Oh won't someone please think of the child sex traffickers!

[ripcord]

California lawmakers in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday blocked a measure that would have classified human trafficking of a minor as a serious felony under state law, an effort that attempted to keep repeat offenders behind bars and make them ineligible to be released from prison early.

The measure was halfway through the state's legislative process, having cleared the State Senate unanimously with broad, bipartisan support. None of the six Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee were willing to cast a vote on the measure Tuesday. Republican Assemblymen Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey were the bill's only yes votes.

Following the vote, those in the audience could be heard yelling, "You're horrible!" and "You should be ashamed of yourselves!" to the committee members. Human trafficking victims embraced and sobbed in front of the dais.

The Assembly Public Safety Committee and its leader, Jones-Sawyer, received criticism this year after refusing to hear fentanyl-related public safety bills. The committee has also rejected other measures that would increase penalties for domestic violence offenders, rapists of developmentally disabled children and other sexually violent crimes.

https://www.kcra.com/article/california-assembly-public-safety-committee-blocks-bill-child-trafficking/44510634

Thankfully Governor Newsom and some sane democrats are looking at a workaround to bring this bill to the full Assembly where it is sure to pass. It is time to look at committee assignments as this group is pretty disgusting.

[ripcord]

1. Thankfully our Governor and the Assembly Speaker stepped in

The committee was forced to hear this bill and it finally made it through although I was disappointed that two democrats refused to vote.

[Showbizkid]

5. So....the committee was right to kill the bill?

Your post is confusing.

[Showbizkid]

8. Why?

Just curious.

[Showbizkid]

10. So Newsome is pushing a Q-anon bill?

Why is he doing that?

[Zeitghost]

12. What specifically in this bill

Makes it Qanon nonsense and not a reasonable response to child sex trafficking?

[Initech]

13. I realize my comment may have stepped in it and I'd like to back out quietly now.

[haele]

3. What was also in the bill that would be objectionable?

I'm curious as to what would induce no votes?

It seems as if it would be a no brainier. Unless it was not encompassing enough, or there was something in the bill that was outside of the trafficking of minors that might catch people who they felt shouldn't be charged.

Sort of like how some anti- porn/prostitution advocates say that viewing anime sex (with very childlike cartoon characters) the same as viewing child pornography.

Haele

[ripcord]

4. They didn't want to increase the penalties

If a crime is classified as a serious felony there will be a much better chance of them serving the maximum sentence but they will also get a strike under our three strikes law.

[haele]

6. Ah, the three strikes law strikes again.

I voted against it because I knew it would trip up both lesser and greater crimes. You shouldn't have people going to jail for life because while their first or second crime may have been major and they served their sentence/ got rehabilitated, and then leave a restaurant or store without paying by mistake, or got profiled and railroaded because of that previous crime.

Haele