Child Prostitution Legalized by liberals.....:-O

[Tbeck]

Some accurate and not so accurate replies being posted.
The first being no consequence to the kids caught prostituting themselves. They JUST won't get charged for solicitation. They will be charged with "disorderly" conduct and placed in protective services.
While I agree that this plan is very short sighted, and lacks the resources/ability to handle the volume of kid's engaged in this activity, the intent was right. In other words they were trying to avoid making things worse for kid's already in a terrible situation.
That said I am SURE that Designer's assertions that this is going to backfire are CORRECT.
The short sighted bandaide legislation is what caused the massive influx of underage illegals 2 years ago. The Democrats never seem to look at potential long term problems when proposing or adopting legislation.
I will go so far as to say this short sighted practice problem is rampant throughout the US adult population, regardless of political leaning.
Just my 2 cents... Later

[Herb]

Some accurate and not so accurate replies being posted.
The first being no consequence to the kids caught prostituting themselves. They JUST won't get charged for solicitation. They will be charged with "disorderly" conduct and placed in protective services.
While I agree that this plan is very short sighted, and lacks the resources/ability to handle the volume of kid's engaged in this activity, the intent was right. In other words they were trying to avoid making things worse for kid's already in a terrible situation.
That said I am SURE that Designer's assertions that this is going to backfire are CORRECT.
The short sighted bandaide legislation is what caused the massive influx of underage illegals 2 years ago. The Democrats never seem to look at potential long term problems when proposing or adopting legislation.
I will go so far as to say this short sighted practice problem is rampant throughout the US adult population, regardless of political leaning.
Just my 2 cents... Later

No, it really isn't rampant throughout the population, only on the dimorats side is it rampant.

[NE_FL]

There really are no changes to existing laws concerning prostitution except for those under 18. For them, instead of being charged with prostitution they can be charged with a misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct, like T says, and being put in temporary custody allows counseling and interrogation to gain info on others (adults) involved. It allows young offenders to avoid being stigmatized with sex crimes.

So, do the benefits of this change outweigh the unintended consequences, or is it vice versa. I guess that's open for debate.


.

[Herb]

There really are no changes to existing laws concerning prostitution except for those under 18. For them, instead of being charged with prostitution they can be charged with a misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct, like T says, and being put in temporary custody allows counseling and interrogation to gain info on others (adults) involved. It allows young offenders to avoid being stigmatized with sex crimes.

So, do the benefits of this change outweigh the unintended consequences, or is it vice versa. I guess that's open for debate.


.

It's a democratic party law, in mexifornia, you can bet the unintended consequences will be worse than the benefits.

[NE_FL]

Try to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to this and think a little (to no one in particular).

Adult prostitution is still illegal in California, as is pimping and sex slavery. Child prostitution is not legal, it is merely brought down to a misdemeanor accompanied with another charge. It is not "legal."

There are pros and cons to this, and time will tell if it works out to the benefit of the children involved.

.

[Designer]

There really are no changes to existing laws concerning prostitution except for those under 18. For them, instead of being charged with prostitution they can be charged with a misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct, like T says,

Maybe.......Maybe not. [space] The actual text of the bill states:

Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

So,....how can they be...." charged with a misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct",...when an LEO cannot arrest them,..... but..."under limited circumstances"..... take them into temporary custody" ? [space] And not into temporary custody every time...but "limited times". [space] So...they could still be left to be out there soliciting.

... and being put in temporary custody allows counseling and interrogation to gain info on others (adults) involved.

This could, and would, be done regardless. [space] So this law doesn't aid/assist in this part.

.... It allows young offenders to avoid being stigmatized with sex crimes.

This it does....But at what expense?

....So, do the benefits of this change outweigh the unintended consequences, or is it vice versa. I guess that's open for debate.

Yup. time will tell.

[Tbeck]

Designer, I believe that the confusion rests on understanding of the legal meaning.
Temporary custody in this instance means a detention in children & youth or some other detention facility. This would apply in some circumstances as outlined in the laws guidelines. I can only GUESS, but I am assuming that this would occur when it is clear that the child was a sex slave or other situation where legal guardian ship cannot be established.
Runaways might be turned over to a legal guardian and therefore would not be placed in temporary custody, yet they would all be charged with a crime like disorderly.
The whole point of this is to establish a legal basis to allow court directed protection for the kid's. Unfortunately as I previously mentioned, the resources aren't there for this law to work. I think as YOU suggested, it will become a revolving door for greater child exploitation.

To whom ever said this short sighted affliction only affects Dems? Explain to me why anyone would support building a wall between Mexico and the USA? Makes far more sense to have our military shoot anything in the buffer zone, and drop munitions in that area routinely. We've already paid for troops, bombs and bullets. So why add a big sucking money pit in the form of a wall. Hasn't and will never work. My suggestion would.

