Everyone has been up in arms about Democrats in the state legislature refusing to include a provision in Assembly Bill 379 that would make it a felony to solicit a 16- or 17-year-old for sex – understandably so, it seems like a straightforwardly good idea and yet another example of California’s politicians failing at even simple tasks.
According to State Senator Scott Wiener, it’s not as straightforward as that because, “Sending an 18-year-old high school senior to state prison for offering his 17-year-old classmate $20 to fool around isn’t smart criminal justice policy. Yet that’s what some people are effectively advocating in this misleading debate.” It’s not too much of a leap to presume that this probably does not happen very often and therefore also tempting to think that such a qualification is unwarranted because it happens so infrequently.
Ashley Faison-Maddox, a human trafficking victim, disagreed with Senator Wiener stating, “I thought that that was very inappropriate, and it was just tone-deaf for survivors who are advocating for this. That small percentage of buyers is being protected over the majority of survivors, which are typically 16-and 17-years-old.”
If it did happen though, it would seem like a harsh mistake that was brought on by our desire to act like the degree to which the impermissibility of sexual solicitation can vary should not be taken into account. Protecting teenagers from sexual exploitation is incredibly important, but there’s also nothing wrong with taking the extra step to ensure that our laws capture exactly the sorts of behaviors that we deem worthy of being punishable as a felony.
Similarly to how victims like Faison-Maddox feel about the debate surrounding AB 379, it would also be easy to state that the more lenient punishments doled out by juvenile courts could be seen as failing to protect survivors while favoring perpetrators – the reality is that despite the horrible crimes that juveniles can commit, there are overwhelming arguments that they cannot be deemed as morally culpable as fully formed adults committing the same crime.
The blameworthiness of an agent tracks what would be reasonable to expect from that agent. Is it reasonable to expect the average fully formed adult to control their emotions and reflect on the full consequences of their actions? It is reasonable but the same cannot be said as strongly about teens and even less so for children. The fact that we have legal artifacts such as the insanity defense suggests that we understand that even some adults with brain disorders cannot be expected to have full control over their faculties and that we can’t hold them as responsible as others.
The attempt to inject nuance will be unpopular with the public because, for most, the immediate reaction towards pedophilia is disgust and unambiguous condemnation – undoubtedly a good reaction to have even though it’s also true that we should want to avoid crafting our laws in a way that would excessively punish an 18-year-old who solicits a 17-year-old as if the age gap was significant enough to demonstrate any substantial differences in their autonomy.
If we claim that a 17-year-old is underdeveloped enough to warrant special protections, similar concerns would apply to punishing someone too harshly who happens to be at roughly the same developmental state – these considerations should be accounted for.
The democrats ultimately got the nuance that they wanted, announcing on Tuesday that an amended version of the original provision was added to AB 379, making soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds a felony if the offender is more than three years older than the victim. If the parties are within three years of age of each other, the offense remains a misdemeanor.
If we are being objective and impartial about it, this seems like a perfectly acceptable compromise and one that might prevent some draconian-sounding headlines in the future.
The lesser discussed section of the bill makes it a crime to loiter with the intent of paying for sex in general, not just for sex with minors. This too has been criticized by progressive groups like Smart Justice California who claim that loitering and solicitation laws had disproportionately negative impacts on minorities and the LGBTQ community in the past.
Prostitution where both parties consent should be legal. However, we know that women and minors are forced into prostitution against their will.
Related Articles
State Bar’s botched exam for new lawyers is California’s latest entry to the hall of shame Government-backed student loans are welfare for the better off Why are southern California cities turning toward tax roll billing? The nonsensical fight over Assembly Bill 379 Trump’s first 100 days delivered some libertarian wins, but mostly losses In order to combat this, we need loitering laws to give law enforcement a reasonable pretext to detain individuals suspected of attempting to buy sex from minors and trafficking victims. Decriminalizing prostitution would undoubtedly help law enforcement specifically target objectionable forms of prostitution but until that happens, such loitering laws are required.We are currently experiencing a conservative backlash to the progressive crime reform of the 2010s, as evidenced by the ousting of George Gascon in favor of Nathan Hochman for Los Angeles County DA and the passing of Proposition 36, which rolled back some of the soft-on-crime components of Prop 47.
Whatever the merits of this current wave of crime reform, it would be prudent to acknowledge that we do not necessarily have to sacrifice the interests of victims to ensure just outcomes for defendants and criminals. Nuance in our laws often helps us capture the complexities of our reasoned moral intuitions.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Surprisingly, the AB 379 solicitation debate has led to a more just outcome )
Also on site :