From the state that celebrated a child predator as a hero this should be no surprise. So now child prostitution is being decriminalized. Exactly whom does this benefit? Certainly not the children. Does California simply not care about children anymore? I remember liberals telling us consent laws are absolute! They will never be whittled away! Until now of course. Tying the hands of law enforcement to help these children being abused and pimped out to other adults. What in God's name is going on out there? I'm sure the Harvey Milks of the world are overjoyed. To hell with the children's rights. To hell with protecting them from child predators. Its open season now. Mr. Travis wrote, “Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right. 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.” So what can law enforcement in California do when they encounter a child selling themselves on the street for sex? The Sacramento Bee explains, “Commercially sexually exploited children, based on the bill’s analysis, may be taken into temporary custody ‘if the minor has an immediate need for medical care, or … is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, or the physical environment’ or the child’s unattended status ‘poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety.’ “ The operative word here is, of course, “immediate.” But don’t worry — there is something the police must do. The Bee continued to defend the law by assuring readers, “Under the law, officers who encounter minors [selling themselves for sex] must report the circumstances to the county child welfare agency as abuse or neglect.” That’s right. They must report it to a government agency. So here’s the truth of the matter: This law tells the police there is nothing they are allowed to do with a child obviously engaging in an act against his or her will; an act that amounts to rape once the child sells himself or herself to the stranger looking for a child to purchase. The obscenity of this law is clear: Not only does it tie the hands of law enforcement in removing the child from a threatening environment, it sends a message to the victimized children that their sex trafficker is in charge, that society accepts and allows what’s happening, and ultimately, there is no escape. Mr. Travis notes, this vicious circle “translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.” Why would California put sex-trafficked children in such danger by tying the hands of law enforcement when there are alternatives to treating them like criminals? Several states already have legislation that managed to recognize the victim status of the children without abandoning them. Concerned Women for America reports, “New York and Washington State have laws that divert minors arrested for prostitution into services and rehabilitation programs at the discretion of the judge in New York and at the discretion of the prosecutor in Washington. … In Massachusetts, the law diverts minors found in prostitution into services and treatment but keeps the charges pending against them in place until they successfully complete the rehabilitation programs after which the charges are dropped.” If you’re serious about saving children, you don’t limit what law enforcement can do, you expand their options while making sure children are treated as victims, while using the justice system as a way to remove them from their enslavement. Instead, the liberals who run California have just done the opposite, guaranteeing lives ruined while allowing an evil problem to continue virtually unchecked. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/4/california-law-decriminalizing-child-prostitution-/
Great now we have three experiments for tackling child prostitution. The New York/Washington model, the Massachusetts model, and now the California model. Now we can look over the data over 10 years and see what happens. But will demographics change the data??? California is a nest-bed of illegal activities. Illegal immigrants with their sanctuary cities. Who's policing them???
It does not "legalize child prostitution" as claimed. It decriminalize it, which is not the same as legalizing.it. The bill requires that children working as prostitutes be treated as the victims that they are, and instead of being treated as criminals refers them instead to the proper child protection agency. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322
I'd think most officers would consider any child prostitute working the streets to always be in immediate danger of physical and sexual abuse. - - - Updated - - - What's the NY / WA model and the MA model?
California is extremely screwed up. This is merely another indication of the issue. Unless you impose costs on those engaging in an activity, the activity will continue. These so-called victims do not consider themselves victims, they're making money doing things that would be illegal were they older. Decriminalizing something is tantamount to making it legal; you can argue the semantics all you want, the results will be what they'll be, and the distinction you draw will not matter in the least.
Yeah, pretty sure no kid wants to be having sex with creepy men for money. I am also sure that children cannot legally consent to such things.
what child predator are you talking about? And what does Harvey milk have to do with this? - - - Updated - - - what child predator are you talking about? And what does Harvey milk have to do with this?
But I am equally sure they want the money, however. Decriminalizing the behavior of children who are trapped in prostitution is not the way to go. California seems to be the only state in the union that thinks this is a good idea. Not legally, no. But so what?
