It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, California Did Not Legalize Child Prostitution

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   

What’s a New Year’s weekend like without a popular lie circling the internet? I ask because it doesn’t appear we’ll ever see a day like that again. Especially with sensationalist partisan rags like the Washington Examiner producing partisan garbage like their most recent: “California Democrats legalize child prostitution”. With cursory research, one finds that couldn’t be much further from the truth.

...

A press release for the bill states boldly “‘There is no such thing as a child prostitute… Sex trafficked minors will no longer be charged with prostitution. Instead of being treated as criminals, youths to get supervision and counseling services'”

SOURCE


Since my first thread on this topic was sent to the trash bin, I'm approaching the topic from the point of view of the vocal thought police on ATS. The emboldened quote above is exactly the point of view that all of those who are cheering on this new law seem to have.

"No minor would ever choose prostitution on their own, so they should never be held accountable for their actions." That's doesn't strike me as being consistent with the following.


California - A juvenile is anyone under the age of 18. Anyone 14 years and older can be tried as an adult for serious crimes. Examples of serious crimes include murder, robbery with a weapon, and rape. A “once an adult always an adult” policy is enforced as long as the minor was sixteen at the time of the violation and the violation was legally waived. The policy stands regardless whether the minor was convicted or not.

SOURCE


California law recognizes that people as young as 14 years old should be held accountable just like adults in some cases. Lawmakers in California just get to arbitrarily decide that everyone before the age of 18 years old gets a free pass when it comes to prostitution.

Please consider the following.


About 650,000 American teenagers have exchanged sex for money or drugs, and boys were more likely to have prostituted themselves than girls, according to the only survey ever committed to the subject.

According to the survey, published Wednesday in the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Infections, close to 4 percent of more than 13,000 U.S. teens in grades seven through 12 reported having ever exchanged sex for drugs or money.

Survey Reveals Extent of Teen Prostitution


According to the logic of the people who just decriminalized prostitution for those under 18 years old in California, none of the teens mentioned in the article directly above are prostitutes. They're all victims of sex trafficking. That's the official stance from the Ministry of Truth.

If 4% of teens prostituted themselves when it was a criminal offense, just imagine what that number will be after it's decriminalized. 6%? 8%? 10%?
edit on 30-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



+5 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

If 4% of teens prostituting themselves when it was criminal offense, just imagine what that number will be after it's decriminalized. 6%? 8%? 10%?


When something is decriminalized it means the person(s) participating in said activity will not be prosecuted. Do the adults paying for child-sex not get prosecuted under this law or is child prostitution now rendered legal?

What a petulant Original Post.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
What a petulant Original Post.


It' s good to be complimented by an expert.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
It' s good to be complimented by an expert.


Thanks, but I have never had an Original Post removed for it being bull. You must have me confused with someone else.

Maybe you can answer my question.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
So you are still having a problem understanding that a person doesn't have to go to jail if they break the law? What is it with you wanting kids to go to jail? Do you support the for profit prison system so much that you want kids there? I'm sure there hard core criminals there will love that new young meat.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

It is confusing, but I think he is saying that removing the threat of jail, they are encouraging minors to prostitute themselves? I dont know. My question would be, if you dont live in Cali, why would you care?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
PROS:
- Under aged prostitutes will not be charged, sent to Juvenile Detention and given a criminal record.
- More avenues of help will be offered, if they choose to accept it.

CONS:
- Decriminalization will undoubtedly encourage more to take up the profession.
- Pimps will have more leeway with loopholes to wash their hands with.

Which one outweighs the other?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
So you are still having a problem understanding that a person doesn't have to go to jail if they break the law?


The definition of decriminalize is "cease to treat (something) as illegal or as a criminal offence." How is the question quoted above relevant here?

If you're asking me how I would handle this problem, I think if there's evidence of sex trafficking then this law is perfect. I believe the problem is assuming that any prostitute who is under 18 years old is automatically a victim of sex trafficking. Do you really believe that's true?

Please consider the following.


About 650,000 American teenagers have exchanged sex for money or drugs, and boys were more likely to have prostituted themselves than girls, according to the only survey ever committed to the subject.

