CA Democrats Author Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors

[christiefan915]

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...de=PEN&title=9.

Thanks, I just found that myself.

[anonymoose]

Why, because it's an add-on and I want to see what it's added to.

SECTION 1.

Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:

290.55.

(a) A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.

(b) This section applies to the offenses described in subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, Section 288.3, and subdivisions (h) and (i) of Section 289.

If you're a lawyer maybe you can translate that into plain english. I can't understand it or maybe I'd have to read it too many times to understand.

[Legion]

If you're a lawyer maybe you can translate that into plain english.

She ain't and she can't.

[domer76]

California Globe: They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes.

I want to read the code, not the spin.

Basically, here are the changes:

“Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

[Legion]

In defense of dims in general this is a special breed of dim.
1. They're California dims, the most hard core bat shit loony of democrats.
2. It's the LGBT Legislative Caucus of California dims. They make someone like Occasional-Cortex look like a Gerald Ford
republican with a PhD in neuroscience in comparison.
3. Get back to me if the rest of the CA legislature goes along with this.

What if I told you this issue has been discussed here on JPP before, with predictable results?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...er-escape-jail

[anonymoose]

What if I told you this issue has been discussed here on JPP before, with predictable results?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...er-escape-jail

I'd say anyone that defends this bill should be banned for violation of 12b.

[christiefan915]

What if I told you this issue has been discussed here on JPP before, with predictable results?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...er-escape-jail

She did the same thing Bart O'Kavanaugh and his friends did when they were in school.

This is not to say I approve of what the woman did, just pointing out the similarities.

[Legion]

She did the same thing Bart O'Kavanaugh and his friends did when they were in school.

Who told you that?

[christiefan915]

Who told you that?

Mark Judge, in his book that you can read online.

[Legion]

Mark Judge, in his book that you can read online.

LINK

[christiefan915]

LINK

https://gizmodo.com/mark-judges-book...e-i-1829496133

[ThatOwlWoman]

Basically, here are the changes:

“Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

So in other words, if two kids ages 15 or up are caught having consensual sex, neither one will automatically have his/her name put into the sex offender registry. The judge might decide differently, however, based on his/her discretion. Which makes me think that if the older of the two is 25 and the younger is 15, the 25 yo might very well be labeled as a sex offender and be registered as such.

[Legion]

https://gizmodo.com/mark-judges-book...e-i-1829496133

Does this online tome say that Brett Kavanaugh was convicted of molesting a 14-year old girl and continued to do so after a judge ordered him to stop?

[reagansghost]

My God what js wrong with these sickos

great question lol




https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...226577419.html

[Legion]

She did the same thing Bart O'Kavanaugh and his friends did when they were in school.

She did?

https://www.wpbf.com/article/prosecu...friend/1359612

Answer, Christiecrite.