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

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You could ask the same thing about jail time.

What were the laws BEFORE this new modification?

Do we want to be serious about stopping sexual predation against our children?

The laws before were that registration was discretionary in the case of heterosexual sex; the judge could place the offender on the sex offender registration or not. In the case of homosexual sex, there was no wiggle room: registration was mandatory even in the case of an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old.

The new law just extends the same discretion to homosexual encounters as heterosexual lens.

So…do you think it should be mandatory registration for both? 18 year old guy has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend? That’s pretty extreme.

 

[Cathoholic]

Yes. I think this sexual exploitation of children should not get a pass.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Yes. I think this sexual exploitation of children should not get a pass.

So just to be clear, you think that if an 18 year old guy is dating a 17 year old girl from his high school, and they have consensual sex, it should be mandatory that he’s placed on the sex offender registry?

 

[Cathoholic]

Just to be clear. Why wouldn’t I?

So just to be clear,
you think that if a 24 year old homosexual man is
sodomizing a 14 year old boy, he should get a pass?

 

[_Ruby]

_Ruby

I agree that it should be made equally applicable

Yes, those who engage in predatory sexual practices should go on the register. But as people on this thread have pointed out, there are shades of grey where the sex offenders register is not the most appropriate punishment - like when an 18 year old girl has had sexual intercourse with a 17 year old boy.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

So just to be clear,
you think that if a 24 year old homosexual man is
sodomizing a 14 year old boy, he should get a pass?

No, I don’t. To be clear, this new law wouldn’t “give him a pass” either. It would allow the judge the possibility of not putting him on the registry. It wouldn’t preclude other punishments, and in practice that’s at the extreme end of the judges discretion so I doubt very much whether that person would avoid registration.

Just to be clear. Why wouldn’t I?

Because an 18 year old and 17 year old are peers and the 18 year old having consensual sex with a peer doesn’t indicate that he’s a predator or dangerous in any way.

 

[Cathoholic]

_Ruby . . .

But as people on this thread have pointed out, there are shades of grey where the sex offenders register is not the most appropriate punishment - like when an 18 year old girl has had sexual intercourse with a 17 year old boy.

If you really believe that WHY fight for 24 year old men to be able to sodomize boys?

I don’t get that.

Why not just say for an 18 year old preying upon a seventeen year old, we will keep them on the list for five years if he stays away from children, permenantly if he doesn’t?

Or some other alternative that does not give a pass to the 24 year old man sodomizing boys, or the 24 year old female school teacher doing you-know-what to her boys in class (after school)?

WHY “laxify” these laws against the sexual deviants?

 

[Cathoholic]

RolandThompsonGunner . . .

No, I don’t. To be clear, this new law wouldn’t “give him a pass” either.

I notice you changed the idea of my premise from . . .

This new law could give him a pass.

This new law would give him a pass.

.

This is fallacious argumentation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Because an 18 year old and 17 year old are peers and the 18 year old having consensual sex with a peer doesn’t indicate that he’s a predator or dangerous in any way.

As I said to @_Ruby:

If you really believe that WHY fight for 24 year old men to be able to sodomize boys?

I don’t get that.

Why not just say for an 18 year old preying upon a seventeen year old, we will keep them on the list for five years if he stays away from children, permenantly if he doesn’t?

Or some other alternative that does not give a pass to the 24 year old man sodomizing boys, or the 24 year old female school teacher doing you-know-what to her boys in class (after school)?

WHY “laxify” these laws against the sexual deviants?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I notice you changed the idea of my premise from . . .

This new law could give him a pass.

This new law would give him a pass.

.

This is fallacious argumentation.

You said “should.” I’m not trying to hide the ball here.

Look, we can imagine better laws. If I were writing the law, I’d push the minimum age for discretion up to maybe 16. I’m just making the point that having the same standard for both gay and straight people and giving judges leeway to apply the law to specific facts in crafting an appropriate punishment is not “legalizing pedophilia.”

 

[Cathoholic]

RolandThompsonGunner . . .

I’m just making the point that having the same standard for both gay and straight people . . .

Fair enough (although these kinds of sexual deviant behavior are not equivalent - that is a discussion for another thread).

But in the meantime, don’t loosen the laws and child-protections that we already have.

