California Governor Signs Bill Weakening Sex Offender Law, 2020

[katydid23]

California Governor Signs Bill Changing Sex Offender Law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.

The bill would expand the discretion currently granted judges in statutory rape cases and was promoted as bringing fairness under the law to LGBTQ defendants.

“I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual, how it could ever not be a registrable offense,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said before the bill's passage. “We should never give up on this idea that children should be in no way subject to a predator.”

Online critics had falsely blasted the measure as legalizing pedophilia.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...governor-signs-bill-changing-sex-offender-law

 

[Laughing]

No no no no just no!

The Left Coast, indeed.

The article indicates that the legal age of consent in California is 14???

Can't enter a legal contract
Can't be licensed to drive a car
Can't vote
Can't purchase tobacco
Can't purchase alcohol

Can be forced/coerced to risk disease & pregnancy
Can be forced/coerced into marriage

Yes, I Googled. Scary information.

Well. Glad those aren't my tax dollars.

Or my children!!!

 

[Dawookie]

No no no no just no!

The Left Coast, indeed.

The article indicates that the legal age of consent in California is 14???

Can't enter a legal contract
Can't be licensed to drive a car
Can't vote
Can't purchase tobacco
Can't purchase alcohol

Can be forced/coerced to risk disease & pregnancy
Can be forced/coerced into marriage

Yes, I Googled. Scary information.

Well. Glad those aren't my tax dollars.

Or my children!!!

The age of consent in California is 18. I'm not sure legally why they use 14 years old as some sort of cut off for determining anything

 

[Laughing]

The age of consent in California is 18. I'm not sure legally why they use 14 years old as some sort of cut off for determining anything

Apparently, since the moment this bill was signed, the age of consent became 14.

As long as the sexual "partner" is less than 10 years older then the 14 year old, so 23 years, 11 months, 3 1/2 weeks of age is OK in this case.

Sad, dangerous, horrific.

JMHO YMMV LRR

 

[Dawookie]

Apparently, since the moment this bill was signed, the age of consent became 14.

As long as the sexual "partner" is less than 10 years older then the 14 year old, so 23 years, 11 months, 3 1/2 weeks of age is OK in this case.

Sad, dangerous, horrific.

JMHO YMMV LRR

The 10 year gap was there in the original law and has been in place for decades. All this bill did was amend the law to allow judges to have the same decision making power in regards to putting someone in the sex offender registry when it comes to cases involving voluntary oral and anal as they have had when it comes to cases involving voluntary vaginal intercourse. It was done to give the LGBTQ community the same footing as heterosexual people.

The age of consent is still 18 and it's still illegal to have sex with someone under 18. The statutory rape laws are still in effect. If someone is 23 and has sex with a 14 year old, they are still going to be arrested and charged like they were before the bill was passed.

 

[Laughing]

That's within the bill's stated 10 year age difference, which does apply to different gender combinations.

Up to the judge if a 23 year old having any form of sex with a 7th grader is acceptable...I'm siding with the Mom quoted above:

“I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual, how it could ever not be a registrable offense,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said before the bill's passage. “We should never give up on this idea that children should be in no way subject to a predator.”

JMHO YMMV LRR

 

[Dawookie]

That's within the bill's stated 10 year age difference, which does apply to different gender combinations.

Up to the judge if a 23 year old having any form of sex with a 7th grader is acceptable...I'm siding with the Mom quoted above:

“I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual, how it could ever not be a registrable offense,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said before the bill's passage. “We should never give up on this idea that children should be in no way subject to a predator.”

JMHO YMMV LRR

Once again the 10 year difference part of the law has been that way for decades, it's not something new that was added with this new bill. The judge won't decide if it's acceptable or not since the law already states it's not. All this bill does is give the judges the same discretionary powers to decide whether or not a person has to register as a sex offender dealing with cases involving voluntary oral or anal intercourse as they've had for years dealing with cases involving vaginal intercourse.

If someone who is 23 has sex with a 14 year old, they are still going to go to jail because of the statutory rape laws here in California. The only thing the judge can decide is for how long depending on the case. The judge can't say oh that's ok, no jail time for you.

As far as Lorena Gonzales goes, if this is so upsetting to her, as a member of the legislature, she can come up with a bill that changes that 10 year gap and have it put for a vote. She's on he fourth term in the Assembly and has never put up a bill concerning that 10 year age gap.

 

[katydid23]

Once again the 10 year difference part of the law has been that way for decades, it's not something new that was added with this new bill. The judge won't decide if it's acceptable or not since the law already states it's not. All this bill does is give the judges the same discretionary powers to decide whether or not a person has to register as a sex offender dealing with cases involving voluntary oral or anal intercourse as they've had for years dealing with cases involving vaginal intercourse.

If someone who is 23 has sex with a 14 year old, they are still going to go to jail because of the statutory rape laws here in California. The only thing the judge can decide is for how long depending on the case. The judge can't say oh that's ok, no jail time for you.

