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

by mickbobcat 70 Replies latest social current

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    FedUpJW : So, the [California State Legislature] ... decide that the penalty for one should be REDUCED, instead of putting more teeth into the law against the other.

    I would also have preferred them to require lifetime registration for persons convicted of voluntary oral/anal copulation and for those convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse, thus treating both groups the same.

    The California Legislature has considered and rejected this proposal three times in the last ten years. See Bill No. 3341 (1995/6); Bill No. 1303 (1997/8) and Bill No. 2320 (2000/1).

    Why was it rejected? Because in those cases which result in pregnancy, the requirement that the father register as a sex offender might stigmatize both the mother and the child, and it might harm the father's ability to support his child as it would create problems with employment and obtaining accommodation..

    How many teenage mothers would want the father of their child to plead guilty to statutory rape and be subject to a lifetime registration requirement?

    Whether we agree with these reasons or not, this is why the California Legislature rejected the proposals.

    In order to address the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, the Legislature is left with two other options. Either remove the mandatory clause from those sexual crimes equivalent to unlawful sexual intercourse (i.e. oral and anal sex with a minor between 14 and 17), or remove the mandatory clause from sex offender registration altogether.

    Imagine the outcry if they had gone with the second option.

  • jp1692
    jp1692

    It's informative to see how disparate the age of consent is around the world and how it has changed over history, with ages ranging widely from as young as 10 years old (or even lower) to as high as 20. Although there are some records going back eight hundred years or so, in Western countries they are pretty sketchy before the mid- to late-19th Century.

    In traditional societies, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menarche for a woman, and pubic hair for a man, “but the boundaries remained fluid.” Reliable data for ages at marriage is scarce [See Footnote: 1].

    Even now, the age of consent varies by jurisdiction across Europe. The ages of consent are currently set between 14 and 18. The vast majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only three countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18) do not fit into this pattern (Ages of consent in Europe).

    An eye-opening look at sexual consent ages around Europe, mapped | indy100

    Over the course of American history, the most commonly observed age of consent was 10 years. As late as 1880, 37 states had an age of consent of 10 years while 10 states kept an age of consent at 12, and Delaware maintained its age of consent at seven years, having lowered it from 10 in 1871 [See Footnotes: 2 & 3]. Most of the higher age ranges that we see currently came about during the early 20th Century.

    Also, many jurisdictions have close-in-age exemptions, or so-called "Romeo & Juliet" laws. For instance, in Canada, the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older [See Footnote: 4].

    In the United States, there exist several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators, but none of them imposes an age limit on sexual acts. Each U.S. state has its own age of consent, as does the District of Columbia. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States was either 16, 17, or 18 years of age, with the most common age of consent being 16 years of age. About half of the states have a Close-In-Age Exemption [See Footnotes: 5].

    It's hard to logically and equitably reconcile why sexual activity between two willing and consenting individuals would be legal in Alabama or Georgia, but the exact same act would be illegal in Florida—a state which borders both of those other states. Two couples could engage in the exact same sexual activity literally feet way from each other on opposite sides of the state line and have drastically different legal outcomes. In the first two states, they are fine; But in Florida, someone's going to jail. Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me.

    In contrast, the close in age exceptions does make sense in certain, specific situations—situations which are easily understood. Consider these two very different scenarios to illustrate the point:

    1. Two young adults in living in Georgia and who have know each other for awhile have begun a romantic relationship. Both sets of parents know each other and approve of their children's relationship. As it turns out, their birthdays are just one day apart. On the day the older one turns 16, they have consensual sex for the first time. The younger one is still less than 24 hours away from their 16th birthday, so technically the older one has committed statutory rape—although neither of them would think of their experience that way. On the contrary, they both believe they are very much in love with each other. Nevertheless, according to the Georgia Penal Code § 16-6-3, the older one could possibly be sentenced to 1 to 20 years in prison. Does that really make sense?
    2. Compare that to a more egregious situation where a 50-year-old individual in a position of authority and trust who over time psychologically grooms, emotionally manipulates and then sexually abuses a young, prepubescent and naive child, even threatening and intimidating that child to maintain their silence.

    Of course, these are two very different scenarios—that's the point. They would be understood that way and treated that way by any reasonable person.

