update: SB 145 does not apply to intercourse of any kind with minors who are age 14 or younger. For those crimes, mandatory sex offender registration will continue to be the case for all forms of intercourse.
SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender.
The bill reads fucking terrible but it doesn't protect pedophiles.
There are cases where an 18 year old was forced to register as a sex offender because the other was 17. I think a 5 year gap is reasonable, as long as a lower limit is set... But, I think 14 might be a bit low. It should be 16.
Spez: The bill is not yet passed out of the Assembly.
Per the bill history, it passed out of the Assembly committee on 8/20. On 8/24, the bill was read on the Assembly floor the second time, and ordered to the final(?) third reading. If I understand the history correctly, it passed the Senate back on 05/28/19.
I know someone in this situation. Dated same girl in HS, he was sophomore, she was freshman. He graduated his still dating same girl, parents called police for statutory rape. He was 18, she was 17. Now he's 22 and has a conviction.
That's horrible. Met my high school boyfriend when he was a senior and I was a sophomore. Stayed together through my first year at college but finally broke up because I went away for school and the long distance thing wasn't maintainable long term. I'm glad my parents liked him and approved of the relationship. I can't imagine if they had gotten him charged with a crime. We're still friends and have been through a lot together as friends. He turned 60 last year.
This bill does not do that. Romeo and Juliet laws already exist in California. I repeat this bill does not cover that, it allows sexual abusers to rape minors.
I'd say 16 with a 3 year gap. 21 year old with a 16 year old is still off. I know 5 years isn't all that much once everyone's 20+, but at that age it's gross. The only thing that this type of stuff would help is a guy who assumes a girl is overage and instead they aren't. However, let's be honest, that's not the intent here.
Rule of seven is shit, because it's also used for higher ages.
The rule is heavily used by leftist feminazis to shame men who have a younger partner.
You're 27 - no partner of 20. You're 30 - no partner of 22. You're 36? Not under 25. The idea behind that is that as a 36yo who has now an established career you should not find a beautiful, young woman to have a family with. You are supposed to get married to a single mum in your age group and take care of their offspring.
As an example the GEOTUS was 59 when he married Melania (who was 35). 59/2+7 = 36.5 How dare he!
We are fortunate so far. She is based. I shared that series of pics with women before and after leftism...her response was something like "ewwww, no way."
A lot can change, but I think she has a solid foundation. My friend's 14 year old daughter is already smoking weed and skipping school. My kid would never think of doing that. And she has not expressed a desire to go to college, despite getting great grades. She wants to be a professional chef.
Which is why it's still a crime. You're confusing additional punishments (sex offender registration) with the crime itself (statutory rape and/or sexual assault)
So what it means is that a 25 year old black homosexual can seduce a 15 year old boy and the judge will go easy. And he'll throw the book at the 19 year old white boy who has sex with his high school girlfriend.
Mentioning race and sexual orientation in your argument destroys all the sway you might have had. Despite it technically being true, everyone will respond with how you are a bigot instead of addressing the issue and you will have accomplished nothing.
Unless you are a black homosexual wanting the bill to not be overturned so you can seduce 15 year old boys. Then your apparently bigoted argument will probably accomplish exactly what you were after.
It's funny how people can pretend all day like the justice system is rigged against black people and that's perfectly fine and even morally good to say. But if you suggest the opposite then you're a bigot.
Tell me if I'm wrong, because I want to be. Yes, you will still get in trouble for the crime, but the judge gets to say whether or not your neighbors get to know about it? Still dangerous. Maybe not protect pedos but for sure allow them to hide easier in your community and possibly do it again.
Snopes gave it a mostly false, so you know there's a good bit of truth to it.
No. Court records are public. The difference is the affirmative action to inform and other restrictions. Which, frankly, are not appropriate for all cases. Not every instance of statutory rape (which is strict liability with no defense allowed) is an instance of malicious and predatory acts. Especially since the age of consent in CA is 18 rather than 16/17 in other states.
Understood. I've never agreed with the BS registry stuff. Like urinating in public or 18 vs 16 couples dating and the parents get pissed. The registry is much different than your standard public record court cases. I agree that it should be fixed but this gives a far left judge too much power in helpong hiding someone's past from the public. Does it not?
update: SB 145 does not apply to intercourse of any kind with minors who are age 14 or younger. For those crimes, mandatory sex offender registration will continue to be the case for all forms of intercourse.
SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender.
The bill reads fucking terrible but it doesn't protect pedophiles.
There are cases where an 18 year old was forced to register as a sex offender because the other was 17. I think a 5 year gap is reasonable, as long as a lower limit is set... But, I think 14 might be a bit low. It should be 16.
Spez: The bill is not yet passed out of the Assembly.
Per the bill history, it passed out of the Assembly committee on 8/20. On 8/24, the bill was read on the Assembly floor the second time, and ordered to the final(?) third reading. If I understand the history correctly, it passed the Senate back on 05/28/19.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145
But, I think most may be missing the intent of the bill. You have to read the Bill Analysis, which I quoted here:
https://thedonald.win/p/HEJ5Xi6h/x/c/16ZqYqpWFf
I know someone in this situation. Dated same girl in HS, he was sophomore, she was freshman. He graduated his still dating same girl, parents called police for statutory rape. He was 18, she was 17. Now he's 22 and has a conviction.
