant made no sexual remarks at all until they reached a wooded area some distance from the school and stopped to talk. There Brown told the defendant that the relationship was *406over. For the first time the defendant spoke of sex and said he deserved another lovemaking session. They changed directions at that point. Brown said nothing but followed him to the house where the two had gone to have sex before.

There was no substantial evidence of an intent by the defendant to have sex until the time he made his statement about deserving sex. Ordinarily, the mere fact that a defendant removed and then raped the victim is substantial evidence that the defendant removed the victim with the intent to commit rape. See State v. White, 307 N.C. 42, 49, 296 S.E. 2d 267, 271 (1982) (removal to facilitate sexual assault). Even when it is assumed arguendo that the defendant in this case raped Brown, however, all of the evidence tended to show that, at the time the defendant removed Brown, he had no reason to think that she would not engage in consensual sexual acts with him. To the contrary, all of the evidence tended to show that Brown’s actions on June 15 prior to telling the defendant that their relationship was at an end were entirely consistent with the well established pattern of the couple’s consensual sexual relationship. During that relationship she frequently remained entirely passive while the defendant at times engaged in some violence at the time of sexual intercourse. Brown’s conduct on June 15, at least prior to her telling the defendant the relationship was over, was entirely consistent with her prior consensual sexual conduct. It in no way indicated to the defendant that he would have to rape Brown in order to have sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, there was no substantial evidence that the defendant had formed the intent to rape Brown at the time he forcibly removed her or that he removed her with the intent to facilitate any such crime.

All of the evidence tended to show that, after Brown told the defendant their relationship was over and he made his statement concerning sex, the defendant did not threaten Brown in any way and did not touch her again until he actually had sex with her at the Taylor house. Instead, all of the evidence tends to show that Brown followed the defendant to the Taylor house without protesting or giving any apparent indication that she went unwillingly. We think that such evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant knew or had any reason to know at the time he removed Brown from the school that she would not have consensual sexual intercourse with him as she always had in the past. Thus, *407there was no substantial evidence that the defendant had formed an intent to rape Brown at the time he removed her from the school.

Since there was no substantial evidence of forcible confinement, restraint or removal for the purpose of committing rape, the State failed to present substantial evidence of every element of the offense charged in the bill of indictment. We reverse the majority holding of the Court of Appeals on this issue and hold that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the kidnapping charge for insufficiency of the evidence.

[2] In his second assignment of error the defendant contends there was no substantial evidence that the sexual intercourse between Brown and him was by force and against her will. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to allow the trial court to submit the issue of his guilt of second degree rape to the jury. After a review of the evidence, we find this argument to have merit.

Second degree rape involves vaginal intercourse with the victim both by force and against the victim’s will. G.S. 14-27.3. Consent by the victim is a complete defense, but consent which is induced by fear of violence is void and is no legal consent. State v. Hall, 293 N.C. 559, 563, 238 S.E. 2d 473, 476 (1977).

A defendant can be guilty of raping even his mistress or a “common strumpet.” Cf. State v. Long, 93 N.C. 542 (1885) (assault with intent to rape). This is so because consent to sexual intercourse freely given can be withdrawn at any time prior to penetration. State v. Way, 297 N.C. 293, 296, 254 S.E. 2d 760, 761 (1979). If the particular act of intercourse for which the defendant is charged was both by force and against the victim’s will, the offense is rape without regard to the victim’s consent given to the defendant for prior acts of intercourse. Id.; R. Anderson, 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure § 302 (1957).

Where as here the victim has engaged in a prior continuing consensual sexual relationship with the defendant, however, determining the victim’s state of mind at the time of the alleged rape obviously is made more difficult. Although inquiry in such cases still must be made into the victim’s state of mind at the time of the alleged rape, the State ordinarily will be able to show *408the victim’s lack of consent to the specific act charged only by evidence of statements or actions by the victim which were clearly communicated to the defendant and which expressly and unequivocally indicated the victim’s withdrawal of any prior consent and lack of consent to the particular act of intercourse.

In the present case the State introduced such evidence. It is true, of course, that Brown gave no physical resistance to the defendant. Evidence of physical resistance is not necessary to prove lack of consent in a rape case in this jurisdiction. State v. Hall, 293 N.C. 559, 563, 238 S.E. 2d 473, 476 (1977). Brown testified unequivocally that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with the defendant on June 15. She was equally unequivocal in testifying that she submitted to sexual intercourse with the defendant only because she was afraid of him. During their walk, she told the defendant that their relationship was at an end. When the defendant asked her if she was “ready” immediately prior to having sexual intercourse with her, she told him “no, that I wasn’t going to bed with him.” Even in the absence of physical resistance by Brown, such testimony by her provided substantial evidence that the act of sexual intercourse was against her will. See, e.g., State v. Arnold, 284 N.C. 41, 199 S.E. 2d 423 (1973).

The State did not offer substantial evidence, however, of the element of force. As we have stated, actual physical force need not be shown in order to establish force sufficient to constitute an element of the crime of rape. Threats of serious bodily harm which reasonably induce fear thereof are sufficient. See State v. Burns, 287 N.C. 102, 214 S.E. 2d 56, cert. denied, 428 U.S. 933 (1975). In the present case there was no substantial evidence of either actual or constructive force.

The evidence in the present case tended to show that, shortly after the defendant met Brown at the school, they walked out of the parking lot with the defendant in front. He stopped and told Brown he was going to “fix” her face so that her mother could see he was not “playing.” This threat by the defendant and his act of grabbing Brown by the arm at the school, although they may have induced fear, appeared to have been unrelated to the act of sexual intercourse between Brown and the defendant. More important, the record is devoid of evidence that Brown was in any way intimidated into having sexual intercourse with the de*409fendant by that threat or any other act of the defendant on June 15. Brown said she did not pay a lot of attention to what the defendant said because she was thinking about other things. She specifically stated that her fear of the defendant was based on an experience with him prior to June 15 and that on June 15 he did not hold her down or threaten her with what would happen if she refused to submit to him. The State failed to offer substantial evidence of force used or threatened by the defendant on June 15 which related to his desire to have sexual intercourse on that date and was sufficient to overcome the will of the victim.

We note that the absence of an explicit threat is not determinative in considering whether there was sufficient force in whatever form to overcome the will of the victim. It is enough if the totality of the circumstances gives rise to a reasonable inference that the unspoken purpose of the threat was to force the victim to submit to unwanted sexual intercourse. State v. Barnette, 304 N.C. 447, 284 S.E. 2d 298 (1981). The evidence introduced in the present case, however, gave rise to no such inference. Under the peculiar facts of this case, there was no substantial evidence that threats or force by the defendant on June 15 were sufficiently related to sexual conduct to cause Brown to believe that she had to submit to sexual intercourse with him or suffer harm. Although Brown’s general fear of the defendant may have been justified by his conduct on prior occasions, absent evidence that the defendant used force or threats to overcome the will of the victim to resist the sexual intercourse alleged to have been rape, such general fear was not sufficient to show that the defendant used the force required to support a conviction of rape.

In summary, we think that the State’s evidence was sufficient to show that the act of sexual intercourse in question was against Brown’s will. It was not sufficient, however, to show that the act was accomplished by actual force or by a threat to use force unless she submitted to sexual intercourse. Since the State did not introduce substantial evidence of the element of force required to sustain a conviction of rape, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case against the defendant for second degree rape.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals holding that there was no error in the defend*410ant’s trial for kidnapping and second degree rape and remand this action to the Court of Appeals for its further remand to the Superior Court, Durham County, for the entry of directed verdicts in favor of the defendant.

Case No. 81CRS14691 —Second degree rape — reversed and remanded.

Case No. 81CRS29047 — First degree kidnapping — reversed and remanded.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Maryland’s “statutory rape” law prohibiting sexual intercourse with an underage person is codified in Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 463, which reads in full:

“Second degree rape.

(a) What constitutes. — A person is guilty of rape in the second degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person:

(1) By force or threat of force against the will and without the consent of the other person; or

(2) Who is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless, and the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know the other person is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless; or

*574(3) Who is under 14 years of age and the person performing the act is at least four years older than the victim.

(b) Penalty. — Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and upon conviction is subject to imprisonment for a period of not more than 20 years.”

Subsection (a)(3) represents the current version of a statutory provision dating back to the first comprehensive codification of the criminal law by the Legislature in 1809.1 Now we consider whether under the present statute, the State must prove that a defendant knew the complaining witness was younger than 14 and, in a related question, whether it was error at trial to exclude evidence that he had been told, and believed, that she was 16 years old.

I

Raymond Lennard Garnett is a young retarded man. At the time of the incident in question he was 20 years old. He has an I.Q. of 52. His guidance counselor from the Montgomery County public school system, Cynthia Parker, described him as a mildly retarded person who read on the third-grade level, did arithmetic on the 5th-grade level, and interacted with others socially at school at the level of someone 11 or 12 years of age. Ms. Parker added that Raymond attended special education classes and for at least one period of time was educated at home when he was afraid to return to school due to his classmates’ taunting. Because he could not understand the duties of the jobs given him, he failed to complete vocational assignments; he sometimes lost his way to work. As Raymond was unable to pass any of the State’s functional *575tests required for graduation, he received only a certificate of attendance rather than a high-school diploma.

In November or December 1990, a friend introduced Raymond to Erica Frazier, then aged 13; the two subsequently talked occasionally by telephone. On February 28, 1991, Raymond, apparently wishing to call for a ride home, approached the girl’s house at about nine o’clock in the evening. Erica opened her bedroom window, through which Raymond entered; he testified that “she just told me to get a ladder and climb up her window.” The two talked, and later engaged in sexual intercourse. Raymond left at about 4:30 a.m. the following morning. On November 19, 1991, Erica gave birth to a baby, of which Raymond is the biological father.

Raymond was tried before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Miller, J.) on one count of second degree rape under § 463(a)(3) proscribing sexual intercourse between a person under 14 and another at least four years older than the complainant. At trial, the defense twice proffered evidence to the effect that Erica herself and her friends had previously told Raymond that she was 16 years old, and that he had acted with that belief. The trial court excluded such evidence as immaterial, explaining:

“Under 463, the only two requirements as relate to this case are that there was vaginal intercourse, [and] that ... Ms. Frazier was under 14 years of age and that ... Mr. Garnett was at least four years older than she.

