POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

in other words, smiff has been gaslit by someone or himself on this.

 

Sorry i didnt know much about pedo laws and when i read the article and others, there was mention of coach/player relationship as well as concerns over tracking sexual predators who no longer have to register, which would make child abduction and transport easier due to pedos not being known and watched.
Have no idea why you would support such a law which further endangers kids and gives a new freedom to a pedo. And dont care to know.

 

I have no idea why schools and churches give cover to pedophiles, so the potential for a hypothetical sexual predator to go undetected due to living in a country with civil liberty and freedom is less top of mind for me than when known sexual predators are shuffled around and given cover by institutions. But then it doesn't fit an easy political paradigm, so I guess it doesn't get the same amount of traction as "ZOMG California protects child molesters!"

 

I read up on a recent law and what ssmif said is what I understood. 14-17 having sex with someone with someone within 10 yrs in age will result in a charge but they don’t have to register.

 

None of what you said is what the law covers. It is purely judicial discretion on registration, rather than an automatic trigger. And this is an update to change from just vaginal to include oral and anal.

But first and foremost is consent. And coach/player is not consent, is unethical, and very very unlikely to not result in a registration.

 

No. The judge presiding the case has the discretion to order registration or not.

See the bold? Right there. The bold?

 

So they don’t HAVE to. But might have to. What I said.

EDIt. Should say not inconsistent with what I said. But incomplete.

 

That might is pretty [uck fay]ing important.

Especially when they're already charged. They have a higher bar to get the "might not," and are more likely to get the "will."

 

I have no idea how they’ll executor the law. But I do know it’s no longer required. Judicial discretion isn’t necessarily a bad thing but the fact is it is no longer required.

 

It hasn't been required for a long time. This is not new.

It is no longer required for anal and oral, when there was no judicial discretion.

 

Didn’t realize that. Thought this was general from the short bit I read.

EDIT: I did see commentary discussing how this would help in certain situations with homosexuals so that makes more sense.

 

I appreciate your contribution to the confusion. It's always helpful to progress misconceptions.

You've done great work this morning.

 

And your Socratic approach set the stage for that but I give you that I was unaware of law already existing for vaginal sex.

 

I would be shocked if the only state that had judicial discretion here was California. It seems like mandatory registration upon conviction would be a violation of due process, as there would be two punishments imposed for a crime, but, registry itself is already tricky.

I had a guy in one of my units in the Marine Corps that married his much younger wife when she was like 15, and he was active duty. They had to get a lot of forms signed, parent permissions, approval by the state, and some other shit, otherwise it would have violated NC law for them to screw after nuptials.

It isn't always perverts, although he was a weird dude. And his wife couldn't drive.

 

Should be mandatory registry with zero chance of not being registered, but spin it however you like.
Fact is today a 24 yr old man who has sex withteenage girls at his daughters sleepover can move to another area and a neighbors only have a right to know if a random judge says they do. Bullshit.

 

If a 24 year old has a 14 year old daughter, that is having a sleepover with 14 year old friends...

 

I don’t agree with that. Not as a blanket. 18/16-17 yr old consensual relationship for example seems like a big stretch to force registry (even if the statutory angle is pushed*)

*Assuming this falls under CA’s statutory laws, which I’m no expert in.

 

I didnt mean daughter. Sisters friends, coach of a team, etc. every family should know whats around them. Not talking about 18 and 17 yr olds.

 

I'm pretty sure you'd know, as they would have a court case, and an arrest.

Most coaches have to go through a background check, where even if they didn't have to register, the arrest would show up, as well as the conviction.

 

Ssmiff, you clearly don't fully understand the law and the components around it, as evidenced. So, why in the hell would you level such an incendiary statement as liberals don't care about pedophiles? Really? This is almost QAnon level stuff or a right wing media caricature of misinformation you're modeling.

So, just to be clear, a 24 year old having sex with a 14 year old is statutory rape universally along any political background.