California Assembly Blocks Bill Making Trafficking of Minors Serious Felony

2,889 Views | 37 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Mulberrywildman
lethalninja
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/youre-horrible-california-assembly-blocks-bill-making-trafficking-of-minors-a-serious-felony

This week, the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee blocked a bill that would have made human trafficking of a minor a serious felony.

The bill, HB 14, noted that "California consistently ranks number one in the nation in the number of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline," and "Human trafficking is among the world's fastest growing criminal enterprises and is estimated to be a $150,000,000,000 a year global industry." The bill would have made human trafficking of a minor subject to California's Three Strikes Law, and thus someone convicted twice could be sentenced to life in prison.

The bill had already passed unanimously in the State Senate, but not even one of the six Democrats on the committee would vote on the bill; the only yes votes were cast by two Republicans, Assemblymen Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey.

The Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman, Los Angeles Democrat Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, opposed the bill. GOP state Sen. Shannon Grove, who co-authored the bill, said she had spoken with Democrats on the committee prior to the hearing. "They all thought it was a good bill and said they would consider it, but there is this issue of rolling the chair, so I don't think anyone was going to stand up against the chair," she said.

"You're horrible!" and "You should be ashamed of yourselves!" yelled members of the audience at the meeting while victims of human trafficking broke down in tears.

"I am profoundly disappointed that committee Democrats couldn't bring themselves to support the bill, with their stubborn and misguided objection to any penalty increase regardless of how heinous the crime," Grove said. "You can pass a note to a bank and rob a bank, you can commit arson, and that's considered a serious felony. But to traffic a minor child in the state of California is not. That's wrong."

"The committee has also rejected other measures that would increase penalties for domestic violence offenders, rapists of developmentally disabled children and other sexually violent crimes," KCRA noted.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can't imagine why some see Democrats as pro-crime
P.H. Dexippus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
groomers gonna groom
AggDogg61
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The devil and his minions walk among us and many of them are democrats.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see a pattern emerging here. What could it be?
e=mc2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
These are your people liberals! Embrace them!
TxTarpon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reggie like dem young peoples....

Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm guessing because this will unequally target people of color? aka Mexican Cartels
BigOil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What are the existing penalties?

If a penalty is 40 years or 50 years, it's effectively a life sentence already, for example.

TxTarpon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like it is 15 years

Three strikes law mean if they have two already and get popped with four new charges, the ones that add are strike add leverage or are not plead down.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
captkirk said:

I see a pattern emerging here. What could it be?
I am honestly not sure what is going on. What appears to be going on is so god damned awful I am not sure I can make my brain go there yet.

I loosely followed the thread on the Entertainment Board on Sound of Freedom. Unlike F16, the common poster on that board definitely leans left. The goaltending for tearing this film down was amazing. Like no reaction I have ever seen out of the pro Hollywood crowd.

As I have pointed out before, the kneejerk reaction to automatically defend anything that libs and LGBTQ do that involve minors has been on full display for a few years now. For people that claim the "groomer" mantra is so unjust, they sure fight tooth and nail and protect their ability to sexualize kids.

I am not sure what is going here, where or why society has shifted so much, but it's not good.
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From another article
Quote:

Grove noted repeat offenders who traffic people under the age of 17 are eligible for early release credits and aren't required to serve their full prison sentences. For example, someone sentenced to the maximum, 12 years in prison for the crime, may end up serving four years with the right amount of good conduct credits.
BigOil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TxTarpon said:

Looks like it is 15 years

Three strikes law mean if they have two already and get popped with four new charges, the ones that add are strike add leverage or are not plead down.


Thanks… so three convictions would add up to 45 years. Assuming these folks are 20-30s, three busts is effectively life . Am I thinking this through right?

BigOil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fenrir said:

From another article
Quote:

Grove noted repeat offenders who traffic people under the age of 17 are eligible for early release credits and aren't required to serve their full prison sentences. For example, someone sentenced to the maximum, 12 years in prison for the crime, may end up serving four years with the right amount of good conduct credits.



Thanks - this is definitely a problem that could be addressed.

I'd rather this be fixed than worrying about three strikes. Then again, there's a range of the crime definition. One would have to assume the egregious criminals aren't walking in 4 years.
lethalninja
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From the article: Finally, if you violate Penal Code 236.1(c) (causing or persuading a minor to engage in a commercial sex act), you face the following potential penalties:

Formal (felony) probation,

A California state prison sentence of five (5), eight (8), or twelve (12) years, and/or

A fine of up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).

BUT, if the charges are that you used force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or another person to commit this offense then the potential prison sentence increases to fifteen (15) years to life!
TxTarpon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigOil said:

TxTarpon said:

Looks like it is 15 years

Three strikes law mean if they have two already and get popped with four new charges, the ones that add are strike add leverage or are not plead down.


