The Democrats of California killed, then resurrected, a bill to suppress the purchase of teenagers for sex

Sacramento – Are the Democrats of California gentle to protect minors from sex trafficking?

This is a question that caused chaos in the State Capitol for more than a week. But really, this is a question that the Republicans are asking – and answer with a resounding yes – for years.

At the risk of stating the evidence, I will let you know that California has some of the most difficult laws against the country’s sexual traffic, including the protection of minors. But there have long been affirmations on the way in which laws concerning older adolescents, 16 and 17 year olds and minors, should be written and applied. I’m going to explain why in a minute.

It is also obvious that adolescents should not be purchased and sold for sex. This makes the question a lasting winner for the Republicans, who have regularly implemented bills to harden sanctions on sexual crimes, make them slaughtered by Democrats, then the media campaigns that lead to titles such as “Best Democrats in California are fighting to protect sex with children”.

Nuance on the reasons why certain Democrats continue to vote in more severe sanctions are easily lost and difficult to explain when politicians discuss sex trafficking. And the Democrats inflicted this same injury to themselves so many times by following this republican game book that the blood will not be washed.

The most recent demonstration of this longtime drama has a twist – a first -year democrat in the Assembly wrote the bill that this year turned into a republican weapon.

Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a former prosecutor of the state specializing in the trafficking of human beings, wrote legislation a few weeks ago meant filling an escape in a previous law which dealt with the crime of solicitation of a minor for sex differently depending on the age of the minor.

A person who is trying to buy sex from a child of 15 and under the current law commits a crime. But someone who tries to buy sex from a 16 or 17 -year -old player commits a crime which is a “wobbler”, loadable as a crime or an offense on the first offense, at the discretion of the prosecutor.

As they have done in recent years when the Republicans have launched the idea, the Democratic colleagues of Krell demanded that the part of the automatic crime of its legislation was abandoned. Krell accepted, a compromise to maintain the other parts of the bill, including a provision to make illegal to stroll the intention to buy sex.

But then she supported the Republicans when they made them stories last week on the assembly soil, effectively going against her own party.

Chaos broke out, followed by madness.

The president of the Assembly, Robert Rivas, stripped the name of Krell of the bill and rather gave it to Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), also a former prosecutor, and another Democrat, Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove). The Republicans had a day on the ground with press releases, speeches and even began to disseminate advertisements on social networks accusing Democrats of being soft on sexual crimes. Oddly, the Democrats then began to broadcast the same kind of announcements against the Republicans.

Then, Tuesday, Rivas and Schultz announced a relaxation with Krell. The purchase of sexual relations from a man aged 16 or 17 returns to the bill as an automatic crime – if the buyer is more than three years older than the person who was the victim of the trafficking.

A committee will hear the new bill on Wednesday, with the name of Krell, and will probably move it forward.

There is both a political point of view and a political point of view of all this.

The reason for which some Democrats say they have blocked automatic crime in the past is difficult to follow. Basically, their argument is, an 18 -year -old could buy Taco Bell or a vape for a younger friend, and this could be considered a criminal solicitation if sexual acts ensued. Frankly, I find it hard to think that prosecutors would deposit these accusations, but you never know it.

The problem that really underlies this sustainable fight and that the Democrats seem to have more difficulty in speaking is philosophical. Some people on the gradual end of the reform of criminal justice, including some survivors of sexual traffic, believe that the best way to fight against abuse is to decriminalize sex work, even legalize it.

Decriminalization essentially means not to apply many laws currently on books that lead to the arrest of sex workers and buyers – such as solicitation. It is not a push to stop arresting those who force or force people to traffic situations.

The idea is that many sex workers, including younger adults and those of the LGBTQ +community, are sex workers by choice or by necessity, that shaving them with long judicial lockers preventing them from obtaining a job or accommodation is not useful or just, and going after buyers makes it simply more dangerous.

This perspective goes hand in hand with the thrust of several years by the Democrats to fight against the over-encouragement of blacks and brown, which led to the legislature to rarely add new crimes to the penal code.

You may agree or disagree with these points of view, but they are worth debating. Our current political mood, with proposal 36 adopted by voters and Trump in the White House, however considerably changed.

Sex traffic is at the center of this quarter of work.

Remember when Qanon has spread plots on international human smuggling rings, including the Wayfair online retailer was at the heart of a plan to sell children through the furniture lists? This kind of panic about sex trafficking has become integrated into the right, although the truth is that most of the children victims are sold by someone they know-a parent, a boyfriend, perhaps even by another young trafficker themselves.

But difficult for crime, he is back in fashion, and no politician wants to defend decriminalization. I think that decriminalization has a lot of traps, but if some democrats believe that it is the solution, it is a policy failure not to talk about it – and that leads voters to misunderstand their position as weak on sex offenders.

Krell, who has devoted his professional life to stopping sexual traffickers, firmly believes that buyers have to face more consequences, and she is right. We can lock as many sexual traffickers as possible, but as long as buyers feel safe, there will always be a request.

It was a political failure of the Democratic Directorate to think that it would be quietly launched on this issue. Krell is the rare politician who means what she says and says what she means. He probably pricked when his name was removed from the bill, but that only increased his desire to fight for a change in law in which she believes.

If someone comes out of what seems good, it was Krell, who turned out to be willing to fight even his own party leaders. With the three-year compromise on age, however, the Democrats will probably show a united front and indicate the bill as a success for all those involved.

But don’t be surprised if the Republicans run the game next year.