“In the Court’s opinion, consent is no defense to this charge. The victim’s representation as to her age and the defendant’s belief, if it existed, that she was not under age, what amounts to what otherwise might be termed a good faith defense, is in fact no defense to what amount[s] to statutory rape.

“It is in the Court’s opinion a strict liability offense.”

The court found Raymond guilty. It sentenced him to a term of five years in prison, suspended the sentence and imposed five years of probation, and ordered that he pay restitution to Erica and the Frazier family. Raymond noted an appeal; we *576granted certiorari prior to intermediate appellate review by the Court of Special Appeals to consider the important issue presented in the case, 329 Md. 601, 620 A.2d 940.

II

In 1975 the Legislative Council of the General Assembly established the Special Committee on Rape and Related Offenses, which proposed a complete revision of Maryland law pertaining to rape and other sex crimes. See generally J. William Pitcher, Rape and Other Sexual Offense Law Reform in Maryland 1976-1977, 7 U.Balt.L.Rev. 151 (1977). Based on the Committee’s work, Senate Bill 358 was introduced, amended, and enacted on May 17, 1976, as eh. 573 of the Acts of 1976. In part, it repealed the common law crime of rape, the former statutory prohibition of carnal knowledge of underage girls, and other related crimes and replaced them with the current array of criminal laws delineating two degrees of rape and four degrees of sexual offenses. See the 1976 Report of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on S.B. 358, at 1-5 and Code, Art. 27, §§ 462-464C; see also Richard P. Gilbert & Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Maryland Criminal Law: Practice and Procedure 65-66, 68-81 (1983).

The new legislation reformulated the former statutory rape law by introducing the element of a four-year age difference between the accused and the underage complainant. Report of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, at 2. As originally enacted by ch. 573 of the Acts of 1976, sexual intercourse with a person under 14 by an actor more than four years older was classified as rape in the first degree, and carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The Legislature, by ch. 292 of the Acts of 1977, reduced the crime to rape in the second degree carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. These reforms of 1976 and 1977 created the law now embodied in § 463(a)(3).

Section 463(a)(3) does not expressly set forth a requirement that the accused have acted with a criminal state of mind, or mens rea. The State insists that the statute, by design, defines a strict liability offense, and that its essential elements *577were met in the instant case when Raymond, age 20, engaged in vaginal intercourse with Erica, a girl under 14 and more than 4 years his junior. Raymond replies that the criminal law exists to assess and punish morally culpable behavior. He says such culpability was absent here. He asks us either to engraft onto subsection (a)(3) an implicit mens rea requirement, or to recognize an affirmative defense of reasonable mistake as to the complainant’s age. Raymond argues that it is unjust, under the circumstances of this case which led him to think his conduct lawful, to brand him a felon and rapist.

Ill

Raymond asserts that the events of this case were inconsistent with the criminal sexual exploitation of a minor by an adult. As earlier observed, Raymond entered Erica’s bedroom at the girl’s invitation; she directed him to use a ladder to reach her window. They engaged voluntarily in sexual intercourse.. They remained together in the room for more than seven hours before Raymond departed at dawn. With an I.Q. of 52, Raymond functioned at approximately the same level as the 13-year-old Erica; he was mentally an adolescent in an adult’s body. Arguably, had Raymond’s chronological age, 20, matched his socio-intellectual age, about 12, he and Erica would have fallen well within the four-year age difference obviating a violation of the statute, and Raymond would not have been charged with any crime at all.

The precise legal issue here rests on Raymond’s unsuccessful efforts to introduce into evidence testimony that Erica and her friends had told him she was 16 years old, the age of consent to sexual relations, and that he believed them. Thus the trial court did not permit him to raise a defense of reasonable mistake of Erica’s age, by which defense Raymond would have asserted that he acted innocently without a criminal design. At common law, a crime occurred only upon the concurrence of an individual’s act and his guilty state of mind. Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 643, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). In this regard, it is well understood that generally there are two *578components of every crime, the actus reus or guilty act and the mens rea or the guilty mind or mental state accompanying a forbidden act. The requirement that an accused have acted with a culpable mental state is an axiom of criminal jurisprudence. Writing for the United States Supreme Court, Justice Robert Jackson observed:

“The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of-the normal individual to choose between good and evil.

* * * * * *

“Crime as a compound concept, generally constituted only from a concurrence of an evil-meaning mind with an evildoing hand, was congenial to an intense individualism and took deep and early root in American soil.”

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250-252, 72 S.Ct. 240, 243-244, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952).

To be sure, legislative bodies since the mid-19th century have created strict liability criminal offenses requiring no mens rea. Almost all such statutes responded to the demands of public health and welfare arising from the complexities of society after the Industrial Revolution. Typically misdemeanors involving only fines or other light penalties, these strict liability laws regulated food, milk, liquor, medicines and drugs, securities, motor vehicles and traffic, the labeling of goods for sale, and the like. See Dawkins, supra, 313 Md. at 644-645, 547 A.2d 1041; see generally Francis Bowes Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum.L.Rev. 55 (1933); Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III — The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C.L.Rev. 337, 340-373 (1989) (suggesting, however, that strict liability doctrine in the United States in the late 19th century was motivated largely by moralistic fervor, such as found in the prohibitionist movement); Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 242-243 (2d ed. 1986); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law 100-*579111 (Charles E. Torcia ed., 14th ed. 1978). Statutory rape, carrying the stigma of felony as well as a potential sentence of 20 years in prison, contrasts markedly with the other strict liability regulatory offenses and their light penalties.

Modern scholars generally reject the concept of strict criminal liability. Professors LaFave and Scott summarize the consensus that punishing conduct without reference to the actor’s state of mind fails to reach the desired end and is unjust:

“ ‘It is inefficacious because conduct unaccompanied by an awareness of the factors making it criminal does not mark the actor as one who needs to be subjected to punishment in order to deter him or others from behaving similarly in the future, nor does it single him out as a socially dangerous individual who needs to be incapacitated or reformed. It is unjust because the actor is subjected to the stigma of a criminal conviction without being morally blameworthy. Consequently, on either a preventive or retributive theory of criminal punishment, the criminal sanction is inappropriate in the absence of mens rea.’ ”

LaFave & Scott, supra, at 248, quoting Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and the Supreme Court, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 107, 109.

Dean Singer has articulated other weaknesses of strict criminal liability theory: 1) extensive government civil regulations and strict liability in tort achieve the same deterrent effect; 2) the judicial efficiency of dispatching minor offenses without an inquiry into mens rea is attained equally by decriminalizing them, and hearing such cases in a regulatory or administrative forum; 3) the small penalties imposed for most strict liability offenses oblige the public to engage in a pernicious game of distinguishing “real” crime from some lesser form of crime; 4) some strict liability laws may result from careless drafting; and 5) strict liability dilutes the moral force that the criminal law has historically carried. Singer, supra, at 389-397, 403-404. The author concludes that “the predicate for all criminal liability is blameworthiness; it is the social stigma which a finding of guilt carries that distinguishes *580the criminal [penalty] from all other sanctions. If the predicate is removed, the criminal law is set adrift.” Id. at 404-405.

Conscious of the disfavor in which strict criminal liability resides, the Model Penal Code states generally as a minimum requirement of culpability that a person is not guilty of a criminal offense unless he acts purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, i.e., with some degree of mens rea. Model Penal Code § 2.02 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980). The Code allows generally for a defense of ignorance or mistake of fact negating mens rea. Id. at § 2.04. The Model Penal Code generally recognizes strict liability for offenses deemed “violations,” defined as wrongs subject only to a fine, forfeiture, or other civil penalty upon conviction, and not giving rise to any legal disability. Id. at §§ 1.04, 2.05.2

The commentators similarly disapprove of statutory rape as a strict liability crime. In addition to the arguments discussed above, they observe that statutory rape prosecutions often proceed even when the defendant’s judgment as to the age of the complainant is warranted by her appearance, her sexual sophistication, her verbal misrepresentations, and the defendant’s careful attempts to ascertain her true age. See Larry W. Myers, Reasonable Mistake of Age: A Needed Defense to Statutory Rape, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 105, 106 (1965). Voluntary intercourse with a sexually mature teen-ager lacks the features of psychic abnormality, exploitation, or physical danger *581that accompanies such conduct with children. Id. at 119-122.3 See also Richard A. Tonry, Comment, Statutory Rape: A Critique, 26 La.L.Rev. 105 (1965); Michael McGillicuddy, Note, Criminal Law: Mistake of Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 18 U.Fla.L.Rev. 699 (1966); Dennis L. Pieragostini, Note, Reasonable Mistake as to Age — a, Defense to Statutory Rape under the New Penal Code, 2 Conn.L.Rev. 433 (1969) (statute since superseded); Kelly Vance, Note, State v. Elton: The Failure to Recognize a Defense to Statutory Rape, 1983 Utah L.Rev. 437 (case subsequently reversed upon reconsideration); Benjamin L. Reiss, Note, Alaska’s Mens Rea Requirements for Statutory Rape, 9 Alaska L.Rev. 377 (1992). But see Frances Olsen, Statutory Rape: A Feminist Critique of Rights Analysis, 63 Tex.L.Rev. 387, 401-413 (1984).

Two sub-parts of the rationale underlying strict criminal liability require further analysis at this point. Statutory rape laws are often justified on the “lesser legal wrong” theory or the “moral wrong” theory; by such reasoning, the defendant acting without mens rea nonetheless deserves punishment for having committed a lesser crime, fornication, or for having violated moral teachings that prohibit sex outside of marriage. See LaFave & Scott, supra, at 410-410; Myers, supra, at 127-129. Maryland has no law against fornication. It is not a crime in this state. Moreover, the criminalization of an act, performed without a guilty mind, deemed immoral by some members of the community rests uneasily on subjective and shifting norms. “[D]etermining precisely what the ‘community ethic’ actually is [is] not an easy task in a heterogeneous society in which our public pronouncements about morality often are not synonymous with our private conduct.” LaFave & Scott, supra, at 411. The drafters of the Model Penal Code remarked:

“[T]he actor who reasonably believes that his partner is above that age [of consent] lacks culpability with respect to the factor deemed critical to liability. Punishing him any*582way simply because his intended conduct would have been immoral under the facts as he supposed them to be postulates a relation between criminality and immorality that is inaccurate on both descriptive and normative grounds. The penal law does not try to enforce all aspects of community morality, and any thoroughgoing attempt to do so would extend the prospect of criminal sanctions far into the sphere of individual liberty and create a regime too demanding for all save the best among us.”

