California Legislature Passes Bill Reducing Penalties for Oral, ####### Sex with Willing Children

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

In January 2019, the San Francisco Examiner reported on the introduction of the bill by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D), who claimed the current law, which states oral and ####### sex between an adult within ten years of the age of a willing minor requires the adult to be registered as a sex offender, discriminates against LGBT individuals.

The bill would put an end to “blatant discrimination against young LGBT people engaged in consensual activity,” Wiener said:

This bill is about treating everyone equally under the law. Discrimination against LGBT people is simply not the California way. These laws were put in place during a more conservative and anti-LGBT time in California’s history. They have ruined people’s lives and made it harder for them to get jobs, secure housing, and live productive lives. It is time we update these laws and treat everyone equally.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/03/california-legislature-passes-bill-reduce-penalties-oral-#######-sex-willing-children/

 

 

 

 

It's just so unfair that an 18 year old can't have sex with a consenting 8 year old. There's clearly discrimination against [insert group identity here], we must send a message that pedophilia is okay! #SocialJustice

 

Those who disagree with this, clearly are part of some Alex Jones/Qanon/MAGA/everyone-I-disagree-with-who-are-especially-like-the-former conspiracy.

 

An update too.. this passed earlier in the week. All that's left is the governor to sign it.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

48 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

In January 2019, the San Francisco Examiner reported on the introduction of the bill by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D), who claimed the current law, which states oral and ####### sex between an adult within ten years of the age of a willing minor requires the adult to be registered as a sex offender, discriminates against LGBT individuals.

The bill would put an end to “blatant discrimination against young LGBT people engaged in consensual activity,” Wiener said:

This bill is about treating everyone equally under the law. Discrimination against LGBT people is simply not the California way. These laws were put in place during a more conservative and anti-LGBT time in California’s history. They have ruined people’s lives and made it harder for them to get jobs, secure housing, and live productive lives. It is time we update these laws and treat everyone equally.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/03/california-legislature-passes-bill-reduce-penalties-oral-#######-sex-willing-children/

 

 

 

 

It's just so unfair that an 18 year old can't have sex with a consenting 8 year old. There's clearly discrimination against [insert group identity here], we must send a message that pedophilia is okay! #SocialJustice

 

Those who disagree with this, clearly are part of some Alex Jones/Qanon/MAGA/everyone-I-disagree-with-who-are-especially-like-the-former conspiracy.

 

An update too.. this passed earlier in the week. All that's left is the governor to sign it.

That is insane. Liberal absurdity.

 

The caveat I will add is there have been several cases in which a 18 year old has sex with someone less than a year younger than him and gets sent to prison and gets registered. Not sure what the cutoff should be but I dont think someone who just turned 18 should be sent to prison for having sex with someone who is 16 years and 9 months old. 

 

A very famous case her in Georgia is Genarlow Wilson . I know we are talking about 2 very diffrent things, but there does need to be some way to prevent what happened to him.

 

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/genarlow-wilson-journey-from-prison-morehouse/BSmOzTV5gU4sjRvAgsuEBM/

[laylalex 7,284]

I do not agree with the existing law that this one is trying to be an equivalent to -- Romeo and Juliet laws are one thing (my high school boyfriend who was one year older than me could have been busted his senior year because we lived in CA, and even though he is a loathsome person, he shouldn't have gone to prison for the statutory part of statutory rape). Why is the law different where the people are same sex as opposed to opposite sex? I agree that there should be no difference -- any punishment should be the same. But the 10 year differential is troublesome -- though the law(s) give discretion to judges here, not a mandate. You aren't going to see a judge here say oh, okay, 20 and 10 sounds fine, be on your way. Do you KNOW any superior court judges here? My experience in going through family court was of people who have seen it all and are tough but fair. Where you might see discretion being used is where the older person was 27 and the younger 17. This is still AWFUL in my opinion, I will add.

