California State Senator Drafts Bill To Decriminalize Pedophilia

LINK

Absolutely disgusting.

 

It sounds like there is an exception where in certain situations, a judge can decide to not place a heterosexual adult guilty of statutory rape on the registered sex offenders list depending on the circumstances. For example, a 18 year old male having consensual sex with their 16 year old girlfriend who gets in trouble only because the girl’s parents don’t like him probably doesn’t need to be on the registered sex offender list forever. It’s a punishment that doesn’t fit the situation, and devalues the significance of the sex offenders list. It appears that the guilty party would still be subject to the other punishments, they just could potentially avoid the sex offender list.

That same level of situational decision making towards the sex offenders list is not present when it is a homosexual.

The bill would makes those situations equal. A gay 19 year old who has consensual sex with their 17 year old boyfriend could still be punished for statutory rape, but the judge could decide that they don’t have to go on the sex offenders list.

The controversy here is the age limits this would apply for. It could potentially allow a judge to determine that a 24 year old having sex with a 15 year old doesn’t have to go on the sex offender list (but again, they would still be guilty of statutory rape).

But it appears that is not a definition that this lawmaker conjured up. Again, it is the same rules that already apply in heterosexual situations now being applied to homosexual situations.

And actually, it’s really not even that. It’s just applying the same rules to non-vaginal sex as vaginal sex. Under current law a 19 year old male who has consensual vaginal sex with their 17 year old girlfriend could potentially avoid the sex offenders list, but if instead he had consensual anal sex with his girlfriend he would automatically be placed on the list. This law would change that.

You could argue that instead of making the non-vaginal situation equal to the vaginal situation, instead we should not allow for that level of judicial discretion for the sex offenders list in any situation. But I think it makes sense to give judges the ability to preclude the sex offenders list in certain circumstances. And remember that the guilty party would still be liable to all the other punishments if they are found guilty of statutory rape.

At the end of the day, I don’t really care about this bill one way or another. There are probably bigger bones to pick for LGBTQ equality.

But this title seems to be a wildly disingenuous and flat out incorrect oversimplification of this bill. Although, I’ll gladly eat crow if I’m misunderstanding the situation.

Once again, I don’t think you all are as interested in protecting children as you are in smearing the left.

 

so from what i understand, this bill is not "decriminalizing pedophilia." it would still be statutory rape if a 20 something year old slept with a 15 year old. the bill is mainly about whether or not judges will be required to put anyone engaging in such activities on the sex offender list.

personally, i think any 24 year old engaging in sex with a 15 year old should automatically go on the sex offenders list. plus, this is the same guy who came up with a bill a few years back that lessened the penalties for HIV positive people knowingly infecting others. guy is a nutjob

 

This. It is not decriminalizing pedophilia at all. It is applying consistency in how the law around statutory pedophilia is applied between heterosexual and homosexual situations. Even then, it is only regarding placement on the registered sex offender list and has nothing to do with the other legal punishments of statutory rape.

I agree, I can’t wrap my head around the HIV stuff at all. IMO, 15 and 24 doesn’t make sense in any scenario and should be on the list regardless of sexual orientation. But that’s not the current law. Why aren’t these right wingers taking issue with the current law that allows this to happen in heterosexual situations?

IMO, the spirit of that law makes sense but the age requirements should be significantly tightened up, and yes it should be applied consistently between gay and straight couples. I’d say instead of 15 and 24, maybe between 16 and 20 (for consensual situations) there should be some leeway for a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the person needs to be put on the sex offender’s list. I think I am very clearly not defending pedophilia (still not a peep from these guys about their president sending well wishes to Ghislaine Maxwell though).

Like I said, I don’t really care about the bill one way or another. But purpose of this topic was not to discuss the bill, it was to peddle conspiratorial QAnon narratives that the left are all pedophiles. So I am going to call out intellectually dishonest propaganda when I see it. I know it’s hard to take though, some people really love being told what to think by their media.

 

Sickos

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/decriminalization


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decriminalize

Being placed on the sex offender registry is a criminal penalty. This bill reduces the chance that a pedophile offender will be receive this penalty.

 

if the bill was "decriminalizing" pedophilia, then it would eliminate the possibility of the offender being charged with statutory rape and completely eliminate the chance that the offender lands on the sex offender list. this bill does neither

but i think we can all agree the bill is stupid as hell

 

At this point, it's clear you're arguing just to argue.

 

nope. just pointing out your mistake in claiming that this bill decriminalizes pedophilia

 

The bill's author says otherwise.

LINK

If you want to keep trolling, call his office and tell him what the bill does.

 

unfortunately for him, the bill doesn't decriminalize pedophilia because there would still be penalties for it

not sure why that's so hard to grasp?

 

Decriminalization is not legalization. You're either too ignorant to understand this or you're intentionally trolling for lolz.

Either way, I've said my piece. Good day.

 

well according to the definition of "decriminalization" that you posted, the term means to eliminate criminal penalties/legal restrictions against something

this bill is in regards to whether or not judges will be required to put someone engaging in these activities on the sex offender list. there will still be a sex offender list. nothing is being eliminated

 

Who said anything about eliminating the sex offender registry?

Apparently, ignorance is the issue here.

 

criminal penalties/legal restrictions against pedophilia are not being eliminated

 

You're wrong. Being listed on the sex offender registry is a mandatory criminal penalty for statutory rape. What was once a mandatory penalty is now no longer mandatory for those who are less than 10 years older than the age of the victim once this bill is signed.

 

from the article

"According to Wiener, SB 145 would not change the legality of the forms of intercourse and would not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Instead, the bill would give judges the ability to evaluate whether the accused be required to register as a sex offender."

just because something might not be mandatory anymore, doesn't mean it will cease to exist. even if this bill passes, a court would still be deciding whether or not the person in question must register based on the facts of the case

 

Again, you don't understand the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

Until you do, I'm done arguing with you.