[Designer]

Designer, I believe that the confusion rests on understanding of the legal meaning.
Temporary custody in this instance means a detention in children & youth or some other detention facility. This would apply in some circumstances as outlined in the laws guidelines. I can only GUESS, but I am assuming that this would occur when it is clear that the child was a sex slave or other situation where legal guardian ship cannot be established.
Runaways might be turned over to a legal guardian and therefore would not be placed in temporary custody, yet they would all be charged with a crime like disorderly.
The whole point of this is to establish a legal basis to allow court directed protection for the kid's. Unfortunately as I previously mentioned, the resources aren't there for this law to work. I think as YOU suggested, it will become a revolving door for greater child exploitation.

I'm not so sure they would need to be "charged" with a Crime to be taken into custody. This pretty much sounds like such a charge would be discretionary (as is whether they get taken into custody or not). And most probably not done since the Intent of this law is to treat these kids as victims and try to keep their Records Clean. [space] Which, BTW. I am ALL FOR.....That is.....when it is so.

However, there is an element that will take advantage of this law (that prevents charging them with prostitution) and I guarantee there will be an increase of teens seen plying the streets, selling their sex after this law is in full effect.

......To whom ever said this short sighted affliction only affects Dems? Explain to me why anyone would support building a wall between Mexico and the USA? Makes far more sense to have our military shoot anything in the buffer zone, and drop munitions in that area routinely. We've already paid for troops, bombs and bullets. So why add a big sucking money pit in the form of a wall. Hasn't and will never work. My suggestion would.

[space] Have you lost your senses?

Really,....have you?

[MadCow]

Not to throw any more confusion....but how does this new law address those children engaging in prostitution without a pimp...the ones doing it on their own...wouldn't this law encourage these..."free lancers" to go out and make some money now that they know there will be no arrest/record?

[Designer]

Not to throw any more confusion....but how does this new law address those children engaging in prostitution without a pimp...the ones doing it on their own...wouldn't this law encourage these..."free lancers" to go out and make some money now that they know there will be no arrest/record?

My guess is that they who thought up and passed this law are hoping that it will make for a chance to.. "turn their lives around"... when In temporary custody.

[MadCow]

Not to throw any more confusion....but how does this new law address those children engaging in prostitution without a pimp...the ones doing it on their own...wouldn't this law encourage these..."free lancers" to go out and make some money now that they know there will be no arrest/record?

My guess is that they who thought up and passed this law are hoping that it will make for a chance to.. "turn their lives around"... when In temporary custody.

I hope it does...

[Designer]

I hope it does...

It would be nice. [space] However, I have doubts as to whether the numbers of "saved" teens balances out with what will surely be "the other side of the coin"......so to speak.

[Tbeck]

Designer, no argument here. Short sighted legislation.

MC, I "believe" that what you've raised as a concern, is where the item's I previously mentioned come into play. Aka if a kid alone is engaged in this activity the authorities can place them in detention, or if applicable back under parental custody. In either scenario the "courts" are able to order whatever is applicable to prevent continuation of the prostituting.
The only real positive outcome is that these juvenile's won't have a sex offense on their record.
Something else that nobody mentioned is the law will protect kid's who do something stupid like sending pictures by cell, aka child porn.
I think the intention was good but they didn't spend enough effort on the potential problems the law will "likely" cause. I therefore have to agree with Designer, bad legislation.

[NE_FL]

This amended law is no worse than other laws treating minors as "recoverable" offenders or as victims rather than hard core criminals. That's what the Juvenile Courts are all about. They keep the juvenile from having a criminal record and instead give them court supervised guidance. ...And that's a good thing, right?

[Designer]

Designer, no argument here. Short sighted legislation.

MC, I "believe" that what you've raised as a concern, is where the item's I previously mentioned come into play. Aka if a kid alone is engaged in this activity the authorities can place them in detention, or if applicable back under parental custody. In either scenario the "courts" are able to order whatever is applicable to prevent continuation of the prostituting.
The only real positive outcome is that these juvenile's won't have a sex offense on their record.
Something else that nobody mentioned is the law will protect kid's who do something stupid like sending pictures by cell, aka child porn.
I think the intention was good but they didn't spend enough effort on the potential problems the law will "likely" cause. I therefore have to agree with Designer, bad legislation.

I just hope I am wrong. [space] That what actually comes from this nobly intended effort does indeed bear the fruit of what it has been said it will.

In the mean time, I'll keep my fingers crossed....but not exactly "hold my breath".

[Cuban]

I heard about this last week on the O'Reilly Factor and I formed an opinion real quick which was the opposite of O'Reilly's and likely, the majority here. So forgive me if I didn't read every post in this thread.

I'm probably one of the more conservative, right wing people on this forum. Yet, I am glad California has gone this route. I just hope they do it correctly down the road. Prostitution isn't a crime of opportunity, like say, burglary. When a young female, between 12-16 years old, is out selling her body for cash, you can be damn sure she's a victim. She likely came from an abusive home, had drug addicted parents/siblings, no father, an abusive step father, etc., etc., etc. To catch her in prostitution and then push her through the criminal justice system (which she probably has been in already) is simply victimizing her AGAIN.

