Here is the START to legitimize pedophilia.If history is any indicator,this will only be the beginning.

https://californiaglobe.com/le...ers-who-lure-minors/

No sex offender registry if perpetrator within 10 years of age of the minor

By Katy Grimes, February 19, 2019 3:03 pm

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”

However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
State Senator Scott Wiener. (Kevin Sanders For California Globe)

Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.

Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.

Proposition 35 was created and passed to protect children from sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are often vulnerable children, “afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally,” the Proposition said.

What Does SB 145 Also Do?

Legislators Wiener and Eggman say they are trying to shield LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes. But their bill does much more.
Assemblywoman Susan Eggman

SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT.

SB 145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with children under 14.

SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.

SB 145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.

Why is this bill needed?

Here is the text from SB 145:

This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Digest Key – Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:

290.55. (a) A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.

Here is the current California Penal Code § 288.3 (2017)

(a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 287, 288, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11, or former Section 288a, involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.

(b) As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.

(c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.

Last week, California Globe reported on another sex crime bill introduced by California Democrats: “legislation to shield a person from the consequences of crimes they commit in California, even violent ones, as long as the person reports the crimes to authorities.The language of the proposed statute appears to immunize a person from ANY crime so long as they are reporting a violation of a sex crime law.” Sen. Scott Wiener is the author of California Senate Bill 233.

Child sexual predators and their enablers deserve the death penalty.

That tells me there's a lot of ca democrat child sex offenders yet to be revealed.

Sodom and Gomorrah West. Just disgusting.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Child sexual predators and their enablers deserve the death penalty.

Too involved......too long.
Let mob rule prevail.

Not another Wiener!

The existing law makes no sense. Okay, so if Billy and Janey are both 17 and getting it on, that isn’t ideal, but Billy isn’t in big trouble with the law. If Billy is a couple months older than Janey and turns 18 first, now he has real legal issue. Okay, I get that this doesn’t make sense, and maybe some kind of window where Billy can be a little older might be reasonable, but ten years is insane. And then carving out an exception for vaginal sex, but not oral sex? I’m surprised they didn’t specify only missionary position and only with the lights out.

For goodness sake, the government ought to just GTFO of people’s bedrooms. If sex with minors is bad, sex with minors is bad. Don’t go around carving out exceptions for “preferred” types of sex.

The existing law is an abortion. The proposed law would make it even more FUBAR. Years ago when CA debt was covered as a big problem I (semi-)jokingly suggested that the state could address the deficit by selling at auction bureaucrat/politician tags. Nonsense like this makes me think that would have been a really good idea. Sigh...

Scott W. is a rep from San Francisco, and proposes really strange and extreme legislation. One was to decriminalize persons who knowingly infect others with AIDS. He is Sodom and Gomorrah personified, and as fuxxed up as they come. I hope the Grim Reaper comes for him asap, in the form of some unstoppable disease.

So the guy claims it’s to protect the lmnop community and his name is Wiener. Only in CA.

It is amazing at how much California influences the rest of the country and may I add for the worse. They did it with allowing anyone to go into whatever bathroom they feel like using, a lot of school ideological garbage, abortion up to and including birth,and the list goes on. And they wonder why we don't want to have a popular vote count and do away with the electoral college. It is bad enough liberals are infecting every red state there is,let alone for us to deal with extreme bills like this.

quote:

For goodness sake, the government ought to just GTFO of people’s bedrooms.

It's not just the bedrooms. You have to be one age to have sex, a different age to get a driver's license, a different age to smoke, a different age to drink, and a different age to have health insurance.

And honestly, age isn't the only factor when it comes to being responsible.

Missouri does something similar, but less extreme. 17 is the legal age of consent, but anybody under 21 can not be charged with statutory rape is their partner was 14 or older.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
You have to be one age to have sex, a different age to get a driver's license, a different age to smoke, a different age to drink, and a different age to have health insurance.

But you can change your gender at any time.

For a place that seems to be famous for "Freedom" California has a lot of rules, laws and regulations restricting peoples behavior.

Another thing that oldsters like me can look on bemusement with.

At one time, people in the elitist states viewed with contempt, if not horror, the low ages of permissible consent and marriage in places like the deep south. But now …?

Now marrying one’s brother in Minnesota is no biggie, and although restricting straight white men’s access to preferred sexual partners is presumably still all right, other groups shouldn’t suffer such limitations—?

As for how the laws themselves are written, though, no one benefits from giving the police or even a judge leeway in deciding what’s legal and what’s not, even if that’s simply a matter of a minute before or a minute after midnight of a certain day. What if the NFA defined a short barrel rifle or shotgun as on that has a “shorter than common barrel”? How about a law that prohibited carrying knives with “blades longer than necessary”? There are actually laws on the books that are equally vague, and sometimes vagueness is unavoidable, but not when it’s a matter of how someone’s age affects the provisions of a law.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted.

This, IMO, is broken. There is generally a massive difference in maturity level between a fifteen year old and a twenty five year old.

Where a minor is concerned that age difference thing should be scaled way back, IMO, to no more than a couple years or so.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

Typically Californian: Take a bad idea and make it make it worse

quote:

This, IMO, is broken. There is generally a massive difference in maturity level between a fifteen year old and a twenty five year old.

Yet 16 is the most common age of consent among states. So what magically happens between somebody being 15 and choosing to be with a 25 year old, and somebody who's 16 who can then be with anybody of any age they wish?

I understand that laws have to draw lines someplace, but it doesn't matter where they are drawn. Somebody will have a problem with it.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Missouri does something similar, but less extreme. 17 is the legal age of consent, but anybody under 21 can not be charged with statutory rape is their partner was 14 or older.

14 seems young to me, but under 21makes a whole lot more sense than “less than 10 years difference”.

ETA: Just saw a1abdj’s post that 16 is the age of consent in most states. I wasn’t aware of that. It is 18 here, or at least I thought it was when I was near that age. If the age of consent is 16, then maybe 14 isn’t that far off.

The idea of an adult (someone over eighteen and legally responsible for their actions) being involved with someone not an adult still seems icky to me, but you won’t catch me arguing for more laws.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
ETA: Just saw a1abdj’s post that 16 is the age of consent in most states. I wasn’t aware of that. It is 18 here, or at least I thought it was when I was near that age.

I believe it's seventeen in Michigan. At least that was always what I was told. In any event: I'm long past worrying about "Is she legal?"

As I've observed in another thread about California. When will the breaking point be reached causing Californians to vote for different people?

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
As I've observed in another thread about California. When will the breaking point be reached causing Californians to vote for different people?

Honestly, I think the ship is lost. The free shit army is way too numerically strong and most conservative folks are getting out if they can. There are some conservative folks in Hollyweird and Silly Valley, but they are outnumbered, know which side their bread is buttered on, and mostly keep their heads down. Maybe after the state completely collapses and can no longer give out free shit, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

In fairness to California, they are still pretty conservative when it comes to this topic.

The current age of consent in California is 18, whereas it's 17 and 16 on most other states. There is currently no exception on age or proximity. If you have a 16 year old having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old they are both committing a criminal act. Once that 17 year old turns 18 they may face serious criminal charges as you are now an "adult" with a "minor".

Many other states have addressed these issues already, and this is California's attempt to do the same.