1 1
bigbearfng

California sex offender law changes

Recommended Posts

(edited)
44 minutes ago, billvon said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I still think 10 years is a bit much.  17 and 27 may be one thing, (and that's a big MAYBE) but a judge shouldn't have to waste time listening to arguments over a 14 and 24 year old. 

Agreed.  The law now allows for the judge to consider whether the 27 year guy should be labeled as a sex offender (depending on the circumstances) and the law now allows him to register the 24 year guy as a sex offender.  Again, nothing about that has changed.

What has changed NOW is that if your 18 year old daughter goes to college, goes through an experimental phase, and has sex with a 17 year old freshman woman who said she was 18, the judge can decide to not permanently label her as a sex offender.  And that's a good thing.

Ya it's all just dumb.  They have a 10 year range to give a 24 year old convicted sex offender an opportunity to explain why he shouldn't be on a sex offender list for having sex with a 14 year old, but they apparently have no range for the 17 and 18 year old when it comes to consensual sex. Why not just give something like a 4-5 year spread starting at 15-16 respectively - that way they don't have to be lumped in with the creepy 24 year old and bothered with any of this nonsense?

As an aside, I think gowlerk's "half your age plus 7 years" is a good rule, but the 4-5 year spread is reasonable enough I suppose - but we all know from experience that abstinence before marriage is best . . .

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya it's all just dumb.  They have a 10 year range to give a 24 year old convicted sex offender an opportunity to explain why he shouldn't be on a sex offender list for having sex with a 14 year old, but they apparently have no range for the 17 and 18 year old when it comes to consensual sex.

They do now.  That's what the change accomplished.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 minutes ago, billvon said:
27 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya it's all just dumb.  They have a 10 year range to give a 24 year old convicted sex offender an opportunity to explain why he shouldn't be on a sex offender list for having sex with a 14 year old, but they apparently have no range for the 17 and 18 year old when it comes to consensual sex.

They do now.  That's what the change accomplished.

I thought that was just the part about being labeled a sexual offender.  From what I've read, the age of consent for sex is still 18 with no spread.  So while many won't take issue with a 17 and 18 year old, can't it still become a messy legal issue if the kids parents don't approve and he-she suddenly becomes "confused" about whether it was actually consentual, or just a slick sorority frat girl-boy taking advantage of her-him?

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
32 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:
45 minutes ago, Coreece said:

but we all know from experience that abstinence before marriage is best . . .

Hi Coreece,

Please expand on why you feel this way?

I do not.

Jerry Baumchen

Not the one woman type are ya?

It's ok - we can dream.

 

Edited to Add:

Deleted, too much information - but I'll be sure to bring it up next time we have another thread about circumcision.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

can't it still become a messy legal issue if the kids parents don't approve and he-she suddenly becomes "confused" about whether it was actually consentual, or just a slick sorority frat girl-boy taking advantage of her-him?

Absolutely.  But if she decides it wasn't consensual then it was rape no matter what the ages involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Absolutely.  But if she decides it wasn't consensual then it was rape no matter what the ages involved.

Yes, of course.  My point was that it really shouldn't be a messy legal issue for a 17 and 18 year old to have sex, even if the parents get involved and/or pressure her into playing the victim.

Also, seems kind of shady to "decide" that the sex wasn't consensual after the fact.  Sounds like something one should decide before choosing to have sex.  And if they didn't choose, then they don't need time to mull it over and have a family discussion about whether or not it was consensual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mistercwood said:

I didn't read this correctly the first time but I think... yes? Assuming that stat rape was not a felony for hetero engagements, yes.

My understanding is the explicit change in the language of the existing law was to add anal and oral intercourse, whereas it had previously only stated vaginal.

Oral isn't sex.  Bill said so! ¬¬

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes here. Within my family age gap relationships have been quite common and both ways. My brothers wife was 21 years older than him and they were very happy until she passed away after 20+ years of marriage.

i has an 18 year gap 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes here. Within my family age gap relationships have been quite common and both ways. My brothers wife was 21 years older than him and they were very happy until she passed away after 20+ years of marriage.

i has an 18 year gap 

Its not about the size of the gap - It's ALL about the age at which the participants start the romantic relationship.

Now that I typed that - I wanted to place in there a caveat that I suppose in some circumstances, where a platonic relationship was fostered before the romantic one, that MIGHT not apply . . . but then I didn't want to think about that anymore. It was a creepy thought.

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:
17 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not the one woman type are ya?

Hi Coreece,

Why ask a question when you seem to know everything?

Not everything.  I've haven't been able to figure you out yet. . .not that I've been trying.  Can you please provide examples of things you find funny so that I can properly tailor my responses to your amusement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:
18 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not everything.  I've haven't been able to figure you out yet. . .not that I've been trying.  Can you please provide examples of things you find funny so that I can properly tailor my responses to your amusement?

Hi Coreece,

No.

Jerry Baumchen

Well that doesn't really help much in building your profile and improving communication.

So far all I have is:

- Not the one woman man type

- Lacks a sense of humor

 

Good thing this isn't a dating profile. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 10:11 PM, Coreece said:

Yes, of course.  My point was that it really shouldn't be a messy legal issue for a 17 and 18 year old to have sex, even if the parents get involved and/or pressure her into playing the victim.

I agree.  Fortunately we now have a new law that makes it less messy.

Quote

Also, seems kind of shady to "decide" that the sex wasn't consensual after the fact. 

Of course it is.  But it is a common defense by rapists so it gets discussed in court a lot.

Quote

Sounds like something one should decide before choosing to have sex.  And if they didn't choose, then they don't need time to mull it over and have a family discussion about whether or not it was consensual.

I have a close friend who needed 25 years before she could talk about the man who raped her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 minutes ago, billvon said:
Quote

Sounds like something one should decide before choosing to have sex.  And if they didn't choose, then they don't need time to mull it over and have a family discussion about whether or not it was consensual.

I have a close friend who needed 25 years before she could talk about the man who raped her.

Deciding whether or not to talk about it, is not the same as deciding whether or not it was rape.

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

Hi Coreece,

Re:  'So far all I have is:

- Not the one woman man type

- Lacks a sense of humor'

That shows how little you know of me.  As I would expect; and as it should be.

Re:  'Good thing this isn't a dating profile. . .'

I never came here for that.  Did you?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:
25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Exactly, that's what I'm saying.

What is fucked up is you thinking the crime of rape is based on the victim's decision.

If a 14 year old believes she had consensual sex, we'd still argue that she lacked the capacity to realize she was being manipulated by a 24 year old.

I just don't think that argument should be used it cases between a 17 and 18 year old.  Having a range like other states would address that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1