SB145 Bill stirs up controversy in California. Thoughts?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago

   For those of you that don't know about this bill, I'll briefly copy and paste how google describes it to give you the basic gist of the bill itself:
   
   A controversial California bill has passed in the senate. The state is ready for eliminating disparity in its statutory rape laws. SB145 by state Senator Scott Wiener would now remove automatic sex offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor. The decision would now be left to the judge.
   
   Here's a link to an article that goes into more detail about the new law for those that want to know:
   
   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ith-minors
   
   Given the information, what are your thoughts on this matter?   Please discuss.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I have mixed feelings about it. I think we've all seen cases where, say, an 18-year-old has consensual sex with a 17-year-old and the parents of the 17-year-old press charges for whatever reason. Most of us would agree that, yes, the adult violated the law but this particular situation doesn't necessarily mean he/she is a sexual predator.
      
      On the other hand, being an adult means being able to control oneself and refrain from violating such a law,
      
      Like I said, I have mixed feelings about it.

      replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It took a bit to understand that the new law simply added the anal and oral sex with a minor to existing law that already gave a judge that same authority, not to require registration.  In this I guess I would have to agree.
      
      But at the same time, a great deal of our legal system is based on the concept that a 14 year old child is not able to make adult decisions.  Here we have a law that says they are, and it is something that I would highly disagree with.  Were it limited to children of 16 or 17 where the judge had discretion I might agree, but never with a child of 14.  They ARE but children, however much they might tell you otherwise.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I agree that the age is problematic.
         
         But (if Im not wrong), under the law is still illegal to have sex with a minor. Age of consent is 18. That particular law gives discretion to the judges to decide whether to add someone on the sex offender registry if they had consensual intercourse with someone 14 to 17 years old and was not more than 10 years older than the other person.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            That's what it looked like to me, too.  Simply adding the anal/oral intercourse to existing law as a nod to gay people.

            replyreport