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

by mickbobcat 70 Replies latest social current

• 

  Earnest

  cofty, I discussed this question on another thread here. In brief, any sort of sex with anyone under the age of 18 is and remains illegal.

  In the example you give the 24 year old would be guilty of a felony. If the act was consensual he will be imprisoned for a period not more than a year. If it is against the will of the 14 year old he will be imprisoned for 7, 9 or 11 years.

  This law does not modify the definition of any sexual crime or its sentencing. When the perpetrator has completed his sentence he may be required to register for life as a sex offender. Prior to this Bill this was mandatory for oral or anal sex whether the difference in age was one day or forty. years, but it was at the discretion of the judge if it was vaginal sex and the child was over 13..

  Without this Bill lifetime registration is mandatory for oral or anal sex with a minor whether the perpetrator is another teen or a forty year old and the judge has no discretion to treat them differently.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  How many on the board had sex at 16 or 17, whether married or not, to their partner? - this may be true but underage teenagers are typically similar in age, with the boy being a couple of years older than the girl.

  This California Bill is nothing to do with that.

  If passed, it will enable paedophiles to have sex with minors up to 10 years their junior.

  This Bill in its present form must be stopped, no ifs or buts.
  
• 

  cofty

  Earnest thanks for the clarification.

  It still seems like a mistake to pass a law that makes it even remotely possible for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old and not be registered as a sexual predator.

  The practice of gay men grooming teenage boys is a real issue that needs addressed by more rigorous application of law not less.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  In the example you give the 24 year old would be guilty of a felony. If the act was consensual he will be imprisoned for a period not more than a year. If it is against the will of the 14 year old he will be imprisoned for 7, 9 or 11 years. [italics mine]

  ^^^ But 14 year-olds are viewed as being too young to consent to sex. This Bill would water this down if it recognises 14 year olds can consent to sex.

  This Bill would be a paedophile's charter.
  
• 

  Earnest

  cofty : It still seems like a mistake to pass a law that makes it even remotely possible for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old and not be registered as a sexual predator.

  I agree with you, but the problem is that when the law on registration was enacted in 1947 it was not mandatory for the perpetrator to register in a case of vaginal sex. So it is about the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it affects different types of sex. See my discussion earlier on this thread here.

  LoveUniHateExams : This Bill would scrap [the age of consent] if it allows 14 year olds to consent to sex.

  Perhaps I should not have used the word consensual. The age of consent is and remains at 18 in California. The law makes a distinction when deciding punishment on whether the sex was agreed to or whether it was forced. You can read exactly what it says here (Penal Code § 286 (b)(1); (c)(2)(C)). This new Bill will not alter that..
  
• 

  Earnest

  cofty, the other consideration is that mandatory registration as a sex offender in a case of anal or oral sex with a minor applied regardless of the age of the perpetrator, who could be an adult but could just as easily be under 18 himself and even younger than the victim. Not all perpetrators are predators.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  I did some more research in the bill:

  Wiener says exactly what the bill is about: SB145 ends discrimination against LGBTQ and makes statutory rape committed by LGBTQ exempt from having to be put on a sex registry.

  There is already a 5 year age differential in the existing law (a 21 having sex with a 16 year old is ALREADY okay with California). So this is extending it to a 10 year differential for LGBTQ people, making a 21 year old LGBTQ male/female having sex with a 11 year old okay.

  The other thing this bill changes is the nature of the person that commits statutory rape, it will still be statutory rape, but now if an LGBT person does it, their "institutional oppression" makes them immune from having to be a registered sex offender.

  Previous bills of his downgraded the knowing transmission of HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

  Another bill he has introduced is to force language (1st amendment violation) for prison and police officials to use gender pronouns of a criminals choice. The criminal could literally change pronouns daily and it would be a violation of their rights if the prison or police can't keep up.

  He also introduced and passed a bill in California that allows sex offenders to be removed from the sex offender registry on demand or after periods as short as 5 year after a conviction. Ninety percent of California sex offenders will no longer be required to register after July 2021. In July 2023, any sex offender California hasn't processed yet into the new tiered system (whether to keep them 5, 10, 20 years on the registry), literally, a legal review of millions of records in 2 years, they will DROP OFF THE LIST.

  Wiener has something to hide, he is or he protects a child sex predator. There is no reason to introduce draconian laws that will remove sentencing on 90% of child sex offenses.
• 

  Simon

  How many on the board had sex at 16 or 17, whether married or not, to their partner?

  Well I put my hand up to it. My partner was 19 (now husband) Anyone who denies they wanted to, at that age, is probably lying.

  I love how you keep throwing yourself softballs to hit.

  You still haven't tried to explain why the bill only specified "minor" and a 10 year age gap. Talking about other bills doesn't explain it, why is the law too lax rather than too strict?

  How about you explain how this bill applies to an 8 and 18 year old.
• 

  Mr.Finkelstein

  This new law/Bill is wrong in that it lessens the guilt and wrong doing for an adult 18+ enticing an child/ prepubescent into committing a sexaul act.

  ie. a 8 year old hardly knows anything about sex so its the adolescent that is at fault for instigating the act.
  
• 

  Earnest

  Anony Mous : SB145 ... makes statutory rape committed by LGBTQ exempt from having to be put on a sex registry.

  FALSE. Sodomy and oral copulation with minors (14 - 17) of either sex are not exempt from registration but it is at the discretion of the judge for reasons I have previously explained.

  Anony Mous : There is already a 5 year age differential in the existing law (a 21 having sex with a 16 year old is ALREADY okay with California).

  FALSE. Sex with anyone under 18 is not okay in California. It is a criminal offence.

  Anony Mous : So this [makes] a 21 year old having sex with a 11 year old okay.

  FALSE. This would result in imprisonment for three, six or eight years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. If he inflicted bodily harm on the victim he would be imprisoned for life.

  Anony Mous : The other thing this bill changes is the nature of the person that commits statutory rape, it will still be statutory rape, but now if an LGBT person does it, their "institutional oppression" makes them immune from having to be a registered sex offender.

  FALSE for three reasons : (1). It is not statutory rape. See Penal Code § 261 for the definition of statutory rape. (2) There is no immunity from registration as a sex offender. It remains at the discretion of the judge for reasons previously discussed. (3) LGBT is not mentioned in this Bill. Oral/anal sex occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual population..