Posts by Earnest

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

Simon : Yeah, until they change those laws to remove the age limits specified in them. Then which limits would apply. Oh, right, the limits in this bill ... right?

Simon, this Bill doesn't specify age limits. What it says is

This bill would 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.

So, if we are talking about age limits we have to see how "minor" is defined and look at the statutes which this Bill affects, Section 286 (b), Section 287 (b), and Section 289 (h)(i). Section 261.5 defines "minor" as a person under the age of 18 years. The other sections concur with this. If the victim is under 14 then the sections above specify they would be charged under Section 288 instead which requires mandatory registration as a sex offender in all cases.

So you would be correct if you said they can change the definition of a minor. If the California Legislature agrees on it they can do it. But no other state has a higher age of consent than California and they have not changed it since 1872. But if that's what they decided then they could do it, and when this Bill and other statutes refers to "minors" it would mean something different.

Think of it in terms of a computer program where you have your global definitions and wherever the variable is referred to in various sections of the program it has the meaning specified in the global definition. So, when you change the definition the meaning changes throughout the program. It is the same idea. So this Bill has no age limits. The age limits are decided by the definition of "minor" elsewhere..

Simon : If this law doesn't affect any consequences, then why have it?

Mr Finkelstein was referring to prepubescents and I said this lawl does not affect the consequences for anyone who commits a sexual act with a minor under 14. The law has consequences for those included in sections 286, 287 and 289 of the Penal Code as referred to above.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

Mr Finkelstein : This new law/Bill is wrong in that it lessens the guilt and wrong doing for an adult 18+ enticing an child/ prepubescent into committing a sexaul act.

This new law/Bill does not affect the consequences for anyone who commits a sexual act with a minor under 14. There is a minimum of three, six or eight years in prison with mandatory reporting as a sex offender after release from prison. Read the law - Penal Code § 288 (a).

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

Anony Mous : SB145 ... makes statutory rape committed by LGBTQ exempt from having to be put on a sex registry.

FALSE. Sodomy and oral copulation with minors (14 - 17) of either sex are not exempt from registration but it is at the discretion of the judge for reasons I have previously explained.

Anony Mous : There is already a 5 year age differential in the existing law (a 21 having sex with a 16 year old is ALREADY okay with California).

FALSE. Sex with anyone under 18 is not okay in California. It is a criminal offence.

Anony Mous : So this [makes] a 21 year old having sex with a 11 year old okay.

FALSE. This would result in imprisonment for three, six or eight years and a fine not exceeding $10,000. If he inflicted bodily harm on the victim he would be imprisoned for life.

Anony Mous : The other thing this bill changes is the nature of the person that commits statutory rape, it will still be statutory rape, but now if an LGBT person does it, their "institutional oppression" makes them immune from having to be a registered sex offender.

FALSE for three reasons : (1). It is not statutory rape. See Penal Code § 261 for the definition of statutory rape. (2) There is no immunity from registration as a sex offender. It remains at the discretion of the judge for reasons previously discussed. (3) LGBT is not mentioned in this Bill. Oral/anal sex occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual population..

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

cofty, the other consideration is that mandatory registration as a sex offender in a case of anal or oral sex with a minor applied regardless of the age of the perpetrator, who could be an adult but could just as easily be under 18 himself and even younger than the victim. Not all perpetrators are predators.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

cofty : It still seems like a mistake to pass a law that makes it even remotely possible for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old and not be registered as a sexual predator.

I agree with you, but the problem is that when the law on registration was enacted in 1947 it was not mandatory for the perpetrator to register in a case of vaginal sex. So it is about the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it affects different types of sex. See my discussion earlier on this thread here.

LoveUniHateExams : This Bill would scrap [the age of consent] if it allows 14 year olds to consent to sex.

Perhaps I should not have used the word consensual. The age of consent is and remains at 18 in California. The law makes a distinction when deciding punishment on whether the sex was agreed to or whether it was forced. You can read exactly what it says here (Penal Code § 286 (b)(1); (c)(2)(C)). This new Bill will not alter that..

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

cofty, I discussed this question on another thread here. In brief, any sort of sex with anyone under the age of 18 is and remains illegal.

In the example you give the 24 year old would be guilty of a felony. If the act was consensual he will be imprisoned for a period not more than a year. If it is against the will of the 14 year old he will be imprisoned for 7, 9 or 11 years.

This law does not modify the definition of any sexual crime or its sentencing. When the perpetrator has completed his sentence he may be required to register for life as a sex offender. Prior to this Bill this was mandatory for oral or anal sex whether the difference in age was one day or forty. years, but it was at the discretion of the judge if it was vaginal sex and the child was over 13..

Without this Bill lifetime registration is mandatory for oral or anal sex with a minor whether the perpetrator is another teen or a forty year old and the judge has no discretion to treat them differently.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

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.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

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.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

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.

70

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

by mickbobcat in

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.

Earnest

Simon : Explain why the[y] left out age limits...

Sure. I'll try.although this has nothing to do with SB 145. The Californian Penal Law on Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction (Part 1, Title 9, Chapter 1) was enacted in 1872. There it specified (Section 261.5) that for the purposes of defining unlawful sexual intercourse, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person at least 18 years of age.

At the same time that chapter 1 was enacted (1872), chapter 5 was also enacted. This was the Californian Penal Law on Bigamy, Incest and the Crime Against Nature (Part 1, Title 9, Chapter 5). The Crime Against Nature included Sodomy, Bestiality, Oral Copulation, and Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child under the Age of 14.

A Crime Against Nature was a more serious charge and carried a greater penalty than unlawful sexual intercourse, and you would expect that distinction between victims who are under fourteen and those who are maturing into adults (14 - 17).

So, no-one was ever charged with "unnatural sexual intercourse" if the child was under 14, as they would be charged with "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14" instead..

Now when California created the Sex Offender Registry in 1947 (it was the first state to require registration) the Crimes Against Nature (sodomy, oral copulation) were illegal among consenting adults and this only changed in 1975. So when it was decided that unlawful sexual intercourse did not require mandatory reporting, other forms of sex were illegal whatever the age of the participants and so were automatically included in the registry. Since 1975 this has been an anomaly which SB 145 is attempting to correct.