- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California votes AGAINST making the human trafficking of a minor a serious felony...
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:13 pm to lake chuck fan
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:13 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:apparently, you did not read the article.
If it passed and was supported by both parties why would a committee have the authority to deny?
It passed in the Senate. After a bill passes the senate, Schoolhouse Rock tells us that it then goes to the lower chamber (called the “assembly“ in California).
In the lower chamber, it again goes through committee, before it again goes to the floor. For whatever reason, the bill was temporarily killed in committee in that second chamber. The bill is still subject to reconsideration.
To be clear, the trafficking in question is already a felony under California law. What this bill would have done is add trafficking (not a capital felony) to a list of capital felonies for purposes of the California recidivism law. (That is a somewhat simplified explanation.)
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 3:27 pm
6
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It passed in the Senate. After a bill passes the senate, Schoolhouse Rock tells us that it then goes to the lower chamber (called the “assembly“ in California).
School House rock... yeah, I must have missed that episode.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s n
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
For society, its worse
If you understood cause/effect, you wouldn't struggle with this
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
“trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
Spoken like a true groomer
quote:
It is not entirely unreasonable for a legislator to think that the State need not treat trafficking the same way that it treats murder.
Yep, this groomer is going to groom
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
I doubt that. The bill would have added the measure to the three strikes law. Thus the equivalence is not murder, but such things as residential burglary and weapon related offenses
If your analysis is correct then what someone was stating is that “no someone that sells a child for the THIRD time isn’t as bad as that person who happened to use a weapon in a fight but didn’t hurt someone”
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
Both crimes affect the victims for the rest of their lives.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is entirely possible that someone looked at this legislation and said “trafficking is really bad, but it’s not nearly as bad as murder.“
Maybe but I think I’d rather child sex traffickers get capital punishment over most murderers.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News