DescentBB

The democrats have made child prostitution legal (at least 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/calif ... le/2610540

that is a fake news lie. They pointedly stated that was NOT the case, nor would it be, from the bill. Keep up the fake news and lies, your handlers will be proud.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new ... on-n701471

so, no, child prostitution is NOT legal. The client would be prosecuted no matter what. The child is viewed, rightly, as a VICTIM. What is the story, NS, do you SUPPORT criminalizing sex slaves? What the feck?

callmeslick wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new ... on-n701471

so, no, child prostitution is NOT legal. The client would be prosecuted no matter what. The child is viewed, rightly, as a VICTIM. What is the story, NS, do you SUPPORT criminalizing sex slaves? What the feck?

Well there is still a problem with this mis-guided well intentioned bill. From your link:

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.

What we wind up with are children now legally able to present themselves for sex. Just how many will be taken in by understaffed social workers as, over time, the sight of children hooking becomes common place and people just stop caring?

Again from your link slick:

Various district attorneys' offices in the state have expressed a similar apprehension toward the law —but some say it's because the state just isn't ready to provide adequate services.

"Right now, service groups are struggling with what they have in place — there [are] just not enough resources," Jane Creighton, coordinator of the human trafficking unit at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, told the Los Angeles Times in August. "I am not saying these bills should never pass. But we are not ready for them right now."

I agree completely that the support services have to be robust, and in place the moment the law takes effect, but putting a prostitution rap on a minor who is forced into it isn't right, and I can't see how anyone could see it otherwise. Underage prostitutes don't SEEK to be prostitutes, so they don't exactly willingly 'present' themselves for it. To think that shows a deeply disturbing psyche, frankly. To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

by the way, for those streetwise enough to know how this stuff works: nothing in that law protects the pimps putting kids on the streets. That is still a felony, and THEY are the actual criminals. A thirteen year old doesn't just wander onto city streets and prostitute themselves solo.

callmeslick wrote: To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

So by linking points in YOUR link I somehow seem to be cheerleading. Are you proud of your disjointed logic or is it deemed "thoughtful" on the liberal forums you attend?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

So by linking points in YOUR link I somehow seem to be cheerleading. Are you proud of your disjointed logic or is it deemed "thoughtful" on the liberal forums you attend?

your quoted links merely suggested that there was not the support in place, and that some lawyers said that would put folks right back into danger. That, I agreed with, but still don't see where it was EVER right to be giving the underage victims forced into prostitution a criminal record. The long term harm done by such a record has been proven to be negative to society, so why on Earth would you suggest fixing that to be in some way wrong?

callmeslick wrote:your quoted links merely suggested that there was not the support in place, and that some lawyers said that would put folks right back into danger. That, I agreed with, but still don't see where it was EVER right to be giving the underage victims forced into prostitution a criminal record. The long term harm done by such a record has been proven to be negative to society, so why on Earth would you suggest fixing that to be in some way wrong?

[Removed] But lets say that even if they were willing participants, since the age of consent laws vary around the country, ranging from 16 to 18, California currently being at 18, how can a minor be charged with a sex trafficking offense if they are under the age of consent? And why would any state want to saddle a minor with a sex felony record, a minor who has no legal consent for sexual relations in the first place, especially when most of these kids are being coerced or even being forced into the sex trafficking business by an adult anyway? If they can't consent to having sex, only the adult should be charged with a crime. Punishing the victim and not the adult perpetrator doesn't help the child and at worst, gives that child a criminal record that follows them all through life.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

So by linking points in YOUR link I somehow seem to be cheerleading. Are you proud of your disjointed logic or is it deemed "thoughtful" on the liberal forums you attend?

your quoted links merely suggested that there was not the support in place, and that some lawyers said that would put folks right back into danger. That, I agreed with, but still don't see where it was EVER right to be giving the underage victims forced into prostitution a criminal record. The long term harm done by such a record has been proven to be negative to society, so why on Earth would you suggest fixing that to be in some way wrong?

where did I suggest arresting minors on prostitution charges is the correct thing to do. Again your assumptions are fantasy to try and paint me in a bad light. Won't work even if you think you are as slick as your name implies.

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:your quoted links merely suggested that there was not the support in place, and that some lawyers said that would put folks right back into danger. That, I agreed with, but still don't see where it was EVER right to be giving the underage victims forced into prostitution a criminal record. The long term harm done by such a record has been proven to be negative to society, so why on Earth would you suggest fixing that to be in some way wrong?

[Removed]

Your assumptions are as bad as slicks. TC, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Pardon me, you are correct woody. I made a mistake in making an assumption about your position, so I moderated myself.

I'd love to know the fucked-up world TB lives in where child sex abuse victims being prosecuted is an acceptable outcome.

What needs to be addressed in the initial post are the failures of many of the county's child welfare services in California, and probably in a LOT of states. Minors can't make adult choices and can't make informed consent under most state laws. Under-age children must always be considered the victims when it comes to adult coercion, abuse, or worse, and if no one is there to help protect them, the system needs fixing, period. The child victims of adult crimes don't need to be victimized or stigmatized, they need compassion and assistance and adults who will work together to fix the system, and perhaps the parents, that failed them. Finger-pointing and blame casting never solved anything. Here's a horrific example of the failure of the LA County's Child Welfare System.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

So by linking points in YOUR link I somehow seem to be cheerleading. Are you proud of your disjointed logic or is it deemed "thoughtful" on the liberal forums you attend?

I think it's more like that in any possible position that could possibly be framed as a Democrat versus Republican issue (regardless of whether it really is) you rush to attack the Democrat side as much as you possibly can no matter what the underlying issue is.

Jeff250 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: To use such a twisted logic to make cheap political points exposes the lack of morality that NS brings to the table here, daily, and you, Woody seem to be cheerleading. You must be SO proud of yourself.

So by linking points in YOUR link I somehow seem to be cheerleading. Are you proud of your disjointed logic or is it deemed "thoughtful" on the liberal forums you attend?

I think it's more like that in any possible position that could possibly be framed as a Democrat versus Republican issue (regardless of whether it really is) you rush to attack the Democrat side as much as you possibly can no matter what the underlying issue is.

No, I attacked slicks assumptions by using the link he provided. Of course Jeff, if you don't care to see both sides of the issue.......