[TomInAustin]

"SB145 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would remove automatic sex-offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor, leaving the decision up to a judge. Newsom has until the end of September to act on the measure."

This idiot Wiener is also responsible for legislation that lowered the criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php

[JSS]

"SB145 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would remove automatic sex-offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor, leaving the decision up to a judge. Newsom has until the end of September to act on the measure."

This idiot Wiener is also responsible for legislation that lowered the criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php

This isn't about easing up laws on sex offenders, it's about making it equal.

Right now the law says that vaginal sex is up to a judges discretion, but anal or oral sex is an automatic sex-offender registration.

This bill is simply making all three sex acts equal under the law, as the oral/anal penalties were the results of laws passed to make gay sex among adults illegal.

It's removing extra penalties that ONLY apply to 'gay' sex acts.

Now that the law is going to be applied equally it will be easier to make changes, so if you think the laws need to be stricter, now's the time to push for it. But that's not what this particular bill is about, it's getting rid of old discriminatory policies.

If you want to change minor sex laws to be more strict, I don't think we would disagree.

[jimbaker7773]

"SB145 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would remove automatic sex-offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor, leaving the decision up to a judge. Newsom has until the end of September to act on the measure."

This idiot Wiener is also responsible for legislation that lowered the criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php

This isn't about easing up laws on sex offenders, it's about making it equal.

Right now the law says that vaginal sex is up to a judges discretion, but anal or oral sex is an automatic sex-offender registration.

This bill is simply making all three sex acts equal under the law, as the oral/anal penalties were the results of laws passed to make gay sex among adults illegal.

It's removing extra penalties that ONLY apply to 'gay' sex acts.

Now that the law is going to be applied equally it will be easier to make changes, so if you think the laws need to be stricter, now's the time to push for it. But that's not what this particular bill is about, it's getting rid of old discriminatory policies.

If you want to change minor sex laws to be more strict, I don't think we would disagree.

Can you find some language in any of the existing laws to justify your position that judges currently have no discretion when it comes to needing to apply these supposedly more strict penalties when it comes to oral and anal sex? I already searched the codes and found this "10 years or more younger language," already exists.

[JSS]

"SB145 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would remove automatic sex-offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor, leaving the decision up to a judge. Newsom has until the end of September to act on the measure."

This idiot Wiener is also responsible for legislation that lowered the criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php

This isn't about easing up laws on sex offenders, it's about making it equal.

Right now the law says that vaginal sex is up to a judges discretion, but anal or oral sex is an automatic sex-offender registration.

This bill is simply making all three sex acts equal under the law, as the oral/anal penalties were the results of laws passed to make gay sex among adults illegal.

It's removing extra penalties that ONLY apply to 'gay' sex acts.

Now that the law is going to be applied equally it will be easier to make changes, so if you think the laws need to be stricter, now's the time to push for it. But that's not what this particular bill is about, it's getting rid of old discriminatory policies.

If you want to change minor sex laws to be more strict, I don't think we would disagree.

Can you find some language in any of the existing laws to justify your position that judges currently have no discretion when it comes to needing to apply these supposedly more strict penalties when it comes to oral and anal sex? I already searched the codes and found this "10 years or more younger language," already exists.

Sure, it's summarized in the article I quoted.

"Under current law, a judge can decide whether to place a man who has vaginal intercourse with an underage teenage girl on the sex offender registry based on the facts of the case. But if anal or oral sex, or vaginal penetration with anything other than a penis is involved, the adult must register as a sex offender — a relic of a penal code that criminalized those acts until 1975, even between consenting adults."

Here is the current statute currently active under California law...

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=290.008.

290.008.a - "(a) Any person who, on or after January 1, 1986, is discharged or paroled from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to the custody of which he or she was committed after having been adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because of the commission or attempted commission of any offense described in subdivision (c) shall register in accordance with the Act."

290.008.c.1 - "(1) Assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288, or 289 under Section 220."

As you can see, if consensual oral or anal sex is performed, you are forced to register as a sex-offender. But consensual vaginal sex is not automatic.

The changes are removing sodomy and oral from the section describing penalties for rape.

[TomInAustin]

"SB145 by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would remove automatic sex-offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor, leaving the decision up to a judge. Newsom has until the end of September to act on the measure."

This idiot Wiener is also responsible for legislation that lowered the criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-bill-eliminating-sex-offender-list-15529263.php

This isn't about easing up laws on sex offenders, it's about making it equal.

Right now the law says that vaginal sex is up to a judges discretion, but anal or oral sex is an automatic sex-offender registration.

This bill is simply making all three sex acts equal under the law, as the oral/anal penalties were the results of laws passed to make gay sex among adults illegal.

It's removing extra penalties that ONLY apply to 'gay' sex acts.

Now that the law is going to be applied equally it will be easier to make changes, so if you think the laws need to be stricter, now's the time to push for it. But that's not what this particular bill is about, it's getting rid of old discriminatory policies.

If you want to change minor sex laws to be more strict, I don't think we would disagree.

I first saw this in my news feed from a right wing publication and they did indeed make it sound like they are trying to legalize kiddie sex.  I googled and found the SF Chronicle article to see the contrast.   

 I don't see this as a gay straight issue.  After all, anal and oral sex are hardly exclusive to gays.   I question this guy's motive though.   What kind of logic led him to reduce "knowingly passing HIV" from a felony to a misdemeanor.  That tells me a a lot about his character.  Free sex is more important than public health. 

[Pete Svarrior]

I question this guy's motive though.   What kind of logic led him to reduce "knowingly passing HIV" from a felony to a misdemeanor.  That tells me a a lot about his character.  Free sex is more important than public health.

I'm not going to claim he and the other supporters of this reform were correct, because I haven't looked into the research they've done in any detail, but it appears that the issue is much more nuanced than "free sex".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

[TomInAustin]

I question this guy's motive though.   What kind of logic led him to reduce "knowingly passing HIV" from a felony to a misdemeanor.  That tells me a a lot about his character.  Free sex is more important than public health.

I'm not going to claim he and the other supporters of this reform were correct, because I haven't looked into the research they've done in any detail, but it appears that the issue is much more nuanced than "free sex".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/09/knowingly-infecting-others-with-hiv-is-no-longer-a-felony-in-california-advocates-say-it-targeted-sex-workers/

Stop being so damn sensible Pete.  😉

It does look like the law was a tad harsh as someone could be imprisoned for soliciting even if nothing happened.  But overall it would have made a lot more sense to remove or edit the language and not reduce penalties for actual dangerous sex acts while knowing you have AIDs.     It seems like a case of attempted murder just to make a few bucks. 

[Dr David Thork]