State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”
However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
Bill Text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145
Was moving there anyway what luck!
Posted the following on the source page:
I’m confused as to how the author claims the bill “protects sex offenders who lure minors.” I don’t see where such crimes will not be prosecuted or terms of imprisonment avoided. All I see is where it gives judges discretion whether or not mandate registration. Even if the bill passes, it won’t affect anything – judicial discretion very rarely swings in favor of those accused of sex offenses.
Over 95% of sex crime is committed by those not on the registry. That rate is virtually unchanged from before the registry went public. Despite popular opinion, those convicted of sex offenses are among the least likely recidivists (second only to murderers) and always have been. Even among the very small handful of registrants that do sexually re-offend, the registry plays no role in investigation or arrest. I defy anyone to find one case anywhere where a current registrant committed another sex crime that would not have been solved but for the registry.
Seems like the author disagrees with most courts’ contention that the registry is not punishment because legislatures never intended them to be, a rather idiotic claim. That’s like saying the Rams won the Super Bowl because they didn’t intend to lose. At least the author got one thing right in this inane clickbait posting.
Again, I ask others to comment as well. Reporters need to learn that not all of their readers are registry nazis.
Very well written Dustin. It’s a shame your well-formed comments are lost in a sea of idiots that read neither the article, just the headline, nor the bill itself.
The subhead is almost as good: “No crime if the person is within 10 years of age of the minor,” even though nothing in the proposal suggests decriminalization— even according to the article itself!
What is California Globe, anyway? Who publishes them? How many readers do they have?