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.