Legalized child prostitution

[aris2chat]

This a bad decision

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

 

[Blackrook]

The author is incorrect when he says these Democrats are "well intentioned."

They are not.

They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

 

[Coyote]

I question the article's take on the law...so I looked it up.

Here is the actual bill: Bill Text - SB-1322 Commercial sex acts: minors.

According to this article: No, California did not legalize child prostitution

...SB 1322, he added, "bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so."


And that's true — the law does state that minors won't be treated as criminals if they are caught under such circumstances. But state Democrats say that distinction was necessary so that the children aren't being blamed or punished for their situation.


They are instead to be treated as victims who can be placed into a safe environment by the Department of Social Services, keeping them out of the criminal justice system and potentially off the streets again as sex workers, said state Sen. Holly Mitchell, who introduced SB 1322.


In his op-ed, Allen acknowledged that Democrats are "sincere in their belief that decriminalizing underage prostitution is good public policy that will help victims of sex trafficking." But he said SB 1322 is "misguided" because it would theoretically allow pimps who exploit children to continue doing so because the children aren't being adequately removed.


"Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit," Allen wrote.


Allen could not be reached Friday for further comment.


The law's backers deny that children won't be helped, and say the alternative if they are arrested of juvenile hall again victimizes them.


"The law is supposed to protect vulnerable children from adult abuse, yet we brand kids enmeshed in sex-for-pay with a scarlet 'P' and leave them subject to shame and prosecution," Mitchell said in September. ​

This is really tricky. I think both sides have the best intentions for these children. I also think treating them as criminals rather than victims does nothing to help them, but just pushes further into the juvinile criminal justice system.

 

[Blackrook]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

 

[Coyote]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

What would be a better way of handling it? Is criminalizing these children, who are really victims - the best way?

 

[JQPublic1]

This a bad decision

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

Your headline is shocking but it gives the wrong impression. After reviewing the actual legislation,SB 1322, it became clearer that the republican author in your link was being purposely misleading.

The logic behind the bill is this: A minor engaged engaged in prostitution is probably doing it at the behest of an adult. The prosecutorial focus is on the adults behind the scene and the Johns buying sex with an underage person. A child accused of engaging in prostitution need not have his or her life ruined with a criminal record. Instead, the child is temporarily taken into custody and treated like the victim he or she is.

Bill Text - SB-1322 Commercial sex acts: minors.

 

[Blackrook]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

 

[Coyote]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

No. It is not.

 

[MindWars]

This a bad decision

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

I heard about this today, it suppose to help the kids out, but there are a lot of drawbacks to it.
So they aren't actually prostituting them out perse' .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The author is incorrect when he says these Democrats are "well intentioned."

They are not.

They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The UN tried something similar back in the 70s, connected with the "rights of the child" nonsense.

 

[Dale Smith]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

What would be a better way of handling it? Is criminalizing these children, who are really victims - the best way?

How about helping the child in the same way that we take care of illegals and refugees? Turning a blind eye to child prostitution is the same fucking thing as condoning and to say otherwise is utterly stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is sick...

The abuser of children should die.

 

[Pogo]

This a bad decision

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

No, it's a bad article from a bad source.

>> It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), and sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children. The new law means that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals:

Child prostitution is illegal in the state of California, as well as in the rest of the United States. The California law is in line with the stance of the Department of Justice, which has also noted that children involved in prostitution should be considered victims <<---- Snopes​

You need better sources than this crap.

 

[Blackrook]

This is a Trojan Horse, a deliberate effort to legitimize pedophilia in California. The fact is, a great number of liberal men engage in sex with underaged boys, it is the sexual preference of choice for many actors and producers in Hollywood for example, and many Democratic politicians. The Catholic Church was torn apart because so many pedophiles got into the priesthood, and it was liberal bishops who covered up for them. The fact is, liberals do not think having sex with teenage boys is wrong.

 

[Blackrook]

This is sick...

The abuser of children should die.

Then stop being a Democrat, because you're on the side of the child abusers if you are.

 

[Pogo]

The result will be an explosion of child prostitutes, standing on every street corner in every city in California. The police will be powerless to do anything about it. I saw the same thing happen in the 1980's when the homelessness situation got out of hand.

SMFH

Stupefying how many just suck up this fake news bullshit that feeds their partisan agenda, without bothering to look under the headlines to see what's really going on.

My search took 0.72 seconds to debunk it.


Even Glenn Beck calls this bullshit story out for the bullshit it is (here)

 

[Nosmo King]

The author is incorrect when he says these Democrats are "well intentioned."

They are not.

They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The UN tried something similar back in the 70s, connected with the "rights of the child" nonsense.

Rights of the Child 'nonsense'? What rights shouldn't children have? Life? Liberty? Does that nonsense extend to a fetus? Or is it just once a child is born should it's rights be stripped away? And why do Conservatives seem to love to poo poo the concept of rights, unless they want to buy an AR 15?

 

[Nosmo King]

This is sick...

The abuser of children should die.

Then stop being a Democrat, because you're on the side of the child abusers if you are.

More about the story the biased OP link failed to provide:


A California Republican claims Democratic-backed legislation aimed at protecting underage sex workers actually pushes minors into prostitution.

"Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right," Assemblyman Travis Allen, whose district covers parts of Orange County, wrote Thursday in the conservative D.C. publication the Washington Examiner.

Allen's attack on the "terribly destructive legislation" has lit up social media — but the intention of the law is not as alarming as he suggests, its supporters say.

Senate Bill 1322, which was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in September, goes into effect on Sunday.

"So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution," Allen wrote.

SB 1322, he added, "bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so."

And that's true — the law does state that minors won't be treated as criminals if they are caught under such circumstances. But state Democrats say that distinction was necessary so that the children aren't being blamed or punished for their situation.

 

[JQPublic1]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

The point you thought I missed:

A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The language of SB1322 says:

"This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances."

But the narrative of the bill didnt stop there:

"
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met.


So you can rant and frave about the Constituionality of all of this to no avail. That isn't an issue in these cases.

The author of your ink is irresponsible and mean spirited enough to make it seem the Democratic legislators of California are purveyors of pedophilia when the opposite is true. That dangerous lie is probably spreading like wildfire all over Cyberspace. Is there no level so low Republicans won't sink to in order to destroy Democrats?

 

[Care4all]

You miss the point. A person who is NOT committing a crime CANNOT be taken into custody. That would be an unconstitutional seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Democrats who authored this bill and voted for this are mostly lawyers, who KNOW exactly what they are doing. They KNOW that preventing police from arresting child prostitutes will have the effect of legalizing it for all intents and purposes.

This is a major agenda item for Democrats, sexualizing minors and warping them with their perverted tendencies. That is why a nine-year-old transgender child is now on the cover of National Geographic:

View attachment 104575

so, are you saying a human being is the same thing as a human being's personal, non living possessions???

Are you claiming A MINOR with no adult supervision, can not be protected or held by the police, by the State???

seriously???