Current Events > Whats up with that new California law? Being able to have sex with minors?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1582005713161039872

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/4/AAR0xcAADykw.jpg

Not going to jump to conclusions but just saw this. Been reading the tweets and law.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

"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."

This whole "Willing children" thing makes no sense.

Well just looked into it more:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sb-145-does-not-legalize-pe-idUSKBN25V222

So now a 20 year old can have sex with an 11 year old?

Shits weird dude. Wtf is going on.

Lokison posted...

So now a 20 year old can have sex with an 11 year old?

Shits weird dude. Wtf is going on.

The Reuter article explains it as;

In other words, rather than the young adult being an automatically registered as sex offender, the judge may decide. The most extreme example would be a 24-year-old engaging in non-coercive vaginal sex with a 14-year-old. A more common example, in which it would likely be inappropriate to add a person to the registry, would be a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old having vaginal sex.

But still seems pretty fucking weird. Some judges let the shittiest things pass, so those "extreme examples" could get through in some cases.

Edit: I think over 14 is the youngest an individual can give consent it says. Which is still weird as there can be a 10 year gap between those ages. So technically a 24 year old can have sex with a 14 year old and not be put on the sex offender register. Why would they even need to expand the law like this?

Most important part of that link

If the situations mentioned above involved anal sex, oral sex, or digital penetration more typical among the LGBT individualsa judge would not have discretion over the young adults registration as a sex offender. Rather, the registration would be automatic, even in the case of a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old having non-vaginal sex.

This has been a thing for awhile, I remember arguing with someone about it like a year ago. Right wingers twisted shit to sound way worse than it is, labeling it a "pedo law" right out of the gate

Thats disgusting. how did bill pass?

Gwynevere posted...

Most important part of that link

If the situations mentioned above involved anal sex, oral sex, or digital penetration more typical among the LGBT individualsa judge would not have discretion over the young adults registration as a sex offender. Rather, the registration would be automatic, even in the case of a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old having non-vaginal sex.

This has been a thing for awhile, I remember arguing with someone about it like a year ago. Right wingers twisted shit to sound way worse than it is, labeling it a "pedo law" right out of the gate

Yeah but seeing the other parts of the law, even in the reuters articles, they admit that there are cases where a over 14 year old can engage in sexual intercourse with a 24 year old. Unless I'm totally missing a crucial subsection here.

And yes, judges do get discretion but we all know how fucked up some judgements can get.

Ugh California

This is one of those weird legal areas that needs to be cleaned up, mostly because of the varying Age of Consent laws.

So under current Californian law, outside of vaginal penetraiton, if you engaged in other forms of penetration with someone who was under 18, the Judge was mandated to put the individual on the sex offender registry, regardless of the age difference (presuming some level of Romeo & Juliet law muddied the water). This seeks to extend the age gap and types of penetration that a judge can consider 'okay' without mandating sex offender registry.

Idk, it's weird. On one hand, the AoC should be 18 (which it is in California) for simplicity but at the same time, it's somewhat unfair to criminalize sexual behavior between teens especially those who may have only a 1 or 2 year age gap.

Idk where they got the 10 years from, though. Too much.

Gwynevere posted...

digital penetration

Is this some online thing?

Foppe posted...

Is this some online thing?

Using your fingers

Foppe posted...

Is this some online thing?

Using your digits (fingers), as in finger blasting someone, vaginally or anally

Oh, fingerbang, bang bang.

Well, you've either got to allow judges to exercise their own discretion, or you allow a situation where a 19 year old is automatically put on the sex offenders' register for having sex with a 17 year old. You can't have it both ways.

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Well, you've either got to allow judges to exercise their own discretion, or you allow a situation where a 19 year old is automatically put on the sex offenders' register for having sex with a 17 year old. You can't have it both ways.

Yeah you can. You can make the gap 2 years instead of fucking 10. It also says under 14.

fhqwhgads posted...

Yeah you can. You can make the gap 2 years instead of fucking 10.

Yeah I don't get the 10 year gap.