Id., Comment to § 213.6, at 415. We acknowledge here that it is uncertain to what extent Raymond’s intellectual and social retardation may have impaired his ability to comprehend imperatives of sexual morality in any case.

IV

The legislatures of 17 states have enacted laws permitting a mistake of age defense in some form in cases of sexual offenses with underage persons. In Kentucky, the accused may prove in exculpation that he did not know the facts or conditions relevant to the complainant’s age. Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 510.030 (1992). In Washington, the defendant may assert that he reasonably believed the complainant to be of a certain age based on the alleged victim’s own declarations. Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 9A.44.030 (1988, 1993 Cum.Supp.) In some states, the defense is available in instances where the complainant’s age rises above a statutorily prescribed level, but is not available when the complainant falls below the defining age. E.g. Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. tit. 18, § 3102 (1983) (defining critical age at 14); W.Va.Code Ann. § 61-8B-12 (1992 Repl.Vol.) (defining critical age at 11, defense subject to a recklessness standard); Or.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 163.325 (1990 Repl.Vol.) (defining critical age at 16).4 In other states, the *583availability of the defense depends on the severity of the sex offense charged to the accused. E.g. Minn.Stat.Ann. §§ 609.-344-609.345 (1987, 1993 Cum.Supp.) (defense available for certain charges under third-degree and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct).5

In addition, the highest appellate courts of four states have determined that statutory rape laws by implication required an element of mens rea as to the complainant’s age. In the landmark case of People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d 529, 39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964), the California Supreme Court held that, absent a legislative directive to the contrary, a charge of statutory rape was defensible wherein a criminal intent was lacking; it reversed the trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant to present evidence of his good faith, reasonable belief that the complaining witness had reached the age of consent. In so doing, the court first questioned the assumption that age alone confers a sophistication sufficient to create legitimate consent to sexual relations: “the sexually experienced 15-year-old may be far more acutely aware of the implications of sexual intercourse than her sheltered cousin who is beyond the age of consent.” Id., 39 Cal.Rptr. at 362, 393 P.2d at 674. The court then rejected the traditional view that those who engage in sex with young persons do so at their peril, assuming the risk that their partners are underage:

“[I]f [the perpetrator] participates in a mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent, with reasonable grounds for such belief, where is his criminal intent? In such circumstances he has not consciously taken any risk. Instead he has subjectively eliminated the risk by satisfying himself on reasonable *584evidence that the crime cannot be committed. If it occurs that he has been mislead, we cannot realistically conclude for such reason alone the intent with which he undertook the act suddenly becomes more heinous.... [T]he courts have uniformly failed to satisfactorily explain the nature of the criminal intent present in the mind of one who in good faith believes he has obtained a lawful consent before engaging in the prohibited act.”

Id., 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364, 393 P.2d at 676.

The Supreme Court of Alaska has held that a charge of statutory rape is legally unsupportable unless a defense of reasonable mistake of age is allowed. State v. Guest, 583 P.2d 836,- 838-839 (Alaska 1978). The Supreme Court of Utah construed the applicable unlawful sexual intercourse statute to • mean that a conviction could not result unless the state proved a criminal state of mind as to each element of the offense, including the victim’s age. State v. Elton, 680 P.2d 727, 729 (Utah 1984) (Utah Criminal Code since amended to disallow mistake of age as a defense to unlawful sexual intercourse).6 The Supreme Court of New Mexico determined that a defendant should have been permitted at trial to present a defense that his partner in consensual sex told him she was 17, not 15, that this had been confirmed to him by others, and that he had acted under that mistaken belief. Perez v. State, 111 N.M. 160, 803 P.2d 249, 250-251 (1990). Two-fifths of the states, therefore, now recognize the defense in cases of statutory sexual offenses.

V

We think it sufficiently clear, however, that Maryland’s second degree rape statute defines a strict liability offense *585that does not require the State to prove mens rea; it makes no allowance for a mistake-of-age defense. The plain language of § 463, viewed in its entirety, and the legislative history of its creation lead to this conclusion.

It is well settled that in interpreting a statute to ascertain and effectuate its goal, our first recourse is to the words of the statute, giving them their ordinary and natural import. Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 46, 622 A.2d 121 (1993); NCR Corp. v. Comptroller, 313 Md. 118, 124, 544 A.2d 764 (1988). While penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the construction must ultimately depend upon discerning the intention of the Legislature when it drafted and enacted the law in question. State v. Kennedy, 320 Md. 749, 754-755, 580 A.2d 193 (1990); Davis v. State, 319 Md. 56, 60-61, 570 A.2d 855 (1990). To that end, the Court may appropriately look at the larger context, including external manifestations of the legislative purpose, within which statutory language appears. Fairbanks v. McCarter, supra, 330 Md. at 46, 622 A.2d 121; Dickerson v. State, 324 Md. 163, 170-171, 596 A.2d 648 (1991); Morris v. Prince George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 603-604, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990).

Section 463(a)(3) prohibiting sexual intercourse with underage persons makes no reference to the actor’s knowledge, belief, or other state of mind. As we see it, this silence as to mens rea results from legislative design. First, subsection (a)(3) stands in stark contrast to the provision immediately before it, subsection (a)(2) prohibiting vaginal intercourse with incapacitated or helpless persons. In subsection (a)(2), the Legislature expressly provided as an element of the offense that “the person performing the act knows or should reasonably know the other person is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.” Code, § 463(a)(2) (emphasis added). In drafting this subsection, the Legislature showed itself perfectly capable of recognizing and allowing for a defense that obviates criminal intent; if the defendant objectively did not understand that the sex partner was im*586paired, there is no crime. That it chose not to include similar language in subsection (a)(3) indicates that the Legislature aimed to make statutory rape with underage persons a more severe prohibition based on strict criminal liability. See McAlear v. McAlear, 298 Md. 320, 343-344, 469 A.2d 1256 (1984) (a court must read the language of a statute in relation to all of its provisions in determining legislative intent); Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. v. Gartelman, 288 Md. 151, 159, 416 A.2d 734 (1980) (same).

Second, an examination of the drafting history of § 463 during the 1976 revision of Maryland’s sexual offense laws reveals that the statute was viewed as one of strict liability from its inception and throughout the amendment process. As originally proposed, Senate Bill 358 defined as a sexual offense in the first degree a sex act committed with a person less than 14 years old by an actor four or more years older.. See the 1976 Report of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on S.B. 358, at 1-2. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee then offered a series of amendments to the bill. Among them, Amendment # 13 reduced the stipulated age of the victim from less than 14 to 12 or less. 1976 Senate Journal, at 1363. Amendment # 16 then added a provision defining a sexual offense in the second degree as a sex act with another “under 14 years of age, which age the person performing the sexual act knows or should know.” 1976 Senate Journal, at 1364. These initial amendments suggest that, at the very earliest stages of the bill’s life, the Legislature distinguished between some form of strict criminal liability, applicable to offenses where the victim was age 12 . or under, and a lesser offense with a mens rea requirement when the victim was between the ages of 12 and 14.

Senate Bill 358 in its amended form was passed by the Senate on March 11,1976. 1976 Senate Journal, at 1566. The House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee, however, then proposed changes of its own. It rejected the Senate amendments, and defined an offense of rape, without a mens rea *587requirement, for sexual acts performed with someone under the age of 14. See 1976 House Journal, at 3686.7 The Senate concurred in the House amendments and S.B. 358 became law. 1976 House Journal, at 3761; 1976 Senate Journal, at 3429; 1976 Acts of Maryland, at 1536. Thus the Legislature explicitly raised, considered, and then explicitly jettisoned any notion of a mens rea element with respect to the complainant’s age in enacting the law that formed the basis of current § 463(a)(3). In the light of such legislative action, we must inevitably conclude that the current law imposes strict liability on its violators.

This interpretation is consistent with the traditional view of statutory rape as a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury, and, in the case of girls, pregnancy. See Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464, 470, 101 S.Ct. 1200, 1204-05, 67 L.Ed.2d 437 (1981); Rita Eidson, Note, The Constitutionality of Statutory Rape Laws, 27 UCLA L.Rev. 757, 760-761 (1980). The majority of states retain statutes which impose strict liability for sexual acts with underage complainants. We observe again, as earlier, that even among those states providing for a mistake-of-age defense in some instances, the defense often is not available where the sex partner is 14 years old or less; the complaining witness in the instant case was only 13. The majority of appellate courts, including the Court of Special Appeals, have held statutory rape to be a strict liability crime. Eggleston v. State, 4 Md.App. 124, 241 A.2d 433 (1968); see the compilation in W.E. Shipley, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim’s Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 8 A.L.R.3d 1100 (1966, 1992 Supp.).

*588VI

Maryland’s second degree rape statute is by nature a creature of legislátion. Any new provision introducing an element of mens rea, or permitting a defense of reasonable mistake of age, with respect to the offense of sexual intercourse with a person less than 14, should properly result from an act of the Legislature itself, rather than judicial fiat. Until then, defendants in extraordinary cases, like Raymond, will rely upon the tempering discretion of the trial court at sentencing.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.

ELDRIDGE, Judge,

dissenting:

Both the majority opinion and Judge Bell’s dissenting opinion view the question in this case to be whether, on the one hand, Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 463(a)(3), is entirely a strict liability statute without any mens rea requirement or, on the other hand, contains the requirement that the defendant knew that the person with whom he or she was having sexual relations was under 14 years of age.

The majority takes the position that the statute defines an entirely strict liability offense and has no mens rea requirement whatsoever. The majority indicates that the defendant’s “knowledge, belief, or other state of mind” is wholly immaterial. The majority opinion at one point states: “We acknowledge here that it is uncertain to what extent Raymond’s intellectual and social retardation may have impaired his ability to comprehend imperatives of sexual morality in any case.” Nevertheless, according to the majority, it was permissible for the trial judge to have precluded exploration into Raymond’s knowledge and comprehension because the offense is entirely one of strict liability.

Judge Bell’s dissent, however, argues that, under the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Maryland Declaration of Rights, any “defendant may defend on the basis that he was mistaken as to the age of the prosecutrix.”

