- 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: Newsom signs the California pedophile bill
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:00 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:00 pm to AggieHank86
aggie stank tried to tell us that his good friend Joseph Rosenbaum was on the lifetime sexual offenders list because he was fingerbanging mary jane rottencrotch when she was 17 and he was 18, when in reality he knew that his good friend Joseph Rosenbaum was on that list for sodomizing a 9 year old boy when he was 18.
people like aggiestank defend their own!
people like aggiestank defend their own!
1
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:04 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:So (same sex or opposite sex), the judge will have discretion only when (a) the “victim” is a 14yo or more, (b) the offender is less than 10 years older, and (c) the “victim” tells the court that the sexual contact was consentual.
can a judge limit the “registered sex offender” timeframe to one year? What about one month? Day? Hour? Minute?
It does appear that the judge will have the discretion to not list the offender on the registry, when all three of those criteria are met. Even if those criteria ARE met, the judge would still have the discretion to put the offender on the registry OR NOT.
The only real question here, in my view, is whether we trust elected judges to use their discretion in a manner which is consistent with the mores of their constituents. I do.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:06 pm to AggieHank86
“Sexual orientation”
The fact that pedophile belongs within these parameters to you says everything.
The fact that pedophile belongs within these parameters to you says everything.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:07 pm to AggieHank86
What’s the tldr on this bill?
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:08 pm to jcaz
Parent of the abused child should be allowed in a room with them and anything that happens is legal
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:09 pm to walley tux
quote:I honestly cannot decide what trait it is that you lack which prevents you from discussing these issues in good faith… the intelligence or the good character?
walley tux
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:11 pm to Madking
quote:You need to audit that ESL class again.
The fact that pedophile belongs within these parameters to you says everything.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
All PEOPLE, regardless of sexual orientation, should be afforded EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
And the children ?
Equal protection as well?
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:17 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:Prior to this bill, California law gave trial judges discretion as to whether they would place certain opposite-sex convicted felons onto the registry (consensual “victim” over 14 and offender within 10 years of same age), but denied the same discretion re same sex offenders, for whom registration was mandatory.
What’s the tldr on this bill?
This bill just gives judges the same discretion in both same-sex and opposite-sex cases. It is that simple.
Valid arguments certainly exist as to the length of the 10-year difference. It certainly seems long, as compared to the Romeo/Juliet statutes in most states.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:19 pm to AggieHank86
Lol thanks for the confirmation. Maybe update your schtick, people are on to this sad tactic or didn’t you see the reaction to Ducklo’s interview?
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:21 pm to AURaptor
quote:I am sure that this question made sense to you in your head.
And the children ?
Equal protection as well?
prison sentences were already treated the same in both instances. As such, the “victims” we are already receiving exactly the same justice in both situations.
I put the term “victims” in quotation marks, because one element for the application of the statute is that the “victim” must tell the court that the sexual contact was consensual.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We have been discussing this legislation for two solid weeks,quote:... only the length of time spent on the offender registry.quote:
and STILL you cannot seem to grasp that it does not change anything about sentencing
Who gives a shite about sentencing. It deals with a judge having the discretion of what he/she deems a criminal act. That's worse than any sentencing mandate.
quote:
Here’s what the bill actually does:
Under existing law since 1944, when a person is found by a court to have had vaginal intercourse with a minor 14 years of age or older, and the age difference is not more than 10 years, judges are given discretion as to whether to require that person to register as a sex offender.
However, that discretion pertains only to vaginal sex. In cases of oral or anal sex, judges have no discretion and the sentenced person must register as a sex offender.
Wiener’s bill would give judges discretion in those cases. He said that it’s about treating LGBTQ young people the same as straight young people.
“The judge should have the same discretion about whether to put an LGBTQ kid on a sex offender registry,” he said.
That discretion could allow, for example, a 19-year-old LGBTQ college freshman to avoid having to register as a sex offender because they had sex with their 17-year-old partner.
However, critics have pointed out it could also allow a 24-year-old to avoid having to register as a sex offender after having sex with a 14-year-old.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:23 pm to AggieHank86
It changes public notice and perception through the sex registry, but not sentencing....yet. It’s saying that sex with a minor doesn’t deserve disclosure. First step to changing sentencing.
Will those wealthy people who lure a desperate minor into sex with offers of food and clothing be able to “convince” a judge through a political contribution to avoid the sex offender registry? It’s sick to loosen up something as simple as public notice, but it implies your planning something else later.
Will those wealthy people who lure a desperate minor into sex with offers of food and clothing be able to “convince” a judge through a political contribution to avoid the sex offender registry? It’s sick to loosen up something as simple as public notice, but it implies your planning something else later.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:27 pm to SEC7070
quote:
No surprise.
Now they have some cover for their sick cults
quote:
However, critics have pointed out it could also allow a 24-year-old to avoid having to register as a sex offender after having sex with a 14-year-old.
And a 19 year-old with a 9 year-old
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:32 pm to walley tux
I knew it was coming. Rather than revisit the existing legislation and reform the earlier bill, the progs lockdown on their depraved agenda under the ruse of “equality” and self-righteously claim the high moral ground.
Any bill that affords a judge the discretion to not put a 24-year-old predator that preys upon a 14-year-old on a sex offender list can’t be defended on moral grounds under any situation. How telling that Hank was the first to jump in and defend this moral travesty.
Any bill that affords a judge the discretion to not put a 24-year-old predator that preys upon a 14-year-old on a sex offender list can’t be defended on moral grounds under any situation. How telling that Hank was the first to jump in and defend this moral travesty.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:33 pm to AggieHank86
Do you not question whether the 14 year old is able to understand consent? To not feel guilty that even though they didn't want to, they don't want to be the reason the offender is getting in trouble?
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:37 pm to glb
quote:I think that some have that maturity, and others do not. Hence the decision to give discretion to the trial court judge, who has had the opportunity to (at a minimum) your testimony from the “victim,“ and in all likelihood also interview the teen.
Do you not question whether the 14 year old is able to understand consent?
Of everyone anywhere in the entire criminal justice system, that judge is the person who in all likelihood is in the best position to determine whether the “victim” gave knowing, informed consent to the sexual contact.
The exercise of that sort of discretion is the reason we elect judges ... to spply justice consistent with community mores.
This post was edited on 9/12/20 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:47 pm to clhawkins19
quote:
And that’s why god is burning their state to a crisp. Sorry, but if you’re a pedophile or you support it, you deserve it.
Antifa is burning their state to a crisp.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 5:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I think that some have that maturity, and others do not
Am I understanding you correctly, you believe a 14 year old boy understands what consenting to anal sex with a 24 year old man really is? I consider myself to be pretty rational, but I have never me any 14 year old child mature enough to make that decision.
Posted on 9/12/20 at 6:04 pm to MikeAV8s
Children and adults need a Federal defined age.
I agree with a Five or three year age difference after 11.
This needs to happen and then burn all offenders hereafter.
I agree with a Five or three year age difference after 11.
This needs to happen and then burn all offenders hereafter.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News