Want to get away with a violent crime in California? Under legislation proposed by California Democrats, all you’d have to do is report the crime.
Check this out. The proposal is California Senate Bill 233, written by Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and coauthored by State Assembly members Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) and Laura Friedman (D-Glendale).
It specifically states:
“A person who is reporting a crime of sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, robbery, assault, kidnapping, threats, blackmail, extortion, burglary, or another violent crime shall not be arrested for a crime …”
On the surface, it’s all about protecting victimized sex workers. For example, if you’re being trafficked, by reporting the crime, you won’t be charged with prostitution.
That’s what Senator Wiener and the San Francisco Chronicle want you to believe. According to their reporting:
“California Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, will introduce legislation Monday that would prevent law enforcement from arresting and charging sex workers who come forward as victims or witnesses to serious crimes. The proposed law, SB233, would also prevent officers from using condoms as probable cause to arrest a sex worker in any situation.
“‘Right now, we know there are sex workers who are victimized or witness crimes and are scared to come forward because they think they are going to be arrested,’ Wiener said. ‘We want to create every incentive for sex workers to feel safe in reporting crimes.’”
But if you read the actual language of SB 233, it tells a totally different story.
Here’s the full text of Senate Bill 233:
“An act to add Section 647.3 to the Penal Code, relating to crime.
“LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
“SB 233, as introduced, Wiener. Immunity from arrest. [Emphasis here and below added by this writer.]
“Existing law criminalizes various aspects of sex work, including soliciting anyone to engage in, or engaging in, lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place, loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, or maintaining a public nuisance. Existing law, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (CUCSA), also criminalizes various offenses relating to the possession, transportation, and sale of specified controlled substances.
“This bill would prohibit the arrest of a person for a misdemeanor violation of the CUCSA or other specified sex work crimes, if that person is reporting a crime of sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, robbery, assault, kidnapping, threats, blackmail, extortion, burglary, or another violent crime. The bill would also state that possession of condoms in any amount, in and of itself, is not probable cause for arrest for specified sex work crimes.
“Digest Key – Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
“SECTION 1. Section 647.3 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
“647.3. (a) A person who is reporting a crime of sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, robbery, assault, kidnapping, threats, blackmail, extortion, burglary, or another violent crime shall not be arrested for a crime, including a misdemeanor violation of the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code) or a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 647 or of Section 372 or 653.22.
“(b) Possession of condoms in any amount shall not, in and of itself, be probable cause for arrest for a crime, including a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 647 or of Section 372 or 653.22.”
If a trafficker reports his competition, for example, does that mean he can’t be prosecuted for sex trafficking?
Under this proposal, it sure seems that way.
Could a prostitute who just slashed the throat of another prostitute over a fight over cocaine get off free and clear by selling out a known trafficker?
Here’s the funny thing about legal bills. Often what’s written doesn’t resemble what the authors claim they were trying to accomplish.
Take, for example, a bill proposed by Connecticut Democrats earlier this month to raise the tax on ammunition in the state by 50 percent.
Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, a freshman legislator from Hartford, took to Twitter to announce it.
“Currently, ammunition is taxed at the same rate as other products, but we want to increase it by 50 percent, because we see it as a prevention measure,” Gilchrest says in the video. “For example, if someone were to buy a 50 cartridge box of ammunition, which goes for about $10, it would increase the price to $15.”
Except… there’s that minor little detail about the lawmaker’s inability to do basic math.
If a box of ammunition is $10, and CT sales tax is 6.35%, then the total cost of a box of ammo is $10.64. Increasing the tax by 50 percent would raise the tax to 9.525%, meaning that same box of ammo would now cost $10.95 cents.
The failed math Gilchrest is talking about, of course, would be a 50% tax on the product itself.
Gilchrest goes on to state that military and law enforcement members will be exempted from the tax. Or would they? She once again says one thing… but the facts indicate otherwise.
Here’s a draft of the bill. Shocker – no exemption.
California has shown that the state is no stranger to dodging the law.
The current and previous governors have been outspoken critics of President Trump, defying him by passing sanctuary state legislation to protect those in the state illegally.
Their spite of President Trump extends to sex trafficking, and it makes one wonder about the authenticity of their bill.
On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom handed down a new Executive Order withdrawing California National Guard troops from the border with Mexico.
When a member of the press asked the Governor at the press conference if this order ignores documented human sex trafficking at border, Newsom completely dodged the question and moved on.
Let’s not forget – there’s an incredibly fine line between protecting sex trafficking victims creating an environment in which human trafficking can explode thanks to our laws.