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

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.

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

MeanMrMustard : But you are saying a 24 year old seducing a 14 year old may apply here, correct?

This is the law as it is regardless of whether or not this Bill is passed.

If a 24 year old seduces a 14 year old of the opposite sex, and they have vaginal sex, he/she will be guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse (Penal Code § 261.5) and will be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. He/she will also be liable for a civil penalty for not more than $25,000.

If a 24 year old seduces a 14 year old of either sex, and they have anal or oral sex, he/she will be guilty of either sodomy or oral copulation with a minor (Penal Code § 286, 287) and will be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year.

In the case of the 24 year old who has vaginal sex with the 14 year old, the perpetrator is not automatically required to register as a sex offender, but is subject to the judge's evaluation.

In the case of the 24 year old who has anal or oral sex with the 14 year old, it is mandatory that the perpetrator register as a sex offender.

If this Bill is passed it will mean that the 24 year old who has anal or oral sex with the 14 year old will be in the same situation as the one having vaginal sex, and be subject to the judge's evaluation instead of registration being mandatory.

Nothing else changes.

13

Judge Rutherfords brother was very naughty.....

by sparky1 in

i found this article online when i was researching information on another post and i am only posting it as an historical item of interest.

it is not intended to slam the judge.. .

i apologize if this has been posted and discussed before..

Earnest

Judge Rutherfords Death Threat

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

No, Finkelstein. That's what I'm trying to show. A 20 year old who seduces a child under 14 "is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six or eight years." (Penal Section 288) The court may also impose an additional fine not exceeding $10,000..

In addition, he will be required to register as a sex offender for life.

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

So this Bill does not apply to any child victim under the age of 14.

That's exactly what the Bill says. The Bill says that the provision not to register as a sex offender applies to section 286 (b), section 287 (b) and section 289 (h) (i) except as provided in section 288 (read the sections).

Section 288 is the section that deals with sexual abuse of children under the age of 14, which means sexual crimes against minors under the age of 14 are excepted from this provision..

Simon : Here's an idea: stop carrying water for pedos.

Frankly I have no interest in American politics, but sometimes blatant misrepresentation gets under my skin and so I have my say. Is it really necessary to be insulting when your posting rules do not allow that of others?