If anyone thinks our criminal justice system is GOOD at rehabilitating anyone, let alone juvenile victims, you're sorely mistaken. O'Reilly argued that arresting the juvenile in these cases would allow the cops to pressure the hooker into giving up her pimp.



Really? So, I'm to believe that I am gonna haul in a 14 year old girl, who has been raped by a 55 year old sleezebag, probably drugged or given alcohol, and then PRESSURE her into giving up her pimp??? What kind of retard thinks this way?

Listen, I'm all about nipping youthful offenders in the bud. They typically turn into adult offenders. But let's do it on crimes where it is more applicable. Even in adult cases of prostitution, the female is usually a victim to some degree. Even the 22 year old street walker. Why? Well, because she was probably a 15 year old newbie hooker at some point that our system failed to protect.

I get that you guys want to throw the hammer down on everyone who commits a crime. For 17 years, that's what I've dedicated my life to doing. But let's exercise some common sense here and realize that not everyone is in need of being arrested. Some people do need help. I'm thinking a 13 year old female having sex with someone old enough to be her grandfather might be one of those people.

Quoted verbatim... because. Nicely put, Keith.

[Cuban]

[emoji2] Well I'm just some guy sitting at a computer keyboard in Canada, and have no experience with prostitutes of any kind, so I have no problem taking the word (and opinion) of an active Law Enforcement Officer at face value. I can see that you care about young people, and I'm 100% certain that's an excellent attribute to have, in your chosen profession. Cool.

[Designer]

[emoji106] It may not be a popular view, but it's the one I hold. I can see if someone takes the stance of "California is legalizing underage prostitution" literally, then my views are insane. But, IMO, we should be looking at it as the juvenile offenders aren't being criminalized. If one takes the view of putting these kids into prison - at great taxpayer expense - as a good thing, then there shouldn't be any argument when I suggest the better course of action would be to make them a dependent of the state. Get them out of the environment they're in which led to prostitution and put them into foster care where they might get started on a path to a better life. At least they'll have chance. Picking up criminal charges and working through a broken justice system will simply put them back on the street. That's how I see it anyway.

And I agree with the body and intents of what you posted above. [space] However, this Law is fundamentally and SERIOUSLY flawed.

What it is a Very Poorly Thought-through, Knee-jerk Reaction. A Bandaid on Cancer that will FAIL to accomplish all that much of it's intent and instead foster MORE teens being prostitutes. [space] The why of this follows......

The actual text of the bill states:

Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

The underlined portion ends up meaning..... a teenager that has been found to be soliciting prostitution can indeed be left there, on the streets, or in a restaurant, or Target Store, or anywhere they were found committing this illegal act. [space] There is no Standards nor Guidelines as to what criteria allow for... "the minor to be taken into temporary custody".

IF the laws intends to help teen prostitutes ...why aren't ALL of them taken into this " Temporary custody"? As you say,..." Get them out of the environment they're in which led to prostitution and put them into foster care where they might get started on a path to a better life."

The fact that any of them can be left there,...not taken into Temporary Custody... and not taken out of this environment, does indeed end up being that......... Teen Prostitution Is Legal In California.

[Herb]

[emoji2] Well I'm just some guy sitting at a computer keyboard in Canada, and have no experience with prostitutes of any kind, so I have no problem taking the word (and opinion) of an active Law Enforcement Officer at face value. I can see that you care about young people, and I'm 100% certain that's an excellent attribute to have, in your chosen profession. Cool.

Thanks! I believe there are 2 classes of people who deserve special protection: the youth and the elderly. For the most part, they're incapable of protecting themselves. Everyone in the middle can fend for themselves!

I don't disagree with you on the situation. These kids, and they are kids, need help, and the current laws only make things worse. My concerns are that this will backfire and we will end up with even more underage girls on the street. IF it included a requirement for the girl to provide the name of the person that put her on the street, it might work, but without that, it is an incentive for the pimps to put even more underage girls out there.

I HOPE it works out to the girls advantage, but I fear that it will only make the situation worse.

My experience with the lawmakers in mexifornia has proved to me that if a law works as intended, it is an accident. These socialists NEVER seem to be able to anticipate the unintended consequences of their (sometimes) well intended actions.

[Herb]

"I'm not advocating government being the answer with this specific problem of juvenile sex crimes. There is a much deeper problem in the family unit which leads to a child whoring herself out for money. None of which are solved by throwing the kid in juvy."

Yeah, I'm not sure of what the full answer to this is, what I do know, government is not the full answer.

Juvenile prostitution is not so much a legal problem as it is a societal problem.

From what I have seen, these kids have been screwed over so many times, before they turn to whoring, that it is pretty much inevitable that they are going to turn to some type of crime.

Not sure there is a real answer to the issue, at least not a legal or government answer.