Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California legislature passes bill lowering penalties for sexual relations with minors

California legislature passes bill lowering penalties for sexual relations with minors

SB 145 gives judges discretion whether sex offender registration is warranted and is on its way to Gov. Newsom’s desk for his signature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZSxmyjKGEY

Amid soaring temperatures, rolling blackouts, historic wildfires, and continuing pandemic lockdowns, California’s legislature is being consistent in its priorities.

In the rush to pass measures before the legislative session ended, they passed a measure lowering penalties for adults who have ‘consensual’ sex with a minor if the offender is within 10 years of age with the victim.

SB 145 passed in both houses of the State Legislature late Monday evening.

“If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender,” State Senator Shannon Grove wrote in a tweet.

Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.

Other forms of intercourse such as oral and anal intercourse require sex offender registration.

The bill’s author indicates it is to align the rules to those being applied in a similar measure impacting heterosexual situations.

State Senator Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, claims it is meant to treat LGBT offenders the same as heterosexual offenders, as there is already a similar exemption from mandatory registration for vaginal intercourse between partners of a similar age difference.

“This irrational discrimination on the sex offender registry was created when California banned LGBT sex,” Wiener said in a statement when a version of the bill passed the state senate in May 2019. “This distinction between vaginal intercourse and other forms of intercourse is a relic of California’s discriminatory past, and it’s time to bring an end to it.”

Wiener continued: “Going on the sex-offender registry can ruin a young person’s life, making it harder for them to find a job and housing.”

There has been some concern that the new rule essentially promotes pedophilia. However, the rule simply grants judges the discretion as to whether a situation warrants someone register as a sex offender.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I am old enough to remember when a Republican US Senate candidate from Alabama was vilified by the Communist Party and their employees in the Joseph Goebbels media because he asked a not-a-minor woman for a date.

is a relic of California’s discriminatory past

Au contraire, it’s a quaint relic of the days when people thought it good public policy to limit the spread of disease.

Whether or not that belief was justified, the modern attempts to dismiss the concern as mere “discrimination”—and therefore baaaaaaad—imply that sponsors of this bill know perfectly well what the concerns were, but are offering ridiculous justifications for blowing them off now. As if disease vectors can become “woke”.

I don’t know if such policies are communist Lysenkoism or fascist “triumph of the will” but in neither case are they likely to be successful here in the real world.

read a bunch of it, best I could tell it re-aligned homosexual and heterosexual activities to be equal in application of law.
the overage-underage vaginal sex (heterosexual) was already legal while homosexual acts had harsher punishments.
whats disgusting to me was the already open adult-child relationships.

Waiting for the next highway sign to appear…Welcome to Pedofornia.

Please California secede from the union and save us all from the communism coming down the pike.

I expect NAMBLA approves.

    JOHN B in reply to Dennis. | September 6, 2020 at 9:19 pm

    Remember that a former attorney general represented NAMBLA when he was a private attorney.

    Eric Holder. Obama’s favorite.

When the left say it’s all about the children, they mean it. It’s all about exploitation of a child’s protection against sexual deviants like Clinton, who can abuse children for their own jollies.

This world is a screwed up place. Criminals from the coup effort against President Trump will likely run free and be set up to do it again, just as sexual predators will be able to rape youth with no fear of the law.

This is the values of the left. They are sexual deviants, as well as criminals, and they are empowered by our “justice system” because they don’t get prosecuted for the their crimes.

I hope this action will be published widely, so that all of our pedophiles will move to CA, where they will be welcomed into the Man/Boy Love Association. We’ll be glad to get rid of them here.

Yes, this is an actual group. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
https://www.nambla.org/

: “Going on the sex-offender registry can ruin a young person’s life, making it harder for them to find a job and housing.”

Or to become a state senator.

Levelling the penalties is fine but this is in the wrong direction. Personally, I can see removing mandatory penalties and even removal of all penalties if we are discussing the natural outcome of placing teenagers together.

For instance if person A is a HS Senior and person B is a HS freshman then we shouldn’t be surprised when they form a relationship, even a brief one. I am totally ok with removal of all penalties for truly consensual sex between these folks to include post graduation for person A.

What is not too public policy is to go beyond those bounds to allow a 24 year-old to prey upon a 14 year-old. That is insane. I can say for my part that my emotional maturity was much higher at 24 than at 14. It should have been. Hell at 24 a person has had time to serve a 4 year hitch in the service and complete two years of college.

I have been giving Soldiers the stink eye when I take my now 17 year-old daughter on base for several years. She is my punishment for my own youthful behavior. Five foot seven, 130 lbs, blonde hair, with big brown eyes. If they rebooted Beverly Hillbillies she could get cast as Ellie Mae. You folks see my problem?

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to CommoChief. | September 6, 2020 at 7:03 pm

    I can relate.

    The thing I don’t understand is a few of the guys I work with are in their 50’s but still act like they’re in high school.

    “Whooo look at the fine ass titties on that thing.”

    “Dude, don’t you have a daughter? The fucks wrong with you?”