*589In my view, the issue concerning a mens rea requirement in § 463(a)(3) is not limited to a choice between one of the extremes set forth in the majority’s and Judge Bell’s opinions. I agree with the majority that an ordinary defendant’s mistake about the age of his or her sexual partner is not a defense to a prosecution under § 463(a)(3). Furthermore I am not persuaded, at least at the present time, that either the federal or state constitutions require that a defendant’s honest belief that the other person was above the age of consent be a defense.1 This does not mean, however, that the statute contains no mens rea requirement at all.

The legislative history of § 463(a)(3), set forth in the majority opinion, demonstrates that the House of Delegates rejected the Senate’s proposed requirement that an older person, having sexual relations with another under 14 years of age, know or should know that the other person was under 14. The House of Delegates’ version was ultimately adopted. From this, the majority concludes that the enacted version was “without a mens rea requirement.” The majority’s conclusion does not necessarily follow. Although the General Assembly rejected one specific knowledge requirement, it did not decree that any and all evidence concerning a defendant’s knowledge and comprehension was immaterial.

There are pure strict liability offenses where “the purpose of the penalty is to regulate rather than to punish behavior” and where criminal “liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s state of mind,” Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 645, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). These “offenses commonly involve light fines or penalties,” Dawkins, 313 Md. at 644, 547 A.2d at 1044. There are other offenses (also unfortunately often called “strict liability” offenses) where the legislature has dispensed with a knowledge requirement in one respect but *590has not intended to impose criminal liability regardless of the defendant’s state of mind.2 Such offenses

“do require ‘fault’ ..., in that they ‘can be interpreted as legislative judgments that persons who intentionally engage in certain activities and occupy some peculiar or distinctive position of control are to be held accountable for the occurrence of certain consequences.’ ”

W. LaFave & A. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law, ch. 3, § 3.8(c), at 349 (1986), quoting Wasserstrom, Strict Criminal Liability, 12 Stan.L.Rev. 731, 743 (1960). See also P. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses, ch. 3, § 108(b), at 535 (1984) (“If reasonable mistake as to the victim’s age is disallowed ... [tjhere is, ... strict liability with respect to that element ”) (emphasis added).

Neither the statutory language nor the legislative history of § 463(a)(3), or of the other provisions of the 1976 and 1977 sexual offense statutes, indicate that the General Assembly intended § 463(a)(3) to define a pure strict liability offense where criminal liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s mental state. The penalty provision for a violation of § 463(a)(3), namely making the offense a felony punishable by a maximum of 20 years imprisonment (§ 463(b)), is strong evidence that the General Assembly did not intend to create a pure strict liability offense.

In the typical situation involving an older person’s engaging in consensual sexual activities with a teenager below the age of consent, and the scenario which the General Assembly likely contemplated when it enacted §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), 4640(a)(2), and 4640(a)(3), the defendant knows and intends that he or she is engaging in sexual activity with a young person. In addition, the defendant knows that the *591activity is regarded as immoral and/or improper by large segments of society. Moreover, the defendant is aware that “consent” by persons who are too young is ineffective. Although in a particular case the defendant may honestly but mistakenly believe, because of representations or appearances, that the other person is above the age of consent, the ordinary defendant in such case is or ought to be aware that there is a risk that the young person is not above the age of consent. As the majority opinion points out, “the traditional view [is] that those who engage in sex with young persons do so at their peril, assuming the risk that their partners are underage .... ” It seems to me that the above-mentioned knowledge factors, and particularly the mental ability to appreciate that one is taking a risk, constitute the mem rea of the offenses defined by §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), 4640(a)(2) and 4640(a)(3). In enacting these provisions, the General Assembly assumed that a defendant is able to appreciate the risk involved by intentionally and knowingly engaging in sexual activities with a young person. There is no indication that the General Assembly intended that criminal liability attach to one who, because of his or her mental impairment, was unable to appreciate that risk.

It is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature intended for one to be convicted under § 463(a)(3), or under any of the other statutes proscribing sexual activity with underage persons, regardless of his or her mental state. Suppose, for example, that Raymond Garnett had not had an I.Q. of 52, but rather, had been more severely mentally retarded as was the young woman involved in Wentzel v. Montgomery Gen. Hosp., 293 Md. 685, 447 A.2d 1244, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147, 103 S.Ct. 790, 74 L.Ed.2d 995 (1983). The mentally retarded person in Wentzel had an I.Q. of 25-30, was physiologically capable of bearing a child, but was unable to comprehend the act of sexual intercourse, or even to understand the difference between the sexes. If someone so disabled, having reached Raymond’s chronological age, then had “consensual” sexual intercourse with a person younger than fourteen years of age, I do not believe that he or she would have violated Art. 27, *592§ 463(a)(3). Under the view that §§ 463(a)(3), 464A(a)(3), 464B(a)(3), etc., define pure strict liability offenses without any regard for the defendant’s mental state, presumably a 20 year old, who passes out because of drinking too many alcoholic beverages, would be guilty of a sexual offense if a 13 year old engages in various sexual activities with the 20 year old while the latter is unconscious. I cannot imagine that the General Assembly intended any such result.

An impaired mental condition may show the absence of mens rea, depending upon the circumstances. See, e.g., Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33, 39 n. 3, 542 A.2d 1258, 1261 n. 3 (1988); Hoey v. State, 311 Md. 473, 494-495, 536 A.2d 622 (1988). In light of the defendant Garnett’s mental retardation, and its effect upon his knowledge and comprehension, he may or may not have had the requisite mens rea. As previously mentioned, the majority opinion itself acknowledges that it is uncertain to what extent Raymond’s intellectual and social retardation may have impaired his ability to comprehend standards of sexual morality. The problem in this case is that the trial judge’s view of the statute, which the majority adopts, precluded an exploration into the matter.

The majority points out that the trial court would not allow testimony that Erica and her friends had told the defendant that she was 16 years old. The trial court, however, went further. The court would not allow the defendant to testify concerning his knowledge. More importantly, the trial judge took the position that the offense proscribed by § 463(a)(3) is “a strict liability offense” and that the only requirements for conviction were that “the defendant had sexual intercourse with Erica Frazier, that at that time she was 13 years of age, [and] at that time the defendant was more than 4 years older than she. These are the only requirements that the State need prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court’s position that the offense lacked any mens rea requirement, and that the defendant’s mental state was wholly immaterial, was, in my view, erroneous.

I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

*593ROBERT M. BELL, Judge,

dissenting.

“It may be possible to conceive of legislation ... so flagrantly in conflict with natural right, that the courts may set it aside as unwarranted, though no clause of the constitution can be found prohibiting it. But the cases must be rare indeed; and whenever they do occur the interposition of the judicial veto will rest upon such foundations of necessity that there can be little or no room for hesitation.”

Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III — The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C.L.Rev. 337, 368 (1989), quoting State v. Clottu, 33 Ind. 409, 410-11 (1870).

I do not dispute that the legislative history of Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, section 463 may be read to support the majority’s interpretation that subsection (a)(3)1 was intended to be a strict liability statute. See majority opinion at 585. Nor do I disagree that it is in the public interest to protect the sexually naive child from the adverse physical, emotional, or psychological effects of sexual relations. I do not believe, however, that the General Assembly, in every case, whatever the nature of the crime and no matter how harsh the potential penalty, can subject a defendant to strict criminal liability. To hold, as a matter of law, that section 463(a)(3)2 does not require the State to prove that a defendant *594possessed the necessary mental state to commit the crime, ie. knowingly engaged in sexual relations with a female under 14, or that the defendant may not litigate that issue in defense, “offends a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions of conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” and is, therefore, inconsistent with due process. See United States v. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775, 776-77 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 897, 116 L.Ed.2d 799 (1992), quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674, 677 (1934).

In the case sub judice, according to the defendant, he intended to have sex with a 16, not a 13, year old girl. This mistake of fact was prompted, he said, by the prosecutrix herself; she and her friends told him that she was 16 years old. Because he was mistaken as to the prosecutrix’s age, he submits, he is certainly less culpable than the person who knows that the minor is 13 years old, but nonetheless engages in sexual relations with her. Notwithstanding, the majority has construed section 463(a)(3) to exclude any proof of knowledge or intent. But for that construction, the proffered defense would be viable. I would hold that the State is not relieved of its burden to prove the defendant’s intent or knowledge in a statutory rape case and, therefore, that the defendant may defend on the basis that he was mistaken as to the age of the prosecutrix.3

*595I. Mens Rea Generally

Generally, a culpable mental state, often referred to as mens tea, see Wharton’s Criminal Law, § 27, or intent, is, and long has been, an essential element of a criminal offense. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 251-52, 72 S.Ct. 240, 244, 96 L.Ed. 288, 294 (1952); Tate v. State, 236 Md. 312, 203 A.2d 882 (1964); Davis v. State, 204 Md. 44, 102 A.2d 816 (1953); Webb v. State, 201 Md. 158, 93 A.2d 80 (1952); Fenwick v. State, 63 Md. 239, 240-41 (1885). A crime ordinarily consists of prohibited conduct and a culpable mental state; a wrongful act and a wrongful intent must concur to constitute what the law deems a crime, the purpose being to avoid criminal liability for innocent or inadvertent conduct. See Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 643, 547 A.2d 1041, 1043 (1988); see also Wharton’s Criminal Law, § 27, citing United States v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670, 24 L.Ed. 538 (1877). Historically, therefore, unless the actor also harbored an evil, or otherwise culpable, mind, he or she was not guilty of any crime.

The Supreme Court in Morissette, recognized that ordinarily, a defendant cannot be convicted when he or she lacks the mental state which is an element of the offense charged. That concept — crime as a compound concept — gained early acceptance in the English Common law and “took deep and early root in American soil.” 4 342 U.S. at 251-52, 72 S.Ct. at 244, 96 L.Ed. at 294 (footnote omitted). In that case, Mr. Justice Jackson stated the proposition thusly:

The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient *596notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. A relation between some mental element and punishment for a harmful act is almost as instinctive as the child’s familiar exculpatory “But I didn’t mean to,” and has afforded the rational basis for a tardy and unfinished substitution of deterrence and reformation in place of retaliation and vengeance as the motivation for public prosecution. Unqualified acceptance of this doctrine by English common law in the Eighteenth Century was indicated by Blackstone’s sweeping statement that to constitute any crime there must first be a “vicious will.”

Id. at 250-51, 72 S.Ct. at 243, 96 L.Ed. at 294 (footnotes omitted).

