SACRAMENTO, Calif. —A key California Senate committee on Tuesday moved forward with a proposal to make purchasing a child for sex a felony in the state, but it was not necessarily a smooth process for the bill’s author.
Because of that, it raises new questions about the future of the proposal.
Democratic committee members forced Republican author State Sen. Shannon Grove to make changes to Senate Bill 1414 to only allow the felony classification for the purchase of minors under the age of 16. The Senate Public Safety Committee passed the bill 4-0 on the condition of those changes.
SB 1414 would classify the crime as a felony, carrying a maximum penalty of up to four years in prison and a $25,000 fine. Currently, purchasing or soliciting a child for sex is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of up to a year in jail, or a minimum of two days in jail, along with a $10,000 fine.
Democrats on the dais, against Grove’s will, held a vote on the changes before voting to move the amended proposal forward. The vote was moved by State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. Skinner, Sen. Scott Wiener and committee chairwoman Aisha Wahab voted to move forward with the amendments as Grove watched in disbelief.
So these are the names of the Politician who govern the California registry.
Im pretty sure all these people got some embarrassing dirt going on in their lives. Let’s see how they like it. If their personal information and their families names and personal information is broadcasted all over the Internet for vigilantes to see because what they forget, a lot of people don’t like them either.
Where do these people live? How much do they make a year? What about their spouses I mean we need to start looking into these people to see who they really are, It’s all public information right.
And boy oh boy, is grove having a fit about it. Hahahahhahaha. I’ll chalk this one up as a win. She’s also lying to her constituents. She claims on twitter she didn’t agree to any amendments, when of course we know she agreed to take out not only the strict liability language, but also the requirement that first time convictions would result in 290 registration.
Wait a minute here…the age of consent in CA is 18 and those adults who have sexual relationships with those who are under 18 is a verboten.
Given that, why is 16 years old being considered here as the cutoff for the sale of a minor for the intended act of sex (whether it happens or not is something else of course) when 18 is the consent age? Are they saying a minor who is 16 or 17 can consent to this sale (which we know is impossible because as a minor they don’t have the ability to do so) but once the act happens it is then an issue because the adult involved had (or attempted to have) sex with a minor at 16 or 17 years old? (The sexual preference argument presented by those who are elected does not fly here when the age is the one thing that needs to be straightened out.)
This is a prime example in the MAKING of why laws on the books for minors are so convoluted. This entire bill should be stopped in its tracks now with the underlying age discussion taking place to understand why those who are advocating to remove 16 and 17 year old minors from the discussion when 18 is the age of consent. This would only add to confusing web of laws woven today WRT minors and adults. You wanna talk about a prime moment to call those in SAC who are elected to fill those seats? Now is it.
This is my “Duh, no sh*t Sherlock” quote of the article: “Make no mistake: Prosecutors have the full ability to use existing laws to send those people to prison for decades,”. Prosecutorial discretion has been around for this nation since before it became a country and still, the DA does not always get it right when they have this power.
” It takes two criminals to do this children. A trafficker and a buyer.” ” To force these amendments on me in front of survivors, to water this down to avoid 16 and 17 year olds.” Grove said. Um under California age of consent laws 16 and 17 year olds can’t consent to sex, yet she would like to punish and label them.
Grove must be knee deep in Q, which explains why she’s a quack.
“Senator Shannon Grove
@ShannonGroveCA
Today, the Senate Public Safety Committee refused to pass my bill to send child sex buyers to prison.
Instead of making the buying of kids a felony with prison time, the committee forced me to take amendments I didn’t agree with and watered down my bill to allow a fine or minimum county jail time.
I’d like to thank @senbradford and @SenatorSeyarto
for their incredible support today.
I will be discussing our next steps with our coalition of survivors, advocates, and organizations who are deeply invested in the outcome of this bill. #notonemorechild #sb1414 ”
It’s all B.S. Trafficking is almost entirely a fiction that exists only in the minds of sex hysterics.