California Legislature Passes Bill That Will Soften Penalty For LGBT Adults Who Have Sex With Underage Teens

[gam197]

gam197:

Should even an 18 year old male date a 12 or 13

I’m pretty sure the law in question applies to minors btw 14 and 17. And discretion, again, does not mean there is no punishment. The question is whether to destroy someone’s life forever by putting them on the sex offenders’ register alongside child molesters. Lets not get the issues mixed up:

Laws always change and we certainly see that. Is if ok for an 18 year old male to date a 13 year old only five years difference, no it is not because a 13 year old girl does not have good judgement.

2: Can you punish people who have sex with minors many years younger than themselves, say 5/6 years younger? Yes.

No they do not get punished.

Does every young person in No. 2^^ belong in a permanent sex-offenders’ register that will destroy their lives beyond the punishment they receive for No. 2? Absolutely not.

They could go to jail for statutory rape. /Nothing has to be permanent. Seal records or make the law so they are on a sexual offenders list for a certain number of years. These things have to be discussed but they have never been dealt with.

Abortion does not solve it.

 

[gam197]

You’re just completely misstating what the proposed change does. No one is suggesting lowering the age of consent. It merely gives the judge some discretion in crafting a proper punishment, that’s all.

No I am not. I want to deal with one issue and that issue if for the girls. Once that is decided then we can deal with the males.

 

[Rubee]

Laws always change and we certainly see that. Is if ok for an 18 year old male to date a 13 year old only five years difference, no it is not because a 13 ear old girl does not have good judgement.

Literally no one argues it’s ok or that it should not be punished. LIterally no one. For the second time, the case you bring up does not apply: the matter involves minors aged btw 14 and 17, so this example you bring up does not apply to the discussion of this thread.

And again, the law reported here is not about whether they should be punished (they are tried and punished) but whether they should automatically go on a register alongside child molesters that will destroy the rest of their life even after they pay for their offence.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

Laws always change and we certainly see that. Is if ok for an 18 year old male to date a 13 year old only five years difference, no it is not because a 13 ear old girl does not have good judgement.

Literally no one argues it’s ok or that it should not be punished. LIterally no one. For the second time, the case you bring up does not apply: the matter involves minors aged btw 14 and 17, so this example you bring up does not apply to the discussion of this thread.

And again, the law reported here is not about whether they should be punished (they are tried and punished) but whether they should automatically go on a register that will destroy the rest of their life.

Take abortion out of equation and now you have a 13 or 14 year old pregnant girl. Who is reponsible? What are the penalties? There certainly a penalty for the girl.

Abortion did not solve it and the boys can feel they get off free by taking the girl for the abortion. No, males have yet to be held accountable. This law is not solving anything but only causing more confusion to an already difficult question.

 

[Rubee]

Take abortion out of equation and now you have a 13 or 14 year old pregnant girl. Who is reponsible? What are the penalties? There certainly a penalty for the girl.

Abortion did not solve and the boys can feel they get off free by taking the girl for the abortion. No, males have et to be held accountable. This law is solving anything but only causing more confusion to an already difficult question.

I feel at this point you don’t understand the point I’m raising. First of all, why are you bringing up 13 year olds? This law does not apply to them. Only minors starting age 14 and up. Secondly, this is not about abortion. It’s about sex with minors. Thirdly, this law does not say these people will not be punished. So I don’t know why you make your points as if it says they would be let off easy: They would still be tried for statutory rape. That does not mean they should all be branded sexual predators at such a young age.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

No I am not. I want to deal with one issue and that issue if for the girls. Once that is decided then we can deal with the males.

Yes, you are. This proposed change does not lower the age of consent. You’re either confused or you’re lying. If you want to argue that the proposed change is a bad idea and there should be a different standard for gay and straight encounters, fine. But you don’t seem to understand what is actually at issue here.

 

[gam197]

I feel at this point you don’t understand the point I’m raising. First of all, why are you bringing up 13 year olds? This law does not apply to them. Only minors starting age 14 and up. Secondly, this is not about abortion. It’s about sex with minors. Thirdly, this law does not say these people will not be punished. So I don’t know why you make your points as if it says they would be let off easy: They would still be tried for statutory rape. That does not mean they should all be branded sexual predators at such a young age.

It says 14 to 17 so a 14 year old pregnant girl, is that any better? When is the last time any male has been tried for statutory rape? Really when. Abortion clinics are filled with 14 year old girls and you do not see a problem with that.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

No I am not. I want to deal with one issue and that issue if for the girls. Once that is decided then we can deal with the males.

Yes, you are. This proposed change does not lower the age of consent. You’re either confused or you’re lying. If you want to argue that the proposed change is a bad idea and there should be a different standard for gay and straight encounters, fine. But you don’t seem to understand what is actually at issue here.

I have not yet been able to deal with the girl issue. I do not want to deal with another issue. What is the age of consent then in California ? Is it 14?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

What is the age of consent then in California ? Is it 14?

It’s 18, and this proposed law wouldn’t change that.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

What is the age of consent then in California ? Is it 14?

It’s 18, and this proposed law wouldn’t change that.

If the age of consent is 18 then should it not stand at that. Any male “dating” a 14 year old girl should be held accountable.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

If the age of consent is 18 then should it not stand at that. Any male “dating” a 14 year old girl should be held accountable.