And that is what has been done (unfortunately for the children).

The standard as I have mentioned several times should have been . . . .

. . . . “Pediatricians (ACPeds) . . . demanding that lawmakers strengthen existing laws instead of weakening them.”​

That was my whole point here (and here).

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

That was my whole point here (and here).

Which is fine, if you support a stricter application of the sex offender registry consistently for both gay and straight people. I disagree, at least if what we’re talking about is a bright line at 18. But at least you’re consistent.

But a lot of people criticizing this are fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting what it actually does.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But a lot of people criticizing this are fundamentally misunderstanding or misrepresenting what it actually does.

You’d be surprised at the number of threads in which this could be applied.

 

[_Ruby]

_Ruby . . .

But as people on this thread have pointed out, there are shades of grey where the sex offenders register is not the most appropriate punishment - like when an 18 year old girl has had sexual intercourse with a 17 year old boy.

Its not the fact they are ‘fighting for’ it, its the fact they have rightly pointed out that someone is not MORE of a sexual predator because they might be homosexual. The law should be applied equally.

The number of cases were a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old and being let off are so vanishingly small, it would make no difference in conviction rates if this law is updated. I think the same of the chances in cases of someone being let off when they have violated clear boundaries - like in a teacher pupil relationship.

Why not just say for an 18 year old preying upon a seventeen year old, we will keep them on the list for five years if he stays away from children, permenantly if he doesn’t?

As I mentioned earlier, Im from a country where the age of consent is 16. The concept of an 18 year old ‘preying’ on a 17 year old and needing to sign a register as a sexual deviant is ludicrous to me.

 

[Cathoholic]

_Ruby . . .

The number of cases were a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old and being let off are so vanishingly small . . .

I’m sorry Ruby. But I will not agree that this is a reason to leave the children without that extra dimension of protection.

What small percentage of children do you think continues to warrant NO extra protection for our society’s children on?

If it is 10% should we OK that (OK in the sense of leaving them off the sexual predation registry)?

How bout 5%?

2%?

How many kids is it OK to sacrifice up to the sexual predators to (in this dimension of the registry. I am not saying this about other spheres)?

How bout if it is just one child? Should we turn the other way there too? Or not?

.

The concept of an 18 year old ‘preying’ on a 17 year old and needing to sign a register as a sexual deviant is ludicrous to me.

Well I am not stopping you from thinking that.
But do you think this new law, only covers that situation?

Or do you think this new law liberalizes MORE than just that?

 

[_Ruby]

_Ruby . . .

The number of cases were a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old and being let off are so vanishingly small . . .

Its not about having an ‘acceptable’ level of no protections. There are protections and they are applied at the discretion of the judge. If a law existed to say that white sexual predators were allowed sentencing at the judges discretion and that black sexual predators would automatically be registered, I could not be in favour of that law either.

Well I am not stopping you from thinking that.
But do you think this new law, only covers that situation?

Or do you think this new law liberalizes MORE than just that?

No, I think the new law covers all the situations that heterosexual sexual predators found themselves in previously, it just applies those nuances to homosexual predators.

Now we can quibble about what is/isnt an acceptable age range and adjust that too, I have no objection to doing so and am happy that it would be applied equally to both homo and heterosexual persons.

 

[Cathoholic]

I am not persuaded by your post.

I stand by everything I have said.

Protect the children!

If their were problems with the prior protection levels tighten it up.

Not loosen it.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You’d be surprised at the number of threads in which this could be applied.

Oh, it happens constantly. Everyone is outraged at something that doesn’t actually exist.

 

[_Ruby]

I am not persuaded by your post.

I stand by everything I have said.

Protect the children!

Thats ok Cathaholic, we are just having discourse, you dont need to be ‘persuaded’ in an open exchange of ideas and thoughts.

If their were problems with the prior protection levels tighten it up.

Not loosen it.

I think that depends on the motivation behind the law update. My understanding is that the objections were not to the fact they thought the current law was not resulting in enough appropriate convictions, just that the criteria for judgement was unequal. The ‘problem’ wasn’t that sexual predators were going free, it was that in areas of clear shades of grey (like 17-18 year old relationships etc), the law was applied in a discriminatory way.