California Democrats have gutted a crucial bill aimed at protecting teen trafficking victims, removing felony charges for buyers who purchase carnal acts from 16 and 17-year-olds.
Key Takeaways
- Assembly Bill 379, originally designed to make purchasing carnal acts from 16 and 17-year-olds a felony, was stripped of this crucial provision to advance through committee
- The bill’s author, Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, was forced to accept the weakened version despite her strong objections
- California currently maintains stronger felony penalties only for those who purchase abusive acts from children 15 and under, creating a protection gap for older teens
- Critics argue this amendment represents a “soft on crime” approach that fails to protect vulnerable minors from exploitation
- The modified bill still criminalizes loitering to buy teens for predatory acts and establishes a victims’ support fund, but with significantly weaker deterrents
Democrats Strip Teen Trafficking Bill of Felony Provisions
In a move that has outraged victim advocates and Republicans, California’s Democrat-led Assembly Public Safety Committee has blocked a proposal that would make it a felony to purchase 16 and 17-year-old children for exploitation. The controversial decision effectively creates a two-tier system where buying younger children for exploitation remains a felony, while purchasing older teens carries only misdemeanor penalties. This development has sparked intense debate about California’s commitment to protecting all minors from abusive exploitation, regardless of age.
“It’s completely evil,” said Senator Shannon Grove regarding the committee’s decision to weaken the bill’s penalties.
Assemblyman Nick Shultz, who chairs the committee, defended the decision by referencing previous legislative compromises: “My perspective as chair, there was a carefully crafted deal last year,” Shultz stated, pointing to a previous agreement that applied felony charges only to those purchasing children under 16, leaving charges for 16 and 17-year-olds to local prosecutors’ discretion. This justification has done little to quell the frustration of the bill’s advocates, who see it as abandoning older teens to exploitation with minimal consequences for perpetrators.
Author Forced to Accept Watered-Down Legislation
The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblywoman Maggy Krell, reluctantly accepted the amendments to prevent the bill from dying entirely. According to Krell, the committee left her with no choice but to remove the stronger protections for older teens if she wanted any version of the bill to advance. The forced compromise represents a significant defeat for advocates who have been fighting to close what they see as an arbitrary and harmful loophole in California’s child protection laws.
“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. 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 trafficking,” said Maggy Krell, the bill’s author.
Despite the setback, Krell emphasized that the bill still makes important strides by criminalizing loitering to buy teenagers for inappropriate acts and establishing a support fund for victims. These remaining provisions, while valuable, fall short of creating the robust deterrent effect that advocates believe is necessary to meaningfully combat the predatory exploitation of minors. The reluctant compromise has been described by Krell herself as “a disgrace,” reflecting the intense disappointment felt by those fighting to protect all minors equally.
Pattern of Softening Criminal Penalties for Sex Traffickers
This is not the first time California lawmakers have rejected stronger penalties for those who exploit minors. Senator Shannon Grove’s similar measure, SB 1414, was also weakened by the Senate Public Safety Committee earlier this year. That bill initially aimed to make soliciting or engaging in commercial sex with any child a felony offense, with mandatory abuse offender registry for repeat offenses. Instead, committee members amended it to a “wobbler” offense that could be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor.
“Children of all ages deserve to be protected under the law and a simple fine after buying a child for predatory 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 Shannon Grove.
The bill had widespread bipartisan support outside the legislature, including from San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and District Attorney Summer Stephan. San Diego County, recognized as a significant location for human trafficking, has been particularly vocal about the need for stronger protective measures. The County Board of Supervisors had unanimously endorsed the original version of AB 379, highlighting the disconnect between local officials dealing with trafficking and state lawmakers modifying the legislation.
Critics Blast Democratic Priorities
California Republicans have been scathing in their criticism of the committee’s decision. State Representative David Tangipa expressed concern about the amended 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 critique underscores fears that the modified legislation prioritizes revenue generation over actual deterrence and victim protection. The California Republican Party has gone further, labeling the state Democratic Party as “pro-criminal” for its stance on this issue.
The controversy highlights broader tensions in California’s approach to criminal justice reform. While Democrats have championed efforts to reduce incarceration rates and reform the criminal justice system, critics argue that these particular amendments go too far by failing to adequately protect vulnerable minors from predatory exploitation. The message sent by these legislative choices, opponents contend, is that the sexual exploitation of 16 and 17-year-olds is somehow less serious than that of younger children — a distinction that trafficking victims and their advocates find unconscionable.
As the modified bill advances through the legislature, the debate continues about whether California is doing enough to protect all of its children from abusive exploitation, or whether political considerations have compromised the safety of its most vulnerable teens.
