Latest news with #MaggyKrell
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
After turbulent run, California lawmakers unanimously pass bill on solicitation of minors
The state Assembly on Thursday unanimously passed legislation to strengthen criminal penalties for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds for sex, a crime measure that set off weeks of political turbulence at the state Capitol. The original author of the bill, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), said she wanted to target demand by cracking down on perpetrators as well as increasing protections for victims. Her legislation, in part, would have given prosecutors the ability to charge offenders who buy sex from older teens as a felony or a misdemeanor. Controversy erupted in April when Democrats, after a committee hearing, voted to strip the felony provision out of the bill in cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds. That action created a firestorm of criticism on social media and drew a swift rebuke from Republican lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Democrats cut a deal last week amid public pressure, adjusting the penalties to apply only to offenders more than three years older than the victim. "This is our solution to one of the most prevalent problems in the state of California, the exploitation and the trafficking of children," Assemblyman Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), chair of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, told his colleagues before the vote. Schultz acknowledged that the bill went through a "messy" process, but ultimately will help protect children. The legislation now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Existing law already penalizes solicitation of a minor under 16 as a misdemeanor or felony on the first offense and as a felony on subsequent offenses. During the debate on Thursday, Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) became emotional while speaking in support of the bill and sharing that as a child she was a victim of sexual abuse. As she paused to collect herself, colleagues gathered around her, and she tearfully described testifying against her predator in court, and then living next door to him in high school after he was released. "This experience continues to shape my views and actions when it comes to protecting children and victims of crime, and it's one of the reasons I will always stand on the side of creating more support for victims and creating accountability for predators," she said. Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), who said she supported the bill but hoped for further changes, expressed concerns that the bill criminalizes loitering with the intent to buy sex, arguing that it could be used disproportionately by law enforcement on minorities and the poor. "When laws are vague, they are ripe for profiling," Sharp-Collins said, "and I'm truly worried about Black, brown and the LGBTQIA+ individuals being overly policed and targeted for their mere presence in the area without them actually doing anything criminal." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
After turbulent run, California lawmakers unanimously passes bill on solicitation of minors
SACRAMENTO — The state Assembly on Thursday unanimously passed legislation to strengthen criminal penalties for soliciting 16- and -17-year-olds for sex, a crime measure that set off weeks of political turbulence at the state Capitol. The original author of the bill, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), said she wanted to target demand by cracking down on perpetrators as well as increasing protections for victims. Her legislation, in part, would have given prosecutors the ability to charge offenders who buy sex from older teens as a felony or a misdemeanor. Controversy erupted in April when Democrats, after a committee hearing, voted to strip the felony provision out of the bill in cases involving 16- and 17-year-old. That action created a firestorm of criticism on social media and drew a swift rebuke from Republican lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Democrats cut a deal last week amid public pressure, adjusting the penalties to apply only to offenders more than three years older than the victim. 'This is our solution to one of the most prevalent problems in the state of California, the exploitation and the trafficking of children,' Assemblyman Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), chair of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, told his colleagues before the vote. Schultz acknowledged that the bill went through a 'messy' process, but ultimately will help protect children. The legislation now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Existing law already penalizes solicitation of a minor under 16 as a misdemeanor or felony on the first offense and as a felony on subsequent offenses. During the debate on Thursday, Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) became emotional while speaking in support of the bill and sharing that as child she was victim of sexual abuse. As she paused to collect herself, colleagues gathered around her, and she tearfully described testifying against her predator in court, and then living next door to him in high school after he was released. 'This experience continues to shape my views and actions when it comes to protecting children and victims of crime, and it's one of the reasons I will always stand on the side of creating more support for victims and creating accountability for predators,' she said. Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), who said she supported the bill but hoped for further changes, expressed concerns that the bill criminalizes loitering with the intent to buy sex, arguing that it could be used disproportionately by law enforcement on minorities and the poor. 'When laws are vague, they are ripe for profiling,' Sharp-Collins said, 'and I'm truly worried about Black, brown and the LGBTQIA+ individuals being overly policed and targeted for their mere presence in the area without them actually doing anything criminal.'
