by mickbobcat 70 Replies latest social current
That's not an explanation.
Everything put in and left out of a bill is for a reason. It could easily have been added, but it wasn't.
The entire notion of "willing child" is sick and perverted.
Don't bother responding, I don't want to read sick crap defending this garbage.
The entire notion of "willing child" is sick and perverted.
And that is the bottom line for me.
Here is a little more information on the California perverted bill that the Main Stream Media refuses to expose on the news.
some people can't just read, pause and think. this is not about decriminalization but equalization...
its not about pedophilia is about the need to be registered depending on where you choose to put your dick.
cyberjesus, you are so succinct.
This Bill was conceived as a result of two court cases before the California Supreme Court. The first case was People v. Hofsheier (2004), 37 Cal. 4th 1185. The second case was Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015), 60 Cal. 4th 871.
The Hofsheier case involved a 22-year old offender who was convicted of oral copulation with a 16-year old. Both the prosecutor and the judge agreed that the mandatory registration for oral copulation was inconsistent with the discretionary registration for vaginal intercourse.
Both the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court held that the mandatory registration for oral copulation was a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional right to Equal Protection under the law. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had no legitimate reason to treat these similarly situated offenses differently.
The Johnson case involved a 27-year old who had pleaded guilty to oral copulation with a minor under 16 and was sentenced to two years in prison with mandatory registration. Johnson appealed the mandatory registration as it was inconsistent with discretionary registration in a case of vaginal intercourse (equal protection rights). The Supreme court over-ruled Hofsheier and rejected the appeal, maintaining that oral/anal sex is not similar to vaginal sex because intercourse carries the potential of pregnancy and parenthood.
As a result of these two conflicting decisions, the lawmakers explain their rationale for this Bill which we can read in the Senate Floor Analyses (the first link dated 08/31/20). In conclusion, they write: :
Putting aside the Court’s findings, the treatment of these offenses differently is inherently discriminatory. Sexual acts that could result in pregnancy are treated more leniently than those that could not result in pregnancy. Some partners are incapable of achieving conception. The Johnson decision cited that fact that the Legislature has failed to act to remedy the inconsistency as a rationale to continue to discriminate amongst these offenses for the purpose mandating registration. If the issue of inconsistency is going to be resolved it must therefore be accomplished by the action of the California Legislature.
And none of that changes anything. How about lowing the age of consent...? No? Why not?
It is age discrimination, why punish a 81 year old more than an 18 year old? or 17 versus 71?
Earnest still hasn't explained why the law doesn't specify an age limit when it easily could, just "minor".
This wouldn't be connected in any way with other leftist campaigns would it? Like when they parade children as and with drag queens at their parades?
This is part of the left trying to decriminalize and allow pedophilia and child abuse.
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.
So, the left, in their infinite "wisdom" and their race to the bottom, decide that the penalty for one should be REDUCED, instead of putting more teeth into the law against the other. Why not just decriminalize ALL sex between person of ANY age, and let them claim consensual sex? There is a reason that the legal age in most states is either 18 or 21.
its not about pedophilia is about the need to be registered depending on where you choose to put your dick.
My personal belief is ANYONE who chooses to "put their dick" in a minor should be taken out, nailed by their balls to a stump, given a dull knife, set the stump on fire and let them make another choice!
But I may be biased. After all years ago my JW ex-wife's new man made the choice to "put his dick" in my minor daughter, and of course without two witnesses got off scot free.