 

Anyway, here's an article with some less sensational stuff:

Quote

Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco sponsored Senate Bill 145, which would give judges discretion over whether a young adult has to register as a sex offender after being convicted of having oral or ####### sex with someone between the ages of 14 and 17, as long as the adult is within 10 years of the minor’s age and the sex was consensual. As it is now, the adult is automatically required to register as a sex offender for oral and ####### sex, but not for vaginal sex. Any kind of sex with a minor would remain illegal under Wiener's bill.

 

“Senate Bill 145 is an antidiscrimination law,” Wiener told Sacramento’s KXTV this week. “It ends discrimination against LGBTQ people on the sex offender registry.”

“A 19-year-old has a 17-year-old girlfriend and they have sex, that is statutory rape,” he continued. “But the law right now says that the judge does not have to put that 19-year-old boy on the sex offender registry because of the kind of sex that they were having. “But if it’s a 19-year-old boy having sex with a 17-year-old boyfriend, the judge must put that 19-year-old onto the sex offender registry, even if it was completely consensual, even if they were boyfriends, even if there was nothing coercive or predatory about it.”

 

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2020/9/03/gay-lawmaker-threatened-called-pedophile-over-sex-offender-bill

Edited September 4, 2020 by laylalex
Sloppy writing, I'm tired.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

I do not agree with the existing law that this one is trying to be an equivalent to -- Romeo and Juliet laws are one thing (my high school boyfriend who was one year older than me could have been busted his senior year because we lived in CA, and even though he is a loathsome person, he shouldn't have gone to prison for the statutory part of statutory rape). Why is the law different where the people are same sex as opposed to opposite sex? I agree that there should be no difference -- any punishment should be the same. But the 10 year differential is troublesome -- though the law(s) give discretion to judges here, not a mandate. You aren't going to see a judge here say oh, okay, 20 and 10 sounds fine, be on your way. Do you KNOW any superior court judges here? My experience in going through family court was of people who have seen it all and are tough but fair. Where you might see discretion being used is where the older person was 27 and the younger 17. This is still AWFUL in my opinion, I will add.

 

Anyway, here's an article with some less sensational stuff:

 

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2020/9/03/gay-lawmaker-threatened-called-pedophile-over-sex-offender-bill

Doesn't matter what YOU think is ok, what matters is that if passed, an 18-year-old can have sex with a "willing" 8-year-old, and it will be legal.

 

And why, pray tell,  is 27/17 "awful"?

 

What about 43/24?   Is that awful as well?

 

[Lemonslice 4,798]

21 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Doesn't matter what YOU think is ok, what matters is that if passed, an 18-year-old can have sex with a "willing" 8-year-old, and it will be legal.

 

And why, pray tell,  is 27/17 "awful"?

 

What about 43/24?   Is that awful as well?

 

No, sex with minors will still be illegal.

Adult having sex with minors over 14 years old, will not be automatically added to the sex offender registry.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

No, sex with minors will still be illegal.

Adult having sex with minors over 14 years old, will not be automatically added to the sex offender registry.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Quote

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006.
 

I dont see any exemptions based on the age of the younger person.  It just says 10 years younger.

 

Am I missing something?

Edited September 4, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Are you sure about that?

 

I dont see any exemptions based on the age of the younger person.  It just says 10 years younger.

 

Am I missing something?

No, others are just missing math.

 

21->11

20->10

19->9

18->8

 

At the same time, decreasing penalties on violence against police, getting rid of bail allowing violent criminals to instantly be back among the public, it's a wonderful mix of crime heaven. Only if one really hated their community/jurisdiction would they make them this unsafe and go so far out of their way to put them in harms way and help criminals. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

This AP fact check should clarify the confusion.

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9289454083

This really is about the judges discretion in using the sex offenders registry and changes no felony laws. Statutory rape will still be statutory rape.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I have read SB145 a couple of times, and nowhere does it mention anything about 14 nor 17.  Here is a direct quote from SB145:

 

Quote

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006.

 

 

In fact, CA law states:

Quote

The age of consent in Califonia is 18 years of age. The age of consent refers to the age at which a person can legally consent to sexual intercourse. This age is the same for males and females.

Note that if a person is 18 years of age or older, and he/she has sexual intercourse with a minor, that person breaks the age of consent law and can be prosecuted for a crime – typically for statutory rape, per Penal Code 261.5.