In Morissette, (id. at 247-48, 72 S.Ct. at 242, 96 L.Ed. at 292-93), the defendant, a scrap iron collector, went onto a government bombing range, where bomb casings were piled haphazardly. Morissette loaded the casings onto his truck in broad daylight and took them. He was indicted for “unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly stealing] and converting]” property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, 18 U.S.C.A. § 641. He sought to defend on the basis that he thought the casings were abandoned, unwanted, and of no value to the government. The trial court refused to permit evidence on that point, which was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where intent is an essential element of the crime charged, its existence is a question of fact for the jury, and “the trial court may not withdraw or prejudge the issue by instruction that the law raises a presumption of intent from an act.” Id. at 274, 72 S.Ct. at 255, 96 L.Ed. at 306. It was in this context that the Court discussed the importance of intent. The Court concluded:

The unanimity with which they [courts] have adhered to the central thought that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal is emphasized by the variety, disparity and confusion of their definitions of the requisite but elusive mental *597element. However, courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction of juries around such terms as “felonious intent,” “criminal intent,” “malice aforethought,” “guilty knowledge,” “fraudulent intent,” “willfulness,” “scienter,” to denote guilty knowledge or “mens rea,” to signify an evil purpose or mental culpability-

Id. at 252, 72 S.Ct. at 244, 96 L.Ed. at 294-95.

More recently, in Anderson v. State, 328 Md. 426, 444, 614 A.2d 963, 972 (1992), we held that the trial court improperly convicted the defendant for carrying concealed, pursuant to Article 27, § 36(a), a utility knife without considering the intent with which the utility knife was being carried. Noting that the utility knife could be used both as a tool and as a weapon, id. at 437-39, 614 A.2d at 968-69, we rejected the State’s argument that no intent was required. Id. at 444, 614 A.2d at 971. We said instead that, when the object is not a dangerous weapon per se, to convict a defendant of carrying a concealed dangerous weapon requires proof that the defendant intended to use the object as a weapon. Id. at 444, 614 A.2d at 971.

Although it recognized that Congress could dispense with the intent requirement if it did so specifically, the Court made clear that that power was not without limit. Morissette, 342 U.S. at 275, 72 S.Ct. at 256, 96 L.Ed. at 307, citing Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed. 1519, 1524 (1943). Thus, when a legislature wants to eliminate intent as an element of a particular crime, it should expressly so state in the statute. See Larry W. Myers, Reasonable Mistake of Age: A Needed Defense to Statutory Rape, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 105,118-19 (1965); see also People v. Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d 529, 536, 39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 365, 393 P.2d 673, 677 (1964) (“in the absence of a legislative direction otherwise, a charge of statutory rape is defensible wherein criminal intent is lacking.”); Singer, supra, at 397. Legislative imposition of strict criminal liability, however, must be within constitutional limits; it cannot be permitted to violate the Due Process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Lambert v. *598California, 355 U.S. 225, 227, 78 S.Ct. 240, 242, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957), or a comparable state constitutional provision. See infra.

II. Strict Liability Crimes

Strict liability crimes are recognized exceptions to the “guilty mind” rule in that they do not require the actor to possess a guilty mind, or the mens rea, to commit a crime. See Morissette, 342 U.S. at 251-52 n. 8, 72 S.Ct. at 244 n. 8, 96 L.Ed. at 294 n. 8. His or her state of mind being irrelevant, the actor is guilty of the crime at the moment that he or she does the prohibited act.

A.

In the evolution of the statutory criminal law, two classes of strict liability crimes have emerged. Richard A. Tonry, Statutory Rape: A Critique, La.L.Rev. 105 (1965). One of them consists of “public welfare” offenses. See id.; see also Dawkins, 313 Md. 638, 547 A.2d 1041. Typical of this class are statutes involving, for example, the sale of food, drugs, liquor, and traffic offenses, see Tonry, supra, at 106, designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community at large; violation of such statutes “depend on no mental element but consists] only of forbidden acts or omissions.” Morissette, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288. In the case of public welfare offenses, strict liability is justified on several bases, including: (1) only strict liability can deter profit-driven manufacturers from ignoring the well-being of the consuming public; (2) an inquiry into mens rea would exhaust the resources of the courts; (3) imposition of strict liability is not inconsistent with the moral underpinnings of the criminal law because the penalties are small and carry no stigma; and (4) the legislature is constitutionally empowered to create strict liability crimes for public welfare offenses. Singer, supra, at 389.

In Dawkins, 313 Md. at 644-645, 547 A.2d at 1044-45, this Court discussed the development of public welfare offenses and noted their characteristics:

*599“Public Welfare Offenses” are generally regulatory in nature. The earliest cases involved liquor and adulterated milk.... Later cases expanded the doctrine to apply to violations of traffic regulations and motor vehicle laws, sales or misbranded articles, and sales or purchases in violation of anti-narcoties laws.... These offenses commonly involve light fines or penalties____ “[T]he penalty in such cases is so slight that the courts can afford to disregard the individual in protecting the social interest.... ” Additionally, the purpose of the penalty is to regulate rather than to punish behavior.... While liability is imposed regardless of the defendant’s state of mind, the defendant is generally in a position to prevent the violation from occurring....

313 Md. at 645, 547 A.2d at 1044 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has also commented on such offenses, observing:

These cases do not fit neatly into any of such accepted classifications of common-law offenses, such as those against the state, the person, property, or public morals. Many of these offenses are not in the nature of positive aggressions or invasions, with which the common law so often dealt, but are in the nature of neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty. Many violations of such regulations result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize. While such offenses do not threaten the security of the state in the manner of treason, they may be regarded as offenses against its authority, for their occurrence impairs the efficiency of controls deemed essential to the social order as presently constituted. In this respect, whatever the intent of the violator, the injury is the same, and the consequences are injurious or not according to fortuity. Hence, legislation applicable to such offenses, as a matter of policy, does not specify intent as a necessary element. The accused, if he does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it with no more care than society might reasonably expect *600and no more exertion than it might reasonably exact from one who assumed his responsibilities.

Morissette, 342 U.S. at 255-56, 72 S.Ct. at 246, 96 L.Ed. at 296. To like effect,

... public welfare offenses are new crimes, created solely by legislative enactments in the nature of police regulations. Moreover, these offenses are not strictly criminal, even though traditional criminal sanctions are relied upon, since the primary purpose of the legislature is neither punishment nor correction, but rather regulation.

Myers, supra, at 114 (footnote omitted).

Obviously, and the majority concurs, see majority opinion at 579, “statutory rape” is not merely a public welfare offense; it simply does not “fit” the characteristics of such an offense: it is a felony, not a misdemeanor. In striking contrast to “other strict liability regulatory offenses and their light penalties,” majority opinion at 579, the potential penalty of 20 years imprisonment is not a light penalty; unlike the “garden variety” strict liability penalty, the penalty under section 463(a)(3), is neither so insignificant that it can be ignored as a criminal sanction, see Singer, supra, at 394, nor so slight that the fate of the defendant can be ignored, see Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, § 31, at 219 (1972) (“The greater the possible punishment, the more likely some fault is required; and conversely, the lighter the possible punishment, the more likely the legislature meant to impose liability without fault.”); and section 463’s primary purpose is to penalize the “rapist”, not to correct his or her behavior.5

B.

The second class of strict liability offenses, having a different justification than public welfare offenses, consists of nar*601cotic,6 bigamy,7 adultery, and statutory rape crimes. See Morissette, 342 U.S. at 251 n. 8, 72 S.Ct. at 244 n. 8, 96 L.Ed. at 294 n. 8; Tonry, supra, at 106. State legislatures have historically used two theories to justify imposing strict liability in this class of offense: “lesser legal wrong” and “moral wrong.” See Benjamin L. Reiss, Alaska’s Mens Rea Requirements for Statutory Rape, 9 Alaska L.Rev. 377, 381-82 (1992).

The lesser legal wrong theory posits that a defendant who actually intended to do some legal or moral wrong is guilty not only of the crime intended but of a greater crime of which he or she may not have the requisite mental state. LaFave and Scott, supra, § 47, at 360. The elimination of a mens rea element for statutory rape is rationalized by focusing on the defendant’s intent to commit a related crime. Reiss, supra, at 381. In other words, if fornication8, engaging in sexual intercourse out of wedlock, see generally Model Penal Code, § 213.6, Comment at 430-39, is a crime, a defendant intending to engage in sex out of wedlock is made to suffer all of the legal consequences of that act. Statutory rape is such a legal consequence when the other participant is below the age of consent. Reiss, supra, at 382. The theory is premised, in short, upon the proposition that, as to certain crimes, “a ‘guilty mind’ in a very general sense, should suffice for the imposition *602of penal sanctions even when the defendant did not intentionally or knowingly engage in the acts proscribed in the statute.” See LaFave and Scott, supra, § 47, at 361.

The seminal case in this area is Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 Cr.Cas.Res. 154 (1875), cited in Myers, supra, at 110 and Model Penal Code, § 213.6, Comment at 414 n. 6. There, the defendant was charged with unlawfully taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of the father against his will. The defendant claimed that he acted on the reasonable belief that the girl was 18. The court held that it was no defense that he thought he was committing a different kind of wrong from that which he, in fact, was committing, it being wrong to remove a daughter, even one over 16, from her father’s household.

The lesser legal wrong theory does not provide a viable rationale for holding a defendant strictly liable for statutory rape where premarital sex is not criminal.9 Reiss, supra, at 382. See LaFave and Scott, supra, § 47, at 361 (“[W]here fornication is itself not criminal it [statutory rape] should not become criminal merely because the defendant has made a reasonable mistake about the age of the girl with whom he has intercourse”).10 Fornication is not a crime in Maryland. See *603Baker v. Lease, 236 Md. 246, 248, 203 A.2d 700, 701 (1964). Accordingly, in Maryland, there is no underlying offense from which to transfer intent. Moreover,

[a] man who engages in consensual intercourse in the reasonable belief that his partner has reached [the age of consent11] evidences no abnormality, no willingness to take advantage of immaturity, no propensity to corruption of minors. In short, he has demonstrated neither intent nor inclination to violate any of the interests that the law of statutory rape seeks to protect. At most, he has disregarded religious precept or social convention. In terms of mental culpability, his conduct is indistinguishable from that of any other person who engages in fornication. Whether he should be punished at all depends on a judgment about continuing fornication as a criminal offense, but at least he should not be subject to felony sanctions for statutory rape.

