LGBTQ activists work to block child sex trafficking bill in California

[Merrill]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

 

[AlexB23]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

Eww, this is disgusting. We are living in or near the End Times. What is evil will be called good, what is good will be called evil.

This is demonic on the highest level.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

California Democrats 'water down' sex trafficking bill. Good.

The original version was overly punitive.

reason.com

Here's a slightly different take on this same story from Reason magazine.

They list out the reasons why the original bill could have, in fact, been overly punitive in some circumstances by failing to take into account things like age of the defendant, and specific circumstances involving the interaction by lumping in solicitation with trafficking when there are some important differences between the two. With the way the original bill was written, a person who was 17 and tried to "engage with" someone who was 16 (in a consensual manner) could end up getting tried as an adult, get a felony on their record, and end up on the sex offender registry for 7 years.

None of amended changes would've changed the penalty for some 30 year old creep trying to hook up with a trafficked teenager. Those guys would still be getting the book thrown at them (as they should) under the revision proposals.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

From what I read 4 out of 6 changed course and to top it off Newsom supports the bill.
It passed! Much to do about nothing.
Blessings

 

[Chrystal-J]

From the article: “We are particularly concerned that the harsher penalties proposed in this bill will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially members of the LGBTQ community who already suffer from systematic biases within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexually-based offenses.”

Well, maybe if the LGBTQ community wasn't engaging in "sexually-based offences" this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Merrill]

California Democrats 'water down' sex trafficking bill. Good.

The original version was overly punitive.

reason.com

Here's a slightly different take on this same story from Reason magazine.

They list out the reasons why the original bill could have, in fact, been overly punitive in some circumstances by failing to take into account things like age of the defendant, and specific circumstances involving the interaction by lumping in solicitation with trafficking when there are some important differences between the two. With the way the original bill was written, a person who was 17 and tried to "engage with" someone who was 16 (in a consensual manner) could end up getting tried as an adult, get a felony on their record, and end up on the sex offender registry for 7 years.

None of amended changes would've changed the penalty for some 30 year old creep trying to hook up with a trafficked teenager. Those guys would still be getting the book thrown at them (as they should) under the revision proposals.

The Reason magazine article is why Libertarians can't win elections

it is literally "we need to protect pedophiles because the law might snare some teenager who made a mistake"

age of consent laws are there for a reason

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Reason magazine article is why Libertarians can't win elections

it is literally "we need to protect pedophiles because the law might snare some teenager who made a mistake"

age of consent laws are there for a reason

That's not what article says.

As noted, the true predators would still be punished harshly under the proposed amendments and revisions.

The "snaring teenagers who made a mistake" (and the prevention of that happening) is precisely why the amendments were needed.

Well-written legislation should be able to separate the sharks from the guppies and tailor penalties (if any) to the situation.


The equivalent would be if they passed a law aimed at preventing drug distribution to minors, and worded it so vaguely that it treated a high school kid giving a joint to his friend at a party with the same harshness and penalties that they would give to El Chapo.


I know there was a visceral reaction among some on the right because the people who brought up the flaws in the original proposal happened to be LGBT activists, however, they were not inaccurate in pointing out that certain statutory laws have, historically, been disproportionately leveraged against gay people when it comes to the whole "18 year old hooked up 16 year old" situations. (usually at the hands of the parents who are in denial or ashamed about their kids being gay, so try to attribute the encounter some sort of predatory motive for reasons of trying to protect their own reputation)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From the article: “We are particularly concerned that the harsher penalties proposed in this bill will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially members of the LGBTQ community who already suffer from systematic biases within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexually-based offenses.”

Well, maybe if the LGBTQ community wasn't engaging in "sexually-based offences" this wouldn't be an issue.

The situation they're talking about there is the one I described in my reply to another user.

Gay males in particular have had statutory laws used against them in "18 year old gets to together with 16 year old" disproportionately compared to their hetero counterparts.

https://willamette.edu/law/resources/journals/sjelj/publications/pdf/3-1/1.-fradella.pdf

Voluntary acts of sex may also be criminally prosecuted if they occur in public or if an underage minor is a participant. But such prosecutions do not appear to be even-handed, as LGBTQ+ people appear to be disproportionally charged and more harshly punished than their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. As a public defender explained about the unevenness of prosecutorial discretion in statutory rape cases: “If it’s two boys and they’re both young or it’s two girls, there’s a tendency to assume it’s abuse. With opposite genders, they’re more likely to say ‘Well, you know, they’re teens experimenting.’” Indeed, not only are criminal penalties for same-sex violations of age of consent laws often harsher than for opposite-sex violations of statutory rape laws, but also, prosecutors are more likely to file charges against LGBTQ+ teens in the absence of coercion—even when parties are very close in age.