    I honestly think he does it to try to fit in with what he thinks men are supposed to be like. Thing is, he’s the only one.

Dear California: Your state is on fire. Your cities are on fire. And what do you focus on? Sex.

Please please please secede from the union. Please!

ScottTheEngineer | September 6, 2020 at 7:06 pm

So homo pedos get penalized more the hetero pedos so the obvious solution is to remove the penalty?

The hell is wrong with these people.

https://jailtraining.org/mental-disorder-now-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card/

“It works like this: while awaiting trial, defendants claim that their crimes were committed because of a mental health issue and they get an agreement from the judge that they can go through diversion. Diversion is normally a way of working off a sentence. But in this case, the criminal would presumably receive counseling and if it was deemed “successful,” his or her record would be sealed as if the crime never happened. The criminal would walk out of court free and clear.

No victim protection, no restitution, no justice.”

Anyone else see where they are going with this?

Visit beautiful California. Just like a Thailand sex tour, but you only need a car to get there.

The right answer is for CA to change it’s consent laws to something like Florida which has a ‘close age’ rule that’s not too terrible and puts a hard-floor of 16 in sexual consent.

That way our teenagers don’t become lifelong sex offenders. This is not what CA is doing, they’re giving discretion to judges who (in California) rarely act properly when given this discretion.

I am for a hard-floor of 16 which isn’t how CA works. If you’re 23 and con/groom a 14-year-old into oral or anal sex, you could get a free pass off the sex-offender list because of this law. And, further the vaginal sex loophole should be closed.

That maximum ten year age difference is a deal breaker for Bill Clinton. If that hadn’t been in the leglslation Bill might have ditched Hillary and moved to Marin County.

Still all those idiotic young female teachers fresh out of college and in high school and junior high school class roosm will have a shot now

buckeyeminuteman | September 7, 2020 at 6:08 am

The bill’s sponsor’s name is Weiner…disgusting. I think we are old enough to remember the last legislator named Weiner and the gross things he did with minors…and with his weiner.

“’If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender,’ State Senator Shannon Grove wrote in a tweet.

“Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.”

. . . Upon conviction of a (presumably) felonious crime. Is a legally arguable wiggle-worm being planted here?

If these age-ranges are taken exactly from current California statute, the question is certainly begged (in the hope of preventing forbidden — and already recognized, possible disease-vector — buggery): Is there anything proscribed in law to protect an 8-year-old from the manifest urges of a 17-year-old? or a 4-year-old from the same of a 13-year-old, . . . and not lead necessarily, upon arraignment, trial, and conviction, to being listed on a sex offender registry?

Could possibly current, clear proscriptions arguably be bent this bill’s way w/r/t a judge being allowed to show discretion toward a convicted sex offender’s name not being listed on the official, state sex offender registry?

I’m probably unaware of what the law says fully, ie, what it definitely protects young children from; or maybe I’m poking with a healthy, but futile curiosity about the topic.

Either way, I fear, this bill’s aim is clearly to place a foot in the door and eventually allow the busting into the open open of the state’s worst polluters, California. Too bad you can’t see through the alt-contaminant-fog and avoid legitimizing this provably offensive and injurious human activity.

Aside from what appears to be a doomed claim about equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment, your bill, California, so possibly unconstitutional, promotes a devious, perverse, and very likely unhygienic and tortious practice enabling your state’s even faster slide into the uncivil, amoral, filth-strewn hell, already exhibiting itself in your largest urbs’ midst.

If these age-ranges are taken exactly from current California statute, the question is certainly begged (in the hope of preventing illicit, disease-vectoring buggery): Is there anything proscribed to protect an 8-year-old from the manifest urges of a 17-year-old? or a 4-year-old from the same of a 13-year-old, . . . and not lead necessarily, upon arraignment, trial, and conviction, to being listed on a sex offender registry?

In the end, in any event, the question remains: Do California legislators, through their state’s criminal code — a reflection of the socio-political elite’s self-perceived, more-enlightened-than-others social stratum — wish to promote or discourage pedophilia? and, either way, does it truly believe in the efficacy, whatever that means in reality, of an incomplete, unreliable sex offender registry made in bad legislative faith?

Are LGBTQ+ needs, urges, and norms to be normalized for the rest of Californians, for those eventually, perhaps, in other states? Must the overwhelming majority of Californians — who neither need to make, nor approve of making it easier and less risky in a wholly practical sense for a certain, politically mobilized faction in the state’s minority to engage in pedophilic acts — bear the social burden, unfamiliar and alien to those in the LGBT community, of a normalizing-geared hegemony — even a tyranny, many would assert — of LGBTQ+-oriented sexual customs?

Dem-Lefty California legislators, it seems, couldn’t care less about the majority’s socio-sexual wishes and avoidances. As long as they keep getting the vote to stay in power, they’re content — and any decent, well, fairness-sustaining society be damned!

Gotta de-stigmatize pedophilia before Ghislaine Maxwell outs all of the Pedowood perverts. ?

California is a shining example of the argument for a biennial legislature.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend