In People v. Magpuso (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 112, the Court addressed the question of whether a defendant charged "with kidnapping a person under the age of 14 years Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a), 208, subd. (b) may not rely on the defense of reasonable mistake as to the victim's age." ( Id. at p. 113.) This court noted that section 208, subdivision (b) "provides an aggravated punishment for individuals who kidnap children under the age of 14 years. The statute is silent as to whether knowledge of the child's age is a necessary element of the offense. " ( Id. at p. 115.) Magpuso reviewed other statutes in which the victim's age is an element of the offense, and whether reasonable mistake of the victim's age is permitted as a defense. Defendant particularly relied on People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529, in which the court held a person's good faith and reasonable belief the victim was over the age of 18 was a defense to a charge of statutory rape ( 261.5). Defendant asserted the Hernandez defense also applied to section 208, subdivision (b). However, Magpuso relied on People v. Williams (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 407, 284 Cal. Rptr. 454, which recognized that later cases rejected the Hernandez defense of reasonable mistake of fact of the victim's age in the context of sex and drug offenses involving minors. ( People v. Magpuso, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 115-118.) Magpuso concluded the reasonable mistake of fact defense was not available for a violation of section 208, subdivision (b): "The factors which led the Williams court to reject the Hernandez- type defense apply equally here. The intent required for a conviction of simple kidnapping is not the specific intent to kidnap a person under 14, but simply general criminal intent. The age provision in section 208, subdivision (b) merely affects the gravity of the offense. Defendant's ignorance of the victim's age does not disprove criminal intent. In Hernandez, if the facts were as the defendant may have reasonably believed them, he would have been innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. Defendant cannot make that claim. She was committing a criminal act, with criminal intent, regardless of her belief as to the victim's age." ( People v. Magpuso, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 118, ) Magpuso also found public policy reasons to reject the reasonable mistake of fact defense as to the victim's age: "Section 208, subdivision (b) has essentially the same legislative purpose as does section 288--to protect children against harm from amoral and unscrupulous persons who prey on the innocent. Both statutes address what the Hernandez court described as children of 'tender years.' On the other hand, the statute with which the Hernandez court was involved, section 261.5, often involves young females closer to adulthood. The public policy supporting section 261.5 is a societal interest in preventing unwanted teenage pregnancy. Section 261.5 is invoked primarily in cases where there is no element of force and the minor female involved willingly participated in the sexual conduct. On the other hand, most section 288 cases and all section 208, subdivision (b) cases involve an element of force and an unwilling and vulnerable victim. The public policy underlying the latter sections justifies punishment for the offense actually committed even though the perpetrator may have reasonably thought he or she was committing a less grave offense." ( People v. Magpuso, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 118.)