Model Penal Code § 213.6, Comment at 415.

C.

In utilizing the moral wrong theory, State legislatures seek to justify strict criminal liability for statutory rape when non-marital sexual intercourse is not a crime on the basis of society’s characterization of it as immoral or wrong, i.e., malum in se.12 Reiss, supra, at 382. The intent to commit *604such immoral acts supplies the mens rea for the related, but unintended crime; the outrage upon public decency or good morals, not conduct that is wrong only because it is prohibited by legislation, malum prohibitum, is the predicate.

There are significant problems with the moral wrong theory. First, it is questionable whether morality should be the basis for legislation or interpretation of the law. See Tonry, supra, at 113; see also Singer, supra, at 338 (moral blame should be abolished as a predicate for criminal liability). Immorality is not synonymous with illegality; intent to do an immoral act does not equate to intent to do a criminal act. Inferring criminal intent from immorality, especially when the accused is not even aware that the act is criminal, seems unjustifiable and unfair. See Reiss, supra, at 382. In addition, the values and morals of society are ever evolving. Because sexual intercourse between consenting unmarried adults and minors who have reached the age of consent is not now clearly considered to be immoral, the moral wrong theory does not support strict criminal liability for statutory rape.

Second, classifying an act as immoral, in and of itself, divorced from any consideration of the actor’s intention, is contrary to the general consensus of what makes an act moral or immoral. See Tonry, supra, at 113. Ordinarily, an act is either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the actor. Id., citing Holmes, Early Forms of Liability, in The Common Law 7 (Howe ed. 1963), citing Bradley, Ethical Studies, Essay 1 (1876) (“Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.”).

Third, the assertion that the act alone will suffice for liability without the necessity of proving criminal intent is contrary to the traditional demand of the criminal law that only the act plus criminal intent is sufficient to constitute a crime. See Tonry, supra, at 113. “Moral duties should not be identified with criminal duties,” and, thus, when fornication is *605itself not criminal it should not become criminal merely because the defendant has made a reasonable mistake about the age of the girl with whom he has had intercourse. See Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d at 534, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364, 393 P.2d at 676; see also Myers, supra.

Therefore, although in the case sub judice, the defendant engaged in sexual relations with a girl 13 years old, a minor below the age of consent, his conduct is not malum, in se, see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries * 210, and, so, strict liability is not justified.

III. Mistake of Fact

Generally, a mistake of fact negates the mental state required to establish a material element of the crime. LaFave and Scott, supra, § 47, at 356. A person who engages in proscribed conduct is relieved of criminal liability if, because of ignorance or mistake of fact, he or she did not entertain the culpable mental state required for the commission of the offense. See Wharton’s Criminal Law § 76.13 Compare Richmond v. State, 330 Md. 223, 241-42, 623 A.2d 630, 638 (1993) (Bell, J., dissenting) (In case of self-defense, defendant who acts in self-defense is completely exonerated upon findings that he or she subjectively believed that his or her actions were necessary and, viewed objectively, that they were, in fact, necessary; in case of imperfect self-defense, defendant who subjectively believes that his or her actions were necessary, but, objectively, they were not, is not completely exonerated, although lesser sentence is appropriate).

Statutory rape is defined as sexual intercourse, by a person four or more years older, with a person under the age of 14. Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 463(a)(3).14 *606That statute conclusively presumes that a person under that age is incapable of legally consenting to sexual intercourse.15 *607Rau v. State, 133 Md. 613, 105 A. 867 (1919) (consent is not an element of assault with intent to have carnal knowledge of a female child under 14 years);16 Ollis v. State, 44 Ga.App. 793, 163 S.E. 309 (1932); Golden v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 379, 158 S.W.2d 967 (1942). That the female is incapable of consenting means that any act of intercourse in which she engages, even with her consent, is conclusively presumed to have been against her will. See Tonry, supra, at 106. Consequently, a person engaging in intercourse with a female, whom he knows to be under 14 may not set up her consent as a defense. This does not mean, however, that one who does not know that the female is under 14 should not be able to set up his mistake of fact as a defense. This is because the closer a minor is to the age of consent, the more the appearance and behavior of that minor can be expected to be consistent with persons who have attained the age of consent. Perez v. State, 111 N.M. 160, 803 P.2d 249 (1990) (strict liability inappropriate where victim in 13-16 age range); Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d at 534 n. 3, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364 n. 3, 393 P.2d at 676 n. 3. Indeed, one may plausibly mistake a minor 13 years old as being of the statutory age of consent.

A girl 13 years old may appear to be, and, in fact, may represent herself as being, over 16. If she should appear to be the age represented, a defendant may suppose reasonably that he received a valid consent from his partner, whom he mistakenly believes to be of legal age, only to find that her *608consent is legally invalid. In this situation, the majority holds, his reasonable belief as to the girl’s age and consequent lack of criminal intent are no defense; the act alone suffices to establish guilt. But it is when the minor plausibly may represent that she has attained the age of consent that need for a defendant to be able to present a defense based on his or her belief that the minor was of the age to consent is the greatest.

The California Supreme Court in Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d at 534 n. 3, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364 n. 3, 393 P.2d at 676 n. 3, quoting Plascowe, Sex and the Law 184-85 (1951), has recognized mistake of age as a defense to statutory rape. There, the defendant was convicted of statutory rape pursuant to a California law setting a consent age limit of 18 years of age. The prosecutrix was 17 years and 9 months old. The court held that an offer of proof of defendant’s reasonable belief that the prosecutrix had reached the age of consent was a defense to statutory rape. 61 Cal.2d at 536, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 365, 393 P.2d at 677. The court reasoned that the imposition of criminal sanctions required conduct accompanied by a specific mental state, ie., “the joint operation of act and intent.” 61 Cal.2d at 532, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 363, 393 P.2d at 675. It opined (id. 61 Cal.2d at 534 n. 3, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364 n. 3, 393 P.2d at 676 n. 3, quoting Plascowe, Sex and the Law at 184 and 185 (1951)):

“When the law declares that sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of ten years is rape, it is not illogical to refuse to give any credence to the defense, T thought she was older, and I therefore did not believe that I was committing a crime when I had sexual intercourse with her.’ * * * But when age limits are raised to sixteen, eighteen, and twenty-one, when the young girl becomes a young woman, when adolescent boys as well as young men are attracted to her, the sexual act begins to lose its quality of abnormality and physical danger to the victim. Bona fide mistakes in the age of girls can be made by men and boys who are no more dangerous than others of their social, economic and educational level. * * * Even if the girl looks to be much older *609than the age of consent fixed by the statute, even if she lies to the man concerning her age, if she is a day below the statutory age sexual intercourse with her is rape. The man or boy who has intercourse with such girl still acts at his peril. The statute is interpreted as if it were protecting children under the age of ten.”

Moreover, Myers, supra, at 121, concurs that reasonable mistake of age, should be a defense to statutory rape where there is no threat of force. He explains his position thusly:

[T]here are many girls between the ages of twelve and fifteen who are so obviously immature in physique, dress, and deportment that they would be approached only by a person psychologically disturbed or coming from a subculture where the acceptable age-range is lower than the usual level in the United States. However, there are even more girls from twelve to fifteen whose appearance and behavior place them within, or on the vague border of, the average male’s category of desirable females. By the middle teens, most girls are sufficiently developed physically and are sufficiently aware of social attitudes for a man to have to use considerable force or some definite threat if the girl objects to sexual contact. (Footnote omitted).

Thus, it has been observed that, “[b]y the middle teens most girls have reached a point of maturity which realistically enables them to give meaningful, although not legal, consent.” Id. at 122. It is for this reason that “[i]ntercourse with a girl who is in her middle to late teens lacks the qualities of abnormality and physical danger that are present when she is still a child.... It is clear that the element of ‘victimization’ decreases as the girl grows older and more sophisticated.” 17 Id. at 121-22. See e.g. State v. Guest, 583 P.2d 836 (Alaska *6101978); State v. Elton, 680 P.2d 727 (Utah 1984); Powe v. State, 389 N.W.2d 215 (Minn.App.1986); Perez v. State, 111 N.M. 160, 803 P.2d 249 (1990).

The Model Penal Code, long an adversary of strict liability crimes, proposes two categories of statutory rape. The first, would impose strict liability on one who has sexual relations with a child under 10. See generally Model Penal Code and Commentaries, § 213.6, Comment at 415-16.18 See also Del. tit. 11, § 772(a); Ohio § 2907.02(A)(3); Pa. tit. 18, § 3102; W.Va. § 61-8B-13(b). The second category would encompass minors under the critical statutory age of consent, but over 10 years old. Model Penal Code, § 213.6, Comment at 415-16. Having sexual relations with a child falling in this category would still be a crime, but a defendant could escape punishment if he or she proved that he or she was mistaken as to the *611child’s age. Both categories are consistent with the prevailing contemporary view, and with the common law, that a child under 10 years old is too young to understand the nature and quality of his or her act, Myers, supra, at 109-10; Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law, § 291; 1 Blackstone Commentaries § 212, and that a child over 10 years of age ordinarily is aware of social attitudes and the nature of sexual contact. See Myers, supra, at 121; see also Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d at 534 n. 3, 39 Cal.Rptr. at 364 n. 3, 393 P.2d at 676 n. 3. Thus, the Code would allow the defendant to defend a charge of rape involving a minor falling in the second category on the basis that he or she reasonably believed the child to be above the critical age. See Model Penal Code § 213.6, Comment at 416.19

In the case sub judice, the defendant does not dispute that he had sexual relations with the 13 year old prosecutrix. He seeks only to be able to defend himself against being labeled a rapist. He may only do so, however, if he is allowed to present evidence that he-acted under a mistake of fact as to the prosecutrix’s age, that he believed, and reasonably so, that she was above the age of consent. The proof he proposed to present to prove his defense was that the victim and her friends told him that the victim was 16 years old. He should have been allowed to show that he lacked the “guilty mind” to have sex with a 13 year old.

