Thursday, September 03, 2015

Maybe We Needed To Pass The Law To Know It Was Bad Enough To Have To Reverse Part Of It

From here in the Golden State:
Ten months after California voters passed a ballot measure reducing several drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, Gov. Jerry Brown will be asked to consider a bill intended to soften one impact of Proposition 47.

The state Senate on Thursday unanimously approved Senate Bill 333, which would create a new felony for the possession of date-rape drugs with the intent to commit a sexual assault, sending it to Brown’s desk for a signature.

Simple possession of date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol was reduced from a wobbler – a crime that prosecutors can charge as either a misdemeanor or a felony – to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, raising concern among advocates who argued it would weaken sexual assault laws.

Galgiani originally sought to restore simple possession of the drugs to a wobbler, but the version of her bill approved Thursday creates a new felony that prosecutors could use under certain circumstances. The Legislature’s analysis of the bill described one set of circumstances in which prosecutors could use the proposed law: A suspect tells witnesses he intends to drug someone and have sex with them, then administers the drug but is stopped before an assault is attempted.
For whatever reason, the citizens voted for this law.  Why are the legislature and governor overturning the will of the people?  Where's the outcry?

There won't be one.  "The people" got to feel good voting for what they wanted, no one really cares what the final tally is.  They got to feel good, that's why they voted that way.  Mission accomplished.  Same with the $6 billion in stem cell research "the people" approved several years ago.  Finger in the eye of religious conservatives, mission accomplished.  Doesn't matter that I've yet to hear of one positive result from all that money.

Read more here:

1 comment:

Ellen K said...

So if I understand the liberal view right, it is a trigger to have someone who doubts a rape has occurred, but not a trigger to have an unaltered 17 year old boys share a changing area and bathroom with girls the same age in spite of the claims that many girls have been molested before they are 14. In a similar vein, it is okay for colleges to convene kangaroo courts for claims of rape without evidence, but not a crime for someone to have roofies in possession. Do these people read what they write?