It’s not a “carve out”, it’s apparently putting the LGBTQ types on the same page as the 2020 legislation, otherwise they were treated more harshly. Before the “discretion” essentially only applied to straight relationships and actual intercourse. Does that make any sense? The age gap is almost a separate question. 24 vs. 14 would certainly stretch credibility. But this is not making it legal as you falsely assert, it’s just the maximum point where a judges hands aren’t tied.
The article that you posted from 2020 referenced legislation that made the sex offender treatment equal for vaginal and other types of sex. In your opinion should an 18 year old who got a BJ from a 17 year old be required to be on a sex offenders list?
Isn't the LA District Attorney the one that got recalled? May have been San Francisco. Either way, soft on crime dude. Soros backed I believe.
They cannot legally “provide consent”, what they can do is lie about their age. Personally, I think the age range is too broad by few years as 24 vs 14 is a little difficult to find credible. BUT, if that was the range decided for the law to give judges sentencing discretion, it should be the same for all groups. You seem to have it backwards that this is a “special carveout”, by all accounts it now puts them all on the same page as the 2020 law, whereas before it was only one type of sex that was treated differently. In either case, it’s still a crime. I tend to not freak out over the idea of judges having to do their jobs. Perhaps if a judge uses this discretion in a way that is blatantly wrong (like that Stanford date rape dude that only got 6 months jail time… for rape). That judge was ultimately defrocked and also fired from other jobs. I think very few judges are going to step in it that badly even with “discretion”.
Agree with this. I think 14 is a but questionable, but I’d understand 15. But this about judges discretion to put on the sex offenders list. In general I’d rather judges have more discretion than less. Why okeechobee can’t understand this is frustrating. It’s like talking to a wall. I can understand disagreement with 14/24, but that’s not the issue, the issue is whether the treatment should be the same for vaginal and other forms of sex. Young people make bad decisions. I don’t think in all cases they should be saddled with those decisions for the rest of their lives. FWIW, growing up, there are probably quite a few classmates that would be on the sex offenders list if the CA law were applicable and enforced, and most of them are productive citizens now. Some of them Republicans.
Wow, I'm probably wasting my time. But I posted the list of groups that endorsed the bill. You took exception But the list made it clear: LA District Attorney's office, California District Attorneys Assn., California Police Chiefs Assn. So I gave you the list again and got this: Seriously? Anyway, I gave you the list for the third time, this time putting those three organizations in bold. You finally seem to understand who they were but now you're claiming they don't count because they're not law enforcement agencies. You can dismiss the LA DA if you want. But I'm guessing if the majority of police chiefs in the state and the majority of district attorneys in the state, not to mention the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, endorse the bill, it's probably not the heinous attack on children that you seem to think. Unless, of course, you decide that they're all pro-predator. It is California, after all.
Are you aware of any other state which grants a judge autonomy in discretion as to whether a predator is added to the registry with as much as 10 years age difference with the victim, who would be a minor?
So your beef is the original law and the fact that is 10 years. Then say so. It isn’t the 2020 law that just made the treatments consistent. So you don’t like the original law. So what ages, if any, do you think there should be discretion on whether somebody goes on a sex offenders list?
I recall after my freshmen year of college, I was back home working the summer. That would have made me 19 at the time but closing on 20, and the mom of some girl I graduated with and hung out w/ as friends had this insanely hot girl accompanying her (not one of her two daughters). I’m thinking to myself… who is this. Turns out she was hosting an exchange student the following year, she was teaching her how to handle American cash so she came in just to buy a few things (I was a cashier). Anyway, this girl was legit smoking. Like a supermodel. 6’ tall. Turns out she was also 15 years old. Oops! I swear she could have been 25. Fortunately nothing happened, the mom just wanted to introduce us for whatever reason (why, I had no idea). Anyway, because of that encounter, I can certainly see how a 20 year old could make a mistake with a 15 or 16 year old. I always thought there should be leeway in that range, no way should that result in the 20 year’s life being automatically ruined. Some states are really crazy with that stuff, even prosecuting 18 year olds for dating 17 year olds, and citing the rigidity of the law. 24 vs 14 is obviously far more of a stretch than 20 vs 15 (literally twice as bad), but I’m ok with a judge being able to consider facts.
Maybe if we all tell a few more anecdotes from college, we can all just forget California passed this law.
The link below concerns an 18-year old teen in Georgia who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year old. The California law is intended to prevent situations of that nature. I suppose the original poster of this thread would have no problem with the sentence. Ga. judge throws out 10-year sentence in teen consensual sex case, orders young man released
Actually the teen was 17 when the incident happened. Just because 1 law in another state is wrong doesn't mean it should be extended to 10 years.
The bill Newsom signed doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not someone goes to jail or for how long, does it?
Not arguing that. Arguing I don't like the 10 years being on there. At no time should a 27 year old being with a 17 year old be "ok". I would lose my sh*t if a 27 year old tried to date my 17 year old daughter.
I do think the 10 years is too long although keep in mind that the California law gives the judge discretion. It doesn't require that the hypothetical 24-year old who has sex with a 14-year receive a free pass.
