Home>Legislature>Predator Part X

Predator Part X

The latest in leniency for criminals

By Lloyd Billingsley, February 20, 2019 3:14 pm

 

The 2014 Proposition 47 reduced penalties for property crime and transformed some felonies into misdemeanors. The 2016 Proposition 57 barred prosecutors from directly filing juvenile cases in adult court. Senate Bill 1391, effective January 1, forbids prosecution of 14- and 15-year old criminals as adults, whatever the gravity of their crime. A new measure now takes the trend of leniency to a new level.

Senate Bill 145, by Sen. Scott Weiner, San Francisco Democrat, and Assembly Member Susan Eggman, Stockton Democrat, would shield sexual predators who target children from having automatically to register as a sex offender. That is a requirement of the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35, from November 2012, as California Globe reported. A willful failure to register is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the offense.

SB 145 would add a section to Section 290.55 of the penal code as follows: “A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) 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 claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”

The proposed measure does not specify heterosexual or homosexual sex, but it would allow an adult of 25 to sexually exploit a minor of 15. Sexual predators of 19 could target nine-year-olds, and those 21 could target eleven-year olds and escape automatic registration. Whatever one thinks of the registration measure, the Weiner-Eggman measure is novel is several ways.

Californians will search hard to find a law that mandates leniency based on an age gap between criminals and victims. Tanner Wood of Rocklin, California, was only 14 when he killed his sister Ashley, who was 13. The narrow age gap and family relation did not reduce Wood’s sentence of 16 years to life, recently upheld by Sacramento judge James Arguelles.

Robert Alton Harris was only ten years older than the two 16-year-olds he murdered in San Diego in 1979. The age difference was not a mitigating factor and nobody argued that it should be. Harris drew a death sentence, carried out in 1992.

In current law vaginal intercourse between a minor and partner within 10 years of age is illegal but does not require registration as a sex offender. That practice, according to Wiener, disproportionately targets young LGBT people, who usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. Californians might mount a search for cases in which the disinclination or inability to engage in any activity impinges on criminal charging, sentencing or registration.

Wiener’s office contends SB 145 would result in the “equal treatment of straight and LGBT young people and end the stigmatization of LGBT sexual relationships.” Weiner is on record that “Discrimination against LGBT people is simply not the California way. These laws were put in place during a more conservative and anti-LGBT time in California’s history.”

Californians, conservative and otherwise, have good cause to see SB 145 as special treatment for one group, on dubious grounds.

Meanwhile, Proposition 47 launched a wave of property crime in San Francisco and other cities. Proposition 57 granted a new hearing to convicted double murderer Daniel Marsh, with no new exculpatory evidence. Under SB 1391, juvenile murderers can expect to serve only until age 25.

Evidence that such leniency reduces crime remains in short supply. If Californians thought SB 145 might encourage sexual predators it would be hard to blame them. A date has yet to be set for a hearing on the measure.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

6 thoughts on “Predator Part X

  1. “In current law vaginal intercourse between a minor and partner within 10 years of age is illegal but does not require registration as a sex offender. That practice, according to Wiener, disproportionately targets young LGBT people” Am I reading this correctly that the only thing being done is adding anal sex and oral sex to the definition of “sexual intercourse” If that the case, Sen. Wiener is absolutely correct. The law being corrected is currently discriminatory to LGBT people and I command him in putting this bill forward!

    1. I agree with equal protection under the law. However , Weiner is taking the argument in the wrong direction. If he is upset that vaginal intercourse cases allow judges discretion whether or not to register the individual as a sex offender, make it so that all sex acts are, in fact, treated equally by taking away this discretion in all cases.
      Democrats rarely make laws more punitive, however, so virtually no chance that this will ever happen.

  2. So do I really understand this? In CA, it would be ok for a 26 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old high school Sophomore. That adult is the very DEFINITION of a sexual predator. That adult BELONGS on the registry. Parents should KNOW about that adult so they can protect their minor child from him/her.
    This bill is another step towards normalizing child abuse. Sickening.

    1. If you think this is bad take a look at AB 2119, passed (and signed by Jerry Brown) last year. It was brought to you by two members of the LGBT legislative caucus, Asm Todd Gloria and Sen Scott Wiener, with the description “gender-affirming health care and mental health care for foster children.”

      Unfortunately this bill didn’t get much press at the time. Maybe if it had there would have been a more widespread outcry against it.

      Completely ignored as this bill was being pushed through the process was overwhelming evidence that confusion about gender identity that may appear in adolescence resolves itself in adulthood. Why would these legislators want to ignore such evidence when it comes to vulnerable foster children?

      AB 2119 Bill text
      Lead author Asm Todd Gloria, Principal co-author Sen Scott Wiener
      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2119

      NOTE:
      (A) “Gender affirming health care” means medically necessary health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:
      (i) Interventions to suppress the development of endogenous secondary sex characteristics.
      (ii) Interventions to align the patient’s appearance or physical body with the patient’s gender identity.

    2. This bill is pushing another agenda and that is Pedofillia If a guy is 20 he can have sex with a 10 yo? Come on!

  3. I’m truly amazed at the pearl clutching readers of this article who are too lazy to bother reading the legislation being proposed. You’ve been misled by the author of this article who has a “Tough on crime” stance. First off, there are already Laws on the books forbidding adults having sex with or sexually abusing minors. DO NOT TOUCH!!! Okay? Why the line was drawn at ten years for the purpose of having to register as a Sex offender IDK. What this bill is covering is the discretion a judge has to require a person to register if an adult has oral or anal sex with a minor. As of right now a judge has this discretion if an adult has vaginal sex with a minor. Okay… so an adult who has vaginal sex with a minor and MIGHT NOT have to register (judges discretion), but cannot have oral or anal sex (Mandatory registration). See the difference?
    Now, what pisses me off about this legislation is it’s written by a far left gay politician using reverse discrimination by calling this oversight by the original bills creator as biased. The oral/anal sex ruling applies to all races and sexual orientations. I want to see some stats produced on how many LGBT’s have been held accountable verses straight sexual encounters. Then you can cry “foul” Mr. Weiner. I don’t take anything for granted.
    As for an 18 year old having sex with a 9 year old? The 18 year old would likely see 10+ years behind prison walls. Now if a judge were to pronounce this sentence without making the convict register upon release… I would expect to see a recall of this judge similar to Aaron Persky. But for a 21 yr. old hooking up with a 17 yr. old (with a fake ID) at a bar. We might expect to see him get a pass on having to register as a predator for life after likely doing some prison time. It’s still illegal, Ignorance is no excuse, but is he a threat to society?
    I support Prison Reform BTW. At $81,000/yr. per prisoner… there has to be a better way. Prisoners cost almost double my annual income before tax. WTF???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.