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

Uni See my response above to IP, which began with me saying i didnt know pedo laws. Im ranked way down the know it all poll of the 12 posters left standing.
Why would anyone at anytime support anybody who wouldnt want a registry requirement if a teenager could be at risk? You tell me. Rationalize it.

 

TennTradition literally just gave you an example 4 replies ago. Can't wait to hear the backtracking or doubling down.

 

Because a registry requirement needs to be tied to a law. The law would have to always be applied. So how would you write the law, that wouldn't prevent 19 year olds and 17 year olds being included?

Or 14 and 15? Would a senior and a freshman need to be registered, when one was 18 and the other 14?

How would you write the mandatory law?

 

10 year age span is dumb. If you disagree, big deal. I dont like it and more pervs with go without notice, which means more kids will be at risk. If the system or judge cant tell the difference between a teen relationship and a 10 yr gap, putting them under the same umbrella, well lets say it wouldnt shock me for common sense to be set aside once again

 

The system cannot tell the difference, a judge can. That's why the judge has the discretion, and the system does not.

Common sense is not a law. How would you write the law?

If you believe this to be easy, it should be easy for you to write the law. So what's the law? Lay it down and show how easily California screwed up.

 

I think it is worthwhile to note that California does not have mandatory registration for acts with a minor, and that this law allows judges to assign (or not assign) for acts that do not actually involve sex.

Meaning, a judge could order someone register as a sex offender for a non-sex related offense, commonly examples as, stealing a minor's underwear.

So the law on discretionary additions and subtractions needs to take that in to account.

 

It is only a matter of time.....

OPED: I was raped by whoever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court

https://genesiustimes.com/oped-i-wa...cks-to-replace-ginsburg-on-the-supreme-court/

 

It's really pathetic because the insinuation is that this has happened repeatedly, but really it was just with one of his two (so far) appointments, who had multiple accusations against him that were ultimately ignored.

 

I was thinking about ugly SCOTUS confirmation processes. I remember how ugly Thomas, Bork, and Kavanaigh were.

Have there been similarly ugly treatment of Democratic appointees? I cannot think of any.

 

It doesn't put anyone at risk. You're simply shilling over a sensationalized headline that banks on idiots not fully understanding context. E.g. you.

 

Maybe there is a different vetting process.

 

You need to undersrand a 24 yr old could have sex with a 14 yr old and not be registered as a sexual predator.
Or maybe that makes you happy. Who cares. You stamp lickers are crazy. [ussies pay]. But crazy

 

Hard to believe there is a judge out there that would do that.

 

Harder for me to believe adults would vote in a way to leave the door open for it to happen, yet its taken in stride by others.

 

Dem rep from San Diego and i are on the same page.

 

I can’t think of a scenario where I’d want to see it happen. When I read through the bill’s details, I thought 10 years seemed like more than necessary. But I understand why you have to insert judge’s discretion. It does seem like the best way to allow for subtlety or soft differences in cases to be factored in. I can’t think of a situation where these are relevant for a 24-15 yr old relationship. But I definitely can for 19-17 for example. 22-17 might even be a situation where registering as a sex offender might not make sense - though it could. Details of the situation would matter. And the law can’t take those into account like a judge can. I think I would have put the limit at more like 6 or 7 years if I were writing it.

 

Do you think a 14 year old can consent to sex? If not, I understand your position. If so, I do not. If a 14 year old and a 15 year old can have sex, without the 15 year old having to register as a sex offender, then you've made the law arbitrary.

What is attempted by California is to say that a 14 year old cannot consent. Not to a 15 year old, not to a 16 year old, not to a 17 year old, not to a 18 year old, not a 19 year old. But then it is saying, that there isn't much different between an 18 and a 19 year old, or a 24 year old. So if a senior in high school can have sex with a 14 year old, that cannot consent, but "says yes," then it is at the discretion of a 3rd party where that senior has to register as a sex offender.

But, you haven't answered any questions other than stating the same thing over again. Which means you don't actually have a position here.

 

That senator probably feels that a 14 year old cannot consent to an 18 year old, either. And I doubt you agree. Happily wrong, but I doubt I am.

 

Because California says age of consent is 18. So an 18 year old and a 17 year old, the 18 year old is in violation. Automatically making an 18 year old a life long sex offender is at the discretion of the court.

 

I think, but could be off, that people recognize that there isn't really any difference between 23 and 24, and 23 and 17 would be 6 years.

But biologically, we don't hit our mental formation until 25. So since there isn't much difference between a 23 and a 24 year old, and a 24 year old is making the same bad choices as a 23 year old... 24.

I don't know why they chose 14, but I think I understand 24. My best guess on 14 is freshman in high school, and a 19 year old red shirt senior. The difference between 19 and 24 is drinking age, but that's about it.