Calif. Proposition 36

  • Thread starter Thread starter racerpacer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where it says
Proposition 36 - Three-Strikes Law (En Español) click on the English text.
 
Richard320 said:
Where it says
Proposition 36 - Three-Strikes Law (En Español) click on the English text.
Click to expand...
That was not a very good way of providing a link because it leads some to think it’s in Spanish. In any event, there is nothing new in that reference.
CCC Position: The Bishops, who in 2004 supported Proposition 66—similar to Proposition 36—have positively commented on Proposition 36.
Click to expand...
Does that mean they are in favor of it, or just that they commented on it?
Reflections on Church Teaching:
Click to expand...
At the same time, a Catholic approach does not give up on those who violate these laws. We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law. — U.S. Bishops, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration #37 (2000)
Click to expand...
We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives. It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law. — U.S. Bishops, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration #38 (2000)
Click to expand...
THE CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE has prepared this brief summary of the text and the arguments of the proponents and opponents of the 11 propositions which will appear on California’s NOVEMBER 6, 2012 BALLOT
Click to expand...
The way I read the underlined part, it is saying what I believe, that keeping repeat criminals behind bars provides the best protection of society. Whenever the price of something goes up [in this case the price of committing a crime], there will be fewer buyers. No rocket science about it.
 
sedonaman said:
That was not a very good way of providing a link because it leads some to think it’s in Spanish.
Click to expand...
It’s a fairly common way to provide multilingual links, although using the “(English | Espanol)” format might be a little less confusing. Rather than gripe here, you would be better served by suggesting a format modification to their webmaster.
 
Prop. 36 regards the 3 strikes law. There are 3 sections to the voter guide: 1) Quick Reference 2) Summary and 3) Text of Proposed Law. Read Text of Proposed Law in the back of booklet - Prop. 36; Section 2 Part II and III, and Section 4 Part II and III. You will come across the exact wording. “New” provisions to be added are printed in italic type.
 
Captain_America said:
Why are voters in California so concerned with sex all the time?

Get real.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I’m a voter and I live in California. I am not “so concerned with sex all of the time.”

Get real. And while you’re at it, you might want to look up the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
 
Penal Code section 288:
(a) Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one
person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is
under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
(2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of
21 years who participates in an act of oral copulation with another
person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony.
(c) (1) Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation
with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10
years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(2) (A) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the
act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force,
violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily
injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(B) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a person
who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against
the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8,
10, or 12 years.
(C) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a minor
who is 14 years of age or older, when the act is accomplished against
the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 6,
8, or 10 years.
 
It grieves me that innocence is taken away at such a young age and our laws do nothing to protect us.
 
racerpacer said:
Penal Code section 288:
(a) Oral copulation is the act of copulating the mouth of one
person with the sexual organ or anus of another person.
(b) (1) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who
participates in an act of oral copulation with another person who is
under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.
(2) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of
21 years who participates in an act of oral copulation with another
person who is under 16 years of age is guilty of a felony.
(c) (1) Any person who participates in an act of oral copulation
with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10
years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(2) (A) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the
act is accomplished against the victim’s will by means of force,
violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily
injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(B) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a person
who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against
the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8,
10, or 12 years.
(C) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation upon a minor
who is 14 years of age or older, when the act is accomplished against
the victim’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or
fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 6,
8, or 10 years.
Click to expand...
As you have quoted, these actions would continue to be crimes and punished with varying times of imprisonment. The current law allows a third-strike felon to be incarcerated for life (first or second strike offenders even for those who commit the above listed crimes would be released at some point). The proposed changes would be for several years, plus sex offender registration for life.
 
I don’t know if this has been pointed out yet, but in the years shortly after the CA initiative passed, the public discovered that the local district attorney has a fair amount of discretion on whether to prosecute a crime as a felony or misdemeanor. If I recall correctly, a misdemeanor does not count as one of the three convictions. This gutted the “go-to-prison-for-life-for-stealing-a-slice-of-pizza” argument.
 
sedonaman said:
Canon law recognizes 14 to be the age of consent for oral sex? Why don’t I believe that?
Click to expand...
Canon law 1083 doesn’t say anything about oral sex. The point was made in regard to the age of consent.
sedonaman said:
This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
Click to expand...
Bradski said:
Canon law 1083 already allows it.
Click to expand...
Whether you think that fellatio is an acceptable sexual act within marriage is another matter.
 
Sedonaman: This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
Bradski: Canon law 1083 already allows it.

That’s not clear?

Anyway, do you agree that 14 is acceptable in any circumstance?
 
Bradski said:
Sedonaman: This could be a stealth initiative to lower the age of consent to 14 years.
Bradski: Canon law 1083 already allows it.

That’s not clear?
Click to expand...
No. The topic was oral sex, so “it” could be oral sex.
Anyway, do you agree that 14 is acceptable in any circumstance?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Crescentinus said:
Not sure if debating or proselytizing…
Click to expand...
Questioning.

I’ve noticed that there are, on times, matters in which the church and her members are in disagreement. Contraception and gay marriage for example. But generally, as for example in those two examples, the church takes what I would describe as the more conservative view. Catholics who disagree tend to be more liberally minded.

The age of consent is an example of where some members would, I’d assume, disagree with the church’s teachings because, in this example, they might think the church was being too liberal.

Most people seem to understand that any difference they have with the church is a problem for themselves. That the church is always right and the individual knowingly transgresses. This seems to be the opposite case. And without, I hope, being seen to be judgemental, I’m interested in looking further.
 
Regarding Canon Law 1083. Doesn’t the Church in general try to protect her members? When was CL 1083 enacted?
 
Staututory rape laws in Ca state that anyone under 18 cannot participate in intercourse with anyone over 18. Sodomy and oral sex are also considered statutory rape, whether it’s consentual or not. Punishment is harsh. He can go to jail, face expensive fines, and cannot see the child. Consequences are worse if the major (person over 18) is having intercourse with someone under 16. From: Wiki Answers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top