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sex trafficking is covered in California. More laws are not the answer
In this era of culture war politics, the importance of law has diminished significantly. Instead of being crafted to create balance for our society, laws are being used as ammo for political games. I've thought a lot about this issue since reading a book by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, 'Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.' In it, Gorsuch explains how, in the last generation, America has become a law-obsessed nation, to the detriment of everyday Americans. Opinion 'Some law is essential to our lives and our freedoms,' the book tells us. 'But too much law can place those very same freedoms at risk and even undermine respect for law itself. And often those who feel the cost most acutely are those without wealth, power and status.' Gorsuch, and his collaborator, Janie Nitzie, tell us that there are 60,000 pages of American law, which amounts to 3 million words. They rightly ask: Have we gone too far? I thought of that for the last two weeks, as Sacramento was consumed by Assembly Bill 375, which sought to toughen penalties for the crime of solicitation of minors and support survivors of abuse. Written by Sacramento-area Assemblymember Maggy Krell, AB 379 gives the impression of filling a void in California by creating more laws to punish those who solicit underage people. But the California Penal Code is full of laws to crack down on sex trafficking and prostitution. Specifically, CPC 288.3 gives judges the discretion to sentence someone to jail who is charged with attempting to communicate with a minor. It also states that the person could be charged for indirect or direct communication with he victim, something that Krell's bill seeks to address. Just last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed four laws to address human trafficking. They covered increasing penalties for traffickers to giving hospitals tools to identify victims. So, with the presence of laws on the books to confront human trafficking, why do we need more laws? Why do we need AB 375? The Sacramento Bee's opinion team is hard at work sifting through the chaos so you don't have to. Get our weekly Bee Opinionated newsletter straight to your inbox and we'll help you cut through the drone of the news cycle. In his book, Gorsuch documents the consequences people have experienced because of the American obsession with creating too many laws. One situation that stood out to me was a fisherman who had federal agents inspect his boat and the fish he caught. The man was arrested initially for catching undersized fish in the Gulf of Mexico, and later on, charged with fraud under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a 2002 federal law that penalizes record-keeping and reporting. The commercial fisherman was allegedly playing fast and loose with the size of his catch. He was convicted, but that decision was later reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. To make matters worse, after spending thousands of dollars on lawyers to fight his jail time, the federal government ultimately changed the law, which would've allowed him to go free. Frankly, America doesn't know how to reconcile with its past, especially when it comes to law. Let's say AB 379 passes. What if it led to people being wrongfully convicted and put into jail because of this law? California could write an apology and reform the law, but that wouldn't do anything for the lives of people negatively affected. I don't know Krell, but it seems she put her fellow Democrats in a bad place. They wanted to move slowly, to have a hearing this autumn to make sure AB 379 would not result in a felony conviction for someone who was not trafficking a 16- or 17-year-old, but was convicted anyway. Krell is not some sinister politician. She is a career prosecutor using her expertise for what she believes is the right solution to human trafficking. But in the current climate of government, there is an obsession to create more laws to protect more people while forgetting that more laws also hurt more people. Krell wants to believe that AB 379 would only have consequences for the worst in us. She should have listened to her colleagues who worried about the unintended consequences of her bill if it were applied too broadly. She refused and created a situation where her party got trashed by the lawmaking obsession that Gorsuch wrote about. What was wrong with the laws already in place?
San Francisco Chronicle
10-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Dems keep using the same plan for political failure. Are they done being embarrassed?