The following are a few scenarios that could lead to PC 261.5 charges:

• a 19-year-old female high school senior has sex with a 16-year-old male who is in several of her classes;
• a 35-year-old college professor develops a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl who is in one of the classes he teaches; and
• a pair of high school sweethearts who have been dating for three years have sex for the first time when he is 18 but she is still only 16.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/age-of-consent/

Edited September 4, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

56 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

This AP fact check should clarify the confusion.

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9289454083

This really is about the judges discretion in using the sex offenders registry and changes no felony laws. Statutory rape will still be statutory rape.

There is no confusion, because CA does not have a "Romeo & Juliet" law.

 

Quote

No, California does not have a Romeo and Juliet law. In California, it is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor. Even another minor.

A Romeo and Juliet law says it is not always a crime to have consensual sex with a minor. But the guidelines are very specific. Texas, for example, has a Romeo and Juliet law. It states that a person:

• between the ages of 14 and 17 can consent,
• with someone within three years of their age,
• so long as the other consenting party is at least 14.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/does-california-have-a-romeo-and-juliet-law/ 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

This AP fact check should clarify the confusion.

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9289454083

This really is about the judges discretion in using the sex offenders registry and changes no felony laws. Statutory rape will still be statutory rape.

Thankfully the confusion isn't whether or not pedophilia is completely legal, but loved the comedic fact check. 

[laylalex 7,284]

Yes, I KNOW California doesn't have a Romeo and Juliet law. You need to actually read what this law is about. It is NOT about statutory rape -- that is still a thing, and if you have sex with a person under 18, you have committed statutory rape. The bill is about the fact that judges are currently given discretion whether to add someone to the sex offenders' register where the age difference between the parties is 10 years or less AND the child is at least 14 years old, but only if the sex is vaginal (i.e. P in V). A judge currently does not have that discretion if the sex is oral or the word that gets ###'d out here but you know what it is. The bill is to remove the distinction. That's it. 

 

Let me repeat myself: IT IS STILL STATUTORY RAPE. Adults will be punished. The only difference is that a judge would have discretion NOT to add the adult to the sex offenders' list if the sex in question was oral or A sex. Why should a 18 year old caught having vaginal sex with his 17 year old girlfriend be able to appeal to the judge's discretion about being added to the list but the same 18 year old caught having oral sex with his 17 year old girlfriend not be able to do the same? 

 

And yes, it is WRONG for a 27 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in California because it is against the law, and awful because... wow, do I even need to say why it is wrong to have sex with a child? I don't care what adults do or what their age differentials are. Not my business. I prefer to have a partner who is close to my age, would you judge me for my preference? No? Good, I don't judge others for the same even if it's something I personally would not prefer.

 

Also, wherever people are reading that it is fine for an 18 year old to have sex with an 8 year old under this law... really, where are you even reading this that's a reliable source? I read SB145 just now in full, and it points to a number of Penal Code sections that when you put them together, say: sex with children under 14 is not only always wrong, you are going away for a long, long time. Read all the Penal Code sections from section 286 going forward. Non-forced oral and A sex get people into bigger trouble than P in V sex -- why? 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Read the title of the thread.. it doesn't say completely legalizing pedophilia. We know judges have discretion but so do DA's, and judges can't bring a case all on their own. We know from other similar laws mentioned previously of reducing penalties encourages those crimes. There's zero reason to have such a law with such an egregious range, but we know the signals being sent by those encouraging crime. Those conclusions don't hinge on the biggest caricatures those that disagree with them can come up with. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Lemonslice 4,798]

35 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Read the title of the thread.. it doesn't say completely legalizing pedophilia. We know judges have discretion but so do DA's, and judges can't bring a case all on their own. We know from other similar laws mentioned previously of reducing penalties encourages those crimes. There's zero reason to have such a law with such an egregious range, but we know the signals being sent by those encouraging crime. Those conclusions don't hinge on the biggest caricatures those that disagree with them can come up with. 

How do you know?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

How do you know?

I pay attention?