First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Cali Dems decriminalize child prostitution
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540


And before you say 'but it treats them like victims instead of criminals' here's a choice quote from the article:

The unintended but predictable consequence of how the real villains — pimps and other traffickers in human misery — will respond to this new law isn't difficult to foresee. Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can't interfere with minors engaging in prostitution — which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.


Where were you when you found out the slippery slope was real?
runec 
36271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex.


Sigh. That's literally exactly what the bill does. It decriminalizes prostitution for minors so that minors are not charged with prostitution and sent into the juvenile system. It also empowers officers to take a minor into temporary protective custody if they are found soliciting. The idea is to redirect underage prostitutes into the system that HELPS them not the one that PUNISHES them. It doesn't legalize having sex with minors. It shields the minors from being charged with prostitution when they are the victims in the scenario not the criminals.

For the love of gorb please apply some critical thinking to your internet wandering.
13200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

runec wrote:
so that minors are not charged with prostitution and sent into the juvenile system. ... It shields the minors from being charged with prostitution when they are the victims in the scenario not the criminals.

why would they charge the minors when they're clearly the victims..? that makes no sense, and i'm hopeful our justice system at least has the common sense to see this.
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

runec wrote:



Sigh. That's literally exactly what the bill does. It decriminalizes prostitution for minors so that minors are not charged with prostitution and sent into the juvenile system. It also empowers officers to take a minor into temporary protective custody if they are found soliciting.


'Temporary custody'
Its almost like that once they're released their pimps will be there to pick them up and put them right back out on the streets.

11766 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:



Sigh. That's literally exactly what the bill does. It decriminalizes prostitution for minors so that minors are not charged with prostitution and sent into the juvenile system. It also empowers officers to take a minor into temporary protective custody if they are found soliciting.


'Temporary custody'
Its almost like that once they're released their pimps will be there to pick them up and put them right back out on the streets.



Wow, changing the goalposts on your second post now? That has to be a record.
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

octorockandroll wrote:



Wow, changing the goalposts on your second post now? That has to be a record.


I don't think you know what that means.
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
I can't wait until Lala hears about these nasty California liberals!
8967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
I lol'd when I saw it was Californian democrats.
13200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
this is what the amendment says:


(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and 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.

(1 ~3 makes it a misdemeanor to engage in prostitution)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 b paragraph 2:


(2) the risks to the child posed by the course of treatment or nontreatment proposed by the parent or guardian ... The child shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this subdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WIC&sectionNum=300.

basically, under this revision, an underage person would be considered a "dependent child of the court" and be taken into temporary custody to "protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness." (WIC)
there's no actual mention of prostitution of minors being legalized.
runec 
36271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

namealreadytaken wrote:
why would they charge the minors when they're clearly the victims..? that makes no sense, and i'm hopeful our justice system at least has the common sense to see this.


No idea, but this bill puts a stop to that and redirects them to where they can get help. It also provides counties with more funding to expand social services to help them.



Amyas_Leigh wrote:
'Temporary custody'
Its almost like that once they're released their pimps will be there to pick them up and put them right back out on the streets.


Please cease talking about subjects you clearly don't understand and have absolutely zero interest in learning about.

Least it would declutter the forums a bit.



11766 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



Wow, changing the goalposts on your second post now? That has to be a record.


I don't think you know what that means.


Don't worry, I wouldn't expect you to.
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
California recently charged a man for DUI because he had caffeine in his system. No other drugs were found in his system yet they "thought" he was intoxicated.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/health/dui-charge-caffeine-california-trnd/
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
Sigh. The bill doesn't legalize child prostitution. It's still illegal to solicit or work as a prostitute in the state, regardless of whether or not you're a child. What the bill does is decriminalize children who are involved in prostitution. That's a big difference that the article author doesn't seem to have the reading comprehension to understand. What it means is that the police will still stop child prostitution (because it's still illegal), but it prevents the children from being subject to the same punishment as an adult, when they really need to be treated as victims instead. Long story short, decriminilization =/= legalization.

Based on that article alone, I take it that The Washington Examiner is another sleazy, muckraking, misinformation-mongering tabloid. I'm not surprised that something with a conservative bent would so clearly mischaracterize the truth.
13200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/30/16
change title to:
Washington Examiner claims taking underage victims of sexual assault under protective custody would mean people would be free to sexually exploit children
...this is not even a slippery slope. this is a slippery - free fall slope.
runec 
36271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 1/7/17

kilikikero wrote:
Based on that article alone, I take it that The Washington Examiner is another sleazy, muckraking, misinformation-mongering tabloid. I'm not surprised that something with a conservative bent would so clearly mischaracterize the truth.


Well, you can work that out based on who started the thread alone. >.>

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.