They arrested a handful, though.

https://twitter.com/libertyhangout/status/1303875763272331265?s=21

well technically they didn't

I'm glad people are starting to take over that argument for me. Lol.

the argument topic is 'legalization of pedophillia' over passing a state constitutional law making it up to the judge on whether or not to put a person on sex offender registry before the trial is even completed

California sounds like a bad South Park episode. - Cartman joins NAMBLA

**Explanation of the Amendments** *"This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."*

The amendment everybody is referring to. *Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 286, subdivision (b) of Section 287, or subdivision (h) or (i) of Section 289 shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register. This paragraph does not preclude the court from requiring a person to register pursuant to Section 290.006.*

286 subd. b is the criminalization of the act of sodomy with someone under the age of 18,

289 (h)(i) criminalize the act of having sex with minors if you are over the age of 18, and over the age of 21, when the minor is under the age of 21.

The keyword in all this legislation is that nobody is required to register unless they are convicted. The amendment allows pedophiles to not register. Although this may not be an immediate legalization of pedophilia, it makes it much easier for people to repeat a second time. Knowing that Wiener is the guy pushing for this bill makes my skin crawl, since he had an issue with sending unsolicited "Wiener" pictures to minors. The bill basically says that if a 25 year old has sex with a 14 year old, they do not need to register. This is a slippery slope to go down. So, no, it does not legalize pedophilia, but it does make it a hell of a lot easier to repeat.

basically means they don't have to reg unless they're proven to be guilty of it, because alot of ppl got accused and cleared of charges and still had to reg in the past

No.

Convicted means guilty. They don't have to register at all.

i thought the registry was automatic once convicted

shit gets confusing between constitutional law systems and admiralty law systems

used to be automatic under admiralty law systems

Not with the new law. "A person convicted of a violation (Insert all the random statutes) shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor's date of birth...

anyway ...constitutional law systems can be redone since it's public consensus and voted upon in the state congress/senate

Basically, this removes the required registration of pedophiles if they are within 10 years of the victim.

ok, this is how state laws are created under constitutional law system

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EauVqZgWkAAONsq?format=png&name=900x900

Dank, you do know my background, right?

Yup. It's now under the judge's discretion. So, it's still possible not to end up on the registry if not convicted. I believe it should be automatically placed if guilty and then under the discretion of the judge to review the sex offender registry.

just a thought..was there a public hearing on the bill for this?

well last i checked, u were in law school

Many people discussed the bill, yes.

while it was a bill, or after it became a law

Which is what it is! If someone is convicted they should be required to register. That bill, as I said above, allows pedophiles to not have to register, if they are within 10 years...this is a huge issue.

And probably not @Deleted User because "CoVid...

It was discussed publicly while it was a bill. Nobody talked about it on the media until now

well it can legally be thrown out if it was during a covid lockdown

Yup

if they blocked public from talking to the committee about it

I agree

There were many forums about it

They were recorded

It is a bad law, and even if they don't make it legal, they make it a hell of a lot easier to be a repeat offender.

well get everybody recalled in calif

then start over fresh with decent ppl that can make a difference

Yeh

I low key believe California is trying to leave the union.

But that's just a theory

u don't have to wait for an election, if they're bad...recall them..but they have to be legally bad, not just because u don't like them

They're already a recall motion on Newsom