First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Cali Dems decriminalize child prostitution
20740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 12/30/16
SB 1322 deems persons under the age of 18 who might previously have been charged with criminal prostitution as victims of sex trafficking, eligible for treatment rather than prosecution.
14217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

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.

i'm trying to wrap my head around this argument but i really can't . . .

for one you seem to be saying the much larger percentage of child prostitutes that are being exploited deserve to be punished for the rare few that are doing it because they want to. so you've got some really fucked up priorities there . . . but more importantly i'm a little confused as to what you think is so important about punishing the theoretical willing underage prostitute you're describing at all. like . . . who exactly is she hurting? who is she hurting SO MUCH that all the unwilling child prostitutes can't be treated as victims if it means letting her go unpunished too? do you have any actual answer to that? probably not =/
Posted 12/30/16
I wish thy would clean up the asian massage salons most around town are just a sex cover up? cringing
to think what goes on in there.
Posted 12/30/16
The bill should also call for the execution of whoever got the child involved in prostitution.
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.


+2 (on top of MysticGon's +1)

I feel like people aren't understanding the concept of the bill in and of itself; instead, they're focusing on the decriminalization of prostitution for those who are underaged. There are a few anecdotal/personal views on this thread whereas this wouldn't apply. There's a clear difference between a sixteen/seventeen-year-old who is allowing "people to come through the window to fuck them for money" and someone of the same age (or, in many cases, much younger) who are being pimped out on the streets (either due to child trafficking or some other purpose/reason that is manipulating the minor). The bill doesn't magically mean that all minors arrested will fall into this category - but that it'll be an option to allow minors not to be charged with an adult charge.

Then again, considering who created this thread - I'm not at all surprised that the bill was taken out of context altogether and the source was without much merit (as they, themselves, took the bill out of context and added in their personal view without much to back their claims that "it'll just make it legal for minors to be prostitutes").
Banned
21667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

kilikikero wrote:


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.


Someone underage can legally prostitute themselves to another person underage and both are now considered victims. So now rich kids are going to buy sex from other kids now... So much progress...
Posted 12/30/16

Rujikin wrote:

Someone underage can legally prostitute themselves to another person underage and both are now considered victims. So now rich kids are going to buy sex from other kids now... So much progress...


Not quite.
That's not how the bill works. Please read the bill itself and see how this slippery slope line of logic you're utilizing here. There are scenarios (like you've described) where this bill (if passed into law) would not apply at all - especially upon the minor being in civil protective services and under evaluation (for drugs and reasons behind prostitution/solicitations).

Basically, it'll boil down to how the law is utilized in the long-term; not the presumption that it "legalizes prostitution". This would be like citing the use of methadone for medical use (especially to curb addiction to narcotics) is basically legalizing heroine; at least, that's the line of thought that is being used by a few here.
18706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

Rujikin wrote:Someone underage can legally prostitute themselves to another person underage and both are now considered victims. So now rich kids are going to buy sex from other kids now... So much progress...


That's not the idea that's happening with this bill. Again, prostitution is still illegal in California. Someone underage can't legally prostitute themselves to another person under this bill. The bill essentially decriminalizes child prostitutes. That means that while prostitution is still illegal, the children won't be charged criminally, and instead are treated as victims. So officers will still stop all forms of prostitution they encounter, but child prostitutes won't be treated as adult criminals, and instead will be processed as victims needing help.

It's an important distinction that I'm not surprised a sleazy, misinformation-mongering website would capitalize on.
18915 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 12/30/16
I heard about this earlier today, but I didn't read the bill, let alone the article. It sounds like click-bait; people put up some headline or thread title to automatically trigger our outrage and then at the end we all feel stupid because it meant something else.

If child prostitution were to be legalized in California, though, I wouldn't be surprised. California has been f****d up for a long time.
6758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

limeparadox wrote:


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.

i'm trying to wrap my head around this argument but i really can't . . .

for one you seem to be saying the much larger percentage of child prostitutes that are being exploited deserve to be punished for the rare few that are doing it because they want to. so you've got some really fucked up priorities there . . . but more importantly i'm a little confused as to what you think is so important about punishing the theoretical willing underage prostitute you're describing at all. like . . . who exactly is she hurting? who is she hurting SO MUCH that all the unwilling child prostitutes can't be treated as victims if it means letting her go unpunished too? do you have any actual answer to that? probably not =/


The older the girl, the more skeptical I am of if their actions are out of their own will or not. The younger girls should definitely be treated as victims, because I can't imagine any of them would have any idea about prostitution unless they're in a fucked up situation, where they are definitely victims.

I wish there was a way to figure out if every specific case was a willing, rebellious girl or a true victim. Putting an age cap on the ordeal would not solve the issue, and trying to investigate to find out would be easy for the girls that want to abuse the new victim rule, they can just lie. I don't have a good solution, but I am cynical and imagine most older teens prostituting themselves are simply rule breakers that are not victims of anything other than their own actions.

I wish there was a way to help those that need it and want it, and punish those that are simply bad. Letting off all of them as victims, I think, would just promote the act to those who simply do not care and are willing.

