The California Democrats killed, then risen, a law template to make the purchase of teenagers for sex

Sacramento – Are California Democrats soft when it comes to protecting minors from sex trade?

It is a question that has caused chaos in the state capital for more than a week. But really, it's a question that the Republicans have asked for years with a resounding yes.

At the risk of saying the obvious, I will let her know that California has some of the toughest laws against sex trade in the country, including the protection of minors. However, there is a long time about how laws in relation to older teenagers who should be written and enforced and enforced. I will explain why.

It is also obvious that teenagers should not be bought and sold for sex. This makes the problem a multi -year winner for republicans who regularly issue invoices to prevent punishments for sexual crimes, shot them down from Democrats and then lead them to media campaigns that fight headlines such as the recent “Top California Democrats to protect sex with children”.

Nuance about why some democrats repeatedly coordinate harder punishments are slightly lost and difficult to explain when politicians talk about sex trade. And the Democrats have so often inflicted the same wound by following this Republican game book that the blood will not wash off.

The most recent manifestation of this long-term drama has a turn-one freshman democrat in the meeting wrote the legislative template that became the Republican weapon this year.

Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a former prosecutor who specializes in human trafficking, wrote a few weeks ago, to conclude a gap in an earlier law that treated crime differently depending on the age of the minor.

A person who tries to buy sex from a child from the age of 15 according to the last law commits a crime. But someone who tries to buy sex from a 16- or 17-year-old commits a crime who, at the discretion of the public prosecutor, as a “wobbler” who is given as a crime or offense in the first crime, either invited either as crimes or as offenses.

As in previous years, when the Republicans have the idea, Krell's democratic colleagues demanded that the automatic crime of their legislation were dropped. Krell agreed to keep a compromise to keep other parts of the invoice alive, including a destination, to make it illegal, with the intention of buying sex.

But then she supported the Republicans when they were excited on the floor of the meeting last week and were effectively directed against their own party.

Chaos broke out, followed by madness.

The spokesman for the assembly, Robert Rivas, withdrawn from the law and instead gave it to Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), also a former prosecutor, and another Democrat, Stephanie Nguyen (D-ELK Grove). The Republicans had a field day with press releases, talking and even began to lead social media ads in which Democrats were accused of making sexual crimes soft. Strangely enough, the Democrats then started the same advertisements against Republicans.

Then Rivas and Schultz announced a relaxation with Krell on Tuesday. The purchase of sex from a 16- or 17-year-old returns as an automatic crime in the bill, if the buyer is more than three years older than the person who is human trafficking.

A committee will hear the new invoice again on Wednesday with Krell's name and will probably bring forward.

There is both a political snack and a political snack.

The reason why some Democrats say that they have blocked the automatic crime in the past is difficult to follow. Basically, an 18-year-old Taco Bell or a vape can buy for a younger friend, and this could be seen as a crime if sexual actions follow. To be honest, I have problems believing that the prosecutors would submit these charges, but they never know.

The problem that is really based on this multi -year fight and the Democrats seem to have it to have it is a philosophical. Some people about the progressive end of the criminal judicial reform, including some survivors of sex trade, believe that abuse exists best to decriminalize sex work or even legalize them.

The decriminalization essentially means, many of the laws that are currently not enforced in the books that lead to sex workers being arrested – like the request. It is not an advance to prevent those who force people or force people with human trafficking.

The idea is that many sex workers, including younger adults and those in the LGBTQ+ community, are, sex workers are not helpful or fair with long criminal records that prevent them from getting jobs or apartments, and that buyers simply make their work more dangerous.

This outlook goes hand in hand with the years of the Democrats to deal with the over -incarcusation of black and brown people, which caused the legislature to rarely add new crimes to the Criminal Code.

You can agree or do not agree to these points of view, but you are discussed. However, our current political mood with proposition 36, which has passed from the voters and Trump in the White House, has changed dramatically.

The sex trade is at the center of this shift.

Do you remember when Qanon spread conspiracies over international human smuggling rings, including the online retailer Wayfair, was the heart of a program for selling children through furniture entries? This type of panic about sex trade is classified on the right, although the truth is that most children are sold by someone they know – a parent, a friend, perhaps even by another young person who is traded himself.

But hard in the crime is back in fashion, and no politician wants to work for decriminalization. I think decriminalization has a lot of pitfalls, but if some Democrats believe that it is the solution, it is a political failure not to talk about it – and it causes voters to misunderstand their position as weak for sex offenders.

Krell, who devoted her professional life to the end of sexual dealers, is firmly convinced that buyers have to have more consequences, and it has one point. We can lock as many sex dealers as we can find, but as long as buyers feel safe, there will always be a demand.

It was a political failure of the democratic leadership to believe that it is tacitly rolled on this topic. Krell is the rare politician who thinks what she says and what she means. It was probably when her name was removed from the invoice, but it increased her will to fight a change in the law that she believes.

If someone looks out of this good, it is Krell who proved to be ready to fight their own party leaders themselves. With the three -year age difference, however, the Democrats will probably show a uniform front and indicate the calculation as a success for everyone involved.

But don't be surprised if the Republicans play the game again next year.