Calif. Proposition 36

  • Thread starter Thread starter racerpacer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

racerpacer

Guest
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
I have not read it, but you have to be very careful with propositions. This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
I have not read it, but you have to be very careful with propositions. This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
 
First off 14yo should Never be having oral sex! That is not normal. I agree with the other that this would effectively say 14 should be having sex
 
Why are voters in California so concerned with sex all the time?

Get real.
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
So the way the law would be written, if you wanted to have oral sex with a seventh-grader, you would have to be college age or younger?

I agree with sedonaman, this is a stealth initiative to lower the age-of-consent.
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t legalize the act. This is an adjustment of what types of crime can be used for sentencing a felon to life without possibility of parole under the current “three strikes” law.

Anything that was illegal before will continue to be illegal. Only sentencing may change for those who already have two felony convictions.

You should evaluate for yourself whether the proposed sentencing changes are acceptable.
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
I think “10” should be “1.”
 
sedonaman said:
I have not read it, but you have to be very careful with propositions. This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
Click to expand...
Rainaldo said:
So the way the law would be written, if you wanted to have oral sex with a seventh-grader, you would have to be college age or younger?

I agree with sedonaman, this is a stealth initiative to lower the age-of-consent.
Click to expand...
The proposition does neither change the definition of any crime nor lower the age of consent. It modifies sentencing guidelines for certain repeat felons. Therefore, a felon who commits this act gets X years in jail and sex offender registration but possibly wouldn’t be locked up for life.

If you don’t think this particular sentencing modification is worthwhile, you know where the ballot box is.
 
Richard320 said:
Says nothing about it that I can see vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/36-title-summ-analysis.pdf

The California Bishops have this to say:
cacatholic.org/images/Election/Prop%2036.pdf
Click to expand...
That statement was put out by the California Catholic Conference [see logo at bottom left]. I could not find anything on their website cacatholic.org/ that says anything about Prop 36.

There is an element among Catholics who have forgotten [or never learned] what Sr. Mary taught us in first year Catechism: Punishment has three purposes: 1) to demonstrate to the perpetrator that his behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated, IOW, keep him from repeating it; 2) to serve as an example to others; and 3) to make restitution to the wronged.

There is also an element in the ruling class in general that favors making violent crime a hazard-free occupation. See “The Elite Ruling Class War Against Victims: Assuring Occupational Safety for Violent Criminals” homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/the-elite-ruling-class-war-against-victims.aspx?view=threaded
 
racerpacer said:
Yes or No on Prop. 36? Section 2 states that it would be unlawful to have oral sex with a minor under 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. Please comment.
Click to expand...
Prop 36 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING ORAL SEX WITH MINORS OR ANYONE ELSE. It is an attempt to water down the 3 strikes law and put dangerous criminals back out on the street by not counting “non-violent” felonies as part of the law. I’m voting NO.
 
Catholic1954 said:
Prop 36 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING ORAL SEX WITH MINORS OR ANYONE ELSE. It is an attempt to water down the 3 strikes law and put dangerous criminals back out on the street by not counting “non-violent” felonies as part of the law. I’m voting NO.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s buried in Prop 38, “Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs.” :rolleyes:
 
sedonaman said:
That statement was put out by the California Catholic Conference [see logo at bottom left]. I could not find anything on their website cacatholic.org/ that says anything about Prop 36.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s where I got it. Open your link. Look on the left side where it says Election 2012. At the bottom of that box it says California Ballot Propositions. It will take you to California Ballot Initiatives and following it down to Prop 36 you will find the link I posted before.

What I posted IS hosted on their website.
 
Richard320 said:
Well, that’s where I got it. Open your link. Look on the left side where it says Election 2012. At the bottom of that box it says California Ballot Propositions. It will take you to California Ballot Initiatives and following it down to Prop 36 you will find the link I posted before.

What I posted IS hosted on their website.
Click to expand...
I followed your directions and found nothing about Prop 36. But, following your links, I did find something: in Spanish, and I don’t speak Spanish. Could not find anything in English.
 
Catholic1954 said:
Prop 36 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING ORAL SEX WITH MINORS OR ANYONE ELSE. It is an attempt to water down the 3 strikes law and put dangerous criminals back out on the street by not counting “non-violent” felonies as part of the law. I’m voting NO.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As am I.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top