California Voters

[One Eyed Cat]

whatever, this is all bullshit. It reminds me of the movie minority report. If we just euthanized everyone who wasn't part of the aryan race at birth we wouldn't have any crimes. sounds extreme? It doesn't sound like a far fetch when you advocate that we should put people in prison based soley on the testimony of a single person without any evidence Before they even commit a crime to prevent it from happening. Sure maybe some fucked up shit has happened to you, it's happen to me too and people I love... I've also gotten harrased when walking down the street by cops and eyeball fucked by "good citizens" that was sure I was about to commit a crime. I believe in the notion of Innocent until proven guilty, and I can't really see anything that's going to make me change my mind about that. It might make you feel better, but it wil do absolutly nothing to stop crime. I care a lot more about other people not being a victim then getting revenge on someone for wronging me. and you may say that's not what it is, but if you advocate no sympathy and no rehabilitation and pure malicious punishment, then that's exactly and exclusivly what it is.

I saw nothing mentioned about putting anyone in prison without evidence. Likening innocent jews to offenders guilty of violent sexual offenses is simply offensive.

OEC

[Pull~My~Hair]

I saw nothing mentioned about putting anyone in prison without evidence.

OEC

exactly! I thought we were talking about flat out **** cases that have been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
Everyone has the right to a fair trial, I am talking about after the trial, I htought we all were.

[Morning Glory]

Pull MY Hair, No I don't support these acts at all. I know that on a personal level and in such exact situations at the time, given the oppurtunity, I would have acted violenty towards what I called justice... but I would feel horrible later on once I stepped outside of the moment and looked at the big picture and I would see, just like I do now, that that is not true justice.

I don't think these people should be free to walk the streets, im not saying let them off the hook. I outlined what I think should be done in my first post of this thread, which seems to have been ignored.

[Pull~My~Hair]

Pull MY Hair, No I don't support these acts at all. I know that on a personal level and in such exact situations at the time, given the oppurtunity, I would have acted violenty towards what I called justice... but I would feel horrible later on once I stepped outside of the moment and looked at the big picture and I would see, just like I do now, that that is not true justice.

I don't think these people should be free to walk the streets, im not saying let them off the hook. I outlined what I think should be done in my first post of this thread, which seems to have been ignored.

I read it, the thing is is that there are already laws in effect to institutionalize these people who didnt tink they were wrong in their actions. Most violent ***** and molestation cases are by people who arent crazy, they just think they can get away with it. This law doesnt wipe out any other laws that protect people who truley are crazy/ill., this law is to intensify the reprecusions for those that really are just criminals.

[One Eyed Cat]

I read it, the thing is is that there are already laws in effect to institutionalize these people who didnt tink they were wrong in their actions. Most violent ***** and molestation cases are by people who arent crazy, they just think they can get away with it. This law doesnt wipe out any other laws that protect people who truley are crazy/ill., this law is to intensify the reprecusions for those that really are just criminals.

This legislation provides for both, really. The sentences are intensified and they can be committed to psychiatric hospitals. If they can convince a judge they have been rehabilitated, they may then be paroled (depending on the nature of their offense)

OEC

[Morning Glory]

wow you are oblivious
I know many people who were victimized as a child who are upstanding people, two wrongs dont make a right

now whos oblivious? that's exactly what your have been saying up till this point, that two wrongs DO make a right, by making such claims that rapists should be ***** in prison, that we excersize maximum brutal punishment, etc.

[Pull~My~Hair]

now whos oblivious? that's exactly what your have been saying up till this point, that two wrongs DO make a right, by making such claims that rapists should be ***** in prison, that we excersize maximum brutal punishment, etc.

no no, lol , that was just an example
I in no way feel that that would be a correct or just way of doing things, Im not heartless, I just really have very little tolerance for sex crimes, I have seen them ruin so many lives,
I know that nothing could make everyone happy , and no law could make this situation Fair for everyone, but I do think its a step in the right direction, Id rather see the state be too harsh on rapists then too leniant.

[Morning Glory]

This legislation provides for both, really. The sentences are intensified and they can be committed to psychiatric hospitals. If they can convince a judge they have been rehabilitated, they may then be paroled (depending on the nature of their offense)

OEC

that's what im saying. I don't have any problems with this law, other then a few minor places such as the ones forrest pointed to, I think this should be passed. The issue for me is never just This or That, the issue is what is relevent to actually accomplishing something that works toward our goal of stabilizing society. The posts that I have been debating on, are one's that I feel don't really further the idea of that goal. Not a debate about whether or not the law itself should be passed.

