Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New California bill will lower penalties for adults who Have sex with minors.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New California bill will lower penalties for adults who Have sex with minors.

    https://www.foxla.com/news/new-calif...s-with-a-minor

    LOS ANGELES
    - A new bill headed to Governor Gavin Newsom's desk would lower penalties for adults who have consensual sex with a minor if the offender is within 10 years of age with the victim.

    SB 145 passed in both houses of the State Legislature late Monday evening.

    "If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 14-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender," State Senator Shannon Grove wrote in a tweet.

    Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.

    Other forms of intercourse such as oral and anal intercourse require sex offender registration.

    State Senator Scott Wiener, who presented the bill, said the existing law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse."

    “California’s sex offender registry continues to draw that distinction — an antiquated, outdated, leftover distinction — that somehow oral sex is worse than vaginal sex,” Wiener said.

    The bill was sponsored by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. During an August press conference, Deputy District Attorney Bradley McCartt recounted a case in which a mother was upset that her 17-year-old daughter was in a relationship with a high school basketball teammate and pressed charges against her daughter's 18-year-old girlfriend, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. McCartt was able to prevent the prosecution. However, he said that if others were more willing to prosecute the case, the girlfriend would have been placed on the sex offender registry for life if convicted.

    According to the bill's language, the goal of SB 145 is to “exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.”

    Critics of the bill argue that rather than amending existing law to include vaginal intercourse with a minor as an act that requires mandatory sex offender registration, the bill aims to make all criminal sex acts with a minor over 14 equal by providing offenders with an opportunity to evade mandatory registration.

    "Any sex is sex," argued Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. "I don't care who it is between or what sex act it is. That being said, I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual."

    According to Wiener, the bill would not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage minor. Instead, the bill would give judges the ability to evaluate whether the accused be required to register as a sex offender.
    Last edited by Beach Ball Bitch; 09-03-2020, 03:36 PM.

    #2
    I heard about this on the radio yesterday, It seems rather drastic to make it a 10 year discrepancy rather than say a 3 year discrepancy to cover those edge cases.

    Comment


      #3
      Audiogen Ya, good way to making grooming legal as well. This is sick in my opinion.

      another bill the same guy is trying to get passed is sex change and hormones for kids under 10... saying they too are part of the LGBT community ... yet these kids don’t understand what it will mean to never be able to have an orgasm. Can you say suicide waiting to happen?

      Scott Wiener is the one who did this. He also successfully repealed the mandatory telling your partner that you are HIV positive. You no longer have to in California.
      Last edited by Beach Ball Bitch; 09-03-2020, 04:36 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        i do agree with the idea that sex=sex and a blowjob should not equal lifelong sex offender list if vaginal sex doesn't. but yeah, 10 years is a little nuts.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Undies View Post
          i do agree with the idea that sex=sex and a blowjob should not equal lifelong sex offender list if vaginal sex doesn't. but yeah, 10 years is a little nuts.
          Weird too, to get this through the senate and stuff they made it pertaining to anal sex for young boys and the LGBT community. So a 14 year old boy and a 24 year old man... anal sex is ok and getting blow jobs from him is ok. As if young boys are not groomed in the sex trade.

          Comment


            #6
            Senate vote was 24 to 2 in favour, so all the Democrats just fell in line

            29 Democrats, 11 Republicans currently in their senate

            If it really was about equity, should have been presented the other way, mandatory registration for all types of sex
            Last edited by Vanilla Gorilla; 09-03-2020, 10:00 PM.

            Comment


              #7
              California lawmakers to teens in 2020:

              "You're not capable enough to prepare for standardized tests and it's your fault no one in the state will be able to enjoy flavored nicotine products next year but you're fully capable of making an informed decision on having sex with someone in their mid-20's."

