A Los Angeles County judge on Thursday ordered Hannah Tubbs, a transgender California woman, to serve two years in a juvenile facility after she pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl in 2014.
Before doing so, the judge criticized far-left District Attorney George Gascon, whose office declined to prosecute the repeat offender as an adult.
Tubbs, 26, recently pleaded guilty to molesting the girl in a women’s bathroom eight years ago when Tubbs was two weeks away from turning 18. At the time of the crime, she identified as male and went by James Tubbs. She did not identify as female until after she was taken into custody, according to prosecutors.
“Tubbs is 26 years old. Unlike George Gascon’s false narrative, she is not a ‘kid,'” L.A. Deputy District Attorney Jon Hatami, assigned to the Complex Child Abuse Unit, told Fox News Digital.
Read the full article
Sorry, I’m confused. How can you be 26 years old and serve time in a juvenile facility? Whether you are trans, male, or female – how can that be? Because this person committed the crime at the age of just shy of 18?
Man, all these mainstream media headlines about sex crimes give “sex offenders” such a bad name. Let’s hear about the “awful” sex offender, lambasted by the public, who turned their life around.
I’m so confused by this….. “she” looka like a man.
beard, penis, attracted to women. Like I understand why he identifies as a woman after getting arrested. Because it gets lonely on the block. But you’re legit gonna send a grown ass man into a girls juvie because he suddenly identifies as a woman?
thats some math for another statistic to happen. He’s gonna catch another case inside when he suddenly feels lonely and decides he’s a lesbian.
The amount of scaremongering and manipulation here is incredible. But the article is indicative.
An actual CA lawyer like Janice can give better insight here, but first, it seems to me that this is what happened: the crime was committed as a juvenile, so if your policy is to not charge juveniles as adults – which I think is reasonable, since prosecutors have often abused the alternative policy so much – then you have to charge them as a juvenile. This stands to reason: what was relevant was the state of mind and legal culpability when the crime was committed, not now.
However, a conviction for a juvenile offense would default to a juvenile sentence. This also stands to reason, that an extra administrative process would be needed for the transfer. This seems, on my understanding, to be exactly is happening – yes, the judge’s “hands are tied” at initial sentencing, but that’s misleading. In fact, although it’s buried more than halfway through the article, Gascon explicitly talks about this and how now the transfer can be pursued.
This also makes sense of probation’s home confinement recommendation: this was possibly precisely to *avoid* the situation of a 20something being in a juvenile facility until the transfer process, or whatever it is formally called, is complete. At the very least, even if it was the wrong judgment, probation determine that home confinement was better than putting a non-juvenile with a violent record in a juvenile facility is not an irrational or stupid call. This is a totally sensible approach, yet is being insinuated as being “soft on crime,” as usual, here. And also as usual, it is topped off with a bunch of emotional, retributive rhetoric appealing cynically to the least reflective and least civilized emotions.
Speaking of cynicism, that’s exactly what this is: a cynical use of a terrible but extraordinarily rare corner case as a cudgel, in this case against even the most modest reform of criminal justice policy. I do not say this as a “progressive” partisan, but I suspect most here would agree, regardless of other political differences, that our experience is a particularly extreme example of how dysfunctional, inhumane, and authoritarian our criminal “justice” system is compared to most other developed liberal-democratic countries. Should it be a “radical” view to make the US even mildly more like its peer nations, which are not exactly hellscapes? Apparently it is.
Which brings me to the final point. As I mentioned above, this is a cynical use of an extremely rare corner case where multiple unusual factors are in play. And this is exactly part of what led to the situation of registrants: a criminal “justice” system that is designed around unbelievably rare situations even at the expense of 99.9% of what a criminal justice system is supposed to do, not to mention basic human rights violations for an obscene number of people. The rot goes even deeper than the registry per se. And this article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the American approach to criminal “justice,” every other partisan issue aside.
Meanwhile, many single-misdemeanor offenders remain on Tier 3.
Yep. You gotta love California!!!
It probably sucks ;however, this guy is the only chance for petitions from being denied . 🤷🏽