Has California Legalized Pedophilia? Part 2

This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by Judge John H. Wilson (Ret.)

The fallacy in State Senator Weiner’s position regarding the necessity of his bill regarding pedophilia is found in his belief that sexual relations between a 19 year old and a 17 year old are “completely consensual.” The entire point of establishing an “age of consent,” is the idea that “(p)eople who are underage cannot legally consent to having sex, so any form of sexual activity with them violates the law. This is true even in situations where they signal their agreement.”

To be sure, there is some push back against the hard-and-fast rule established by having an “age of consent” law. Writing for Vox, Jennifer Drobar states that “there is a scientific argument for modifying consent laws…(t)o be sure, levels of maturity vary by individual; setting one age as the advent of maturity is always going to be a gross proxy. That imprecision helps explain the wide variety of minimum ages reflected in American law.” Her solution, however, is that “(c)onsent law…should allow people within a certain age range (say, 16 to 21) to offer ‘assent’ to sex with a significantly older person — but permit them to revoke that assent at any time. ‘Assent’ is a weaker form of agreement, legally speaking, than ‘consent.’”

Unfortunately for Ms Drobar’s position, there is no significant legal difference between “assent” and “consent.” Even when a minor gives their assent to anything, according to the Institutional Review Board of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “(w)ork with children or adults not capable of giving consent requires the consent of the parent or legal guardian and the assent of the subject.”

In other words, under Ms Drobar’s theory, if you want to have sex with a minor, you must get the minor’s assent, AND the permission of the parent or guardian. A very unlikely proposition.

Further, Ms Drobar’s herself notes that “teenagers do not make decisions in the same way adults do. We now know that the teenage brain does not finish maturing until sometime in the mid-20s.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement for getting the “assent” of a minor for sexual relations, is it?

The flowers of mango tree are mostly male which supply pollens and few are bisexual which help in formation of fruits. generic cialis 40mg Your intention actually cheap viagra http://www.learningworksca.org/item-7747 directs the flow of energy. Everyone deserves an ideal and a fantastic sex life and cialis sildenafil (Tadalafil) can help you achieve useful results in situations like temporary impotence. Coming back to the camera I just mentioned, Nikon D500 was launched by the company in January levitra generika 10mg 2016 which includes a DX-Format which is also known as urinary system infection, is a bacterial infection marked by inflammation of urothelium.

The other issue with SB-145 that has drawn negative attention is the age difference established by the new law. Under SB-145, a person convicted of a violation of (various enumerated sex offenses) shall not be required to register if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.” According to State Senator Weiner, “This bill has no application to anyone under the age of 14.” However, with a 10 year age difference permitted by SB-145, a 24 year old could have sex with a 14 year old, and not be required to register as a sex offender.

Thus, SB-145 does not “legalize pedophelia.” It does, however, make registration as a sex offender a matter of discretion for a Court involving offenders with a broader age difference than most “Romeo and Juliet” laws allow. SB-145 does not establish any “Romeo and Juliet” law in California – it is still illegal for Weiner’s 19 year old to have either anal or oral sex with his 17 year old boyfriend in California, and their two year age difference is not a defense or mitigating circumstance. But it does allow a court to decide not to place a 24 year old having sex of any sort with someone as young as 14 on the state’s registry of sex offenders.

That issue alone should give reasonable people pause – particularly parents. Especially since the California legislature enacted SB-145, and California Governor Gavin Newsome has signed Weiner’s bill into law.

Let’s leave the final word on this issue to California attorney Samuel Dordulian; “In its proposed form, under the guise of preventing LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes, SB 145 actually deteriorates the rule of law by providing any individual who sexually assaults a minor an opportunity to potentially evade the sex offender registry… SB 145 is a misguided attempt to amend laws that the bill’s sponsors argue disproportionately target LGBT people. I would argue that allowing more 25-year-olds who assault 15-years-olds an opportunity to avoid the sex offender registry is no service to the LGBT community.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.