Over the past several years, Democrats in the California Legislature seem to have developed a bizarre, five-point political playbook that goes something like this: Take a highly unpopular stance that's almost impossible to defend or coherently explain to average voters and residents. Face severe public pushback. Double down on that stance. Face even more severe public pushback. Battered and humiliated, reverse course and adopt the very same policy they'd argued so fiercely against. The latest about-face happened Tuesday, when Democratic leaders of the California Assembly backtracked on their opposition to a proposal to strengthen penalties for offenders who purchase 16- and 17-year-olds for sex. Last week, Assembly Democrats overwhelmingly voted to strip AB379, by Assembly Member Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, of its key provision: strengthening punishments to match those for offenders convicted of purchasing kids 15 and younger for sex. Democrats then inserted amendments that vaguely promised to 'adopt the strongest laws to protect 16- and 17-year-old victims.' Of course, the strongest law would have been passing Krell's original bill. Legislative leaders not only didn't do that, but they also ignored strong pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom to do so. Predictably, severe public backlash ensued. Also predictably, Democrats backed down. They now plan to amend AB379 to impose felony penalties for adult offenders convicted of soliciting sex from 16- and 17-year-olds — as long as they're at least three years older than the minor, according to an outline of the deal Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' office shared with me. (If the adult offender is less than three years older than the minor, the crime would still be classified as a misdemeanor.) The bill also creates a state grant program to help district attorneys streamline the prosecution of human trafficking. Krell is also being reinstated as a bill co-author after Assembly Democrats stripped her name from its original version. This bill recognizes what should long have been obvious: that buying minors for sex is an egregious and horrific crime, regardless of whether the kids are 15 or 17. And it takes a far more common-sense approach to resolving some Democrats' concerns that young adults in romantic relationships with minors (i.e., in a high-school relationship) could inadvertently be targeted. So why did legislators expend so much political capital dying on a hill they couldn't defend for more than a week — when a far more rational alternative was readily available? That remains to be seen. It's also unclear if they've learned anything. The state Senate still has to sign off on the bill if it clears the Assembly, where it's scheduled for a hearing Wednesday. Are Democrats ready to get to the serious business of improving outcomes in California? Or will they continue to give Republicans and other critics easy political ammunition to portray them as out-of-touch ideologues? After all, Democrats have been here before. In 2023, the Assembly Public Safety Committee killed a bill authored by state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, to classify human trafficking of minors as a 'serious' felony. The committee's reasoning? Such crimes could already be considered 'serious' if additional offenses had been committed — such as inflicting great bodily injury on the child victim. That absurd rationale sparked immediate backlash and left Democrats in damage control mode. Newsom and Rivas raced to intervene, and Grove's bill was revived and signed into law. Then, in 2024, Democrats embarked on a series of convoluted maneuvers — each more nonsensical than the last — in a failed attempt to head off a proposed November ballot measure to overhaul portions of Proposition 47, the controversial 2014 measure that lightened penalties for some drug and theft crimes. First, Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, floated a mob-like proposal to kill their own public-safety legislative package if voters approved the proposed ballot measure, later dubbed Prop 36. But their nakedly transparent effort to force the measure's proponents to withdraw it from the ballot alienated both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and Rivas and McGuire ultimately sacked the plan. This prompted Newsom to introduce his own last-ditch proposal for a competing ballot measure to reform Prop 47, even though Newsom, Rivas and McGuire had repeatedly said Prop 47 didn't need any changes. Knowing the proposal faced an uphill battle in the Legislature, Newsom proposed manipulating an arcane election procedure to circumvent the two-thirds super majority required to place it on the ballot and instead allow it to be passed with a simple majority. Less than 48 hours later, however, Newsom scrapped the proposal, stating that lawmakers couldn't reach a consensus on proposed amendments by the ballot deadline. To the surprise of absolutely no one who had set foot in California in recent years and had sensed voters' mounting frustrations with crime, Prop 36 passed with more than 68% of the vote. In all of these examples, Democrats have spent significant time, energy and resources fighting against what most Californians clearly view as common sense. In all of these cases, they've been forced to retreat with their tail between their legs. Does anyone know what kind of political strategy this is? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California Sex Trafficking Fight Erupts Over Punishment for Soliciting Minors
