California's Sex Offender Hierarchy.
California's Sex Offender Laws Challenged.
The California Supreme Court this week struck down a 1947 state law in California that made registration mandatory for offenders having consensual oral sex with a 16-year-old, but which allowed judges to decide on a case by case basis whether registration should be required for illegal intercourse with a minor. That's right, oral sex = mandatory registration; intercourse = not mandatory registration.
The California Court concluded that this differentiation in the law was unconstitutional because it treats oral sex more harshly than unlawful intercourse. The Court concluded that the differing requirements "appeared to be an unexamined remnant of state laws that did not legalize oral sex even between consenting adults until 1975." One Justice, Marvin Baxter, opined that there are "several reasons for punishing intercourse more leniently than oral sex, such as recognition of the negative effects of registration when intercourse leads to the birth of a child." I'll reserve comment on whether it's really plausible to justify more registration for oral sex than intercourse with minors.
More: San Francisco Gate.com article.
The California Supreme Court this week struck down a 1947 state law in California that made registration mandatory for offenders having consensual oral sex with a 16-year-old, but which allowed judges to decide on a case by case basis whether registration should be required for illegal intercourse with a minor. That's right, oral sex = mandatory registration; intercourse = not mandatory registration.
The California Court concluded that this differentiation in the law was unconstitutional because it treats oral sex more harshly than unlawful intercourse. The Court concluded that the differing requirements "appeared to be an unexamined remnant of state laws that did not legalize oral sex even between consenting adults until 1975." One Justice, Marvin Baxter, opined that there are "several reasons for punishing intercourse more leniently than oral sex, such as recognition of the negative effects of registration when intercourse leads to the birth of a child." I'll reserve comment on whether it's really plausible to justify more registration for oral sex than intercourse with minors.
More: San Francisco Gate.com article.
posted by Kierkegaard Lives at 9:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home