California passes bill lessening penalty for pedophiles having sex with willing kids.

by mickbobcat 70 Replies latest social current

• 

  Earnest

  Simon : The bill does not mention "15-17 year olds", it says "minor" and "within 10 years", so would be applicable to an 18 year old and an 8 year old child.

  Crimes of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 14 are prosecuted under the Penal Code § 288 as a “lewd and lascivious act with a minor.” Sex offender registration is mandatory even if the conduct was "consensual".

  So this Bill does not apply to any child victim under the age of 14.

  At the moment sex offender registration is also mandatory for crimes of sexual conduct other than sexual intercourse (sodomy, oral copulation or sexual penetration) with a minor 14 years or older, even if the conduct was consensual and the minor was within ten years of the offender.
  

  However, If the minor is 14 years or older and there is consensual sexual intercourse with an adult (older than 17) then the prosecution is for unlawful sexual intercourse under Penal Code § 261.5 and sex offender registration is not mandatory if the minor is within ten years of the offender. but it remains for the judge to evaluate.

  The purpose of the Bill in question is to treat those who have some sort of consensual sex (other than intercourse) with a minor, 14 years or older, in the same way as those who have intercourse with a minor are treated, as far as sex offender registration is concerned. Nothing more nor less.

  Please note I should have qualified minors affected by this Bill as 14 to 17-years-old, rather than 15 to 17. I had in mind it was older than 14 but it is 14 and older.
  
• 

  Simon

  So this Bill does not apply to any child victim under the age of 14.

  This is misleading. It does apply because it only specifies "minor". There is nothing in it that says it doesn't. It could easily say "minors of 14 years or older" ... but it does not.

  Here's the trick. You pass a law like this, then you scrap the other one. Does it apply to under 14's now? Of course it does.

  Here's an idea: stop carrying water for pedos.
• 

  Earnest

  So this Bill does not apply to any child victim under the age of 14.

  That's exactly what the Bill says. The Bill says that the provision not to register as a sex offender applies to section 286 (b), section 287 (b) and section 289 (h) (i) except as provided in section 288 (read the sections).
  

  Section 288 is the section that deals with sexual abuse of children under the age of 14, which means sexual crimes against minors under the age of 14 are excepted from this provision..

  Simon : Here's an idea: stop carrying water for pedos.

  Frankly I have no interest in American politics, but sometimes blatant misrepresentation gets under my skin and so I have my say. Is it really necessary to be insulting when your posting rules do not allow that of others?
  
  
• 

  Mr.Finkelstein

  So a 20 year old gay male can seduce a 10 year old boy into committing a sex act with him and get little punishment for do so. .... stupid
  
• 

  Earnest

  No, Finkelstein. That's what I'm trying to show. A 20 year old who seduces a child under 14 "is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six or eight years." (Penal Section 288) The court may also impose an additional fine not exceeding $10,000..

  In addition, he will be required to register as a sex offender for life.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  But you are saying a 24 year old seducing a 14 year old may apply here, correct?
• 

  Earnest

  MeanMrMustard : But you are saying a 24 year old seducing a 14 year old may apply here, correct?

  This is the law as it is regardless of whether or not this Bill is passed.
  

  If a 24 year old seduces a 14 year old of the opposite sex, and they have vaginal sex, he/she will be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse (Penal Code § 261.5) and will be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. He/she will also be liable for a civil penalty for not more than $25,000.

  If a 24 year old seduces a 14 year old of either sex, and they have anal or oral sex, he/she will be guilty of either sodomy or oral copulation with a minor (Penal Code § 286, 287) and will be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

  In the case of the 24 year old who has vaginal sex with the 14 year old, the perpetrator is not automatically required to register as a sex offender, but is subject to the judge's evaluation.

  In the case of the 24 year old who has anal or oral sex with the 14 year old, it is mandatory that the perpetrator register as a sex offender.

  If this Bill is passed it will mean that the 24 year old who has anal or oral sex with the 14 year old will be in the same situation as the one having vaginal sex, and be subject to the judge's evaluation instead of registration being mandatory.
  

  Nothing else changes.
  
• 

  Simon

  In addition, he will be required to register as a sex offender for life.

  Until they change that law, so this new rule then applies. The bit you keep conveniently skipping.

  Explain why the left out age limits that would be incredibly easy to have included, unless the purpose is specifically not to have them.
• 

  redvip2000

  I think that 10 years is too large of a gap, both for the existing law and the new law. A 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old is categorically wrong, and same for 25/15. If you reduce that gap, then you can stop giving judges so much discretion in these cases.

  If it was instead 5 years 14/19, or 15/20, then it seems reasonable enough that a judge could have discretion as it might be a case where 2 people close in age are involved. You cannot convince me that a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old is something other than an adult having a true pathology.
• 

  Earnest

  Simon : Explain why the[y] left out age limits...

  Sure. I'll try.although this has nothing to do with SB 145. The Californian Penal Law on Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction (Part 1, Title 9, Chapter 1) was enacted in 1872. There it specified (Section 261.5) that for the purposes of defining unlawful sexual intercourse, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person at least 18 years of age.

  At the same time that chapter 1 was enacted (1872), chapter 5 was also enacted. This was the Californian Penal Law on Bigamy, Incest and the Crime Against Nature (Part 1, Title 9, Chapter 5). The Crime Against Nature included Sodomy, Bestiality, Oral Copulation, and Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child under the Age of 14.

  A Crime Against Nature was a more serious charge and carried a greater penalty than unlawful sexual intercourse, and you would expect that distinction between victims who are under fourteen and those who are maturing into adults (14 - 17).

  So, no-one was ever charged with "unnatural sexual intercourse" if the child was under 14, as they would be charged with "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14" instead..
  

  Now when California created the Sex Offender Registry in 1947 (it was the first state to require registration) the Crimes Against Nature (sodomy, oral copulation) were illegal among consenting adults and this only changed in 1975. So when it was decided that unlawful sexual intercourse did not require mandatory reporting, other forms of sex were illegal whatever the age of the participants and so were automatically included in the registry. Since 1975 this has been an anomaly which SB 145 is attempting to correct.