[Pull~My~Hair]

MOrning GLory, I have nothing against you and I dont want you to think that, your points are just as valid as mine, we can agree to disagree. We come from two different places and have lived two different lives, so I dont want you to think that I am being a bitch or anything. Thats why this is up for vote(: there are so many opinions on the matter. Im not by any means trying to undermind you or anything. No ill will in this thread intended at all

[One Eyed Cat]

that's what im saying. I don't have any problems with this law, other then a few minor places such as the ones forrest pointed to, I think this should be passed. The issue for me is never just This or That, the issue is what is relevent to actually accomplishing something that works toward our goal of stabilizing society. The posts that I have been debating on, are one's that I feel don't really further the idea of that goal. Not a debate about whether or not the law itself should be passed.

oh ok. You may have missed my earlier post on the civil commitment aspect. Prison **** should be an additional offense imo. In most instances, it will not be these offenders being *****.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

totally, likewise Hair. I know that your posts are always thought out and intelligent, and not just blurted out haphazardly. I know that some issues, like this one especially, people have really strong feelings for, and while that often leads to a lot of well written posts, it also has a tendancy to lead to debate, which can't ever really suceed, its just pushing at walls. but if we keep the understanding that we're all freinds here, maybe we can suceed in saying some things to others that they might find useful and haven't thought about before.

[Amelia G]

Can someone explain to me exactly what types of offense this suggested set of laws is about? It seems very sweeping and not just about violent sexual assault with physical evidence and witnesses and a confession.

If the punishment for the basic crime is life, then why wouldn't sickos murder their victims to evade capture? I know I would rather be ***** than ***** and murdered.

That mental hospital until some official decides the person is "better" sounds a whole lot like what we thought was pure evil when the Russians did it to dissidents during the Cold War.

[One Eyed Cat]

Can someone explain to me exactly what types of offense this suggested set of laws is about? It seems very sweeping and not just about violent sexual assault with physical evidence and witnesses and a confession.

If the punishment for the basic crime is life, then why wouldn't sickos murder their victims to evade capture? I know I would rather be ***** than ***** and murdered.

That mental hospital until some official decides the person is "better" sounds a whole lot like what we thought was pure evil when the Russians did it to dissidents during the Cold War.

The law is aimed mainly at violent child molesters and rapists. Those are the only people who would receive the harsh sentences. I simply disagree with any deterrence argument. I would have no problem upping second offenses to death, but you run into the 8th Amendment. Civil confinement in the US is a Holiday Inn compared to anything the Soviets did.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Here's the Text of the California Initiative. Rather than speak in generalities, I'd debate virtually every section and clause of this bill. It does not go as far as other states that have already passed Jessica's Law.

OEC

[incog]

im sorry but to me you sound as if you are supporting these acts. By not taking away their rights you are taking away rights of the victim. Ive tried but there is no way I can see from your point of view on this. We are talking about people who HAVE been proven guilty. 78% of the time these people strike again, why give a 78% chance of something this awful happening again?
Yes I do support malicious punishment, and if the world was fair these men would be locked up and ass *****, so i believe the justice system is leniant. They are still being released, so what they cant live next to a school, if they were rehabilited they wouldnt want to live next to a school, just because they arent acting on their urges after "rehab" doesnt mean they dont want to, so why be tempted?I dont know any recovering Alcoholics that hang out at bars.And rapists and such that actually feel some type of remorse for what they do generally isolate themselves anyhow, as well they should.

What happened to you sounds horrible. But the alcoholics and bars thing doesn't make sense. I know a lot of AA and NA people who hang out in bars. Most musicians have to. Just because someone did something stupid once doesn't mean they are going to do it again. It depends on the person. Some people always do the stupid thing and some people only fuck up for a while. Not that I wouldn't happily kill anyone who assaulted a friend of mine.

[incog]

Here's the Text of the California Initiative. Rather than speak in generalities, I'd debate virtually every section and clause of this bill. It does not go as far as other states that have already passed Jessica's Law.

