over the last eight years.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540#!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540#!
I wonder why democrats have lost over 1,000 state and nation legislative and executive seats
- Thread starter CAJUNEER
- Start date
This can't possibly be true. What about statutory rape? Is it now off the books too?
We'll have to see how the laws are enforced but it looks like more liberal feel-good law which actually complicates the problem it is attempting to solve.
I agree Cajun that the law is likely to cause many more problems than it solves. With every law passed there is always the question of what the unintended consequences are and this one is likely to bring in loads of problems. If police cannot arrest 17 year old prostitutes that is likely to make their numbers go up and not down. Law enforcement will not have any leverage on them to give up their pimps. Also it becomes more difficult to get the girls out of that environment at the time when they are caught.
As to the article, the author is intentionally misleading to the point that it shows his writing and the publication are garbage. There is a difference between legalizing child prostitution and not prosecuting the "children" who are involved. The johns and pimps are still subject to prosecution. The writer of the article and editorial board know this as they explain in the article but they still chose to use the sensational headline.
As to the article, the author is intentionally misleading to the point that it shows his writing and the publication are garbage. There is a difference between legalizing child prostitution and not prosecuting the "children" who are involved. The johns and pimps are still subject to prosecution. The writer of the article and editorial board know this as they explain in the article but they still chose to use the sensational headline.
This is an attempt to HELP the underage women is this condition. By eliminating the criminal charges against them, it provides options for the state to help relocate the underage woman OUT of the condition. Criminal charges DO NOT help someone find better conditions, and often times confound the elements (financial conditions as well as exposure to criminal elements) that force the action to begin with. It is a law that attempts to define these underage women as VICTIMS not CRIMINALS
In addition, the act of prostitution is still illegal and these underage protistutes will be prevented from the action, just not logged into the system as a criminal.
One of the biggest reasons the left is suffering from a serious case of the beat downs, is the talent the right has at distorting the intentions of the left....and the ease in which it can be done because of controversial attempts at change like this one
After it's been explained, it makes sense. Had a trip coming up to Cali in a couple of weeks and was already planning my itinerary for a lovely night out on the town. Now, I just feel bad for the girls.
I understand and agree with the intentions. I just don't think it will work. If the police don't have the ability to arrest/detain the person then there isn't much legal deterrent. The victims are often in terrible situations without an easy path out. Though the intention here is to not make it more difficult for them, I don't think that will be the result.
Good intentions frequently pave the way for horrible, unforeseen results. The country is littered with laws that were well intended but ended very, very badly. This one though may take the cake.
I'm not a legal expert but perhaps there could be a way where the police handle the initial situation the same way but then the court system handles juvenile cases differently.
I think that is the intention. I think the underage prostitute can still be detained for an illegal action, but not prosecuted for breaking the law.
I not saying it is or isn't: but do you think that juvenile detention or jail help an underage prostitute move into better life conditions?
Agreed. The headline is sensational, but it is accurate. When an act is decriminalized that means its legalized.
No one is confused concerning the intent. The problem is law enforcement now has no legal authority to detain or take into custody a minor involved in prostitution.
Liberal democrats have been fvcking the American people for decades. California is making it legal to screw little girls and boys. Nothing new.
I skimmed the bill last night before posting and I think it's pretty limited about when they can do this. I interpreted it to be an officer's decision about whether they were in immediate danger (what child prostitute isn't) but I'm not an expert. Some of the language:
"The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances."
"A commercially exploited child under this paragraph ...may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met."
In the e
I think this will pave the way to 1213 and 14-year-olds being used aggressively prostitution. Many men will pay lots and lots of money for a girl that young.
I think it is better to perform some
Social service for those girls and keeping them off the streets rather than legalizing this kind of activity. It just encourages more Street activity with these young girls.
Actually I'm pretty sure the legislation allows for police to detain underage prostitutes, and then make a determination as to what path should be followed going forward.
IT DOES NOT LEGALIZE THE ACTIVITY. It changes the classification of an underage woman participating in the activity from CRIMINAL to a victim.
The law states that the underage prostitute will meet criteria to be detained for a 72 hour period and provided with treatment. They will still be taken into custody, but given treatment or counseling instead of prosecution for criminal charges.
Law enforcement is allow to "take into temporary custody" minors "under limited circumstances." Those limited circumstances is a minor engaged in a sex act with an adult. A child prostitute cannot be taken into custody for soliciting johns.
They can if the officer finds that the child is being commercially exploited or their welfare is endangered. I imagine that would cover most situations.
They are participating in acts of prostitution / loitering with intent and meet the requirements in which the officer determines their welfare is endangered or they are being commercially exploited.
The language of the bill is left vague enough to warrant most underage prostitutes being detained and "treated" rather than prosecuted.
You said "or". The law doesn't say or. The law requires evidence of commercial sexual exploitation for a minor to be taken into custody.
section 300 of welfare and institutions code: provides these conditions for detainment and treatment. Of course, these conditions are not chargeable offenses to the minor and therefore are not specified by the new bill
Wouldn't a far better law require that pimps that traffic in children get mandatory lifetime sentences in prison?
Why? I strongly suspect that if a pimp knows he's going to jail for life for trafficing in children, that would tend to stop that kind of behavior.
And the same conditions would prevail that create underage prostitution anyway. Now, life sentences for pimps, johns, and parents that blow off their responsibilities....could fix the problem.
Wait...even if we had the prison space, that sounds a little North Korean to me.
