Kevin McCullough MEGA PING!!
I'm glad I don't live in the cesspit of California.
there is only on explanation, the judges are all a bunch of perverts themselves. and need to be run out of town on a rail.
Sounds almost as if the most liberal court in the land is on board with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky: oral sex is not sexual relations.
Unbelievable.
And in some of the special programs brought into the schools under the "tolerance" mantle, there are forms that students are signing which can be used in court against them which imply consent.
I guess it's true now by judicial fiat--eatin' ain't cheatin'!
Clinton Logic...It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
The bad judges are never weeded out and remain on the bench forever or move up to seats they never should occupy. The power of the people is worthless in these cases. Try, for instance, to mount a campaign to throw out partisan judges on a state appellate court unless they commit murder on the courthouse steps. It's impossible.
We tried it here in Florida to try to remove at least one or two of the partisan liberal appellate court judges involved in the twisting of law in the Bush/Gore recount to no avail.
The sheeple just go in and vote "yes" for retention because they know nothing about the judges behind the names on the ballot.......and some of them are lucky they found the polling place at all.
Leni
And why am I in this handbasket?
That's about right. If there's no rational basis for the law, it gets tossed. If or when California decides that an adult who has intercourse with a 16-year-old should be subject to mandatory lifetime registration, *then* CA can subject an adult who gets a BJ from a 16-year-old to mandatory registration. As the law stands now, it makes no sense whatsoever to have mandatory registration for oral sex but not for actual intercourse.
For some reason, there is an aversion to tough punishment in the liberal courts today.
The CA Supreme Court is hardly a liberal court, and sex offender registration has nothing to do with punishment. This guy's clueless.
And the incessant, relentless march toward legal child rape continues...
Paging Bill O'Reilly...
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life.
The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders.
The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years. The court noted that, because the law did not treat the two categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated both state and federal equal protection rights.
"Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.
Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register. The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders.
The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders -- those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.
The case was brought by Vincent Hofsheier, of Santa Cruz County, who was convicted in 2003 of having oral sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was 22. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail.
Neither his attorney, Paul Couenhoven, nor the California Attorney General's office returned calls for comment.
Justice Marvin Baxter was the lone dissent.
"As any teenager or adult knows, intercourse is distinct from oral copulation, involving a wholly different sexual act that, unlike oral copulation, may result in pregnancy and the birth of a child," he wrote. "Given this significant difference in the potential real-life consequences of the two acts, the Legislature reasonably could decide that different registration schemes for the two groups of offenders are appropriate as a matter of public policy."
The case is People v. Hofsheier, S124636.
" I did not have sex with that woman."
Oral sex is not sex?
IS depends on what the meaning of "IS," is.
Now eye candy will become mounth candy, as it already has in the highest echelons of the Demwit suck off community. Who do these judges have under their desks?
Now some men in the future will arrive home early at times, to catch their wives not having sex with the postman?
This is really a laugh!
Oral sex is sex, and if you do it, accept it for what it is, don't pretend like the Dims do that , " This is not sex."
"NOT SEX" CAN GET YOU DEAD either from STD, HIV or the bullet from the gun of a persons spouse in Texas.
Now that homosexuality has been legitimized (practically worshipped in some quarters), the next step is the normalization of pedophillia. This will be harder as it will make the "its for the kids" crowd look like hypocrites (although, technically, it's still for the kids), but don't think a little thing like that will deter them. The most creative minds in the gay, lesbian, and ultra-left community have been plotting their strategy on this for decades.
Of course, this will all be for naught when California substitutes the Sharia for secular law.
Here's what a real newspaper says.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060306-1700-ca-sexoffenderregistration.html
The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders.
The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years. The court noted that, because the law did not treat the two categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated both state and federal equal protection rights.
“Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions,” Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.
Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register. The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders.
The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders – those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.
Do we really need California???? You have to blame the voters for putting up with this crap.
Full Disclosure: This was probably done to please the NAMBLA crowd. Between this and the Lawrence decision by the supremes, the drift is clear.
They will probably try to find some way to continue blaming Catholic priests, while pushing ever harder for gay scoutmasters...