First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Cali Dems decriminalize child prostitution
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/29/16

kilikikero wrote:

That's a big difference that the article author doesn't seem to have the reading comprehension to understand.


Did you even read the article or at least the quote I posted from it?


namealreadytaken wrote:

change title to:
Washington Examiner claims taking underage victims of sexual assault under short term protective custody would mean people would be free to sexually exploit children
...

13826 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


kilikikero wrote:

That's a big difference that the article author doesn't seem to have the reading comprehension to understand.


Did you even read the article or at least the quote I posted from it?


i strongly suggest you read the actual bill instead of taking second-hand information from a biased news source.
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


kilikikero wrote:

That's a big difference that the article author doesn't seem to have the reading comprehension to understand.


Did you even read the article or at least the quote I posted from it?


Of course I've read the article. And I'm telling you, the author of the article is misinformed or has poor reading comprehension. He/she either heard from a misleading source that the bill actually legalizes child prostitution (which it doesn't), or intuited that particular meaning from the bill. Either way, the author is incorrect, and that incorrect interpretation completely undermines the argument made in the quote that you posted.

Child prostitution is NOT legalized in California by this bill. It's STILL illegal in the state. What the bill does is to decriminalize children who are involved in child prostitution. So let me clarify: child prostitution is still ILLEGAL in California, which means officers will STILL stop it from happening, except now children won't face ADULT charges, and instead will be treated as VICTIMS.

I realize that may be a bit complicated for you to understand (it's an important complexity I'm not at all surprised that a sleazy Conservative tabloid might try to take advantage of), so please take a moment to process that and come back when you get it.
Posted 12/29/16
Has their been an epidemic of children being arrested and sent to prison for prostitution? I think we would have seen stories if this ever did occur. Has a jury ever actually convicted a child for prostitution?
Posted 12/29/16

kilikikero wrote:



Of course I've read the article.


Now read the thread title and comments because you seem to be the one misinterpreting things.
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


kilikikero wrote:



Of course I've read the article.


Now read the thread title and comments because you seem to be the one misinterpreting things.


It's not my fault you're linking to a misinformation-mongering article, let alone quoting text that's based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the law. Why would you point me back to the quote unless you think it makes any sort of valid point?

Look, this entire thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of the truth. I realize you might want to stubbornly try to save face, but it's already long past that point, especially when you wind up having to edit your own posts to prevent digging yourself into a deeper hole. Just let it go already and move on.
Posted 12/29/16

kilikikero wrote:


Look, this entire thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of the truth.


Name a single thing in the OP or the thread title that is a 'misrepresentation of the truth'.
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


kilikikero wrote:


Look, this entire thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of the truth.


Name a single thing in the OP or the thread title that is a 'misrepresentation of the truth'.


"The complete misrepresentation of the truth" I'm referring to is the article that you linked to. Are you purposefully being dense? Look, you can continue trying to argue semantics all day, but it doesn't change the fact that this thread stems from a sleazy, fallaciously incorrect article, whose fundamentally misguided quote you deemed elucidating enough to share with everyone.
23044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/29/16

runec wrote:


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.


The problem is that it DOES legalize prostitution for a 16 yr old trying to make a lot of money quickly. Heck when I was in high school there was a local whore letting guys in through her window and making money off them. She seemed to take pride in how many guys she slept with and gloated about it...

Though if anyone is forced in any way to be a prostitute they should always be considered the victim. Was it not like that before?
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/29/16

Rujikin wrote:The problem is that it DOES legalize prostitution for a 16 yr old trying to make a lot of money quickly. Heck when I was in high school there was a local whore letting guys in through her window and making money off them. She seemed to take pride in how many guys she slept with and gloated about it...

Though if anyone is forced in any way to be a prostitute they should always be considered the victim. Was it not like that before?


If you follow the conversation, there is no legalization of prostitution that's happening with this bill. Child prostitution, and prostitution in general, is still illegal in California. Assuming you live in California, just because you knew a prostitute that evaded the law doesn't mean that prostitution was legal at the time --- it just means the woman in question wasn't caught. If you don't live in California, it's possible the area you live in may actually have legal prostitution (certain parts of Nevada, for example, have legal prostitution in sanctioned brothels).