Thanks… so three convictions would add up to 45 years. Assuming these folks are 20-30s, three busts is effectively life . Am I thinking this through right?
It could or be less depending on multiple factors.
(look at the koo koo stuff Harris County judges are doing)
Three strikes laws hit the career criminal.
Quote:

Another study found that arrest rates in California were up to 20% lower for the group of offenders convicted of two-strike eligible offenses, compared to those convicted of one-strike eligible offenses. The study concluded that the three-strikes policy was deterring recidivists from committing crimes. link
This linkage to past convictions is aimed at putting human predators away so they cannot get a few years here and there, continuing to victimize people.

Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When are we going to stop calling it "human trafficking" and start calling it what it really is.

Slavery.
AGHouston11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gee I wonder why they would do this
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


Thanks… so three convictions would add up to 45 years. Assuming these folks are 20-30s, three busts is effectively life . Am I thinking this through right?
No. You're deferring to the defense of democrats. There is no logic behind their opposition other than they love molesting children and trafficking humans.
BigOil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:


Thanks… so three convictions would add up to 45 years. Assuming these folks are 20-30s, three busts is effectively life . Am I thinking this through right?
No. You're deferring to the defense of democrats. There is no logic behind their opposition other than they love molesting children and trafficking humans.



I'm not deferring to the emotional knee jerk reactions to headlines. I'm trying to understand more facts and be more informed on an outcome.
Mark Fairchild
How long do you want to ignore this user?
After the movie, Jim Caveziel stated that there are more slaves now than when slavery was legal, and the majority of the slaves are children. You are correct "trafficking" is too clean. Call it what it is, SLAVERY of the worst kind.
Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70
Post removed:
by user
Sid Farkas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:


Thanks… so three convictions would add up to 45 years. Assuming these folks are 20-30s, three busts is effectively life . Am I thinking this through right?
No. You're deferring to the defense of democrats. There is no logic behind their opposition other than they love molesting children and trafficking humans.



I think the truth here is, California Dems would rather go light on human traffickers than give the R's anything even remotely resembling a W.

I mean they're still evil, but for a diff reason than you cite.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:


I'm not deferring to the emotional knee jerk reactions to headlines. I'm trying to understand more facts and be more informed on an outcome.
Ensuring these people serve long prison sentences is not "knee-jerk." I am not sure what it takes to defend this trash.
Old May Banker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigOil said:

What are the existing penalties?

If a penalty is 40 years or 50 years, it's effectively a life sentence already, for example.



People that hurt or traffic children should get lead to the head. Not some miniscule sentence.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My biggest takeaway on this entire subject is that it is very clear that the left needs vulnerable children and waves of sex workers to satisfy their needs.

I ran a project in Houston in 2009 and 2010. I was in my mid 30's at the time. I honestly didn't know that "massage parlors" and stuff like that even existed. If that sounds naive keep in mind I grew up small town, went to A&M, met my wife four months after graduation, and have been with her (dating, engaged, and married) since fall of 97. There were a few guys on that project that would hit those places regularly. Complete dorks and losers. I asked one of them once if he even knew if the girls were at least adults and his response was "who cares?".
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old May Banker said:

BigOil said:

What are the existing penalties?

If a penalty is 40 years or 50 years, it's effectively a life sentence already, for example.



People that hurt or traffic children should get lead to the head. Not some miniscule sentence.
Flayed.
TheBonifaceOption
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is just a Qanon conspiracy [/EB]
Garrelli 5000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Any poison pills included which they used to vote against the bill? I loathe when these are placed in bills for the sole purpose of getting one by the goalie or forcing a vote against a bill that otherwise everyone supports.

What is Adam Schiff's relationship to the D's on the Assembly?
Staff - take out the trash.
lethalninja
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-democrat-reverses-position-harsher-penalties-child-traffickers-bad-decision

A Democratic member of the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee admitted to making a "bad decision" on a bill that would have increased penalties for human trafficking.

"On Tuesday, I made a bad decision. Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law," Assembly member Liz Ortega wrote in a tweet.
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
e=mc2 said:

These are your people liberals! Embrace them!
They do.

Look at who they voted for POTUS
Robert L. Peters
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems the left most certainly protects these pedos. They want to call them MAPs and excuse them acting out their mental illness (sound familiar?). The lefties on my EB thread came out stacked with the narrative. But let's not pretend that conservatives and others on the right aren't engaging in the sexual exploitation and victimization of children.
What you say, Paper Champion? I'm gonna beat you like a dog, a dog, you hear me!
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What would Hollywood do if they cannot abuse minors?
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lethalninja said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-democrat-reverses-position-harsher-penalties-child-traffickers-bad-decision

A Democratic member of the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee admitted to making a "bad decision" on a bill that would have increased penalties for human trafficking.

"On Tuesday, I made a bad decision. Voting against legislation targeting really bad people who traffic children was wrong. I regret doing that and I am going to help get this important legislation passed into law," Assembly member Liz Ortega wrote in a tweet.
Just words.
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Democrats want pedophilia legalized
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.