OEC

Dude, I just skimmed some of that and, by the letter of what it says, it looks like if you own a copy of the unrated director's cut of Porky's on DVD, then you are a sex offender. If you get a consensual blowjob from some groupie with a fake ID backstage, you could get life without parole. Rather than being aimed at violent offenders, this thing actually crosses out the violence requirement for what counts as a crime in numerous places. No offense, but you should really read it before you tell other people to support it.

[One Eyed Cat]

Dude, I just skimmed some of that and, by the letter of what it says, it looks like if you own a copy of the unrated director's cut of Porky's on DVD, then you are a sex offender. If you get a consensual blowjob from some groupie with a fake ID backstage, you could get life without parole. Rather than being aimed at violent offenders, this thing actually crosses out the violence requirement for what counts as a crime in numerous places. No offense, but you should really read it before you tell other people to support it.

It includes child pornography as a lesser offense. I've read the entire bill. If you would like to argue a specific section quote from it before making assumptions.

OEC

[Amelia G]

Here's the Text of the California Initiative. Rather than speak in generalities, I'd debate virtually every section and clause of this bill. It does not go as far as other states that have already passed Jessica's Law.

OEC

I realize this is a sensitive subject. I am all for intelligent exchange of varied perspectives on here.

However, I feel very strongly that people should not make their points by posting a link and telling everyone someone already said their point somewhere else. You know this.

Both lawyers and activists need to be able to explain, summarize, and paraphrase legalese. I know you are capable of translating what that all says into plain English which everyone can understand.

Please translate what would be made into law for everyone, so they can understand why you support it and make an informed voting choice. Everyone opposes baby ****, but smart people disagree with one another on how best to eradicate it from society.

My two cents on this so far, after reading a bit of the page you linked: The vast majority of what gets labelled as sex crimes are not remotely on par with the ghastly examples law change proponents talk about. There is a huge difference between some guy who says inappropriate things to women in the workplace and someone who tortures children. There is a huge difference between the clerk at the video store and someone who tortures children. There is a huge difference between someone who has inappropriate but consensual sex with a teenager and someone who tortures children. Most people are not monsters, but it looks to me like this law brings all of those types of people closer to being defined the same as someone who tortures children. The whole thing belittles the horror of real crimes against children.

[One Eyed Cat]

I realize this is a sensitive subject. I am all for intelligent exchange of varied perspectives on here.

However, I feel very strongly that people should not make their points by posting a link and telling everyone someone already said their point somewhere else. You know this.

Both lawyers and activists need to be able to explain, summarize, and paraphrase legalese. I know you are capable of translating what that all says into plain English which everyone can understand.

Please translate what would be made into law for everyone, so they can understand why you support it and make an informed voting choice. Everyone opposes baby ****, but smart people disagree with one another on how best to eradicate it from society.

My two cents on this so far, after reading a bit of the page you linked: The vast majority of what gets labelled as sex crimes are not remotely on par with the ghastly examples law change proponents talk about. There is a huge difference between some guy who says inappropriate things to women in the workplace and someone who tortures children. There is a huge difference between the clerk at the video store and someone who tortures children. There is a huge difference between someone who has inappropriate but consensual sex with a teenager and someone who tortures children. Most people are not monsters, but it looks to me like this law brings all of those types of people closer to being defined the same as someone who tortures children. The whole thing belittles the horror of real crimes against children.

The punishment for child pornography amounts to a fine in most instances. The punishment for violent predators is 15 to life. Its an omnibus bill with a lot of provisions.
The more extreme punishments also do not pertain to statutory ****. It specifies a child under 14 and an offender at least 7 years older. There is not a one size fits all punishment for every crime listed in the bill.

OEC

[incog]

It includes child pornography as a lesser offense. I've read the entire bill. If you would like to argue a specific section quote from it before making assumptions.

OEC

You obviously have not read it or, if you did, you didn't understand it. Here is just one example. The underlined parts are the crossed out parts from the current law.

269. (a) Any person who commits any of the following acts upon a child who is under 14 years of age and 10 seven or more years younger than the person is guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child:

(4) Oral copulation, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d), of Section 288a, when committed by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.

This law would take out the part where it would have to be an assault. Consensual sex is considered aggravated sexual assault of a child. Led Zeppelin would all be doing life if this were the law. Most of the rock greats would be. A guitarist who was not legal to drink yet could get life for accepting a blowjob from a groupie with a fake ID.