That's horrible. Met my high school boyfriend when he was a senior and I was a sophomore. Stayed together through my first year at college but finally broke up because I went away for school and the long distance thing wasn't maintainable long term. I'm glad my parents liked him and approved of the relationship. I can't imagine if they had gotten him charged with a crime. We're still friends and have been through a lot together as friends. He turned 60 last year.
This bill does not do that. Romeo and Juliet laws already exist in California. I repeat this bill does not cover that, it allows sexual abusers to rape minors.
California is one of 6 remaining states where those laws don't exist.
They dated for that long and the parents called the police when he turned eighteen?
I'd say 16 with a 3 year gap. 21 year old with a 16 year old is still off. I know 5 years isn't all that much once everyone's 20+, but at that age it's gross. The only thing that this type of stuff would help is a guy who assumes a girl is overage and instead they aren't. However, let's be honest, that's not the intent here.
Somebody once said “rule of 7” which goes something like this
(Older person’s age)/2 + 7 = cutoff age
So for example 20 year old -> 20/2 + 7 = 17 years old.
Then round up for fractions of course. Seems to kind of fit. I dunno. Just thought it was interesting.
Seems pretty logical.
This seems to be a pretty good rule.
Rule of seven is shit, because it's also used for higher ages.
The rule is heavily used by leftist feminazis to shame men who have a younger partner.
You're 27 - no partner of 20. You're 30 - no partner of 22. You're 36? Not under 25. The idea behind that is that as a 36yo who has now an established career you should not find a beautiful, young woman to have a family with. You are supposed to get married to a single mum in your age group and take care of their offspring.
As an example the GEOTUS was 59 when he married Melania (who was 35). 59/2+7 = 36.5 How dare he!
Some states have Romeo and Juliet laws for this.
It's legal as long as the young lovers kill themselves?
Yes but only with hemlock
I guess it depends on your school district.
In mine, high schools are split into 9th-10th grade and 11th-12th grade.
I agree with your analysis and summary good sir (or madam).
Jesus...my daughter is 14 1/2. I would kill the bastard if it happened six months from now!
We are fortunate so far. She is based. I shared that series of pics with women before and after leftism...her response was something like "ewwww, no way."
A lot can change, but I think she has a solid foundation. My friend's 14 year old daughter is already smoking weed and skipping school. My kid would never think of doing that. And she has not expressed a desire to go to college, despite getting great grades. She wants to be a professional chef.
So far so good. Crossing my fingers!
My son is fifteen. If a 25 year old woman started dating my son I would seriously question her mental state.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/261-5/#:~:text=California%20Penal%20Code%20261.5%20PC%20%E2%80%94%20California%20statutory%20rape%20law.,is%20guilty%20of%20a%20misdemeanor.
This law is still in place.
I have a 9 year old girl and we live in California. I am ultra vigilant on this.
This isn't targeted at your daughter.
See my comment here:
https://thedonald.win/p/HEJ5Xi6h/x/c/16ZqYqpWFf
It sure looks that way.
If they wanted to be charged with a crime. It's still illegal.
Yea wtf.... That is NOT ok
Which is why it's still a crime. You're confusing additional punishments (sex offender registration) with the crime itself (statutory rape and/or sexual assault)
Ok I see now. Still though that makes no sense whatsoever. They are legislating the normalization of pedos
So what it means is that a 25 year old black homosexual can seduce a 15 year old boy and the judge will go easy. And he'll throw the book at the 19 year old white boy who has sex with his high school girlfriend.
That's how it works.
Mentioning race and sexual orientation in your argument destroys all the sway you might have had. Despite it technically being true, everyone will respond with how you are a bigot instead of addressing the issue and you will have accomplished nothing.
Unless you are a black homosexual wanting the bill to not be overturned so you can seduce 15 year old boys. Then your apparently bigoted argument will probably accomplish exactly what you were after.
It's funny how people can pretend all day like the justice system is rigged against black people and that's perfectly fine and even morally good to say. But if you suggest the opposite then you're a bigot.
Tell me if I'm wrong, because I want to be. Yes, you will still get in trouble for the crime, but the judge gets to say whether or not your neighbors get to know about it? Still dangerous. Maybe not protect pedos but for sure allow them to hide easier in your community and possibly do it again.
Snopes gave it a mostly false, so you know there's a good bit of truth to it.
No. Court records are public. The difference is the affirmative action to inform and other restrictions. Which, frankly, are not appropriate for all cases. Not every instance of statutory rape (which is strict liability with no defense allowed) is an instance of malicious and predatory acts. Especially since the age of consent in CA is 18 rather than 16/17 in other states.
Understood. I've never agreed with the BS registry stuff. Like urinating in public or 18 vs 16 couples dating and the parents get pissed. The registry is much different than your standard public record court cases. I agree that it should be fixed but this gives a far left judge too much power in helpong hiding someone's past from the public. Does it not?
You da real mvp.