              Comment


                #8
                Did the sponsors of the bill explain the necessity of changing existing law?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by tumbling.dice View Post
                  Did the sponsors of the bill explain the necessity of changing existing law?
                  It's briefly mentioned in that paragraph about LGBT. The existing law is supposedly discrimating towards LGBT people or something.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by tumbling.dice View Post
                    Did the sponsors of the bill explain the necessity of changing existing law?
                    not really but from what I gather it only applies to gay relationships for some reason, boys. not heterosexual ones. Heterosexual remains three years difference for minors

                    Comment


                      #11
                      More details on this ... I just don’t get it. It seems to be directed at young boys and grown men for anal sex. 10 year difference is ok. I just don’t agree with this. 10 years? Wtf. LGBTq people can’t be pedophiles? I don’t think this is a gender thing at all. So wrong.

                      https://www.abc10.com/article/news/l...0-c745cad03c80

                      California state senator defends controversial SB 145, relating to sex offenders

                      Senate Bill 145 would expand discretion for judges, in certain cases, to exempt mandatory sex offender
                      SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As Senate Bill 145 sits on the desk of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the lawmaker who authored the legislation is defending it from online criticism.

                      State senator Scott Wiener says controversy over SB 145 is based on people’s misunderstanding of the bill and some lies about it.
                      What is SB 145?


                      Current California law treats cases of statutory rape differently depending on what kind of sex is had.


                      For cases involving a young adult and a minor where vaginal intercourse took place, a judge has discretion whether to place the person convicted of statutory rape on the sex offender registry.

                      The judge does not have any discretion when the case involves anal or oral sex.

                      SB 145 would eliminate automatic sex offender registration for young adults who have anal or oral sex with a minor. Instead, a judge would make the decision, just as they do now in cases involving vaginal intercourse.

                      SB 145 would apply only to cases involving minors between the ages of 14-17, and an offender within a 10-year range.

                      It remains illegal under California law for any adult to have sex with a minor.
                      The origins of SB 145


                      State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who authored SB 145, says current law discriminates against the LGBTQ community.

                      “Senate Bill 145 is an anti-discrimination law," Wiener said. "It ends discrimination against LGBTQ people on the sex offender registry,”

                      Wiener says the bill has been the "subject of a massive misinformation campaign," and social media posts that claim it legalizes pedophillia are not true.

                      “A 19-year-old has a 17-year-old girlfriend and they have sex, that is statutory rape. 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,” Wiener said. “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.”

                      full article in the link above,
                      Last edited by Beach Ball Bitch; 09-04-2020, 01:21 PM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	E46615B3-5294-4B71-9F5E-99315E1F7666.jpeg
Views:	50
Size:	389.0 KB
ID:	24558

                        Comment


                          #13
                          6-eyed ya I cant believe that it is legal now to have a ten year age gap for gay sex only.... anal sex with a 24 year old and a 14 year old is ok. Blow jobs ok... 10 year gap. But only for same sexes. Just crazy imo.

                          but Cali has always been fucked up in so many ways.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Beach Ball Bitch View Post
                            [USER="20"]
                            but Cali has always been fucked up in so many ways.
                            Eh... We've also been on the forefront of a lot respectable issues on tolerance.

                            Comment


                            • Beach Ball Bitch
                              Beach Ball Bitch commented
                              Editing a comment
                              @audiogen

                              Like?

                              Legalizing PD I just can’t agree with, nor withholding info that is detrimental to someone else’s quality of life. Can’t agree with free medical for non citizens either, nor open borders. Zero tolerance for pedo.

                              Cali, from my understanding sets the standards for the rest of the country on many liberal issues.

                              Legalizing PEdos, coming soon to your town.

                              Have you seen the movie cutie? Creepy, California and netfkix call it a coming of age movie. *shudder* with 12 year old children.
                              Last edited by Beach Ball Bitch; 09-12-2020, 12:13 AM.

                            • Audiogen
                              Audiogen commented
                              Editing a comment
                              Like civil rights protections for LGBT that most today would consider self-evident.

                            #15
                            Audiogen

                            Well, civil rights laws are being repealed there. Prop 209

                            Seems to me that when a Cali state shuts off people power and water for breaking rules ... having a party, ones civics rights are non existent

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X