I was wondering about this. If California or other far left groups in charge would push for making pedophiles quote normal unquote. So it passed but has yet to be signed by Newsom. The bill makes it so you don't have to be put on a sex offender roll if you are within 10 years of the child. So a 19yo can have sex with a 10 yo or a 25yo can have sex with a 15yo. This is so sick and disgusting they are making the JWs look like the protectors of youth.
California passes bill lessening penalty for pedophiles having sex with willing kids.
by mickbobcat 70 Replies latest social current
-
mickbobcat
-
Simon
Yeah, 18 year olds sodomizing 9 years olds and they want to claim it is somehow "consensual". The crazy left, trying to normalize and decriminalize pedophilia.
How can anyone in good conscience vote for these sick, evil people?
Now you see why the democrats Antifa brown-shirt thugs have so many pedos and rapists 'causing damage and threatening those who stand against them. All part of their agenda to destroy normal civilized society so they can act out their depravity.
If you vote democrat, don't be surprised if people think of you as a pedo-loving rapist-hugging lunatic.
-
Earnest
Read the bill before jumping on the bus.
SB 145 has nothing to do with normalising or decriminalising pedophilia. It would not change the illegality of intercourse or the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Instead, the bill would give judges the ability to evaluate whether an adult accused of oral or anal sex, who is within ten years of a 15 to 17-year-old, be required to register as a sex offender, which judges already evaluate in similar cases involving vaginal intercourse.
-
Anders Andersen
@Earnest,
Don't be so reasonable. Who needs the actual source if there is Breitbart?
We just want unfounded claims to vilify 'the others'.
/s
-
MeanMrMustard
This bill was introduced by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D).
Wiener...
I swear there is some trolling happening here. Are we sure this isn't a simulation?
-
Simon
I can't think of a scenario where they should not be put on the sex offenders registry.
Does this fundamentally lower penalties for those who do or not?
It's not fake news, that's just what the left now try to use to dismiss things.
-
Simon
the bill would give judges the ability to evaluate whether an adult accused of oral or anal sex, who is within ten years of a 15 to 17-year-old, be required to register as a sex offender, which judges already evaluate in similar cases involving vaginal intercourse.
That's a misleading description of it. The bill does not mention "15-17 year olds", it says "minor" and "within 10 years", so would be applicable to an 18 year old and an 8 year old child.
Who else does this help if not pedophiles?
You can guarantee that liberal judges, who are already way too lenient, will use this to excuse and exempt people from the proper consequences they should face.
Trying to blame it on "Breitbart" is pathetic, if they happen to be the ones highlighting this then they are doing a service, what the media should be doing - informing the public and shining a bright light into dark places.
-
Earnest
Simon : I can't think of a scenario where they should not be put on the sex offenders registry.
That is why the evaluation is done by a judge who has the necessary education and experience. More to the point is whether you can think of a scenario where an adult (someone older than 17) has consensual vaginal intercourse with a 15 to 17-year-old should not be put on the sex offenders registry.
If you can think of such a scenario then how do you justify the distinction? If you cannot think of such a scenario then you lack the legal knowledge and experience because the law already requires such an evaluation.
-
mickbobcat
This is how the left works. They start at the tip of the wedge but you know where this will end up.
-
Simon
More to the point is whether you can think of a scenario where an adult (someone older than 17) has consensual vaginal intercourse with a 15 to 17-year-old should not be put on the sex offenders registry.
You're back to defending some other legislation than what this bill says. I would be fine with the decision over a 15-17 year old having sex with someone maybe up-to 5 years older being for a judge to decide. But 'cmon, you're only giving examples in the convenient area close to the current threshold of acceptable.
How about you instead try to justify the other extreme that the bill covers, which is what people would be more concerned about - an 8 year old being sodomized by an 18 year old and try to justify it as "consensual".
I don't think you can, without sounding like a pervert piece of garbage. But c'mon, you want to justify it - do it.
This is how the left works. They start at the tip of the wedge but you know where this will end up.
Exactly - there's a reason for "minor" and "10 year" age gap.
The "useful idiots" then start talking about 17 year olds as the minors, not about the 8 year olds.