5 at most. So you can theoretically account for outlier high school cases where a senior held back isn't automatically put on the list for slowing with a freshman. (I'm not saying I think that situation is okay, just using it as an example of why 5 years at most)

Sooo basically guys in their early 20s can get away with child molestation if the child "consents" to it. Just.....wow. I hope this isnt true.

At least keep the Age of Consent intact or this would mean a 20 year old can have sex with a 10 year old and not go to jail.

liberal paradise

fhqwhgads posted...

Yeah you can. You can make the gap 2 years instead of fucking 10. It also says under 14.

I wouldn't fall over myself to automatically force a 20 year old to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 17 year old, either. In other words, it has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is surely the whole point of allowing the judge to decide.

What part of this are you interpreting to mean that if the girl was, say, 12 years old, a 22 year old wouldn't end up on the sex offenders' register? Yes, sometimes judges make shitty decisions: we all know that. But surely it's shitty to demand compulsory registration in cases where it's not deserved.

The_Wheelman1 posted...

At least keep the Age of Consent intact or this would mean a 20 year old can have sex with a 10 year old and not go to jail.

No it wouldn't.

The_Wheelman1 posted...

Sooo basically guys in their early 20s can get away with child molestation if the child "consents" to it.

I'm not seeing where it says that. I mean surely going on the sex offenders register isn't the only punishment for such a crime?

The_Wheelman1 posted...

Sooo basically guys in their early 20s can get away with child molestation if the child "consents" to it. Just.....wow. I hope this isnt true.

At least keep the Age of Consent intact or this would mean a 20 year old can have sex with a 10 year old and not go to jail.

The Reuters article explicitly states the gap does not apply to people under 14.

Quit tripping over yourself thinking this legalizes or wholly decriminalizes pedophilia. This simply widens a judges discretion on if someone immediately goes in the sex offender list or not. That's it.

It's also interesting that, apropos of nothing, there's a picture of an apparent gay couple. Certainly not pandering to to any sort of panic there.

I don't think a 18 year old in a relationship with a 15 year old should be put on a sex offender registry list for having sex with their s/o necessarily.

The 10 years is a bit too wide for my taste, however. I'd prefer something like 3-5 at most

Is that a dude? I thought it was an old lady with extremely thin hair with beads woven in...

fucking YIKES

A bunch of states already had stuff like that forever. It's a romeo and juliet law.

Most of them are only like 4 or 5 years tho. 10 years is uh.....kinda big >_>

I do think its hilarious how many people are not understanding whats being said here.

Somebody actually thought up of this bill, and the fact that it got as far as it did in to becoming an actual law instead of being rightfully laughed off, ridiculed and investigating the weirdo who proposed this dumbfuck law speaks volumes of that state's policies.

What in the actual final-form fuck

Whenever you're ready, God. This world is constantly plummeting in an ever downward spiral since you know other state's will eventually follow suit.

Vicious_Dios posted...

Somebody actually thought up of this bill, and the fact that it got as far as it did in to becoming an actual law instead of being rightfully laughed off, ridiculed and investigating the weirdo who proposed this dumbfuck law speaks volumes of that state's policies.

What in the actual final-form fuck

Whenever you're ready, God. This world is constantly plummeting in an ever downward spiral since you know other state's will eventually follow suit.

It's not a dumbfuck change/law if you actually bothered to read it and not troll over it.

It's literally giving judges more power to exercise discretion and allowing them to judge a situation by the facts of the case instead of being forced to issue a punishment without any choice.

You'd think that'd be what conservatives would want, judges to have the ability to exercise discretion instead of the government writing up restrictive laws and then an entire branch of government not being able to do its job and judge something.

Vicious_Dios posted...

Whenever you're ready, God. This world is constantly plummeting in an ever downward spiral since you know other state's will eventually follow suit.

Also it's hilarious you're ready for God's rapture or punishment or whatever when for centuries some of the closest, most devout followers of your God used their position and beliefs to abuse children.

If God was okay with that, by virtue of doing nothing to stop it, then what makes you think God has an issue with this law?

Glob posted...

