California democrats block bill to make sex trafficking for minors a felony

californiaglobe.com...

A bill to make sex trafficking a felony once again in California was blocked Tuesday in the Assembly Public Safety Committee by Democrats, after passing unanimously in the Senate.

Currently human trafficking is defined as a “non-serious” crime which means the act of human trafficking cannot be considered a strike under California’s Three Strikes law.

Six proposed bills in 2018-19 would have corrected unclear language and serious flaws in Proposition 57, passed in 2016 by voters, which reclassified many serious heinous crimes as “non-serious.” The initiative specified early parole for persons who committed non-violent offenses. However, the initiative never specified what is considered a non-violent felony.

But all 6 bills were killed by Democrats. Ironically, most of the bills were killed in Assembly or Senate Public Safety committees, just as SB 14 was.

Human trafficking involving a minor, assault with a deadly weapon, solicitation of murder, rape under various specified circumstances, grand theft of a firearm, elder and dependent adult abuse, were considered “non-violent” crimes under Prop. 57.

I seriously don't understand why trafficking of children and minors under the age of 18, for whatever purposes, is not considered a serious felony receiving lengthy sentences. Human trafficking worldwide is already a multi-billion criminal enterprise and in my view countries and states should bring very strict laws to protect both children and adults from these criminal gangs.

California consistently ranks number one in the nation in the number of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline. The California Attorney General notes that California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States, recognizes the serious nature of this crime, and has defined it as “modern day slavery.” “Human trafficking is among the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprises and is estimated to be a $150 billion-a-year global industry. It is a form of modern day slavery that profits from the exploitation of our most vulnerable

Californian ranks number one in the number of human trafficking cases in the US. No surprise at all there.

Trafficking is definitely still a felony in California. They even take it a step further when children are involved. They consider ANY exploitation of a minor for sex as trafficking.

Click bait, word twisting, bovine excrement.

As far as California being #1 for trafficking, #2 is Texas, #3 is Florida, #4 is New York... guess what? It goes by population as those states are also 1-4 in that aspect.

Not everything is political.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Good thing it can be revised, maybe they'll get it right at a second try...

This needs to pass, in some form or another

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Trafficking is definitely still a felony in California. They even take it a step further when children are involved. They consider ANY exploitation of a minor for sex as trafficking.

Click bait, word twisting, bovine excrement.

As far as California being #1 for trafficking, #2 is Texas, #3 is Florida, #4 is New York... guess what? It goes by population as those states are also 1-4 in that aspect.

Not everything is political.

I am sorry but this isn't a click bait thread.

The California Attorney General notes that California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States, recognizes the serious nature of this crime, and has defined it as “modern day slavery

Senate Bill 14 by Senator Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) was voted down in the Assembly Public Safety Committee with 6 Democrats abstaining and 2 Republicans voting “aye”… that means Democrats wouldn’t even commit to a “no” vote lest it look bad during reelection time.

SB 14 would have included sex trafficking of minors in the lists of crimes that are defined as serious under California law, making the crime a strike under the Three Strikes law, and would help strengthen protections for the millions of victims of sex trafficking.

Pointing to the 6 democrats who abstained. Do you seriously support the position of the democrats on this matter?

a reply to: AlienBorg

Why was it rejected but admitted to be revised?

Usually you get recommendations on the parts you'd have to addapt and the reasons behind the rejection.

Do you know them?

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Pointing to the 6 democrats who abstained. Do you seriously support the position of the democrats on this matter?

Absolutely not. But the fact remains that trafficking was and still is a felony in California. That's the clickbait part. It's the 3 strikes for life in prison that was voted down. Should be 1 strike, imo.

Anyway, the bill isn't dead yet. There are just parts of it that they want revised. May have nothing to do with the 3 strikes part.

a reply to: LordAhriman

might just be a well crafted play?

draft an unpassable bill on a sensible topic, and spin it however you want...

a reply to: AlienBorg

I seriously don't understand why trafficking of children and minors under the age of 18, for whatever purposes, is not considered a serious felony receiving lengthy sentences. Human trafficking worldwide is already a multi-billion criminal enterprise and in my view countries and states should bring very strict laws to protect both children and adults from these criminal gangs.

It isn't difficult to understand. There are some very powerful people in this world who don't want their business enterprises hindered any more than necessary. They are willing to go to great lengths to make sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Ask Jeffrey Epstein.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: AlienBorg

I seriously don't understand why trafficking of children and minors under the age of 18, for whatever purposes, is not considered a serious felony receiving lengthy sentences. Human trafficking worldwide is already a multi-billion criminal enterprise and in my view countries and states should bring very strict laws to protect both children and adults from these criminal gangs.

It isn't difficult to understand. There are some very powerful people in this world who don't want their business enterprises hindered any more than necessary. They are willing to go to great lengths to make sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Ask Jeffrey Epstein.

Based

a reply to: Klassified

I don't understand the position of these democrats. On what basis they blocked this bill?

So did Laura Silsby get a job on code amber when busted going through the boarder and protected by the Clinton?

Is this fraxxledrip for real?

The latest movie by Tom Ballard goes a lot deeper than his first one.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Pointing to the 6 democrats who abstained. Do you seriously support the position of the democrats on this matter?

Absolutely not. But the fact remains that trafficking was and still is a felony in California. That's the clickbait part. It's the 3 strikes for life in prison that was voted down. Should be 1 strike, imo.

Anyway, the bill isn't dead yet. There are just parts of it that they want revised. May have nothing to do with the 3 strikes part.

Good you don't support the position of the 6 democrats who abstained and blocked the bill. So you agree they didn't do particularly well on this matter. The question is why did they choose to abstain.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
The question is why did they choose to abstain.

I don't know, neither do you. All we know is that they want some parts of the bill revised. There was a lot of the stuff in the bill that had nothing to do with trafficking. I was able to view it earlier, and it's pretty lengthy, but now it's down. Maybe changes are already being made?

www.newsweek.com...

California Democrats Block Bill To Make Child Trafficking a Serious Felony.

ADemocrat-majority committee in the California state assembly has declined to advance a bill that would make child trafficking a serious felony in the Golden State.

It says a lot about the intentions of some of the democrats.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The question is why did they choose to abstain.

Human trafficking is big bucks these days. Libya did put an end to it under Gaddafi, Hillary was happy to see that one die. Actions speak louder than words.

I noted the same thing here

I'm still trying to figure out how this committee can vote a bill down. I don't understand CA politics.

They made it political when the media tried to allude to this issue being fake far right paranoia and had a bunch of Democrats vote against it. Optics are everything.

a reply to: SideEyeEverything

I don't understand CA politics.

It takes time. Adam Schiff losing his national security clearance is a step in the right direction.

a reply to: AlienBorg

www.kcra.com...#

So according to this article the bill was in a committee and the committee kicked it back saying it needed more work. Is this click bait for Republican outrage? Political theater? Human trafficking is a real issue. I have a friend that was rescuing trafficked women for a time and the stories he's told are pretty rough and saddening. There should be tougher laws. But they need to be done right.

"Ultimately, members of the Assembly's Public Safety Committee understood the author’s intent but recognized this bill needs considerable work and granted reconsideration," Jones-Sawyer said.

originally posted by: SideEyeEverything
I noted the same thing here

I'm still trying to figure out how this committee can vote a bill down. I don't understand CA politics.

They made it political when the media tried to allude to this issue being fake far right paranoia and had a bunch of Democrats vote against it. Optics are everything.

I don't understand this either. On what basis they blocked this bill?