    I doubt that very many people, if any, would think that these two extremely different hypothetical examples should be treated the same. That is the point that extreme examples can clearly elucidate. The second example is clearly a gross and heinous crime and the perpetrator should be severely punished. In the first example, most people would probably be totally understanding and just hope our two young lovers practiced safe-sex. (Religious fundamentalists would disagree of course and would almost certainly have a different, harsher and more "Puritanical" view. But those of us living in the 21st Century would not.)

    Reasonable people can easily see the differences between extreme cases. Yet things quickly get more complicated as we move from hypothetical extremes to the more common real-life acts which are often complex and frequently obscured in moral shades of gray.

    If we can't even agree on what is the appropriate age of consent, we will likely never come to agreement on how to handle those morally muddy areas. Nevertheless, it is good to examine the issues with a clear mind absent outdated religious mores and informed by our historical and cultural context, biological facts and sound logical reasoning.

    Works Cited:

    1. Bullough, Vern. "Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society". faqs.org. Internet FAQ Archives. Archived from the original on 28 September 2008. Retrieved 25 August 2015.

    2. Purity Congress Meets, The New York Times, 15 October 1895.

    3. Children & Youth in History, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

    4. "Canada's age of consent raised by 2 years". CBC News. 1 May 2008.

    5."Age of Consent across the United States". AgeOfConsent.net. Retrieved 1 August 2018.

    6. Sandra Norman-Eady, Sandra. Statutory Rape Laws by State. 14 April 2003. OLR Research Report.




  • Biahi
    Biahi

    Excellent post, jp1692. Growing up, I was a big fan of the”Little House on the Prairie” books. When Laura Ingalls Wilder began dating her husband, she was 15, and he was 25. Big difference nowadays, but his intentions were honorable, and he married her once she turned 18. They stayed married for life. I don’t consider him to be a pedo.

  • TD
    TD

    Well no, he (Wilder) didn't even so much as kiss her until after they were engaged.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    Obviously, the left has already made clear that pedophilia is okay, if done by their own. BLM organizer, Christopher DeVries arrested on six counts of possession of child sex abuse images. There is a growing conviction, notably in Canada and California, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia “is a sexual orientation” and therefore “unlikely to change”. Or these disgusting pedophiles think they are "oppressed" https://aboutpedophilia.com/tag/blm/

    On topic:

    10 years gap is way too much, that is obviously protecting and normalizing pedophiles, given the age of consent is 18 in California, the difference would thus mean an 8 year old child.

    The "worst case scenario" is 17 with a 27 year old - clearly the age gap means that the older person is much more mentally developed than ANY 17 year old. If you are trying to protect the age differences, I'd say 3-5 years, that gives a 17 year old sway with up to 22 year olds.

    It is scientifically accepted that most people's prefrontal cortex will not be fully developed until 21 anyway, so you could argue that the "impulse control wasn't fully developed yet". Worst case is an 18 year old high schooler with a 13 year old, some 13 year olds are notoriously adult. Anything that protects sex with younger than 13 is pedophilia normalization, something that has held for thousands of years, all societies have protected their young up until the age of ~12-14yo.

    There is no sub-12yo that is sexually developed, most people become there around 16 and that was the lower average age range throughout human history, sure there were places where taking younger females (not males) was allowable but it was virtually never fully acceptable and was more about legally protecting the proclivities of pedophilia within the aristocracy.

    With a 23-27 year old that argument no longer holds, you can drink, you can choose not to have sex with a 17 year old.

  • waton
    waton

    One question is: could a <> 14 year old's hormones drive him/ her to have sex? actively seeking it?

    then what? should rhey end up somehow on a register?

  • LongHairGal
    LongHairGal

    BIAHI:

    I also loved the Laura Ingalls Wilder books when I was in grade school and I believe I read all or most of them (?). I remember “On the Banks of Plum Creek” and “By The Shores of Silver Lake”.

    Girls got married younger back then and people were more serious in general..no comparison to today!

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    waton : could a <> 14 year old ... end up somehow on a register?

    If the perpetrator is 14 or older and the victim is younger than 14 then he would end up on the register. Prior to SB 145 the same perpetrator would end up on the register if convicted of sodomy or oral copulation with a victim younger than 18.

    If both perpetrator and victim are younger than 14, and there is clear proof that at the time of committing the offence the perpetrator knew its wrongfulness, he would end up on the register.

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    This is part of the left trying to decriminalize and allow pedophilia and child abuse.

    this is just plain hysterical 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.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Diog - Doesn't this law permit a 24 year old to have anal sex with a 14 year old? In the rest of the world we call that pedophile rape.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit