California Democrats Decriminalize Child prostitution

[Pixelated Porn]

Nice man. Your bit was realsitic for a short time. Troll on.

Feel free to argue with me using facts or reason. Otherwise just the fuck off this forum.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

California receives the least federal funding out of all states. Now show some picutres down south of all your trailer parks and thank Californians for paying for it.

You have any proof? Because I am saying I do and you are wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
Cali is #7 when proof is used to make a statement

 

[mrln242]

Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be technically legal in California.

SB 1322 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. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...alizes-prostitution-1474918476-htmlstory.html

No, no! Where do I even start. Its not decriminalizing child prostitution, how your mind even came to that conclusion is beyond me. Its taking children who are possibly being exploited and protecting them from a criminal record because of exploitation. For you to even conceive that anyone would consider this law decriminalized child prostitution is honestly abhorrent.

 

[Cooz]

Feel free to argue with me using facts or reason. Otherwise just the fuck off this forum.

moar like pixelated troll, amirite? come on man. 7k+ posts in less than a year. One look at your posting history and anyone can see you're not for real.

I have an amazing track record of calling out trolls on these forums.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You have any proof? Because I am saying I do and you are wrong.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
Cali is #7 when proof is used to make a statement

There was a thread on this not long ago

 

[Pixelated Porn]

moar like pixelated troll, amirite? come on man. 7k+ posts in less than a year. One look at your posting history and anyone can see you're not for real.

I have an amazing track record of calling out trolls on these forums.

Well, I worked part time from home previously for like 9 months. You think if I was such a troll I would be easy to defeat in a debate here. Shit, 95% of posters don't post any proof to their arguments....but then again how else will liberals argue?

oooooooooooooooooooooh

 

[raty tat tat]

Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be technically legal in California.

SB 1322 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. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...alizes-prostitution-1474918476-htmlstory.html

About DAMN time!

 

[klnOmega]

Stripping and Porn is an actual industry, prositution is not.

If you're going to make comparisons at least make them comparable, jeez.

Also, since you support this so much .

What do you plan on fixing or proving by putting teenagers behind bars for something they were most likely forced in too?

Stripping and Porn is an actual industry, prositution is not.

If you're going to make comparisons at least make them comparable, jeez.

Also, since you support this so much .

What do you plan on fixing or proving by putting teenagers behind bars for something they were most likely forced in too?

You're reasoning is all over the place dude. You said no 17 year old girl would ever ruin her self-image by sucking dick for money.
I'm telling you that there are a fucking ton of 18 year old girls that do it. I find it hard to believe that the self-destructive nature only switch flips only at their 18th birth day.
You are literally arguing that the teenages always make logical, moral choices with their self-image and future in mind...which is fucking retarded.

 

[spamking]

I'm noticing a bit of a pattern here. There will be an inflammatory thread title posted by a dumb as dogshit Trumpster and I'll think to myself "Wow that can't be right. There must be some context missing here" and sure enough, every goddamn time they completely misrepresent the situation to push a certain narrative.

If the idiot OP or anyone else can explain to me how funneling underage sex workers into the penal system, the vast majority of which are coming from shitty broken homes and lives and being forced into it by criminals, helps society or reduces harm then I'm all ears.

Is that inflammatory thread title anything like your inflammatory characterization of Trump supporters? What certain narrative are you pushing?

"Trumpsters" don't have the market on bait and switch posts cornered . . .

 

[Pwent]

Goddamn misinformation is like a wildfire.

1. This does not make having sex with a minor legal;
2. This does not make living off the avails of prostitution (pimping) legal;
3. This does not make public procurement legal;
4. From the text of the very bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322): "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."

So, what the Bill is proposing is to insulate children from criminal liability for acts they are forced into by sex traffickers. The point is to allow children to be taken into protective services rather than arrested if they are being exploited.

Honestly, people.

can a 17 year old prostitute herself and not be arrested? y/n

 

[Deleted member 491001]

Goddamn misinformation is like a wildfire.

1. This does not make having sex with a minor legal;
2. This does not make living off the avails of prostitution (pimping) legal;
3. This does not make public procurement legal;
4. From the text of the very bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322): "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."

So, what the Bill is proposing is to insulate children from criminal liability for acts they are forced into by sex traffickers. The point is to allow children to be taken into protective services rather than arrested if they are being exploited.

Honestly, people.

Thanks for that. It will likely help police/prosecutors get more info about the pimps and Johns from the girls too, instead of straight denials about anything.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

can a 17 year old prostitute herself and not be arrested? y/n

Not "arrested".

BUT

It also allows law enforcement to take sexually exploited children into temporary custody and offer the many new services.

You are out of your mind if you seriously think this bill let's minors just walk the streets, get caught prostituting and let go on their merry way. They will be taken in, give courts custody of the minor, offer many services, allow them to keep their identity and situation secret. They will be allowed to testify on a closed circuit tv. Those last two parts will help lead to more arrests of pimps.

 

[BrianFantana]

can a 17 year old prostitute herself and not be arrested? y/n

Theoretically, yes. Of course, the reason you ask this is to eliminate any nuance from the issue and reduce it down to "BUT NOW KIDS CAN PROSTITUTE THEMSELVES", which is entirely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You also aim to ignore the purpose and impact of this legislation in favour of your narrow reading, which is what the OP has done.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Thanks for that. It will likely help police/prosecutors get more info about the pimps and Johns from the girls too, instead of straight denials about anything.

That's really a great point.

 

[Pwent]

Theoretically, yes. Of course, the reason you ask this is to eliminate any nuance from the issue and reduce it down to "BUT NOW KIDS CAN PROSTITUTE THEMSELVES", which is entirely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You also aim to ignore the purpose and impact of this legislation in favour of your narrow reading, which is what the OP has done.

The police already can choose not to prosecute children who are pimped

Now they cannot prosecute 17 year olds who are clearly on the street corner prostituting. Is this wrong y/n

Also, if a prostitute puts an ad on craigslist or backpage or whatever, if they put they are 17, the police can't run a sting on them. Is this wrong y/n

 

[BrianFantana]

The police already can choose not to prosecute children who are pimped

Now they cannot prosecute 17 year olds who are clearly on the street corner prostituting. Is this wrong y/n

Also, if a prostitute puts an ad on craigslist or backpage or whatever, if they put they are 17, the police can't run a sting on them. Is this wrong y/n

Look, man, I know what you're doing and I find it extremely disingenuous.

As an analogy, presume the state had introduced a law prohibiting the sale of all firearms. Opposition to the law focused on the second amendment without any consideration of the reasonable limits clauses and what not. I, arguing like you, pose the questions: (1) legally purchased guns can be used to commit murder, y/n?; (2) a legally purchased gun can be used by a child to harm his or herself, y/n?

No reasonable person is going to answer no to those questions, but that does not make the questions valid in he context of the proposed law and the debate surrounding it.

So, back to the issues you raise: the police had discretion, now they have directives. If the police as a collective body have demonstrated anything in the last decade, it's that they do not exercise their discretion particularly well. It tends to be biased or arbitrary or both.

The hypothetical you are proposing is not relevant to the issue at hand as there is no harm. A 17 year old is fundamentally different from an 18 year old in that there are at most 365 days separating their birth dates. Nothing more. A 17 year old who chooses to prostitute his or herself is making that choice for him or herself. This law is aimed at protecting those who do not make that choice, that is, the children who are actively being harmed by child sex trafficking.

This law does not insulate adults who have sex with children from prosecution, meaning there remains a disincentive against adults having sex with child prostitutes. If a child puts a sex ad on craigslist, the police could still run a sting on any potential johns, because they remain subject to prosecution.

Rather than focus on the potential, and extremely minor if they do in fact exist, perverse incentives of the law, we should instead focus on the broader impact and implications, which may be very valuable in breaking up child sex trafficking rings.

 

[Pwent]

Look, man, I know what you're doing and I find it extremely disingenuous.

As an analogy, presume the state had introduced a law prohibiting the sale of all firearms. Opposition to the law focused on the second amendment without any consideration of the reasonable limits clauses and what not. I, arguing like you, pose the questions: (1) legally purchased guns can be used to commit murder, y/n?; (2) a legally purchased gun can be used by a child to harm his or herself, y/n?

No reasonable person is going to answer no to those questions, but that does not make the questions valid in he context of the proposed law and the debate surrounding it.

So, back to the issues you raise: the police had discretion, now they have directives. If the police as a collective body have demonstrated anything in the last decade, it's that they do not exercise their discretion particularly well. It tends to be biased or arbitrary or both.

The hypothetical you are proposing is not relevant to the issue at hand as there is no harm. A 17 year old is fundamentally different from an 18 year old in that there are at most 365 days separating their birth dates. Nothing more. A 17 year old who chooses to prostitute his or herself is making that choice for him or herself. This law is aimed at protecting those who do not make that choice, that is, the children who are actively being harmed by child sex trafficking.

This law does not insulate adults who have sex with children from prosecution, meaning there remains a disincentive against adults having sex with child prostitutes. If a child puts a sex ad on craigslist, the police could still run a sting on any potential johns, because they remain subject to prosecution.

Rather than focus on the potential, and extremely minor if they do in fact exist, perverse incentives of the law, we should instead focus on the broader impact and implications, which may be very valuable in breaking up child sex trafficking rings.

the gun analogy is a terrible one because you cannot create such a law without infringing on a God given right protected in the constitution. the answer is "yes bad things can happen, but the right to bear arms is more important"

on the other hand, there is no right to prostitution. you can still ALLOW police to arrest minors, and give them the discretion to not arrest or charge them, assuming they are being coerced or pimped. they are removing tools rather than adding.

the law may be AIMED at helping children who are being put up to it, but it has a terrible unintended consequence that cops cannot arrest 17 year olds who arent. it also has an unintended consequence where any prostitute can claim to be 17 in their ad, and the police cant do shit.

it does nothing to help break up sex trafficking rings, compared to a law that says the cops can choose whether or not to arrest or charge minors. or create a law that specifies that they can plead not guilty by reason of coercion