IV. Constitutional Limitations on Strict Criminal Liability

A State Legislature does have the power to define the elements of the criminal offenses recognized within its juris*612diction. Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 424, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 2087, 85 L.Ed.2d 434, 439 (1985); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150, 80 S.Ct. 215, 217, 4 L.Ed.2d 205, 209 (1959); Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228, 78 S.Ct. 240, 242, 2 L.Ed.2d 228, 231 (1957); McCallum v. State, 81 Md. App. 403, 413, 567 A.2d 967, 971 (1990), aff'd, 321 Md. 451, 583 A.2d 250 (1991). Cf. Singer, supra, at 389. In fact, the Supreme Court has said: “There is wide latitude in lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” Lambert, 355 U.S. at 228, 78 S.Ct. at 242, 2 L.Ed.2d at 231. Accordingly, a State legislature may constitutionally prescribe strict liability for public welfare offenses, discussed supra, committed within its boundaries. But “far more than the simple omission of the appropriate phrase from the statutory definition is necessary to justify dispensing with an intent requirement.” United States v. United Gypsum Company, 438 U.S. 422, 438, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 2874, 57 L.Ed.2d 854, 870 (1978) (citations omitted). See Morissette, 342 U.S. at 263, 72 S.Ct. at 250, 96 L.Ed. at 300 (mere omission of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating element from crime announced); McCallum, 321 Md. at 456, 583 A.2d at 252. Indeed, criminal offenses requiring no mens rea have a “generally disfavored status.” McCallum, 321 Md. at 457, 583 A.2d at 252-253.

To recognize that a State legislature may, in defining criminal offenses, exclude mens rea, is not to suggest that it may do so with absolute impunity, without any limitation whatsoever. The validity of such a statute necessarily will depend on whether it violates any provision of the federal, see Smith, 361 U.S. at 152-53, 80 S.Ct. at 218, 4 L.Ed.2d at 211, or applicable state, see Mahoney v. Byers, 187 Md. 81, 87, 48 A.2d 600, 603 (1946) (holding that Article 20, Maryland Declaration of Rights, guaranteeing a defendant a trial of facts as “one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the people,” voids a rule which substitutes an irrebuttable presumption for facts), constitution. It is ordinarily the due process clause, either of the federal constitution, or the corresponding provision of the appropriate state constitution, which *613will determine its validity.20 See McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 83, 85-86, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 2414-16, 91 L.Ed.2d 67, 74-76 (1986); Liparota, 471 U.S. at 424 n. 6, 105 S.Ct. at 2087 n. 6, 85 L.Ed.2d at 439 n. 6; Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2323, 53 L.Ed.2d 281, 287 (1977); Smith, 361 U.S. at 149, 80 S.Ct. at 217, 4 L.Ed.2d at 209; Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed. 1519, 1524 (1943); Chaplinski v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 570-71, 62 S.Ct. 766, 768-69, 86 L.Ed. 1031, 1034-35 (1942); Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 6, 49 S.Ct. 215, 217, 73 L.Ed. 575, 578 (1929); McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Company, 241 U.S. 79, 85-86, 36 S.Ct. 498, 501, 60 L.Ed. 899, 904 (1916); Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276, 15 L.Ed. 372 (1855) (Due Process clause restricts legislative power arbitrarily to declare what is “due process of law”). Mahoney, 187 Md. at 87, 48 A.2d at 603; Johns v. State, 55 Md. 350, 363 (1881); *614McLain, Maryland Practice, “Irrebuttable Presumptions and Constitutional Limitations In Criminal Cases,” § 303.1. See generally L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Ch. 10 (2nd 1988).

Due process, whether pursuant to that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment21 or the corresponding clause in a state constitution, protects an accused from being convicted of a crime except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 (1970); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 685, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1883, 44 L.Ed.2d 508, 512 (1975). It thus implicates the basic characteristics, if not the fundamental underpinnings, of the accusatorial system. In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d at 375. See Gilbert & Moylan, supra, § 45.0, 589-590.

Under our system of justice, a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until he or she is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that he or she may not be found guilty until the State has produced evidence sufficient to convince the trier of fact, to the required extent, of that person’s guilt. Moreover, although not required to do so, the defendant may present a defense, in which event the evidence the defendant produces must be assessed along with that of the State in determining whether the State has met its burden. The State’s burden is not reduced or changed in any way simply because the defendant elects not to interpose a defense. In those cases, the defendant may still seek to convince the trier of fact that the State has not met its burden of proof by arguing that the inferences to be drawn from the *615evidence the State has produced simply is not sufficient to support guilt.

Irrebuttable presumptions are rules of substantive law. McLain, §§ 301.1, 303.1; Gilbert & Moylan, supra, § 45.12. See also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence, § 2492 at 307-08, “Conclusive Presumptions” (Chadbourne Rev.1981), in which it is explained:

Wherever from one fact another is said to be conclusively presumed, in the sense that the opponent is absolutely precluded from showing by any evidence that the second fact does not exist, the rule is really providing that where the first fact is shown to exist, the second fact’s existence is wholly immaterial for the purpose of the proponent’s case; and to provide this is to make a rule of substantive law and not a rule apportioning the burden of persuading as to certain propositions or varying the duty of coming forward with evidence.

Thus, irrebuttable presumptions help to define the issues pertinent to a particular kind of case, McLain § 303.1 at 241, and, in that sense, because the substantive law determines the issues to be proved, govern the admission of evidence, thus establishing the perimeters of relevance and materiality. Id., § 301.1 at 183. They may be statutory, McLain, § 303.1 at 182 n. 2, or have their origin in the common law. See In re Davis, 17 Md.App. 98, 100 n. 1, 104, 299 A.2d 856, 858 n. 1, 860 (1973); Miller v. Graff, 196 Md. 609, 620, 78 A.2d 220, 224 (1951). Accordingly, at common law, children under the age of 7 were, and still are, irrebuttably presumed to be incapable of forming criminal intent, Davis, and children under 4 years of age, were, and are, irrebuttably presumed to have been incapable of contributory negligence. As a matter of substantive law, therefore, children of those ages could not then, and may not now, be prosecuted under the criminal law, be sued for negligence, or held to be contributorially negligent. Similarly, section 463(a)(3) reflects the irrebuttable presumption that a child under 14 years of age is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. See Rau, 133 Md. at 613-616, 105 A. at 867.

*616When the Legislature enacts a strict liability crime, ie., promulgates a statute which excludes as an element, the defendant’s mental state, it essentially creates an irrebuttable presumption that the defendant’s mental state, ie., knowledge or intent, is irrelevant. See McLain, § 301.1 at 183. That is the case with regard to statutory rape. Notwithstanding that it chooses to accomplish that result by defining the crime, rather than by means of an express presumption, which relieves the State of its burden of proof, the fact remains that the result is exactly the same: anyone who has sexual relations with a female under the age of 14 is treated as if he knew that she was under 14 and so intended to have such relations with a 14 year old female. It thus relieves the State of any duty to produce relevant evidence to prove the defendant’s mental state, that he knew the prosecutrix’s age, and prevents the defendant from proving the contrary. Because the irrebuttably presumed fact does not follow inextricably from the fact of sexual relations -with a 14 year old, its use to relieve the State of its burden of proof to prove the defendant’s intent in that regard runs afoul of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Irrebuttable, mandatory, presumptions have long been disfavored and held to be violative of due process. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 446, 453, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2233, 2237, 37 L.Ed.2d 63, 68, 73 (1973), and cases therein cited. One of the bases for the disfavor is that they may conflict with the overriding presumption of innocence which the law accords to the accused and invade the fact finding process, which, in a criminal case, is the exclusive province of the jury. See Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 268, 109 S.Ct. 2419, 2421, 105 L.Ed.2d 218, 223 (1989) (Scalia, J. concurring) (jury instructions relieving the prosecution of its burden of proof violate a defendant’s due process rights; whether he or she is believed ordinarily is a question of fact for the jury to decide, not one of law for the Legislature). The more usual reason for disfavoring irrebuttable presumptions, however, is that the fact conclusively presumed “is not necessarily or universally true in fact,” Vlandis, 412 U.S. at 452, 93 S.Ct. at 2236, 37 *617L.Ed.2d at 71, and, so, excusing the proponent of that fact from having to establish it renders the statute “arbitrary, illegal, capricious and hence unconstitutional.” Mahoney, 187 Md. at 87, 48 A.2d at 603.22 This is especially so when the presumed fact bears little or no relation to the statute’s expressed objective. Vlandis, 412 U.S. at 448-49, 93 S.Ct. at 2234-35, 37 L.Ed.2d at 69-70. Nor, “where there are other reasonable and practicable means of establishing the pertinent facts on which the State’s objective is premised,” id. at 451, 93 S.Ct. at 2236, 37 L.Ed.2d at 71, may a conclusive presumption, not otherwise appropriate, be rendered acceptable or, because it is a matter of “administrative ease and certainty,” id., the State’s burden reduced.

The statute invalidated in Vlandis conclusively presumed that the applicant’s residence when he applied for admission to a Connecticut University remained his residence throughout his college years. At issue in Mahoney was Rule 146 of the Maryland Racing Commission, the pertinent portion of which provided:

“(d) If the Commission finds from analysis of the saliva or urine, or blood taken from a horse on the day of a race in which the horse ran, or from other competent evidence, that any drug had been administered to the horse within forty-eight (48) hours before the race, the trainer shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in subsection (e) hereof, whether or not he administered the drug, or knowingly or carelessly *618permitted it to be administered. The fact that the analysis shows the presence of a drug shall be conclusive evidence either that there was knowledge of the fact on the part of the trainer or that he was guilty of carelessness in permitting it to be administered.”

187 Md. at 83-84, 48 A.2d at 602. See also United States v. Wulff, 758 F.2d 1121, 1122 (6th Cir.1985) (interpreting the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a strict liability statute); Guest, 583 P.2d at 838-39 (holding Alaska’s statutory rape statute unconstitutional as a violation of due process).

Smith, Tot, and Lambert are also apposite. The ordinance at issue in Smith made it unlawful “for any person to have in his possession any obscene or indecent writing, [or] ... books [i]n any place of business where ... books ... are sold or kept for sale.” 361 U.S. at 148, 80 S.Ct. at 216, 4 L.Ed.2d at 208. It did not require proof of any mental element on the part of the defendant. Id. at 149, 80 S.Ct. at 216, 4 L.Ed.2d at 208. Noting, but rejecting, the State’s attempt to “analogize this strict liability penal ordinance to familiar forms of penal statutes which dispense with any element of knowledge on the part of the person charged, food and drug legislation being a principal example,” the Court observed (id. at 152-153, 80 S.Ct. at 218, 4 L.Ed.2d at 211 (citation omitted)):

The usual rationale for such statutes is that the public interest in the purity of its food is so great as to warrant the imposition of the highest standard of care on distributors— in fact an absolute standard which will not hear the distributor’s plea as to the amount of care he has used.... His ignorance of the character of the food is irrelevant. There is no specific constitutional inhibition against making the distributors of food the strictest censors of their merchandise, but the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of speech and of press stand in the way of imposing a similar requirement on the bookseller.