[One Eyed Cat]

You obviously have not read it or, if you did, you didn't understand it. Here is just one example. The underlined parts are the crossed out parts from the current law.

269. (a) Any person who commits any of the following acts upon a child who is under 14 years of age and 10 seven or more years younger than the person is guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child:

(4) Oral copulation, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d), of Section 288a, when committed by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.

This law would take out the part where it would have to be an assault. Consensual sex is considered aggravated sexual assault of a child. Led Zeppelin would all be doing life if this were the law. Most of the rock greats would be. A guitarist who was not legal to drink yet could get life for accepting a blowjob from a groupie with a fake ID.

I just stated the same thing in my previous post. (under 14 + 7 years) I believe it should be illegal.

OEC

[Amelia G]

The punishment for child pornography amounts to a fine in most instances. The punishment for violent predators is 15 to life. Its an omnibus bill with a lot of provisions.
The more extreme punishments also do not pertain to statutory ****. It specifies a child under 14 and an offender at least 7 years older. There is not a one size fits all punishment for every crime listed in the bill.

OEC

I believe that omnibus bills in general tend to be a bad idea because they tend to make bad laws pass by piggybacking them on good ones.

Please explain what you feel are the specific benefits of this bill i.e. what is the letter of what would be changed? Normally, this would be the part where I pointed out that I don't want people posting opinions they can't support on Blue Blood. But I'm quite sure you are capable of outlining the parts of this which you believe would be beneficial. And, in your own words, not copy/pasting.

Both lawyers and activists need to be able to explain, summarize, and paraphrase legalese. I know you are capable of translating what that all says into plain English which everyone can understand.

Please translate what would be made into law for everyone, so they can understand why you support it and make an informed voting choice. Everyone opposes baby ****, but smart people disagree with one another on how best to eradicate it from society.

[One Eyed Cat]

Here's one Provision I do actually question:

Sec. 6.Section 288.3 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
288.3. (a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11 involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.

(b) As used in this section, “contacts or communicates with” shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.

(c) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) who has previously been convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years.

[incog]

I just stated the same thing in my previous post. (under 14 + 7 years) I believe it should be illegal.

OEC

You believe that ALL the rock and roll greats should be doing LIFE IN PRISON? You believe that a guy who is twenty who gets a blowjob from a girl who has what it takes to get into a nightclub but is thirteen should get LIFE? I like older women myself but everyone I know would be in jail if that was the same thing as force ass fucking a little kid from the local nursery school.

[ForrestBlack]

I just stated the same thing in my previous post. (under 14 + 7 years) I believe it should be illegal.

OEC

I realize I missed a bit of this discussion and I'm catching up now...

But is it really aggravated sexual assault with a penalty of life in prison with no chance for parole, ever, even if in fact it was wholly consentual and the older party was unaware of the age of the younger willing party? Those sound like two totally different crimes to me, both serious, but one clearly outweighs the other in severity.

[One Eyed Cat]

I believe that omnibus bills in general tend to be a bad idea because they tend to make bad laws pass by piggybacking them on good ones.

Please explain what you feel are the specific benefits of this bill i.e. what is the letter of what would be changed? Normally, this would be the part where I pointed out that I don't want people posting opinions they can't support on Blue Blood. But I'm quite sure you are capable of outlining the parts of this which you believe would be beneficial. And, in your own words, not copy/pasting.

Both lawyers and activists need to be able to explain, summarize, and paraphrase legalese. I know you are capable of translating what that all says into plain English which everyone can understand.

Please translate what would be made into law for everyone, so they can understand why you support it and make an informed voting choice. Everyone opposes baby ****, but smart people disagree with one another on how best to eradicate it from society.

I do not believe this bill will eradicate these offenses from society. The provisions of the bill that I believe would be helpful are:

Increased punishment for sexually violent offenders. The recidivism rate of child molesters is such that only individual crimes will be stopped by their detention. California is one of only a few states which does not currently have invonluntary civil commitment for sexually violent predators. I believe this is the key to the entire bill. If one believes in the possibility of rehabilitation, I believe this is the way to go. I do not believe the Mental Health System is as draconian as you have portrayed it.

There are specific provisions I do not agree with. However, even under current law child pornography, under 14 with 21+ etc are felonies. Possession of child pornography is a felony in some instances. The key to me are the egregious cases. The bill provides for life sentences for specified second violent offenses. The bill closes a loophole known as the "circle of trust". A conviction of an offense against a spouse or child, if proven, would receive the same punishment as the **** of a stranger. California has been woefully inadequate in this area. In many instances, an abusive parent or relative would serve no jail time and maintain custody of the child. This bill would end that practice.

Most of the objections I have seen involve questions of actus reus (did they actually commit an illegal act? did they know?) I share these concerns. However, there is very little change in the punishment for attempt (except the provision I posted my objection to)

Is this bill perfect? Absolutely not. However, my home state has more loopholes in child protection laws than a piece of swiss cheese. Eliminating circle of trust loopholes, establishing mandatory minimums, spending money to educate the public, and putting the most egregious offenders away for life is a step in the right direction. I do not believe the perfect should be the enemy of the good. If, in practice, the provisions regarding porn and attempt are abused .... that aspect of the law should be revisited.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

You believe that ALL the rock and roll greats should be doing LIFE IN PRISON? You believe that a guy who is twenty who gets a blowjob from a girl who has what it takes to get into a nightclub but is thirteen should get LIFE? I like older women myself but everyone I know would be in jail if that was the same thing as force ass fucking a little kid from the local nursery school.

That would be ex post facto. To be fair, I'm going to have to look up the current text of 286 and 288 to answer yours' and Forrest's questions regarding the stricken language. Will get back to you.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

The oral copulation language would retain: (2) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation when the act is accomplished against the victim's will -- Under C2.

C3 would remain as: 3) Any person who commits an act of oral copulation where the act
is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to
retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and
there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute
the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
three, six, or eight years.

but the penalties would be increased to 15 to life. The stricken language does not imply consent. I can look up the sodomy statute if you guys want, but I'm pretty sure the operative phrase (against a person's will) would remain there too. Regardless, even with "consent" the current punishment is 3-8.

OEC.

Edit: They're also dropping the age difference from 10 to 7 years on the under 14.

[ForrestBlack]

OEC, I do realize that you mentioned that there were areas that you had issues with in this proposal (which illustrates the problem with omnibus bills in general) and this may be one of those areas, but just so I have a better understanding, under section 311.11, how would being caught with the unrated directors cut of Porky's and American Pie not get you a felony conviction, losing you your right to vote ever, four to six years in the state prison, on top of a maximum $2,500 fine? They are both films not rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, and I think they both have teen actors simulating sexual conduct. The viewer would have a hard time arguing that they had no idea what the content of the films were. I think of a felony as a bit more severe, crime wise.

Would that felon then be required to wear and pay for a GPS monitoring system for the rest of their life? Could they not live closer than 2000 feet away from a park or school?

_____________________________________

311.11. (a) Every person who knowingly possesses or controls any matter, representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, the production of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 years, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4, is guilty of a public offense felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or a county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(b) If a Every person who commits a violation of subdivision (a), and who has been previously convicted of a violation of this section, or of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 311.2, or subdivision (b) of Section 311.4, he or she an offense described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290, or an attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

(c) It is not necessary to prove that the matter is obscene in order to establish a violation of this section.

(d) This section does not apply to drawings, figurines, statues, or any film rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, nor does it apply to live or recorded telephone messages when transmitted, disseminated, or distributed as part of a commercial transaction.

red = proposed to be struck out
blue = proposed to be added

[One Eyed Cat]

OEC, I do realize that you mentioned that there were areas that you had issues with in this proposal (which illustrates the problem with omnibus bills in general) and this may be one of those areas, but just so I have a better understanding, under section 311.11, how would being caught with the unrated directors cut of Porky's and American Pie not get you a felony conviction, losing you your right to vote ever, four to six years in the state prison, on top of a maximum $2,500 fine? They are both films not rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, and I think they both have teen actors simulating sexual conduct. The viewer would have a hard time arguing that they had no idea what the content of the films were. I think of a felony as a bit more severe, crime wise.

-- I'm going to have to look up 290 and 311.4 to give a definitive answer. This is one of two specific provisions that I still question. I'lll get back to you in the next day.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

OEC, I do realize that you mentioned that there were areas that you had issues with in this proposal (which illustrates the problem with omnibus bills in general) and this may be one of those areas, but just so I have a better understanding, under section 311.11, how would being caught with the unrated directors cut of Porky's and American Pie not get you a felony conviction, losing you your right to vote ever, four to six years in the state prison, on top of a maximum $2,500 fine? They are both films not rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, and I think they both have teen actors simulating sexual conduct. The viewer would have a hard time arguing that they had no idea what the content of the films were. I think of a felony as a bit more severe, crime wise.

Actually *knowingly* as a mens rea element of this crime requires the prosecution to prove that the viewer both knew they had the material and knew it was child pornography. If it was simply that they "should have" known, the mens rea would have just been the lower standards of negligence or recklessness. Given that noone producing or distributing "Porky's" or "American Pie" was subjected to charges under 311.4, noone possessing said material would be charged under 311.11. It would first have to be shown that an actor under the age of 18 engaged in sexual conduct as defined in 311.4:

Here is 311.4 (d)
(d) (1) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "sexual conduct"
means any of the following, whether actual or simulated: sexual
intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, anal oral copulation,
masturbation, bestiality, sexual sadism, sexual masochism,
penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object in a lewd or
lascivious manner, exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal area
for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer, any lewd or
lascivious sexual act as defined in Section 288, or excretory
functions performed in a lewd or lascivious manner, whether or not
any of the above conduct is performed alone or between members of the
same or opposite sex or between humans and animals. An act is
simulated when it gives the appearance of being sexual conduct.

Mere possession of 2 films that have never explicitly been forbidden by 311.4 would not even constitute a crime. Even if the films were forbidden, it would require objective proof that the viewer knew what the material was.

I don't like this provision. I believe it is too murky. This provision does not forbid anything not already forbidden by law, however. I would need to see a description of forbidden material to even decide whether I agreed enhanced punishments were warranted. In short, Porky fans can party on for now. I still question the scope of this provision, however. Hopefully, the California courts will continue to maintain a very narrow definition of what qualifies as "sexual conduct" under 311.4.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

On the recidivism amond sex crime offenders. Some would argue it is no higher than other offenders. This is of no compfort to the people victimized by repeat offenders, but it is one of the reasons first time offenders do not get life sentrances and should not be commited as insane unless they are insane.

That is one of the provisions that really sticks with me. Instead of following criminal proceedure we declare them insane and lock them up indefinately. This has the double barrel effect of bypassing propper due process and taking up the space that the actual insane could use, you know to actuallyy get treatment.

[One Eyed Cat]

I can't accept the findings of one study on its face. The preponderance of the evidence is that the recidivism rate is a lot higher than for non-offenders. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm
Keep in mind that study includes the least serious offenders and only represents those that are caught within 3 years. *4 times the recidivism rate is significant*. Sexually violent predators are considered to be suffering from a mental disorder under the DSM IV.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

OEC, you really need to look at the sttudy you posted a lot more closely. It is not saying that sex offenders are more likely to commit crime than other released criminals, they are considerably less likely. What they are 4 times more likely to do is commit a sex crime, which kinda makes sense. Also the rate of re arrest for a sex crime was about 5%. Most were re arrested for public order offences. The rearrest for any type of crime was 43%, compared to the 68% re arrest rate for non sex offenders. Considering how much more scrutiny sex offenders are under compared to other criminals, this says a lot. To catch the 5%, 100% must be tagged and forced to live away from society?

I am by no means saying that they should not be punished, but the huge piles of money that would be spent on the electronic dog collars (cause, yeah the offender who won't be able to work can pay for them) would be much better spent on rebuilding social services so that when a kid, or anyone else for that matter, is ***** or abused they have someone to help them, but that's just me.

The world seems much more willing to pay for revenge than actually helping the victims.

[One Eyed Cat]

OEC, you really need to look at the sttudy you posted a lot more closely. It is not saying that sex offenders are more likely to commit crime than other released criminals, they are considerably less likely. What they are 4 times more likely to do is commit a sex crime, which kinda makes sense. Also the rate of re arrest for a sex crime was about 5%. Most were re arrested for public order offences. The rearrest for any type of crime was 43%, compared to the 68% re arrest rate for non sex offenders. Considering how much more scrutiny sex offenders are under compared to other criminals, this says a lot. To catch the 5%, 100% must be tagged and forced to live away from society?

I am by no means saying that they should not be punished, but the huge piles of money that would be spent on the electronic dog collars (cause, yeah the offender who won't be able to work can pay for them) would be much better spent on rebuilding social services so that when a kid, or anyone else for that matter, is ***** or abused they have someone to help them, but that's just me.

The world seems much more willing to pay for revenge than actually helping the victims.

yeah. you're right as to the specific offenses in that study. However, this bill does not put away 100% of all sex offenders, only the most egregious cases. Also, the study is only 3 years out. The conclusions of a similar bill already passed by the US Congress are more severe. I would certainly agree that social services in California need major improvements.
I believe both components are necessary. 3 1/2 years of 8 for sex offenses is simply unjust.


OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I should also note that the vast majority of sexual offenses against children go unreported and are never prosecuted. My Criminal Law Professor puts the number at 98%. For every offense these offenders are actually prosecuted for, many more go unreported. Regardless, I believe in the enhanced punishments on retributivism alone. As I stated, I do not believe the problem will simply go away.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I also note this statistic from the study you mentioned:
Likelihood of Recidivism

The long term follow-up study referred to above included a control group of non-sexual criminals. The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected boy victims outside the family and who were never married.3


The actual life sentences without parole are for second offenses. At any rate, I appreciate the input both for and against this initiative. My stance remains the same.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

One thing I kinda can't help bringing up OEC, is that although we obviously encourage lively debate and objective critical thinking, most of the key terms relating to this entire thread are starred out, quite on purpose. We've had threads explaining exactly why we don't want to encourage these specific topics here in this community. Now, we've allowed the discussion anyway, but I can't help but wonder why you would ignore all the signs that would point you in the direction of not bringing these topics up here. Child abuse and **** and such are kinda the last things I want people thinking about when they come to a site about cool subculture and entertainment and maintaining your positive and creative individuality. Issues of personal freedom as they relate to the laws of the land are obviously of interest, but rolling around in issues of child molestation, kidnaping, and horrible things like that just seem like they don't totally fit the spirit here. It's hard enough to stay positive and cool and creatively inspired as it is. I'm not trying to come down on you too hard, but bleh. I don't sit home and watch 'Without A Trace' or Special Victims Unit' either. I mean, I'm kinda torn. I want open well thought out discussions, but on the otherhand, It's part of our mission to make people comfortable with subcultural sexuality, not squick them out with the details of abuses visited upon the helpless.

[One Eyed Cat]

One thing I kinda can't help bringing up OEC, is that although we obviously encourage lively debate and objective critical thinking, most of the key terms relating to this entire thread are starred out, quite on purpose. We've had threads explaining exactly why we don't want to encourage these specific topics here in this community. Now, we've allowed the discussion anyway, but I can't help but wonder why you would ignore all the signs that would point you in the direction of not bringing these topics up here. Child abuse and **** and such are kinda the last things I want people thinking about when they come to a site about cool subculture and entertainment and maintaining your positive and creative individuality. Issues of personal freedom as they relate to the laws of the land are obviously of interest, but rolling around in issues of child molestation, kidnaping, and horrible things like that just seem like they don't totally fit the spirit here. It's hard enough to stay positive and cool and creatively inspired as it is. I'm not trying to come down on you too hard, but bleh. I don't sit home and watch 'Without A Trace' or Special Victims Unit' either. I mean, I'm kinda torn. I want open well thought out discussions, but on the otherhand, It's part of our mission to make people comfortable with subcultural sexuality, not squick them out with the details of abuses visited upon the helpless.

Forrest,

I posted on the initiative due to Hair's thread on the daycare center. I did no anticipate, although I appreciate greatly, the volume of responses. I agree with your assessment, however. I will not bring up this unfortunate topic again (even though it is likely to be mentioned by someone). It's something I feel strongly about, man. I've said my peace.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Forrest,

I posted on the initiative due to Hair's thread on the daycare center. I did no anticipate, although I appreciate greatly, the volume of responses. I agree with your assessment, however. I will not bring up this unfortunate topic again (even though it is likely to be mentioned by someone). It's something I feel strongly about, man. I've said my peace.

OEC

Yeah, it's not the end of the world or anything. I'm not like pissed or whatever. Just wanted to give you my thoughts on the subject really.