California budget watchdog opposes prison for child-sex buyers — too expensive

Source: thecentersquare.com 8/8/24

The California Department of Finance filed formal opposition against a bill that would create stronger criminal penalties for individuals who solicit sex from children, saying imprisoning more buyers of sex from underage prostitutes would be too expensive. 

SB 1414, by State Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, originally would have made attempted or successful solicitation of sex with a minor for money a felony with a prison sentence ranging from 2 to 4 years, a fine not exceeding $25,000, and registration as a sex offender — regardless of whether or not the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person solicited was a minor.

California Democrats forcibly added amendments against Grove’s wishes to protect first-time offenders by making purchasing sex from 16- and 17-year-olds a misdemeanor and making buying sex from children 15 years or younger a “wobbler” that cannot include prison time. 

The bill now faces the California Assembly Appropriations Committee, where the DOF submitted a formal opposition letter against the bill.

“We regret that we must oppose your legislation,” wrote the DOF. “This bill expands the definition of crime and could lead to additional cases entering the court system, increase the statewide adult jail population, impact and the of counties to manage their offender population since certain lower-level offenders now serve their sentence in county jails and/or are supervised by county probation departments.”

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“saying imprisoning more buyers of sex from underage prostitutes would be too expensive. ”

someone being honest

Just think if they had opened up the comment section of this article 🫣 Especially when knowing the politics of the owners & target audience of this news source

Imagine if they opened the aperture on adding more legal staff to process all of these alleged cases they believe would be needed when apprehending these alleged perps with the cost related to that and not just the cost of confinement to get a total big picture of the costs related to this bill. Interesting they don’t look at other methods of rehabilitation besides confinement.

However, what does the CA care about costs in the end when the future generations have to deal with it, not those of today? Is it in CA really about the confinement costs or the related costs that eat into the costs of the other programs CA is known for which don’t benefit the rightful CA citizens but those who milk the system for all its worth because they know they can based upon CA gov’t advertising for such?

I haven’t looked at the bill’s language but have to openly wonder if Ms. Grove has any firm idea of the underreported crimes of this nature which she can allegedly quantify the financial justification for such a bill or is “if it saves only one” mantra enough without any specific proven data to back it? (Not condoning the behavior but looking at the fear mongering used before in such situations.)

“A wobbler that cannot include prison time” they say….well they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. Wobblers can either be charged as misdemeanors or felonies depending on what the prosecutor decides. So it goes without saying that anybody charged with one might be looking at prison time.

Bet the costs of incarcerating “child sex buyers” would decrease dramatically if they’d quit doing those stupid bait and switch stings.

Republicans as a general rule feel the longer the sentence, the more the crime would be reduced. How did that work for capital murder. Doesn’t seem to have stopped it.
Here’s a novel thought. Charge more so that fewer can afford it! ( sarcasm )

Last edited 4 months ago by Way too long

I might be wrong to feel this way, but lately I’ve been feeling uncharacteristically optimistic. I thought you guys might like to read this. It’s an excerpt from the appropriations committee’s analysis of Grove’s bill.

“According to the CASOMB’s 2023 year-end report: 
Research has also been conducted on the impact of registration on community safety and recidivism. Research does not support a link between registration and preventing recidivism or improving community safety. The cost of implementing registration for jurisdictions like Los Angeles County, is staggering.”