Sen. Scott Wiener (sd11.senate.ca.gov)
CA Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors Receives Minor Amendments
Amendments correct the luring issue, but there is a sincere ‘common sense’ fix
By Katy Grimes, March 6, 2019 2:28 am
Since California Globe reported February 19 about Sen. Scott Wiener’s and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman’s controversial sex offender registry bill, we were told amendments were forthcoming.
Sen. Wiener’s Senate website describes the bill:
SB 145- Ending Discrimination Against LGBT People Regarding Sex Offender Registration
Sponsored by Equality California and the Los Angeles County District Attorney, SB 145 puts a stop to LGBT young people going on the sex offender registry, when similarly situated young straight people do not
SB 145, by Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Eggman (D-Stockton), as it was originally written, said offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
The bill is sponsored by Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey’s office. California Globe reached out to DA Lacey several times, but she and her office declined to comment.
In the interim, amendments had not been made to the bill until Monday March 4, outlined below copied directly from the bill. Notably, Assemblywoman Eggman has been removed from the bill.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.
As it was written prior to amendments, SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT. “SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex,” I wrote Feb. 19.
The statute’s 14 year age limitation does not apply to luring, so in effect, 19-year-olds luring 9-year-olds and 20-year-olds luring 10-year-olds would not automatically have been mandated to register as sex offenders.
Also notable is this: “This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor. minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.”
And this:
290.55. (a)A person convicted of If the only offense that requires a person to register pursuant to Section 290 is an offense specified in subdivision (b) (b), the person may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”
“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.
However, even with the amendments, it is still unclear how lowering or eradicating registration for offenders due to age difference of the offender and victim is relevant to LGBTQ persons. However, including vaginal intercourse in the penal code would legally remedy what Sen. Wiener sees as discrimination.
The bill amendments:
| Introduced by Senator Wiener (Coauthor: Assembly Member Eggman) |
| January 18, 2019 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 288.3 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
288.3.
(a) (1) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 287, 288, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11, orformer Section 288a, or, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (2), Section 286, 287, or 289, involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.
Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:
290.55.
(a) A person convicted of If the only offense that requires a person to register pursuant to Section 290 is an offense specified in subdivision (b) (b), the personmay, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.
RELATED ARTICLES
-
-
February 19, 2019 -
Anyone who supports this is a pedophile sex offender and needs help
So instead of reducing the penalty for acts considered “traditionally homosexual”, why don’t we make the penalty for vaginal penetration on par with the current legislation for sodomy, etc.. Giving judges discretion in theses matters, especially in a state as screwed up as California, is a recipe for disaster. And this is coming from a gay man who has lived here for 53 years but never thought raping a minor was necessary to find true love and happiness. I have always I w it’s simply a crime.
Call your Assemblyman and VOTE NO!!! This ‘law’ would allow a 20 yr old who molests a 11 yr old the ability to wiggle out of registration on sex offender registry by giving the judge ‘writ’ or ability to deem the offender NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER, per “Jessica’s Law.” How could this bill even pass the Senate??? Thankfully i have no kids but if i did would be leaving the state pronto. Recipe for disaster and claims to benefit LBGT while making no reference to such orientation. Brown already approved 383 and that went far enough. Why does Speaker of the House Pelosi support this. Do the research.
They never said it was legal to have sex with a minor. And it doesn’t legalize sex with a toddler. This is in the case of someone 14 and up with no more then a 10 year gap and only if it was consensual. But that still doesn’t mean they are off the hook. In the end it still depends on the judges discretion based on the facts. They already are able to do this for straight intercourse but they included oral and Anal to make it tried equally. But again this doesn’t legalize it it’s crazy how y’all are cherry picking parts then adding your own extras to sound worse and confusing others with your edited version. I don’t understand how people will take the time to post crazy confusing hateful banter but not take time to read the actual bill themselves and not just a cherry picked then edited then personal add on version off a biased article like this one. I’m sure your the type to shout wearing a mask is raping you of your rights to so I’m probably wasting my time here.
Are they also going to rename this law the Jeffrey Epstein Law?
That’s a really good law… It now means a person who is 18 can rape, sex traffic, etc. someone who is 8 years of age and not worry about having to register as a sex offender. Let’s all stand with california, the leader is dumb ass, stupid and pathetic laws.
This is so incredibly sick. California is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah, and we are not protecting our children. Every person that signs this bill has a special place in hell reserved for them
I have no problem going to prison of being executed for the right reasons.
This is not the United States ???????? our Forefathers fought for.
This is the Worst Law ever.. What about the Children people?? California you have lost your F” “””” ing mind & The sick people who vote Yes on this Should go to Jail or seak mental health counciling. You are giving Sex offenders the right to sex traffic or rape our Children.
Sex offenders should have no leniency. Their intention is to harm, abuse ,or rape a child . Why would you make it easier for them to get away with it again by not being registered . It is a system designed to protect children .
This is lutiquist..this is asinine..as a person who had this crime happen to them , I totally have a right to speak..you all have lost your minds..gets your head out of the muslims butts ..this would give a adult muslim person in the USA an Ok to rape children ( which they do) and marry them at 8 years old or even under as long as the age span is ten years..you all need to be horsewipped so even bring up something so ridiculous..
This is lutiquist..this is asinine..as a person who had this crime happen to them , I totally have a right to speak..you all have lost your minds..gets your head out of the muslims butts ..this would give a adult muslim person in the USA an Ok to rape children ( which they do) and marry them at 8 years old or even under as long as the age span is ten years..you all need to be horsewipped so even bring up something so ridiculous..
There is a huge difference between a 25 year old with a 15 year old versus a 19 year old with a 9 year old. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.