In fact, while many states have what they call "Romeo and Juliet exemptions" in their statutory and age of consent laws (it's usually either 2 or 3 years), states like Kansas, Utah, and a few others have those exemptions drafted in such a way where it specifically says "provided the actors are of opposite genders".

In a nutshell, in those states, if you're a 19 year old guy who sleeps with his 17 year old girlfriend, there's a good chance you're off the hook. If you're a 19 year old guy who sleeps with his 17 year old boyfriend, you're busted and end up on the offender registry.

That's the kind of disparity they were trying to prevent by requesting an amended version of bill instead of the vaguely drafted original version.

 

[RileyG]

Eww, this is disgusting. We are living in or near the End Times. What is evil will be called good, what is good will be called evil.

This is demonic on the highest level.

Amen.

 

[RileyG]

From the article: “We are particularly concerned that the harsher penalties proposed in this bill will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially members of the LGBTQ community who already suffer from systematic biases within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexually-based offenses.”

Well, maybe if the LGBTQ community wasn't engaging in "sexually-based offences" this wouldn't be an issue.

They are so blinded. It’s sad.

 

[AlexB23]

From the article: “We are particularly concerned that the harsher penalties proposed in this bill will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially members of the LGBTQ community who already suffer from systematic biases within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexually-based offenses.”

Well, maybe if the LGBTQ community wasn't engaging in "sexually-based offences" this wouldn't be an issue.

In summary: Keep the plantain private, and wrapped up.


A plantain is a type of banana, for those who do not have plantains at the grocery store.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

The concern was that, as written, it didn’t exempt the minor victims of trafficking from being charged and incurring a strike for crimes they were forced to commit as a result of their trafficking. This was seen as something that unfairly punished minorities, including LGBTQA+ identifying minors, who are at higher risk of trafficking.

The omission was corrected, saying that people under 18 won’t incur strikes for crimes they are forced to commit while trafficked or as a result of their trafficking, it unanimously passed in September 2023, and went into effect this year, and it’s being restructured again as we speak to exempt people over 18 who are trafficked from strikes for crimes committed as a result of their being trafficked as a minor.

Let’s not let the fear of or desire to demonize LGBTQA+ people be the reason people are led by the nose to voting for legislation that hurts the people we are all trying to save.

https://www.standupforkids.org/blog/sb-14-passed-by-california-lawmakers/#:~:text=California%20lawmakers%20unanimously%20passed%20Senate,the%20state's%20Three%20Strikes%20Law.

Bill Status - SB-14 Serious felonies: human trafficking.

The Facts about SB 14

Human trafficking is a horrific crime and we must do everything we can to get victims to safety and hold traffickers accountable. But SB 14 (R-Grove) will harm the very people it is supposed to protect by further punishing survivors and deterring other victims from coming forward.

aclucalaction.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The concern was that, as written, it didn’t exempt the minor victims of trafficking from being charged and incurring a strike for crimes they were forced to commit as a result of their trafficking. This was seen as something that unfairly punished minorities, including LGBTQA+ identifying minors, who are at higher risk of trafficking.

The omission was corrected, saying that people under 18 won’t incur strikes for crimes they are forced to commit while trafficked or as a result of their trafficking, it unanimously passed in September 2023, and went into effect this year, and it’s being restructured again as we speak to exempt people over 18 who are trafficked from strikes for crimes committed as a result of their being trafficked as a minor.

Correct, and as I noted in my post as well, the original bill (as written) would've made no distinction between

"18 year old has encounter with their 16 year old prom date"
and
"53 year old predator tried to solicit services with trafficked minor on the dark web"


The original version of the bill was vaguely worded, and was open to the kind of interpretive justice system abuses that have already happened quite a bit in other states (and that do disproportionately target gay people and non-Whites)

Per the link I provided before, in the states that have passed legislation that was very similar to the original version of the bill in question, Black men and gay men were 4x more likely to have the book thrown at them using statutory laws in cases involving consensual relations between two people with less than a 3 year age gap. (in fact, some states that have passed such laws -- the link I posted mentions Kansas and Utah in particular -- have carveouts where the 3 year age gap is exempted in such cases, but only for heterosexual encounters... meaning, their laws are specifically saying "a 19 year old with a 17 year old is excusable as long as they're straight")