As far as Lorena Gonzales goes, if this is so upsetting to her, as a member of the legislature, she can come up with a bill that changes that 10 year gap and have it put for a vote. She's on he fourth term in the Assembly and has never put up a bill concerning that 10 year age gap.

I wouldn't minimise the effects of this bill. I think it is destructive. I don't want to give judges the discretion to keep adults off the sex offenders registry, if they have sex with a 14 or 15 yr old.

As this new law says, a judge can decide NOT to put a 23 yr old male on the SO registry, even if he has anal sex with a 14 yr old boy. I don't want to give judges that discretion because they will often abuse that power, in my experience.

 

[gitana1]

No no no no just no!

The Left Coast, indeed.

The article indicates that the legal age of consent in California is 14???

Can't enter a legal contract
Can't be licensed to drive a car
Can't vote
Can't purchase tobacco
Can't purchase alcohol

Can be forced/coerced to risk disease & pregnancy
Can be forced/coerced into marriage

Yes, I Googled. Scary information.

Well. Glad those aren't my tax dollars.

Or my children!!!

No. That’s not the age of consent here. It’s a typical cut off for certain crimes. In most states around the nation, sex offenses are not considere as serious if the child is 13 and under.

 

[gitana1]

I wouldn't minimise the effects of this bill. I think it is destructive. I don't want to give judges the discretion to keep adults off the sex offenders registry, if they have sex with a 14 or 15 yr old.

As this new law says, a judge can decide NOT to put a 23 yr old male on the SO registry, even if he has anal sex with a 14 yr old boy. I don't want to give judges that discretion because they will often abuse that power, in my experience.

Yes. I agree. I think we have to be very cognizant of the imbalance of power involved in those statutory rape cases. If the age range was smaller - like an 18 year old with a 16 or 17 year old, I can understand. But no. A 23 year old with a 14 year old- that’s predatory and destroys the child. I’ve seen it over and over.

And I do see the danger in giving court’s discretion. We’ve seen who usually gets the benefit of the doubt in sex offender cases. Rich, young white males involved in sports or otherwise from prominent families and females from various backgrounds. As if a 23 year of female can’t be a predator.

This is a bad law.

 

[gitana1]

The 10 year gap was there in the original law and has been in place for decades. All this bill did was amend the law to allow judges to have the same decision making power in regards to putting someone in the sex offender registry when it comes to cases involving voluntary oral and anal as they have had when it comes to cases involving voluntary vaginal intercourse. It was done to give the LGBTQ community the same footing as heterosexual people.

The age of consent is still 18 and it's still illegal to have sex with someone under 18. The statutory rape laws are still in effect. If someone is 23 and has sex with a 14 year old, they are still going to be arrested and charged like they were before the bill was passed.

Oh. I see. I hadn’t read the article. So this just expands the current law which allows straight people who commit statutory rape through vaginal penetration, to cover LGBTQ persons who do the same.

I think I would be okay with that if it also tightened up the law for everyone.

I agree with the assemblywoman. A 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old is a predator and should be on the registry. No matter how they have sex.

 

[Dawookie]

Oh. I see. I hadn’t read the article. So this just expands the current law which allows straight people who commit statutory rape through vaginal penetration, to cover LGBTQ persons who do the same.

I think I would be okay with that if it also tightened up the law for everyone.

I agree with the assemblywoman. A 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old is a predator and should be on the registry. No matter how they have sex.

Yes, it just expands the current law to cover LGBTQ people. I had a lot of questions about what the law really was and what the ramifications were because some of the laws that have been passed here the last few years are head shakers and there's a few more up for vote that could be worse than this one

I agree with here as well that they should be put in the registry and I'm pretty sure most judges would but there's a few here that wouldn't.

 

[JudgeJoe]

I wouldn't minimise the effects of this bill. I think it is destructive. I don't want to give judges the discretion to keep adults off the sex offenders registry, if they have sex with a 14 or 15 yr old.

As this new law says, a judge can decide NOT to put a 23 yr old male on the SO registry, even if he has anal sex with a 14 yr old boy. I don't want to give judges that discretion because they will often abuse that power, in my experience.

ITA. Sentencing is already a discretionary mess. Now adding discretionary powers to the registry? Thinking Brock Turner and so many others. Horribly offensive. Mo

 

[Dawookie]

I wouldn't minimise the effects of this bill. I think it is destructive. I don't want to give judges the discretion to keep adults off the sex offenders registry, if they have sex with a 14 or 15 yr old.

As this new law says, a judge can decide NOT to put a 23 yr old male on the SO registry, even if he has anal sex with a 14 yr old boy. I don't want to give judges that discretion because they will often abuse that power, in my experience.

That's the thing, is they've already had that discretion for a long time. All this has done is expand it to cover the gay community. I don't agree with them having the discretion but in all reality, it hasn't been a problem before this or we would have heard about it. The problem when it comes to this type of stuff in California is when a judge goes off the rails with the sentencing, i.e. Brock Turner and Kevin Rojano-Nieto. There's other laws that have been passed and are up for vote that have had and will continue to have much worse consequences than this one