It's rare to see politicians of any stripe fight against sex-trafficking overreach—or any tough-on-crime gestures, really. In California, Democrats have been finding out what happens when you do. After pushing back somewhat against an overly carceral bill targeting prostitution customers, they were tarred by Republicans as having voted "to protect predators" and being "a threat to our kids' safety." It's become "the biggest controversy Sacramento has seen in a while," notes The Sacramento Bee. Now, of course, Democrats are backtracking. Solicitation Law Changes Proposed The bill—an amended version of which passed the California Assembly on May 1—originally came from Sacramento Rep. Maggy Krell, herself a Democrat and a former prosecutor. Krell worked on a failed case against Backpage and then wrote a book about it, so being tough on prostitution is basically her whole shtick now. But Assembly Bill 379, introduced in February, is a bad bill. It would create a new prostitution loitering law—the kind of thing that lets cops target people for merely looking like they might be about to engage in prostitution. And it would institute a mandatory $1,000 "Survivor Support Fund" fine on anyone convicted of solicitation or loitering for solicitation (in addition to any other fines they might get). But those aren't the controversial bits—most lawmakers in the state's Assembly were OK with those parts (alas). The big controversy concerns punishments for soliciting someone aged 16 or 17 for sex. Krell's proposal would amend a law passed last year that treats solicitation of a minor differently based on whether a minor being solicited is over or under age 16. Misdemeanor or Felony? That 2024 law raised potential penalties for solicitation of a minor, moving it from a misdemeanor to a possible felony. But soliciting a minor for prostitution can only be a felony in cases where the offender is over age 18 and the person solicited is under age 16, or under age 18 and proven to be a victim of human trafficking. And even under such circumstances, authorities still have some discretion. The 2024 law made it a "wobbler" offense, with prosecutors and judges able to charge and punish it as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Basically, the 2024 law was an acknowledgement that the broad parameters of the crime here—soliciting someone who is under age 18 for sex—don't tell us everything we need to know about moral culpability. There's a big difference between a 40-year-old man actively soliciting someone he knows to be 14 years old for sex and a 16-year-old soliciting another 16-year-old, for instance. Or between someone soliciting a minor they know is being coerced into prostitution and a 22-year-old soliciting a 17-year-old whom they might reasonably believe to be 18 and acting independently. Under Krell's proposal, any act of solicitation "by a defendant who is 18 years of age or older" could be punished as a felony when the person solicited was a minor (or, as it goes, a cop pretending to be one). An amended version of the bill that passed the Assembly last week would have done away with Krell's proposed changes to the way solicitation of a minor is punished. Republicans, along with Krell and a few Democrats, opposed this amended version, but most Democrats in the state Assembly were on board with the change. "Krell is a former prosecutor, and prosecutors tend to be hammers that see every problem as a nail," suggested Sacramento Bee op-ed writer Robin Epley, noting that the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is opposed to the bill as originally written. Under Krell's version, "a 19- or 20-year-old dating a 16- or 17-year-old" could be charged with a felony for buying a date dinner, since prostitution doesn't require the exchange of money, just anything of value, Epley pointed out. "I believe it would be used as a cudgel to persecute out-groups—including families that disapprove of queer or interracial relationships." "What the Democrats are trying to do here is keep some common sense written into state law so that judges and prosecutors aren't forced to treat every case the same," Epley said. Myths, Mudslinging, and Backpedaling So much for common sense. It seems Democrats are now reversing course, after their pushback received a lot of pushback. "Democratic leaders in the California Assembly announced on Tuesday that…the proposed felony will be added back into AB 379, backpedaling on moves the two made last week," KCRA reported. Their one condition is that "the felony will not apply when the adult offender is within three years of the age of the minor." Conservatives had been quick to portray Democrats as having a soft spot for predators and of not wanting to protect kids. Democrats think "buying minors for sex…isn't that bad" in some circumstances, wrote Zachary Faria at the Washington Examiner—as if nothing counts as being condemned and punished unless it's a felony. Of course, a misdemeanor offense is still a crime, and it will still net you a criminal record and all sorts of consequences. As it stands, someone convicted of solicitation of a minor aged 16 or 17 can be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $10,000. And under the amended version of Krell's bill, they could also be required to pay an additional $1,000 Survivor Fund fine. Funnily enough, those supporting Krell's proposal aren't actually as tough-on-crime as they're purporting to be. Supporters of Krell's version have suggested that it should always be a felony to solicit a minor. But her proposal would have merely made it possible to charge a felony. It would still have left solicitation of a minor—whether the person solicited was over or under age 16—as a wobbler crime capable of being treated as a misdemeanor or a felony. This isn't the only misleading way that Krell's proposal has been portrayed. "We need to say loud and