ADVERTISEMENT

CA Democrats Author Bill to Protect Pedophiles

22LR

Heisman Candidate
Dec 1, 2015
7,765
21,838
113
@Syskatine

https://californiaglobe.com/legisla...r_0ZeOC7aYAAwFNoPXxq8mpj_0st5-odPOB5HcQ3nfNto

No sex offender registry if perpetrator within 10 years of age of the minor

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”

However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.

State Senator Scott Wiener. (Kevin Sanders For California Globe)
Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.

Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.

Proposition 35 was created and passed to protect children from sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are often vulnerable children, “afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally,” the Proposition said.

What Does SB 145 Also Do?

Legislators Wiener and Eggman say they are trying to shield LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes. But their bill does much more.

Assemblywoman Susan Eggman
SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT.

SB 145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14.

SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.

SB 145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.

Why is this bill needed?

Here is the text from SB 145:

This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Digest Key – Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:

290.55. (a) A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.

Here is the current California Penal Code § 288.3 (2017)

(a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 287, 288, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11, or former Section 288a, involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.

(b) As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.

(c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.

Last week, California Globe reported on another sex crime bill introduced by California Democrats: “legislation to shield a person from the consequences of crimes they commit in California, even violent ones, as long as the person reports the crimes to authorities.The language of the proposed statute appears to immunize a person from ANY crime so long as they are reporting a violation of a sex crime law.” Sen. Scott Wiener is the author of California Senate Bill 233.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
Good lord @Syskatine you've stuck your dick in the bear trap now. Instead of one off pardons and awards, you people actually have legislation making it easier to be a pedophile. I assume you will see this thread after you have started your own thread On the subject because you aren’t mentally ill and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
Interesting. This line of thinking cost Milo his career.
 
Good lord @Syskatine you've stuck your dick in the bear trap now. Instead of one off pardons and awards, you people actually have legislation making it easier to be a pedophile. I assume you will see this thread after you have started your own thread On the subject because you aren’t mentally ill and all.
Does it? Can you explain how?
 
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

What is the problem with this? I might narrow the discretion to a more defined age range, like 5 years, but i'm not sure an 18 y.o. that has sex with a 17 y.o. should have a "sex offender registration" stigma hanging over their head the rest of their life. This law seems to mitigate that harsh result by allowing a judge to lighten up a little in cases where it's not a predatory relationship, and also drop the hammer in cases where it is.

“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.

That's the current status quo. I don't understand this explanation.

If old fashioned nookie between 2 teenagers doesn't necessarily trigger a lifetime "sex predator" tag depending on the circumstances (which I'm fine with) then why should lesbian or gay sex trigger the "sex predator" tag? Help me understand the outrage.

And be careful.... next we're gonna have to discuss Oklahoma allowing 16 y.o.'s to marry. I think some states authorize 12 and 14 y.o.s to marry.

In short, you're trying to find a functional democrat equivalence to, 1) an entire county party honoring a known pedophile that had his perv texts widely published, so there's no doubt what he did; and 2) An elected GOP Governor pardoning at least two convicted, predatory pedophiles and one killer that apparently bought a pardon with campaign funds. The dems in this case were apparently trying to get gay people on equal footing with straight people by allowing the same discretion of a judge to decide if the defendant is predatory.

You're damned by your own energy and flailing to find an equivalent.

Not saying the law doesn't need to be changed but the law damn sure doesn't need to protect 25 year old men humping 15 year old boys.

Can you read, Dumbass? The law doesn't enable that -- it allows a judge to figure out if that's what's happening and sentence accordingly, as opposed to an 18 and 17 y.o. having sex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
What is the problem with this? I might narrow the discretion to a more defined age range, like 5 years, but i'm not sure an 18 y.o. that has sex with a 17 y.o. should have a "sex offender registration" stigma hanging over their head the rest of their life. This law seems to mitigate that harsh result by allowing a judge to lighten up a little in cases where it's not a predatory relationship, and also drop the hammer in cases where it is.



That's the current status quo. I don't understand this explanation.

If old fashioned nookie between 2 teenagers doesn't necessarily trigger a lifetime "sex predator" tag depending on the circumstances (which I'm fine with) then why should lesbian or gay sex trigger the "sex predator" tag? Help me understand the outrage.

And be careful.... next we're gonna have to discuss Oklahoma allowing 16 y.o.'s to marry. I think some states authorize 12 and 14 y.o.s to marry.

In short, you're trying to find a functional democrat equivalence to, 1) an entire county party honoring a known pedophile that had his perv texts widely published, so there's no doubt what he did; and 2) An elected GOP Governor pardoning at least two convicted, predatory pedophiles and one killer that apparently bought a pardon with campaign funds. The dems in this case were apparently trying to get gay people on equal footing with straight people by allowing the same discretion of a judge to decide if the defendant is predatory.

You're damned by your own energy and flailing to find an equivalent.



Can you read, Dumbass? The law doesn't enable that -- it allows a judge to figure out if that's what's happening and sentence accordingly, as opposed to an 18 and 17 y.o. having sex.

A judge? Like a gay trans drag nambla California judge? Oh boy!
 
Explain the Bush recession label and I’ll get you pics

Which one?

If a recession is 8 years after a POTUS leaves office, and 7 years after a new one take office and governs with mostly unanimous, one-party rule, I respectfully decline to honor such a specious argument. "Clinton recession" was the final straw. It's like arguing with a flat earther. How do you "win"?
 
"SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old."

@Syskatine is exposed once again. What a hypocrite. I'll never open another one of your OMG-a-pedophile posts ever again. Not worth the time reading what a hypocrite has to say.
 
"SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old."

@Syskatine is exposed once again. What a hypocrite. I'll never open another one of your OMG-a-pedophile posts ever again. Not worth the time reading what a hypocrite has to say.

THat talking point is contradicted by the explanation of the laws at stake -- they are asking for gay people to get the same discretionary take that straight people take. It's like you ignore everything in the article except for the spin. Care to respond to the point I made above, or just push a narrative that isn't backed up by the laws? I get the recent Palm Beach award and the ghe GOP KY pardons are bad, but you gotta do better than this. It's almost as if youre... deliberately deceptive to create an equivalent scandal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
THat talking point is contradicted by the explanation of the laws at stake -- they are asking for gay people to get the same discretionary take that straight people take. It's like you ignore everything in the article except for the spin. Care to respond to the point I made above, or just push a narrative that isn't backed up by the laws? I get the recent Palm Beach award and the ghe GOP KY pardons are bad, but you gotta do better than this. It's almost as if youre... deliberately deceptive to create an equivalent scandal.

What-about? What-about? What-about? You're always the first to complain about what-about. Then you what-about.

Pedophilia is now another sexual orientation in California.
 
Last edited:
Registry lists are an admission that the justice system and corrections systems are complete failures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
What is the problem with this? I might narrow the discretion to a more defined age range, like 5 years, but i'm not sure an 18 y.o. that has sex with a 17 y.o. should have a "sex offender registration" stigma hanging over their head the rest of their life. This law seems to mitigate that harsh result by allowing a judge to lighten up a little in cases where it's not a predatory relationship, and also drop the hammer in cases where it is.



That's the current status quo. I don't understand this explanation.

If old fashioned nookie between 2 teenagers doesn't necessarily trigger a lifetime "sex predator" tag depending on the circumstances (which I'm fine with) then why should lesbian or gay sex trigger the "sex predator" tag? Help me understand the outrage.

And be careful.... next we're gonna have to discuss Oklahoma allowing 16 y.o.'s to marry. I think some states authorize 12 and 14 y.o.s to marry.

In short, you're trying to find a functional democrat equivalence to, 1) an entire county party honoring a known pedophile that had his perv texts widely published, so there's no doubt what he did; and 2) An elected GOP Governor pardoning at least two convicted, predatory pedophiles and one killer that apparently bought a pardon with campaign funds. The dems in this case were apparently trying to get gay people on equal footing with straight people by allowing the same discretion of a judge to decide if the defendant is predatory.

You're damned by your own energy and flailing to find an equivalent.



Can you read, Dumbass? The law doesn't enable that -- it allows a judge to figure out if that's what's happening and sentence accordingly, as opposed to an 18 and 17 y.o. having sex.

Nobody self owns like you.
 
@davidallen Do you think the bill would be good legislation?
I think the existing law shoudn't allow such a broad age discrepancy, but given all it says is the judge has discretion to decide a portion of the sentence I am not too worried about it. I find it odd though that the discretion is only granted for vaginal intercourse (say between a 17 yo and an 18 yo). Seems kinda narrow, hand jobs, oral, et al being excluded seems strange.
 
Not saying the law doesn't need to be changed but the law damn sure doesn't need to protect 25 year old men humping 15 year old boys.
Protect? Explain how it protects the 25 yo please - and do yourself the favor of reading the statute and not the totally whack article that distorts it at every turn.
 
Not registering as a sex offender = easier than registering as a sex offender
But that only applies if a judge concurs and of course you were engaged in vaginal intercourse. BJs - man those are the worst, must register if your 17 yo GF gives you an amazing gift on your 18th birthday.
 
"SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old."

@Syskatine is exposed once again. What a hypocrite. I'll never open another one of your OMG-a-pedophile posts ever again. Not worth the time reading what a hypocrite has to say.
This quote exposes the author of the article not anything in the law. What a bullshit analysis... To accept this you have to presume that a long sentence is less of a deterrent than the option of asking not to have to register as a sex offender after conviction. What a putz. Stop being spoon fed bullshit...
 
THat talking point is contradicted by the explanation of the laws at stake -- they are asking for gay people to get the same discretionary take that straight people take. It's like you ignore everything in the article except for the spin. Care to respond to the point I made above, or just push a narrative that isn't backed up by the laws? I get the recent Palm Beach award and the ghe GOP KY pardons are bad, but you gotta do better than this. It's almost as if youre... deliberately deceptive to create an equivalent scandal.
Doesn't have to be the gays - it can be the straight hand jobbers and straight blow jobbers too! Set my people free!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syskatine
What-about? What-about? What-about? You're always the first to complain about what-about. Then you what-about.

Pedophilia is now another sexual orientation in California.
Damn, so easily manipulated. These folks know right where your buttons are, they push them at will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syskatine
Registry lists are an admission that the justice system and corrections systems are complete failures.
Maybe.

More likely that recidivism for some types of deviant behavior is all too likely, that we don't know how to fix some things in some people. Other than life imprisonment or death, you have any ideas on how to treat actual pedophilia?
 
See the world Harry. Get out of Perkins periodically.

Why? I like the set up we have around here now. People like you leave to seek out fulfilling some void they have and the rest of us live in peace and harmony. We both feel sorry for the other one and that’s the part you can’t wrap your brain around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22LR
But that only applies if a judge concurs and of course you were engaged in vaginal intercourse. BJs - man those are the worst, must register if your 17 yo GF gives you an amazing gift on your 18th birthday.

Hope your grandkids don’t get the judge that let the Stanford rapist off so easily.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT