California Democrats decriminalizes child prostitution (not solicitation of them) - Polidicks

[quote]SACRAMENTO – Beginning on Jan. 1, child prostitution will be legal in the streets of California. In fact, police officers in the state will be banned from arresting any person under the age of 18 for soliciting or loitering with intent, according to Senate Bill 1322. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill on Sept. 26, and it will go into effect Sunday. The law also requires police to report allegations of child prostitution to county child welfare agencies. Advocates of the law say it will help child victims of sex trafficking get treatment rather than sending them to juvenile hall and tagging them with a rap sheet for prostitution. State Sen. Holly J. Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, who introduced the bill, said, “The law is supposed to protect vulnerable children from adult abuse, yet we brand kids enmeshed in sex-for-play with a scarlet ‘P’ and leave them subject to shame and prosecution. This is our opportunity to do what we say is right in cases of sex trafficking: stop the exploiters and help the exploited.” [/quote] [URL]http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution-2/[/URL] Bill text: [URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322[/URL]

that's awfully misleading sounds like a legalization of prostitution in general, regardless of age which is still addressed by other laws (or at least a push towards general prostitution legalization starting with decriminalizing youth) the reason for the outcry here is that this will supposedly result in more child trafficking... but this only says that you don't arrest the child, so it sounds like they're suggesting that arresting child victims would be better?

Why does the [I]career[/I] of child prostitute being legal mean that you can't arrest someone for having sex with them? Surely that still violates statutory rape laws? It just means that the kids aren't going to jail, surely?

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;51600903]Why does the [I]career[/I] of child prostitute being legal mean that you can't arrest someone for having sex with them? Surely that still violates statutory rape laws? It just means that the kids aren't going to jail, surely?[/QUOTE] I don't think the article ever says that Soliciting a prostitute is now legal.

I don't see anywhere it says they can't arrest the people that solicit them. Also the bill still allows minors to be taken into custody, though only temporarily. In addition, from what I can tell repeat offenders can be arrested and placed on parole. So yea, this isn't in any way making child prostitution legal, it's just working to reduce the amount of underage sex workers that end up in jail. [url]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322[/url]

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51600890]"California Democrats [B]legalize child prostitution[/B]" [...] SB 1322[B] bars[/B] law enforcement [B]from arresting sex workers[/B] who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution,[/QUOTE] By that logic, literal rape is legal in most countries. Why the fuck would you even suggest punishing the victim, especially if they're a minor? [editline]30th December 2016[/editline] If you think prostitution is bad, as in, [I]a prostitute[/I] should be considered [I]a criminal[/I], then please rethink why you think prostitution is bad. No one should be punished for being hurt, or hurting themselves.

I can't understand the why?

This is a shitty, horribly biased, and intentionally misleading article. This law makes it no longer illegal to BE a child prostitue, not legal to have sex with minors or break age of consent laws. You know what happens when law enforcement picks up under age prostitutes? They're criminally charged for prostitution and now have a criminal record and then get out and in most places... Go back to prostitution because they often times have no where else to go. [QUOTE]Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex. That only deepens their victimization and renders law enforcement powerless to stop the cycle of abuse. SB 1322 is not simply misguided — its consequences are immoral. [/QUOTE] Being legal doesn't mean police can't take child prostitutes into custody, it just means that they can't be charged with anything. [QUOTE]Unfortunately for Californians, SB 1322 isn't an outlier —[B] it's only the tip of the liberal iceberg. 2017 will see the Golden State subjected to wave after wave of laws taking effect that are well-intentioned but disastrous embodiments of progressive utopianism[/B].[/QUOTE] Seriously, did you even fucking bother reading this dogshit before you thought of posting it here?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51600890][URL]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-democrats-legalize-child-prostitution/article/2610540[/URL] Bill text: [URL]https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yes, you read that right.[/QUOTE] No, you are a lying piece of shit, thats not what it says at all... please stop calling yourself a journalist, you are tabloid level... at most... This is about arresting people, thats not the same as if its legal or not... and no, i dont think the sexworkers need to be arrested, they need to be helped the fuck out of that situation immediately, but prosecution of child sex workers is not the answer lol controversial opinion i know.

[QUOTE=Ta16;51600941]This is a shitty, horribly biased, and intentionally misleading article. This law makes it no longer illegal to BE a child prostitue, not legal to have sex with minors or break age of consent laws. You know what happens when law enforcement picks up under age prostitutes? They're criminal charged for prostitution and now have a criminal record and then get out and in most places... Go back to prostitution because they often times have no where else to go. Being legal doesn't mean police can't take child prostitutes into custody, it just means that they can't be charged with anything. Seriously, did you even fucking bother reading this dogshit before you thought of posting it here?[/QUOTE] Yeah but it was the first source I read and the top one on google, I've switched it to a less biased source. Sorry.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51600953]Yeah but it was the first source I read and the top one on google, I've switched it to a less biased source. Sorry.[/QUOTE] Your title is also extremely sensationalized and misleading

[QUOTE=mchapra;51600960]Your title is also extremely sensationalized and misleading[/QUOTE] When it doubt go with the title in the article. Both articles have the same title. Don't criticize me for it.

Holy shit that article title is misleading. This is about decriminalizing prostitution, I.E not turning victims of sexual exploitation/human trafficking into criminals and thereby ruining their lives further.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51600962]When it doubt go with the title in the article. Both articles have the same title. Don't criticize me for it.[/QUOTE] This is the second time you did something stupid when it comes to not reading articles and said something along the lines of "Don't criticize me for it!"

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51600962]When it doubt go with the title in the article. Both articles have the same title. Don't criticize me for it.[/QUOTE] I will if you fail to show discretion at an obviously misleading title.

[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;51600973]A bit of common sense. Even my quick glance at the article gave me an awful read. Ta16 essentially broke it down. [editline]30th December 2016[/editline] Lol if this is true yeah come on mate...[/QUOTE] [quote]Titles - No editorialised titles.[B] If in doubt, use the title from the original article.[/B] - Don't [tag] your post. - Avoid putting "breaking" in your thread title. Feel free to mention in your post if something is breaking if information is sparse. [/quote] Thanks for the title change Sgt.Doom, thank goodness I voted for ya.

Because I trust sources whose front page articles are about how much money planned parenthood clinics make from selling the limbs of dead babies.

I always assumed that if a person was caught as a prostitute under duress (Against their will) then they wouldn't be charged with a crime, though the person who had them under duress would be for trafficking? If they're being sold for sex against their will obviously they shouldn't be charged, but you still shouldn't be able to legally sell something that it isn't legal to buy.

Changed the title to something somewhat more sensible. If in doubt, yes do just use the original title; but if the source has a crap title, it'd be nice if you took the initiative to change it. Both the sources you used, pre and post edit are rather dreadful tbh, but at least they're not pure satire and you did post the actual law itself.

But the original title was a "sensational headline" at its fullest. Clickbait so cheeky and blunt that you just have to respect it.

[QUOTE=Bertie;51601025]But the original title was a "sensational headline" at its fullest. Clickbait so cheeky and blunt that you just have to respect it.[/QUOTE]The section title is satire, not a posting suggestion. Let's keep this on topic from now on, continue this matter in PMs if needed. [QUOTE=soulharvester;51600989]I always assumed that if a person was caught as a prostitute under duress (Against their will) then they wouldn't be charged with a crime, though the person who had them under duress would be for trafficking? If they're being sold for sex against their will obviously they shouldn't be charged, but you still shouldn't be able to legally sell something that it isn't legal to buy.[/QUOTE]A few countries go the route of having being a prostitute legal, but the purchasing of their services not. One of the lines of reasoning being that even if not under the duress of e.g. a pimp or human trafficker, a prostitute is in a shitty position in life that arresting them and giving them a criminal record for it is not helpful. Been a while since I read up on it, but e.g. Sweden does the same thing afaik.

Where there's demand, there will always be supply. That's why you should always try to kill the demand before you try to kill the supply.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;51601033]The section title is satire, not a posting suggestion. Let's keep this on topic from now on, continue this matter in PMs if needed. A few countries go the route of having being a prostitute legal, but the purchasing of their services not. One of the lines of reasoning being that even if not under the duress of e.g. a pimp or human trafficker, a prostitute is in a shitty position in life that arresting them and giving them a criminal record for it is not helpful. Been a while since I read up on it, but e.g. Sweden does the same thing afaik.[/QUOTE] so does norway. Being a sex worker is ok, but buying from one is not, also if you do make money from selling sex, that money is illegal but still subject to tax so don't forget to declare it.

[QUOTE=V12US;51601073]Where there's demand, there will always be supply. That's why you should always try to kill the demand before you try to kill the supply.[/QUOTE] Kill the demand, for sex? You're joking right?

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51600989]If they're being sold for sex against their will obviously they shouldn't be charged, but [B]you still shouldn't be able to legally sell something that it isn't legal to buy[/B].[/QUOTE] Logically that makes sense, but please think about why prostitution is bad. Why is it a crime? Who is the victim? When you realize that the prostitute is the victim, all sense in arguing that the prostitute should be punished falls apart.

If you're willingly, with consent, selling your own body for money, does that really make you a victim? Are brothel workers in NV victims?

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51601118]If you're willingly, with consent, selling your own body for money, does that really make you a victim? Are brothel workers in NV victims?[/QUOTE] Underage workers can't give consent to sell their body.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51601121]Underage workers can't give consent to sell their body.[/QUOTE] Come on now we both know I wasn't referring to minors with that question.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51601118]If you're willingly, with consent, selling your own body for money, does that really make you a victim? Are brothel workers in NV victims?[/QUOTE] There's a number that are forced into the work. Unless you've got a way to differentiate all of the different circumstances that lead to someone turning to prostitution it's easier to target the people soliciting it. And the people in NV are under heavy regulation to prevent anyone from being forced into it or catching a disease.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51601125]Come on now we both know I wasn't referring to minors with that question.[/QUOTE] But that's what the thread is about.