clear that if you're under 18—a child, a minor—that the person who is buying that person should be charged as a felony," said Krell. "Sex without consent is rape. The exchange of money doesn't change that." But the crime of solicitation does not require sex or any physical activity at all to take place. It doesn't even require an actual minor to exist—many, if not most, cases charged involve stings conducted by undercover police pretending to be under age 18. Solicitation is essentially a speech crime, and equating it to rape is false and inflammatory. An adult who offers a minor money for sex and then engages in sex with them can still be charged with unlawful sexual intercourse, lewd acts on a child, or other sex crimes, regardless of how the solicitation law is written. So, Krell's implication that the current solicitation law lets rapists off the hook is unfounded. And unlawful sexual intercourse (a.k.a. statutory rape) in California is also punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Prostitution Pre-Crime Bit Is Bad, Too "Sadly, Sacramento seems to have lost the capacity to have a rational legislative conversation about sex trafficking—or just about anything when it comes to criminal justice," wrote The Sacramento Bee editorial board earlier this week. The explosive, divisive debate over how solicitation of an older teen should be punished has overshadowed any consideration about the loitering for solicitation proposal in A.B. 379. California repealed a similar law in 2022, amid concerns that the bill let law enforcement harass certain types of women—poor, black, transgender, etc.—merely for existing in public spaces. The new prostitution loitering law would, of course, recreate these same kinds of harms, only this time it would be used to target alleged sex customers instead of sex workers. The loitering for solicitation offense has the potential to be a major infringement on due process, since it's essentially a prostitution pre-crime offense. Police can use it to stalk and arrest anyone they say looked like they were getting ready to solicit sex. Any prudence Democrats showed by pushing back against parts of Krell's bill is tempered by their willingness to create a new crime that could be every bit as overreaching and dangerous to civil liberties. To really do the right thing, they should scrap this bill altogether. Instead, it seems that they've decided to cave almost entirely. Follow-Up on OneTaste Trial As the OneTaste trial gets underway this week, a member of Congress is reportedly trying to intervene. "The representative has written to new FBI director Kash Patel," objecting to the way the case was handled by an FBI agent, according to The Daily Mail. The lead FBI investigator on the case against Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz—former executives at the orgasmic meditation company OneTaste—was Special Agent Elliott McGinnis, who is accused by lawyers for Daedone and Cherwitz of a range of misconduct. Read more about McGinnis and the case here. " has seen a letter to FBI director Patel from a Member of Congress – who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a former law enforcement official – 'seeking answers' about the special agent," the Mail reported. The letter shared by the Mail accuses McGinnis of "a pattern of misconduct" and actions that "represent a fundamental corruption of the investigative process and failure of agent accountability." Prosecutors have already had to admit that evidence vetted by the FBI in this case was not authentic, as this newsletter noted in March. "Most disturbing is the systematic effort to transform Netflix-created content into federal evidence," it states. "This isn't just overreach—it's the deliberate fabrication of a criminal case through entertainment media." More Sex & Tech News Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin just signed into law the Consumer Data Protection Act, which "requires social media companies in the Commonwealth to verify the age of users and limit social media use for kids under the age of 16 to one hour per app per day," per ABC 13 News. "While it's unclear how exactly, the apps would block usage after an hour." Age verification and STD treatment bills pass the North Carolina House. A measure that passed the North Carolina House of Representatives yesterday "mandates that social media platforms delete accounts operated by users younger than 14 years old," according to ABC 11 News. "It permits 14- and 15-year-old users to join networks only with expressed parental consent. Websites and phone apps would also be required to implement age verification." Another bill passed by the North Carolina House on Tuesday would disallow minors to consent to treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without parental approval, unless the minors are 16 or older and "the disease can be treated with a prescription with a duration of 10 days or less." The bill would also require parental approval before minors could be treated for alcohol or substance abuse problems or "emotional disturbance." A similar law is under consideration in Florida and was recently passed by the Florida House. RIP Skype. The original Zoom shut down for good on Monday. "The decision to scrap Skype, announced in March, caps a remarkable 21-year run for a software that for many embodied the early values of the open internet," wrote Leo Sands at The Washington Post. "It was mostly free, had a user-friendly interface and made it easier for people to connect across the world. In its heyday, Skype had over 300 million users." Today's Image Los Angeles | 2018 (ENB/Reason) The post California Sex Trafficking Fight Erupts Over Punishment for Soliciting Minors appeared first on