According to the survey, published Wednesday in the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Infections, close to 4 percent of more than 13,000 U.S. teens in grades seven through 12 reported having ever exchanged sex for drugs or money.

Survey Reveals Extent of Teen Prostitution


According to the logic of the people who just decriminalized prostitution for those under 18 years old in California, none of the teens mentioned in the article directly above are prostitutes. They're all victims of sex trafficking. That's the official stance from the Ministry of Truth.

If 4% of teens prostituted themselves when it was a criminal offense, just imagine what that number will be after it's decriminalized. 6%? 8%? 10%?

If you agree with the following quote, then there's nothing for us to debate. I don't agree with the idea that a minor cannot be a child prostitute at all.


A press release for the bill states boldly “‘There is no such thing as a child prostitute… Sex trafficked minors will no longer be charged with prostitution. Instead of being treated as criminals, youths to get supervision and counseling services'”

SOURCE

edit on 30-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

So, you think more of the girls will choose to return to prostitution and pimps or choose to seek help and change?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

It obviously depends on the situation, but the people promoting this bill seem to bank on the assumption that all under aged prostitution is being done by force.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

I would say more out of desperation. 99% of them were probably abused in their homes starting around 9yrs old.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Well, this is a punishment based society. The idea of rehabilitation seems to piss some people off. And the "tough on crime" crowd sees it as being weak.

So yeah, I think a lot of them are ok with prosecuting the victims of human trafficking rings. In their eyes, they're just punishing the drug mules and prostitutes. But in reality, they're just making it harder for the victims to speak out in the first place (because they'll get prosecuted if they admit what they've been forced to do).

Ironically, many of them are the same people who think there should be leniency for the customers of those drug mules and prostitutes. So the drug buyers and prostitution customers (aka the literal enablers of organized crime & the human trafficking system) get leniency while the forced mules and prostitutes (the victims of organized crime & the human trafficking system) end up getting punished.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
When has removing the consequences ever reduced the occurrence of something?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What is your solution for offenders who cannot/will not rehabilitate?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What is your solution for offenders who cannot/will not rehabilitate?

How do you know they cannot or will not rehabilitate until you try rehabilitating them multiple times? Should I say something can't be done before I try doing it?

ETA: And don't forget, the OP is explicitly talking about teenagers. How can anyone claim teenagers can't be rehabilitated?
edit on 30-12-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The way I see it, children can't consent to having sex, therefore they can't be charged with solicitation. They are victims, and their "clients" are not guilty of being "Johns", they're guilty of rape.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
An honest question:
If a child is caught in an act of prostitution the day before their 18th birthday any less aware of what they are doing than they would be a day later?
Is a 'woman' on her eighteen birthday any less of a victim of sex trafficking than that same 'girl' the day before?
Edit to add: I think windwords post above mine answers my question for the first part.
edit on b000000312016-12-30T09:55:17-06:0009America/ChicagoFri, 30 Dec 2016 09:55:17 -0600900000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This law is just another sideshow to deflect away from the root problem that lawmakers can't seem to solve.




posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
An honest question:
If a child is caught in an act of prostitution the day before their 18th birthday any less aware of what they are doing than they would be a day later?
Is a 'woman' on her eighteen birthday any less of a victim of sex trafficking than that same 'girl' the day before?
Edit to add: I think windwords post above mine answers my question for the first part.


If a child is caught in an act of prostitution the day before their 18th birthday any less aware of what they are doing than they would be a day later?

I did a search concerning that, and I found the following. I asked the same question concerning California's law that says 14-year-old people can be tried as adults. Where that line is drawn is a controversial issue.

Criminal Law Says Minors Can't Consent — But Some Civil Courts Disagree

Is a 'woman' on her eighteen birthday any less of a victim of sex trafficking than that same 'girl' the day before?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. When you finish high school, you're often on your own. Is it fair to an eighteen year old to tell them that they have to take responsibility for their lives completely, but they can't decide who to have sex with? That doesn't make any sense to me. Can you make a reasonable argument for that concept?
edit on 30-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you misread my post, because I didn't say that it cannot be done.

It's just a fact that many people refuse to rehabilitate or cannot complete it, I've known several such people in my life.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join