The bill mentioned in this article simply decriminalizes children involved in prostitution. Which means while the act of prostitution is still illegal, children will no longer face adult criminal charges, and will instead be processed by the Courts as victims.
7818 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / O / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

kilikikero wrote:

Which means while the act of prostitution is still illegal, children will no longer face adult criminal charges, and will instead be processed by the Courts as victims.


Why should a 16 year old girl that knowingly and purposefully breaks the law without a care for herself or her body be considered a victim? If it is because they need "help", we're being much too optimistic about how teenage girls act. The extreme teenager that would think of prostituting herself for money just for the hell of it will likely not stop for any reason, because they just don't care. It could help those that prostitute themselves for the sake of trying to help family pay the bills or something similar like that, but I wouldn't put my money on that being the majority of the cases.

I don't see how they're victims, unless being considered a victim in court is some odd, complicated technicality only. What would happen to such girls that never intend on changing their ways that get caught? What would be their motivation to stop? Currently, the only motivation for such girls is that they would get in deep trouble. That's the only thing that stops some of them, and if things become lighter on them, I would imagine it would just happen more.

Reading the bill gives me a headache.
37078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Xxanthar wrote:

Has their been an epidemic of children being arrested and sent to prison for prostitution? I think we would have seen stories if this ever did occur. Has a jury ever actually convicted a child for prostitution?

About 1,040 kids were arrested for prostitution in 2010 according to the DoJ. Not a huge number compared to total arrests, or even the 62,000 adults arrested for prostitution, but I suppose it could be argued that even one child is one too many.

Most juvenile court cases are held directly before a judge. Though some states do allow them to request a trial by jury depending on the crime(s) they're charged with.

Because they're under 18, they can't be named by the press in most instances either, as I recall, so juvenile cases aren't typically covered very thoroughly by the press. I'm not sure the press is allowed to be present at all, so ultimately they wouldn't have much they could put into an article.
31269 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Ocale wrote:

Why should a 16 year old girl that knowingly and purposefully breaks the law without a care for herself or her body be considered a victim? If it is because they need "help", we're being much too optimistic about how teenage girls act. The extreme teenager that would think of prostituting herself for money just for the hell of it will likely not stop for any reason, because they just don't care. It could help those that prostitute themselves for the sake of trying to help family pay the bills or something similar like that, but I wouldn't put my money on that being the majority of the cases.

I don't see how they're victims, unless being considered a victim in court is some odd, complicated technicality only. What would happen to such girls that never intend on changing their ways that get caught? What would be their motivation to stop? Currently, the only motivation for such girls is that they would get in deep trouble. That's the only thing that stops some of them, and if things become lighter on them, I would imagine it would just happen more.

Reading the bill gives me a headache.


Have to agree w/ this. Unless it's forced prostitution, they're anything but a victim.
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/16

Ocale wrote:

Why should a 16 year old girl that knowingly and purposefully breaks the law without a care for herself or her body be considered a victim? If it is because they need "help", we're being much too optimistic about how teenage girls act. The extreme teenager that would think of prostituting herself for money just for the hell of it will likely not stop for any reason, because they just don't care. It could help those that prostitute themselves for the sake of trying to help family pay the bills or something similar like that, but I wouldn't put my money on that being the majority of the cases.

I don't see how they're victims, unless being considered a victim in court is some odd, complicated technicality only. What would happen to such girls that never intend on changing their ways that get caught? What would be their motivation to stop? Currently, the only motivation for such girls is that they would get in deep trouble. That's the only thing that stops some of them, and if things become lighter on them, I would imagine it would just happen more.

Reading the bill gives me a headache.


That's a broader philosophical point of discussion. People have different perceived cutoff ages for distinguishing between a minor and an adult. Some people think teenagers are too far-gone to be changed, others think that they're still growing and have a potential to start over under the proper guidance. Regardless, I at least doubt you mind the bill decriminalizing children 12 years and younger. And it's not been my intention to judge social perceptions on adolescent maturity, or the science of psychological development. I just wanted to point out the nature of the article being inherently incorrect.
28652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

runec wrote:


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.


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