I disagree. This tactic is meant to stop the sexual trafficking of children and treat the victims, the children, as such instead of as criminals. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing a child prostitute is still illegal and wholeheartedly disgusting. Incorrect. Massachusetts did the same thing. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jlsj
I agree, so why is California taking away a valuable tool in fighting child prostitution in stark contrast with 49 other states that ostensibly also are against the illegal practice? By treating all child prostitutes as helpless victims and removing legal sanctions that would take pimps and ring organizers out of business California is merely treating a disease without touching the source of infection, in many cases. And other states (Washington, Massachusetts, for example) can do both (funnel the children into rehabilatory programs AND criminally prosecute child prostitution ring organizers) with little problem at all. Why not California? Why is California the only state decriminalizing juvenile prostitution when it claims to want to end the "wholeheartedly disgusting" practice? You'd have to ask them. I'm sure I can't think of a single reason why the state I left behind is acting in such a blatantly senseless way except that it seems to be in character for that one party fiefdom of idiocy. Not exactly and it helps to read what it is you offer up as proof of a point of view to see that it agrees with you. In this case....it does not! "In order to effect this proposal, training for law enforcement officials on child sex trafficking should be mandated, and the Massachusetts Trafficking Law should be amended so that sexually exploited minors cannot be prosecuted for commercial sex acts under any circumstances." Apparently children can be prosecuted in Massachusetts for "commercial sex acts" hence this call for a change in the law there, leaving California out on a limb, as usual, leading the nation in senseless and counter productive laws that Sacramento turns out like a sawmill turns out lumber. You are welcome for the correction.
Which part of "should be amended so that sexually exploited minors cannot be prosecuted" (indicating they currently can) do you not understand? All of it?
Harvey Milk was a pedophile. Obama even named a Navy ship in recognition of Harvey Milk's pedophilia life style. It's known as political correctness.
Wait, what evidence do you have milk was attracted to prepubescent children? What evidence do you have he ever molested a prepubescent child?
Back in 2012 the PF had an entire thread with 423 comments being posted devoted to pedophile Harvey Milk. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...y-milk-have-been-registered-sex-offender.html
Right, what I'm asking for is what evidence do you have he was attracted to or molest d prepubescent children. Nothing in your link supports your statement. Randy's biography of milk never once states he was attracted to or had sex with a minor, let alone a prepubescent child.
Do you really think the Obama White House would have named a U.S. Navy ship after Harvey Milk if he wasn't a gay activist and pedophile ? Same reason the Obama White House directed the worse Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus to name a U.S. Navy ship after Cesar Chavez. The same Cesar Chavez with Marxist and Communist ties and who called his time in the Navy "the two worst years of my life." If Cesar Chavez best years of his life were have been when he served in the Navy, there would be no Navy ship named after Cesar Chavez. Unless Cesar Chavez was into buggery and pedophilia.
"sixteen-year-old old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure within a few weeks, McKinley moved into Harvey Milks Upper West Side apartment and settled into a middle class domestic marriage.." You guys are amazing that you think your willful ignorance equals some sort of fact denial. He "dated" teenaged boys. It was no secret in the SF Bay Area but he was accorded a sort of bullet proof wall around him because he was a gay icon there.
Not sure how quoting a book that doesn't say he was attracted to or had sex with a minor, let alone a prepubescent child helps you? - - - Updated - - - Your claim milk was a pedophile. You haven't substantiated this claim yet.
LOL...........Not sure how you think a sixteen year old boy in a "middle class domestic marriage" with Harvey Milk isn't a direct and hard slap in the face to your argument's willing suspension of disbelief. Milk was indeed the very definition of a pedophile dating and living with the underage boys that flooded Polk St. and the Castro District.
What cost are you wanting to impose. When has prostitution ever stopped. It's called the oldest profession for a reason. Even if you were to take every prostitute today, kill them all, tomorrow there will be more, even with the threat of death. Hell, in some cases the threat of death is very real just being one.