I do think its hilarious how many people are not understanding whats being said here.

I mean most just don't care to understand

Having an irrational hatred over a line on a map does screwy things to ones brain

What is with this false flag headline bullshit? Nothing about that tweet is legit.

Glob posted...

I do think its hilarious how many people are not understanding whats being said here.

And the best part is, the Venn diagram of people who don't understand yet will say shit like California is legalizing child molestation and who are fine with forcing 10 year old pregnant rape victims to give birth is close to a circle. Not to mention they were silent on some of the iffy as fuck age of consent laws red states were trying to pass recently.

^Exactly! This will end up as a GOP talking point in a debate shortly, all because people can't read more than a meme in order to generate critical thinking.

Funny to me that the Reuters link had to specifically say it doesn't legalize pedophilia like that's a thing that could be true.

10 years seems too big of a gap imo

I read through and even posted the law and came up with my understanding of it. Just wanted to make this topic in case there was more to it I missed. Seems like that's the gist of it.

And I really don't fault anyone who can't interpret these laws sometimes. A lot of them are pretty hard to read. Especially Land Law and EU Law (Which is now irrelevant here. I feel sorry for whoever took that subject).

Also even if the gap was lowered to 5 years, 14 years old is too low for the threshold. A 14 year old should never be having sex with anyone 18 or older

Lokison posted...

So now a 20 year old can have sex with an 11 year old?

Shits weird dude. Wtf is going on.

Or a 20 year old with a 17 year old. But sounds a lot more dramatic when you say it.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Also even if the gap was lowered to 5 years, 14 years old is too low for the threshold. A 14 year old should never be having sex with anyone 18 or older

Call me old fashioned but 14 year olds shouldn't even be having sex at all >_>

SpiritSephiroth posted...

Call me old fashioned but 14 year olds shouldn't even be having sex at all >_>

Call me realistic but there were 14 year old pregnant girls all over my middle school. Reality exists, whether you like it or not.

The_Office_pwnz posted...

Call me realistic but there were 14 year old pregnant girls all over my middle school. Reality exists, whether you like it or not.

That never happened at my school at all. Are you in the US? I'm in London.

Hasnt cali fallen off into the ocean yet

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Also even if the gap was lowered to 5 years, 14 years old is too low for the threshold. A 14 year old should never be having sex with anyone 18 or older

It's to cover high school relationships.

While yes, ideally, a senior shouldn't be dating a freshman, is it bad enough to the point of warranting a potential lifelong punishment?

Give judges the tools to judge each case by the facts.

Allow, in theory, age gaps up to 4 or 5 years, and if the judge suspects foul play then give the judge the resources to hand out appropriate punishment.

If you don't allow 14 year olds to (legally) have sex with 18 year olds, then you're going to create weird situation where they were dating at 14 and 17 respectively and then there's going to be a few weeks or months where all of a sudden, the 17 year old turns 18, the behavior they were engaging in is no longer legal and the older one could be punished.

That's why you give judges tools and leeways instead of forcing the judges hand.

SpiritSephiroth posted...

That never happened at my school at all. Are you in the US? I'm in London.

I grew up in the UK and there were a few girls in my year group of 200 kids who got pregnant at 14. A few more at 15 and 16. There was a big moral panic thing about it at the time.

wackyteen posted...

It's to cover high school relationships.

While yes, ideally, a senior shouldn't be dating a freshman, is it bad enough to the point of warranting a potential lifelong punishment?

Give judges the tools to judge each case by the facts.

Allow, in theory, age gaps up to 4 or 5 years, and if the judge suspects foul play then give the judge the resources to hand out appropriate punishment.

If you don't allow 14 year olds to (legally) have sex with 18 year olds, then you're going to create weird situation where they were dating at 14 and 17 respectively and then there's going to be a few weeks or months where all of a sudden the behavior they were engaging in is no longer legal and the older one could be punished.

That's why you give judges tools and leeways instead of forcing the judges hand.

this is why 5 years is probably enough

Conservatives are about to virtue signal over this, while allowing actual pedos in their own party to get away with it