Earnest

Joined

• started 51 topics
• posted 2,251 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Earnest

• 
  70

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

  by mickbobcat in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Simon : you retreat to convenient example of a 17 + 18 year old couple which no one that I'm aware of has any real concern over

  The reason I give that example, Simon, is exactly because that makes it clear why discretionary registration as a sex offender is preferable to mandatory registration. Discretionary registration allows the judge to decide in the case of the 18 year old that he is not required to register as a sex offender, and decide in a case where the age difference is unacceptably greater that the perpetrator is required to register. Whereas the situation before this Bill which required mandatory registration does not allow for that distinction.

  I explained in a previous post on this thread that this debacle arose in a case involving a 22 year old who had voluntary oral sex with a 16 year old. The review by the Superior Court makes the point quite well:

  At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that under the circumstances of this case, defendant should not be subject to mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender. Counsel said: It`s kind of ironic, because if he had actually had sexual intercourse with [the minor] and was charged and convicted of statutory rape, he would not have to register under 290 of the Penal Code. It seems to me that his conduct is less serious in that sort of a situation, yet the statute seems to suggest that he is required to register for life. I think that is a violation of equal protection under the laws and a violation of the California Constitution . . . .

  The prosecutor responded that he would have no objection if defendant, after completing probation, were to ask the trial court to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor and to delete the requirement of lifetime registration as a sex offender. The trial court asked: Doesn`t it [the lifetime registration requirement] seem a little out of whack here? The prosecutor agreed: I think the law is out of whack. But that`s the law. The trial court observed that in applying the registration requirement here, the law did appear to be out of whack, but said it could not find on the face of it that it`s unconstitutional.
• 
  28

  1919 2013 2020 and the Slave

  by Jerryh in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was never a jw but i lurk in this forum occasionally, trying to rescue some family.

  i will spare you those details.. jw.org and jwfacts are there with youtubes out the wazoo but i would appreciate your thought on this.. i know there are contradictions plenty but this is foundational, blatant and current.

  i know they typically just blow off.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Earnest

  Just to add to what Magnum says, the key scripture is Matthew 24:45-47. Vs 45 refers to appointment over the domestics and vs.47 refers to appointment over all his belongings.

  So, the understanding in the 2013 Watchtower is that there are two appointments, the first in 1919 over the domestics (who are defined as both the anointed and the 'other sheep'), and the second over all his belongings during the great tribulation. :
  
• 
  70

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

  by mickbobcat in

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. social
  2. current

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.