No one is talking about lowering the age of consent. Again, you’re confused about what the actual issue is.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

If the age of consent is 18 then should it not stand at that. Any male “dating” a 14 year old girl should be held accountable.

No one is talking about lowering the age of consent. Again, you’re confused about what the actual issue is.

If the age of consent is 18 in California, then why are we talking 14 to 17 year old girls with males up to 10 years age difference?

Should the issue be first we lower the age of consent to 16 so that males would not be prosecuted if they are 19 and the girl is 16?

There need to be a lot more discussion by the legislature on how to deal with the girl issue before they start changing anything else. They will not do that because they have abortion and have no problem with girls at any age getting abortions.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

If the age of consent is 18 in California, then why are we talking 14 to 17 year old girls with males up to 10 years age difference?

It’s a crime to have sex with someone under 18 if you’re over 18, regardless of the genders involved. However, in the case of a heterosexual couple, the judge may in his or her discretion, not put the offender on the sex offender registry. That doesn’t preclude other punishment or suggest it’s not a crime. It just means the judge might determine that in a particular case, sex offender registration isn’t appropriate, likely for those cases in which 18 year old has sex with their 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend.

All this law is would do is extend that same discretionary ability to same-sex encounters. It doesn’t change what is or isn’t a crime. It just gives the judge leeway in crafting an appropriate punishment. That’s it.

 

[signit]

There need to be a lot more discussion by the legislature on how to deal with the girl issue before they start changing anything else. They will not do that because they have abortion and have no problem with girls at any age getting abortions.

Okay.

As I often say, the two issues aren’t mutually exclusive.

You apparently support a solid age of consent of 18, regardless of the age of the man, and that’s fine.

But the issue that’s currently before the legislature is the level of punishment. Not whether someone should be punished at all (he should) but whether an offender should have a black mark next to his name for the rest of life, to follow him around whenever he looks for a job or for housing.

(posted before seeing post #57)

 

[gam197]

It’s a crime to have sex with someone under 18 if you’re over 18, regardless of the genders involved. However, in the case of a heterosexual couple, the judge may in his or her discretion, not put the offender on the sex offender registry. That doesn’t preclude other punishment or suggest it’s not a crime. It just means the judge might determine that in a particular case, sex offender registration isn’t appropriate, likely for those cases in which 18 year old has sex with their 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend.

So the age of consent if 18, then that has to be looked at. Say it is a 18 year old male and a 15 year old girl, then I can understand the judge having some leway. Again maybe the issue is changing the consent law so that the girl would be 16 and then there would be less prosecution if the male is 18. These all have to be discussed and looked at and that has yet to happen.

All this law is would do is extend that same discretionary ability to same-sex encounters. It doesn’t change what is or isn’t a crime. It just gives the judge leeway in crafting an appropriate punishment. That’s it.

Don’t want to discuss this until we deal with the girls and what to do so that girls have a fair shot at life.

 

[gam197]

But the issue that’s currently before the legislature is the level of punishment. Not whether someone should be punished at all (he should) but whether an offender should have a black mark next to his name for the rest of life, to follow him around whenever he looks for a job or for housing.

I am not solid at age 18, maybe 16 for the girl is the issue. No one deserves a black mark for the rest of their life but there has to be laws to protect the female from undue advantage by older males. Sorry if you do not see this as a problem but I do and would like this solved before more discussion takes place on any other issue.

We never, ever deal with the issue and girls.

 

[signit]

signit:

But the issue that’s currently before the legislature is the level of punishment. Not whether someone should be punished at all (he should) but whether an offender should have a black mark next to his name for the rest of life, to follow him around whenever he looks for a job or for housing.

I am not solid at age 18, maybe 16 for the girl is the issue. No one deserves a black mark for the rest of their life but there has to be laws to protect the female from undue advantage by older males. Sorry if you do not see this as a problem but I do and would like this solved before more discussion takes place on any other issue.

We never, ever deal with the issue and girls.

So what would you suggest, then, with respect to protecting underage girls?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Don’t want to discuss this

Well, that’s the topic of the article that you posted. If you want to have a general discussion about what the age of consent should be that’s a whole other ball of wax.

Not surprisingly, Breitbart misled you into thinking this was something it wasn’t.

 

[gam197]

So what would you suggest, then, with respect to protecting underage girls?

I am solid at age 18 and I do not believe these laws even are being used. Girls are pressured to get abortions so even as age 18, there have been no court cases that have made the healines of girls prosecuting males.

Again this all has to be looked at and discussed by the legislature. Some states the laws of consent are lower and maybe that is an issue that California needs to look at.

 

[gam197]

Well, that’s the topic of the article that you posted. If you want to have a general discussion about what the age of consent should be that’s a whole other ball of wax.

Not surprisingly, Breitbart misled you into thinking this was something it wasn’t.

No it is not another ball of wax, age of consent is the issue. I have no problem discussing the issue but the issue should be girls first. Can we solve this issue for the girls? We have never done so and older males have been taking young girls for abortion.

I think we should look at age of consent first and age difference is a major issue. How much of a spread in age do we as a society want. Should it be 1-3 years or more.

The legislatures in California are not even addressing the issue.

If we had pregnant girls all over the place, maybe people would actually start caring about the girls and address what can be done to help the girls and punish the boys.