Lawyers...

[KentuckyWildcat]

What exactly does this mean for children under 14?

https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/qanon-targets-democrat-author-of-bill-to-protect-child-sex-offenders/

Sent from my LM-X210APM using Tapatalk

[dan_bgblue]

Not a lawyer, but I would change their bill before it becomes law. Regardless of the age of the minor, the scum molester would not have to register as a sex offender as they would just need to wear a T shirt with "your child's face here" inside an otherwise empty box printed on the front and open season printed on the back.

[CitizenBBN]

The problem is his bill took the law the other way. It was mandatory to file as a sex offender for consensual oral or anal intercourse, but not vaginal. I can see how that is unfair. But his bill makes it optional for the judge on all 3 as opposed to going to being more strict and making it mandatory for all 3.

Right now anyone who is no more than 10 years different from someone 14-17 years old who has consensual sex is only going to be listed as a sex offender at discretion of the judge if it's vaginal intercourse.

To me the 10 years seems a big margin. I get how the type of sex really shouldn't matter, I agree with the sponsor of the bill on that point, but not on thus liberalizing the standard versus making it more uniformly strict.