But people saw the original article for this and immediately twisted a completely reasonable concerns (that were based on an abundance of precedent), and immediately contorted it into "aha!!! see!! look, the libs and the gays are trying to defend child abusers!"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Calif. activists oppose bill harshening penalties for child sex trafficking, solicitation

A state House committee went on to pass a heavily amended version of the measure.

ktxs.com

and DEI was used as a justification for Democrat Assembly members to vote against the measure

Why California Assembly Democrats blocked a child trafficking bill — and why they reversed course

Some Democrats stiffly oppose any legislation to increase criminal penalties.

www.capradio.org

The Reason magazine article is why Libertarians can't win elections

it is literally "we need to protect pedophiles because the law might snare some teenager who made a mistake"

age of consent laws are there for a reason

Assuming the Reason article is correct....I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I don't think a 17yo having sex with a 16yo is necessarily a threat to the community that needs to be locked up.

 

[keith99]

The equivalent would be if they passed a law aimed at preventing drug distribution to minors, and worded it so vaguely that it treated a high school kid giving a joint to his friend at a party with the same harshness and penalties that they would give to El Chapo.

Which is pretty much hao drug laws including marijuana laws were in the 60s.

I know of a case where a guy on one of my high school sports team dodged a contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge by days. If the other guy he shared a joint with was just a week younger his life would have been ruined.

 

[Ana the Ist]

California Democrats 'water down' sex trafficking bill. Good.

The original version was overly punitive.

reason.com

Here's a slightly different take on this same story from Reason magazine.

They list out the reasons why the original bill could have, in fact, been overly punitive in some circumstances by failing to take into account things like age of the defendant, and specific circumstances involving the interaction by lumping in solicitation with trafficking when there are some important differences between the two. With the way the original bill was written, a person who was 17 and tried to "engage with" someone who was 16 (in a consensual manner) could end up getting tried as an adult, get a felony on their record, and end up on the sex offender registry for 7 years.

None of amended changes would've changed the penalty for some 30 year old creep trying to hook up with a trafficked teenager. Those guys would still be getting the book thrown at them (as they should) under the revision proposals.

I'm going to have to pull the old Uno reverse card here...

California governor signs bill changing sex offender law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

www.kcra.com

This law apparently lets 24 year olds sleep with 14yo children as long as it's "consenting" and not register as a sex offender. I thought we were talking about a 3 year age gap or something on a 16yo.

I don't think this is harmless....and if it disproportionately affects certain communities, there's something very wrong with those communities.

 

[RileyG]

I'm going to have to pull the old Uno reverse card here...

California governor signs bill changing sex offender law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

www.kcra.com

This law apparently lets 24 year olds sleep with 14yo children as long as it's "consenting" and not register as a sex offender. I thought we were talking about a 3 year age gap or something on a 16yo.

I don't think this is harmless....and if it disproportionately affects certain communities, there's something very wrong with those communities.

Ick!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm going to have to pull the old Uno reverse card here...

California governor signs bill changing sex offender law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

www.kcra.com

This law apparently lets 24 year olds sleep with 14yo children as long as it's "consenting" and not register as a sex offender. I thought we were talking about a 3 year age gap or something on a 16yo.

I don't think this is harmless....and if it disproportionately affects certain communities, there's something very wrong with those communities.

But is the disproportionality in the act itself or purely in the sentencing?

From my understanding, it's the latter... Meaning 19 year old straight guys aren't any less likely to actually hook up with someone who's 17, they're just much less likely to get the book thrown at them for it

 

[Ana the Ist]

But is the disproportionality in the act itself or purely in the sentencing?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

From my understanding, it's the latter... Meaning 19 year old straight guys aren't any less likely to actually hook up with someone who's 17, they're just much less likely to get the book thrown at them for it

I have no idea what this means.

Are you suggesting that a 19yo is no less likely to be with a 14yo than a 17yo?

Because I'm inclined to disagree.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.




I have no idea what this means.

Are you suggesting that a 19yo is no less likely to be with a 14yo than a 17yo?

Because I'm inclined to disagree.

No, what I'm saying is that a straight 19 year old guy isn't any more/less likely to be hooking up with a 17 year old romantic partner than his gay counterpart, but the latter is more likely to get the book thrown at them.

Per data I posted earlier, gay guys were 4x more likely to receive harsh sentences for a consensual encounter involving an age gap of less than 3 years, compared to their straight counterpart.