California Assembly Rejects Legislation To Make Child Prostitution A Felony

submitted by Questionable from zerohedge.com

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Damn, again?

What's going on in Cali? Are the kids okay?

[–]SMCAB 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What's going on? They are moving to your state and infecting it.

[–]topiary2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would they be? Even purchasing a child is not considered a felony

[–]rodmanii 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

disgusting third world shithole

[–]ID10T 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Only a pedophile would vote against this law.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Zero hedge comes with quite a lot of spin.

The law wasn't voted down, it was altered so that solicitation of a 16 or 17 year old wouldn't be a crime in the case where the perpetrator didn't know and shouldn't have reasonably known that the victim was under 18. It's still rape or statutory rape to fuck them.

[–]Titanic 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Thank God I'm not a democrat anymore.

The party of the worker and emergency relief for the homeless is now the party of sexual degeneracy murder and horrible disgusting perversion.

[–]gloomy_bear 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

🤮 wtf!?

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Brooklyn worse

[–]gloomy_bear 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

🤔

[–]Thinger 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If the United States had a butthole... it would be California.

[–]jerryk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So, does this mean that pedophilia is now legal in California, as long as the sex is paid for, and it isn't actually a forcible rape? If so, that means what is a capital offense in Florida, is now perfectly legal in California. Can we really run a united country this way?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So, does this mean that pedophilia is now legal in California, as long as the sex is paid for, and it isn't actually a forcible rape?

No.

If you have sex with someone under 18 who isn't your spouse in California, you commit statutory rape, and will be liable for 2,3 or 4 years in prison, depending on the age difference.

If they were coerced by violence, duress, threats or fraud, (as I imagine would generally be the case in the case of child prostitution), then that is rape in California, which can get you up to 13 years in prison if the victim is a minor.

What the law would have done was to make solicitation of a minor, whether or not the person knew it was a minor, punishable by 2,3, or 4 years prison. Replacing a current less than 1 year sentence, that only applies if the person knew, or reasonably should have known that they were a minor.

It was modified to not include solicitation of 16 and 17 years olds.

Tbh, it's not obvious that solicitation of a minor should be a crime if the perpetrator didn't know and it's not the case that they reasonably should have known that they were soliciting a minor.

[–]jerryk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Actually, this doesn't really seem like that big a deal to me. Much ado about nothing.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Welcome to a presidential election year. Much of the anti-democrat and some of the anti-republican messaging on social media will be people trying to stir up a storm in a teacup.

[–]jerryk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I guess so!

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing, you dare say?!!! Why, I scoff at you as I clutch my precious pearls!

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Please look up the definition of the word you are using, and then understand that it appears nowhere in the article attached.

So, does this mean that pedophilia is now legal in California, as long as the sex is paid for, and it isn't actually a forcible rape? If so, that means what is a capital offense in Florida, is now perfectly legal in California. Can we really run a united country this way?

🥸

[–]jerryk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

OK. So, the "child" still has to be at least 16 years old. So, all they're really saying is if you're sixteen, you're old enough to be a prostitute.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Just read the damned article, if you want to know what's in the article.

😅

[–]jerryk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just did. Basically, they're just saying if you're sixteen, you're old enough to work legally as a prostitute, in California.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I just did. Basically, they're just saying if you're sixteen, you're old enough to work legally as a prostitute, in California.

🤔...

The proposed law and felony charges are against the solicitor of sex, not the child. I'll let you figure out the rest from there. OK‼‽

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No this law is only about solicitation, which is currently illegal, but the penalty is only 2 days to 1 year minus one day. And it only applies if the perp knew or should reasonably have known that the victim was a minor.

Actually having sex with someone under 18 is still statutory rape in California. (Unless you're married to them). And if the perpetrator engaged in violence, physical force, threats, coercion, fraud or if they invoked a fear in the victim of retaliation or physical harm against themselves or another person, then it's still rape.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The last time this was shot down someone mentioned that pedophilia is already illegal and claimed this bill is one of those scam bills that claims it is one thing but is actually a different thing, like the patriot act is actually the violate the constitution bill.

Which sounds about right because pedophilia is very much illegal already.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

pedophilia is very much illegal already.

That word is a psychological term meaning attraction to prepubescent children. One can no more make illegal 'attractions' as one can outlaw any other thought.

Please reread the title of the article you are dismissing, and then click the link to the bill on the page.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nah

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

OK. You don't have to read anything. I can't force you to understand the topic. Though I will ask you to refrain from making things up, citing things from half forgotten memories, or comparing state laws to congressional bills you don't like.

Honestly, if you don't want to think about this. You don't have to.

[–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes you are technically right it is a mental illness, but in common parlance it is also an action.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And in this case, it is also the premise of some rather outlandish claims made by u/Canbot. Is the use of a 'common parlance' a valid excuse for dismissing laws that involve sex crimes against minors?

Make this make sense.

[–]ShoahKahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

SINCE A NINE-YEAR-OLD BOY IS FIT TO ENGAGE IN INTERCOURSE, HE ALSO IMPARTS RITUAL IMPURITY, AS ONE WHO EXPERIENCED 'ZIVA'. THEREFORE, WITH REGARD TO A FEMALE, GENTILE CHILD WHO IS THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD, SINCE SHE IS FIT TO ENGAGE IN INTERCOURSE AT THAT AGE, SHE ALSO IMPARTS IMPURITY AS ONE WHO EXPERIENCED 'ZIVA'.

(Babylonian Talmud, Tactate: Avodah Zarah 37a)

[–]ShoahKahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"AS THE TEAR COMES BACK TO THE EYE, AGAIN AND AGAIN, SO DOES THE VIRGINITY OF A LITTLE GIRL UNDER THREE YEARS."

~ Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate: Yebamoth 60b)