In Lambert, a Los Angeles ordinance required convicted felons who remained in the city for more than five days to *619register with the police. It did not contain any “knowledge” or mens rea requirement. The Supreme Court held:

actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand.... Where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistently with due process. Were it otherwise, the evil would be as great as it is when the law is written in print too fine or in a language foreign to the community.

355 U.S. at 229-30, 78 S.Ct. at 243-44, 2 L.Ed.2d at 232.

Similarly, in Tot, holding that section 2(f) of the Federal Firearms Act violated the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, 319 U.S. at 467, 63 S.Ct. at 1245, 87 L.Ed. at 1524, the Court overturned the defendant’s conviction. It held that Congress had no power to create the presumptions contained in that section to wit: that, from the defendant’s prior conviction of a crime of violence and his present possession of a firearm, it is conclusively presumed that the firearm was received in interstate or foreign commerce, after the effective date of the statute. Id. at 467, 63 S.Ct. at 1245, 87 L.Ed. at 1524. Rejecting the Government’s argument that it was entitled to the presumption because the defendant had the better means of information, the Court said (id. at 469, 63 S.Ct. at 1246, 87 L.Ed. at 1525):

But the argument proves too much. If it were sound, the legislature might validly command that the finding of an indictment, or mere proof of the identity of the accused, should create a presumption of the existence of all the facts essential to guilt. This is not permissible, (footnote omitted).

In the case sub judice, by consciously and intentionally excluding from section 463(a)(3) any requirement that the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age be proven, the Legislature has relieved the State of that obligation; without that legislation, of course, the State’s burden would have *620included proving, at the very least, that the defendant knew the prosecutrix’s age. On the issue of the defendant’s intent, section 468(a)(3) only requires proof of the victim’s age and its differential with that of the defendant. As such, once those facts have been proven, it is conclusively established that the defendant’s intent was to have sexual relations with a girl of the proscribed age.23 As we have seen, not requiring proof of the defendant’s intent has been accomplished by so defining the crime, not by means of an express presumption. Again, that is of no real consequence, however. By defining the crime, the Legislature prescribes what must be proven. In other words, by that process, it has determined what the rule of substantive law will be — by defining the crime so as to exclude proof of knowledge or intent, the Legislature naturally precludes the admission of any evidence bearing on the element, the proof of which it has excused. In so doing, it has made that element — intent or knowledge of the victim’s age— irrelevant to the definition of the crime and, hence, irrebuttable. Wigmore, § 2492 at 307-08. It follows, therefore, that, once the other elements are proven, the defendant’s knowledge or intent is necessarily established as well. It does not necessarily follow, however, that simply because the victim is 13 years old, the defendant had knowledge of her age or intended to have sexual relations with a 13 year old girl. He may have had knowledge or intent, to be sure, but, by the same token, he may not have. The defendant should have been permitted to present evidence on the issue.

In her treatise, Professor McLain, echoing the authorities, offered an example of the Legislature redefining a crime to exclude an element, without relying on an irrebuttable presumption. She referred to Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl. *621Vol.) Art. 27, § 286A24 which punishes a defendant for possession of certain large amounts of drugs, without regard to intent. That is not comparable to the case sub judaíce. While, under the statute, it is true that the possession of the proscribed drugs is a crime without proof of the intent with which they are possessed, the State is not relieved of its responsibility of proving both that they were brought into Maryland and that the possession was a knowing possession. Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). In the case of statutory rape all aspects of the defendant’s knowledge, save proof of the intercourse itself, has been rendered, by definition, irrelevant and, so, off limits for the trial. That is, I repeat, by no means comparable.

The critical issue in a statutory rape case is “the age of the rape victim.” That is true because the victim’s age serves two related, but distinct purposes: (1) it establishes the victim’s capacity to consent and (2) it represents notice to a defendant of proscribed conduct. The Maryland statute seeks irrebuttably to presume not only that the victim could not consent by virtue of age, but also that, when a defendant engages in *622sexual relations with a minor under the age of 14, he has notice of that fact. Assuming that, based on the victim’s age, the Legislature could legitimately exclude consent as an element of the crime,25 it absolutely should not be able to excuse the State from its obligation to prove the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age or prevent the defendant from producing evidence on that issue. No matter how forcefully it may be argued that there is a rational relationship between the capacity to consent and the age the Legislature selected, given the tremendous difference between individuals, both in appearance and in mental capacity, there can be no such rational relationship between the proof of the victim’s age and the defendant’s knowledge of that fact.26 See Tot, 319 U.S. at 469, 63 S.Ct. at 1245-46, 87 L.Ed. at 1525. Mahoney, 187 Md. at 87, 48 A.2d at 603.

The notice element of the crime of statutory rape is different from the consent element, in any event. A defendant who has knowledge that a victim has consented, in fact, to sexual relations, whether the consent is effective or not, is not thereby placed on notice as to the victim’s age. Knowledge of *623consent simply does not equate with knowledge of age, just as intent to engage in sexual relations does not reveal, without more, with whom. Moreover, it is not a crime to engage in sexual relations with a minor who is at least 16 years old; it may be morally wrong, in the minds of most Americans, but it is not a crime. It is only a crime if the defendant engages in such relations with a minor under a specified age, ie., 14, as in section 463(a)(3), or 14 or 15, as in section 464C. But even when the act engaged in is necessarily a crime, e.g. possession of contraband, knowledge of the illegality — that the contraband is knowingly possessed — is still required. See Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988). Consequently, where the activity would be legal or, at least, not illegal, but for the ages of the participants, at the very least, the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age must be proven. Otherwise, a defendant who does not know he is acting illegally could be convicted.

Moreover, there is precedent that a felony statute which prescribes substantial penalties and conviction of which will subject the defendant to significant social stigma, violates due process unless it requires the State to prove intent or knowledge, Wulff, 758 F.2d at 1125; Holdridge v. United States, 282 F.2d 302 (8th Cir.1960); United States v. Heller, 579 F.2d 990 (6th Cir.1978); Guest, 583 P.2d 836 (Ala.1978).27

*624In Wulff, the defendant was charged with violation of the felony provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S. § 707(b). On motion by the defendant, the trial court dismissed the charges, holding that the provisions under which he was charged violated due process, no proof of intent being required. On appeal by the Government, the Court of Appeals affirmed. 758 F.2d at 1122. That court perceived the issue to be “whether the absence of a requirement that the government prove some degree of scienter violates the defendant’s right to due process.” In resolving that issue, it observed, relying on Holdridge, supra, that “a felony conviction under the act does not require proof of scienter; the crime is not one known to the common law, and ... the felony penalty provision is severe and would result in irreparable damage to one’s reputation.” Id. The court then held:

We are of the opinion that in order for one to be convicted of a felony under the MBTA, a crime unknown to common law which carries a substantial penalty, Congress must require the prosecution to prove the defendant acted with some degree of scienter. Otherwise, a person acting with a completely innocent state of mind could be subjected to a severe penalty and grave damage to his reputation. This, in our opinion, the Constitution does not allow.

Id. at 1125. See Holdridge, 282 F.2d at 310, in which it is said:

[WJhere a federal criminal statute omits mention of intent and where it seems to involve what is basically a matter of policy, where the standard imposed is, under the circumstances, reasonable and adherence thereto properly expected of a person, where the penalty is relatively small, where conviction does not gravely besmirch, where the statutory crime is not taken over from the common law, and where congressional purpose is supporting, the statute can be construed as one not requiring criminal intent. The elimination of this element is then not violative of the due process clause.

*625A similar result was reached by the Supreme Court of Alaska in Guest, involving a charge of statutory rape. Significantly, having held that, under its precedents, a reasonable mistake of age defense was permitted, the court submitted:

[Wjhere a particular statute is not a public welfare type of offense, either a requirement of criminal intent must be read into the statute or it must be found unconstitutional.... Since statutes should be construed where possible to avoid unconstitutionality, it is necessary here to infer a requirement of criminal intent.

Id. at 839 (citations and footnote omitted).

Similarly, the prosecution of statutory rape in Maryland necessarily brings into conflict the State’s interests in protect- . ing minors and defendants’ due process rights because section 463(a)(3) operates “ ‘to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition,’” Ransom, 942 F.2d at 776, quoting Lambert, 355 U.S. at 228, 78 S.Ct. at 242, 2 L.Ed.2d at 231, and, thus, removes reasonable ignorance of the girl’s age and consequent lack of criminal intent as a defense. The failure of section 463(a)(3) to require proof of a culpable mental state conflicts both with the substantive due process ideal requiring that defendants possess some level of fault for a criminal conviction of statutory rape and the procedural due process ideal requiring that the prosecution overcome the presumption of innocence by proof of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding the maxim that criminal statutes dispensing with the intent requirement and criminal offenses requiring no mens rea have a “generally disfavored status,” the rationale of parts V and VI of the majority opinion is that the legislature has absolute authority to create strict liability crimes. For the reasons reviewed, I do not agree. On the contrary, I believe that due process both under the Fourteenth Amendment and under the Declaration of Rights, precludes strict criminal liability for statutory rape. Interpreting section 463(a)(3) as the majority does has the effect of largely relieving the State of its burden of proof and burden of persuasion. By making the defendant’s intent, and, hence, blameworthiness, irrelevant, the Legislature has *626made inevitable, the petitioner’s conviction. Moreover, upon conviction of the felony offense of statutory rape under section 463(a)(3), in addition to a substantial penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment, a defendant’s reputation will be gravely besmirched. Where there is no issue as to sexual contact, which is more likely than not to be the case in statutory rape prosecutions, proof of the prosecutrix’s age is not only proof of the defendant’s guilt, it is absolutely dispositive of it and, at the same time, it is fatal to the only defense the defendant would otherwise have. So interpreted, section 463(a)(3) not only destroys absolutely the concept of fault, but it renders meaningless, in the statutory rape context, the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

I respectfully dissent.