California lawmakers have stripped felony penalties from a bill aimed at protecting older teens from sex trafficking, effectively giving predators who purchase 16 and 17-year-olds for carnal acts a mere slap on the wrist.
Key Takeaways
- Assembly Bill 379, authored by Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, was forced to remove felony charges for purchasing 16 and 17-year-olds for carnal relations to advance through committee
- The bill originally aimed to close a loophole in California law that only makes it a felony to purchase children 15 and younger for inappropriate acts
- The forced amendment has sparked outrage among lawmakers and advocates who argue all minors deserve equal protection
- Despite the amendment, the bill still criminalizes loitering to buy teenagers for intimate relations and establishes a victim support fund
- The decision highlights California’s ongoing soft-on-crime approach that Republicans condemn as “pro-criminal”
Democrat-Led Committee Forces Weakened Penalties
California’s Assembly Public Safety Committee has effectively blocked a crucial provision in Assembly Bill 379 that would have made it a felony to purchase 16 and 17-year-old children for carnal acts. The bill, authored by Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, was intended to close a significant legal loophole that only applies felony charges to those who purchase children 15 and younger for abusive acts, leaving older teenagers with less protection under the law. In order for the bill to proceed through the legislative process, Krell was forced to remove the felony penalty provision.
Assemblyman Nick Shultz, who chairs the committee, defended the decision by referencing a prior legislative compromise. “My perspective as chair, there was a carefully crafted deal last year,” Shultz said. This justification has done little to ease the frustration of child protection advocates who see the amendment as abandoning vulnerable teenagers to predators with minimal consequences.
“It’s a disgrace,” said Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, expressing her obvious frustration with the committee’s decision.
Strong Bipartisan Support Undermined
The original bill had garnered widespread bipartisan support, including from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. The legislation was designed to extend protections to all minors and expand services for survivors while increasing law enforcement support for trafficking cases. Senator Shannon Grove, a vocal supporter of stronger penalties, didn’t mince words about the committee’s decision to water down protections for older teens.
“It’s completely evil,” said Senator Grove, expressing the moral outrage shared by many conservatives over the committee’s decision.
San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond had previously emphasized the significance of this legislation in protecting vulnerable youth. “This is more than just legislation,” he said. “It’s a statement of our values and a promise to protect the most vulnerable in our community.”
Author Reluctantly Accepts Compromise
Assemblywoman Krell made it clear that the amendment was not her choice but rather a requirement to keep the bill alive. “In order to get a hearing on the bill, we were forced to remove the piece of the bill that ensures the crime of purchasing a minor for sex applies in all cases where the victim is under the age of 18,” Krell explained. Despite this setback, she remains committed to protecting minors from trafficking, highlighting that the bill still criminalizes loitering to buy teenagers for abusive relations and establishes a fund to help victims.
“I wholeheartedly disagree with that amendment. This has been my life’s work and I will continue to partner with sex trafficking survivors and law enforcement to ensure all minors are protected from the horrors of sex trafficking,” said Maggy Krell, the bill’s author.
State Representative David Tangipa expressed concern about the amendment’s impact on the bill’s effectiveness: “Apparently, what they want to do is remove the 16 and 17-year-old portion of the bill and then just increase penalties and fines.” This approach fails to address the fundamental problem of older teens being targeted by traffickers with less legal consequence.
Pattern of Pro-Criminal Policies
This decision by California Democrats aligns with what many critics see as a pattern of soft-on-crime approaches that prioritize criminals over victims. Senator Grove experienced similar frustration when the Senate Public Safety Committee forced unwanted amendments to her bill, SB 1414, which also aimed to make soliciting or engaging in commercial abuse with a child a felony offense. Instead, the committee amended it to a “wobbler,” allowing it to be charged as a mere misdemeanor with minimal penalties.
“Children of all ages deserve to be protected under the law and a simple fine after buying a child for exploitation is not an appropriate punishment. Californians across the state have made their voices heard and they want this law changed. Unfortunately, the members of the public safety committee continue their soft on crime approach at the expense of California’s most vulnerable, our children,” said Senator Grove, demonstrating the ongoing frustration with California’s legislative priorities.
The California Republican Party has criticized the state Democratic Party for this amendment, accurately labeling it as “pro-criminal.” The message is clear: while Democrats in California claim to be protectors of the vulnerable, their actions continue to undermine justice for child victims while giving predators softer punishments.
Moving Forward with a Weaker Bill
Despite the weakened penalties, Assemblywoman Krell’s bill will move forward with provisions that still aim to provide some protection and support for teen victims of trafficking. The bill will criminalize loitering to buy teenagers for sex and establish a fund to support victims. However, the fundamental issue remains: in California, purchasing a 16 or 17-year-old child for exploitation of minors will not be punishable as a felony, creating a dangerous incentive structure for predators to target older teens.
This legislative compromise exemplifies the ongoing battle between those who prioritize victim protection and those who continue to advance policies that effectively protect criminals. For the children caught in the middle, the outcome could mean the difference between meaningful protection under the law or continued exploitation with minimal consequences for their abusers.