The girls are hurting themselves, committing a crime, having someone else also commit a crime, and possibly making significant amounts of money without paying any taxes on it. I'm also strongly morally against it. Not that I care about the taxes. The government does, though.

If there is any statistics on the matter of what percentage of girls are prostituting themselves willingly vs. being in some horrible situation where they truly are a victim, it would easily change my opinion. Such statistics are likely impossible to get and properly prove, though, so the only thing I'm currently going off is my own cynicism about teenage girls from bad areas. Girls 12 and under, I believe just about every single one could be rightfully treated as a victim.

Like I said, I don't really have a better solution. I just don't think this is a good one, either. Maybe there isn't any better ones, though. Honestly, I haven't thought about this kind of thing very much before.
1858 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

MysteryMiss wrote:

I wish thy would clean up the asian massage salons most around town are just a sex cover up? cringing
to think what goes on in there.


From what I understand (from TV and movies because I've never actually been inside one), is that they're mostly handing out handjobs after giving normal massages, hence the nickname 'rub n tug'.
runec 
36053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 12/30/16

Ocale wrote:
The older the girl, the more skeptical I am of if their actions are out of their own will or not. The younger girls should definitely be treated as victims, because I can't imagine any of them would have any idea about prostitution unless they're in a fucked up situation, where they are definitely victims.

I wish there was a way to figure out if every specific case was a willing, rebellious girl or a true victim.


Motive is irrelevant in the face of consent laws regarding minors and irrelevant in the face of prostitution laws regarding adults.

Also that is one hell of a morally dubious Pandora's Box to begin trying to judge whether or not underage girls "wanted it" >.>



6758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
∞ / AI / Cyberspace
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

runec wrote:


Ocale wrote:
The older the girl, the more skeptical I am of if their actions are out of their own will or not. The younger girls should definitely be treated as victims, because I can't imagine any of them would have any idea about prostitution unless they're in a fucked up situation, where they are definitely victims.

I wish there was a way to figure out if every specific case was a willing, rebellious girl or a true victim.


Motive is irrelevant in the face of consent laws regarding minors and irrelevant in the face of prostitution laws regarding adults.

Also that is one hell of a morally dubious Pandora's Box to begin trying to judge whether or not underage girls "wanted it" >.>





Yeah, I can't imagine questioning or judging if a girl was willing or not would exactly fly with anyone. I would never want that. The whole topic is just tough in regards to the law enforcement part of things.
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

Xxanthar wrote:

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/


Apparently, the DUI charge was dropped but the reckless driving charge is still in affect
14217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

Ocale wrote:
The older the girl, the more skeptical I am of if their actions are out of their own will or not. The younger girls should definitely be treated as victims, because I can't imagine any of them would have any idea about prostitution unless they're in a fucked up situation, where they are definitely victims.

I wish there was a way to figure out if every specific case was a willing, rebellious girl or a true victim. Putting an age cap on the ordeal would not solve the issue, and trying to investigate to find out would be easy for the girls that want to abuse the new victim rule, they can just lie. I don't have a good solution, but I am cynical and imagine most older teens prostituting themselves are simply rule breakers that are not victims of anything other than their own actions.

I wish there was a way to help those that need it and want it, and punish those that are simply bad. Letting off all of them as victims, I think, would just promote the act to those who simply do not care and are willing.

The girls are hurting themselves, committing a crime, having someone else also commit a crime, and possibly making significant amounts of money without paying any taxes on it. I'm also strongly morally against it. Not that I care about the taxes. The government does, though.

If there is any statistics on the matter of what percentage of girls are prostituting themselves willingly vs. being in some horrible situation where they truly are a victim, it would easily change my opinion. Such statistics are likely impossible to get and properly prove, though, so the only thing I'm currently going off is my own cynicism about teenage girls from bad areas. Girls 12 and under, I believe just about every single one could be rightfully treated as a victim.

Like I said, I don't really have a better solution. I just don't think this is a good one, either. Maybe there isn't any better ones, though. Honestly, I haven't thought about this kind of thing very much before.

you've got some pretty weird ideas about this then . . . like i don't know if there are statistics either and i don't personally feel like trying to find some right now, but your "cynicism" does not really seem to match up with anything i've heard or seen about reality

like . . . prostitution is not exactly known for being a fun and desirable career, especially when it's illegal and extra dangerous. even the most promiscuous people usually just prefer to have sex for free and only with partners they actually want to do it with. the "willing, rebellious girls" you're talking about probably exist somewhere, but they're sure as hell not the majority. prostitution is usually something people resort to when they have no other options, either in the sense that they're extremely poor, or in the sense that they're being coerced/threatened into doing it or are literal sex slaves. which is actually a lot more fucked up than your "cynical" alternative, so i get the impression that when you say you're cynical you actually just mean you have some issues with teenage girls

they're not FORCING anyone to have paid sex with them - otherwise the issue here would be rape - and if they're hurting themselves that means they need help, not punishment. you might have a legitimate point in the legal sense about taxes, but i'm still not seeing how "letting people do things with your body and voluntarily give you money for it" is supposed to be some heinous crime
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.