The Fight Evil Act of 2012

Good news, Californians.  This November, you have a chance to strike a real blow against evil!

“Great!… but wait…”, I hear you say, “Didn’t we eradicate evil back in the 90s after the Three Strikes law was passed?  Aren’t all the career criminals who were trying to kill Batman and Superman locked up to watch color teevee in our luxurious prison system?”

Ah, naïve little voter, didn’t you watch Dirty Harry?  Criminals have all kinds of legal technicalities that help them evade the law at every turn.  We need MORE LAWS, HARSHER LAWS!

Even with the NDAA allowing the gummint to lock up anyone, at any time, forever, without showing evidence to anyone, there still is evil afoot on a massive scale.  It’s called “Human Trafficking”.

Apparently, there is a large trade in people being kidnapped, beaten, extorted, defrauded, and generally abused by their tormenters, in order to sell their services, including sexual services, and often the victims are underage.  So forget about Bankers that own the government and rob you, mortgage scammers that have destroyed the economy, warmongers, and fossil fuel industries that keep us addicted to destroying the planet.  This one involves CHILDREN and SEX, so it must be the GREATEST EVIL IN THE WORLD.

They must be Satan-worshippers like the McMartin and Little Rascals convicts who got off on technicalities years ago.  And much of it is done by foreigners, violating immigration laws, so you KNOW it must be super-evil.

Yes, children and sex, “some as young as four years old”, we are often reminded, citing one case in Cambodia.  There must be a massive market for this in California.  How many of you would jump at a chance for sex with a four-year-old, if the price were right?  Yeah, I know my readers.

So here’s the real problem:  When California prosecutors come across someone who has kidnapped, beaten, sometimes murdered, extorted, blackmailed, intimidated, probably handled illegal drugs in the process, to engage in human trafficking, our poor prosecutors can’t think of any serious crimes to charge them with.

All they have, under California law, is a wimpy “labor trafficking” or “sex trafficking of a minor” to get them for, with a weak 5 to 8 years of color teevee, depending on the circumstances.  The feds, of course can hit them with life sentences, depending on some variables, and it’s usually the feds that prosecute them, but what are our state and local prosecutors to do?  Shouldn’t they get their piece of the political grandstanding chance to fight evil?

Oh, and there’s something else:  sexual predators USING THE INTERNET!

You’ve seen To Catch a Predator, so you know all about this.  Thank God for reality tv.  The truth might never get out there without it.

So here’s where you come in, brave voter:  This November, you’ll see Prop 35, the “Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute” on your ballot.  You know by the title that it must be something against human trafficking, so it must be good.  No need to read any more.  Of course it will pass, since hardly anyone reads more than the title.

But if you want to be one of those super-sophisticated voters who look into it a little more, it’s all on the web here: (Scroll to page 100.)  You’ll see that its real name is the “Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act (CASE Act)”, which I’ve already translated for you in the title to my post.  It fights evil, that’s all you need to know.  Ok, ok, you want to know more?  Sheesh.  Ok, go to the title & summary here:  I KNOW you’re not going to read the actual text of the law.  Major provisions are listed:

(1)  Increases penalties for Human Trafficking

(2)  Collects fines into a fund that will mostly go to people who provide, or pretend to provide, victim services (don’t know one way or the other), who clearly are agitating for this new law because they can’t get any tax money out of the legislature.  (This couldn’t possibly give them a financial incentive to coach witnesses for the prosecution in the course of their work.  They’re professionals, just like the child counselors for the Little Rascals kids.  You can trust them.)

(3)  Requires a sex trafficker to register as a sex offender

(4)  Requires registered sex offenders to inform authorities in writing about their internet activity (new email address, for instance) within 24 hours.

(5)  Prohibits certain kinds of evidence from being used against victims

(6)   Requires human trafficking training for police officers (provided, no doubt, by the corporations involved in #2).

Now, you know how something like this gets on the ballot, right?  In California, it’s usually one or two big donors who pay the signature-gathering industry a million bucks or more.  In this case, the guy with the deep pockets is Chris Kelly, Facebook’s chief privacy officer during its rise to world dominion, so you know he’s a guy who really cares about privacy rights, and all kinds of human rights.  That wouldn’t have anything to do with item #4, would it?  Yeah, this is a guy who really knows about people’s behavior on the web, how many people have a dozen or more email addresses that they forget about, how many facetious conversations happen online, how hard it is to find anything incriminating on anyone online unless they’re truly a dangerous criminal.

Notice also how #4 doesn’t specify “sex traffickers”, but ALL registered sex offenders.  It includes that guy you knew in college who got caught streaking across the quad.  If he lets more than 24 hours go by before informing the police about his new email address, or the new alias he chose for playing WOW, he’s going into the pokey.  But that’s ok, you didn’t like him anyway.  Then there’s the drunk who relieved himself in an alley because the line at the rest room was too long.  Oh… that was you?  Well, better keep those form letters handy, for whomever you’re supposed to report to for the rest of your life.

You KNOW this is going to pass.  Dontcha love democracy?

This entry was posted in Facebook, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Fight Evil Act of 2012

  1. I hope this gets to a lot of CA voters (I’m not one of them) and it passes. I can’t believe that the CA legislature wouldn’t pass this on its own. Why leave this up to a voter referendum?

    • kitchenmudge says:

      Maybe the legislature saw through the self-serving nature of the fund fed by fines. Or wanted the fine money for their own pet projects. Who knows?

      Either you missed the point of my post, or you’re courageously being contrary here. But you didn’t even read the Title & Summary. The WordPress click count would have told me if anyone had.

      …or maybe you’re turning the facetious tables on me. Well played.

      • Okay, I reread your post given your comment back to me. I didn’t read it closely enough the first time. The second time around I get the deep disdain you have for this proposition.

        What I don’t get is that human trafficking is a problem and if something (even an imperfect something) can be done about it, why not give it try. Yes, there are other problems out there and yes, behind most pieces of legislation are agendas that are contrary to someone’s value system. We don’t live in a perfect world. Humans screw up. Humans create screwed up laws. But sometimes we manage to do some good…sometimes.

        Since I’m not from California, I didn’t read the Title and Summary. I was catching up on about 60 blog posts. I should have paid closer attention. For that, I’m sorry. But I’m paying attention now.

        In NY, we don’t let people vote on individual propositions. Our legislators don’t think it’s a good idea to let the people vote on issues. At least you get to vote on issues affecting your state. But, given what you say about how these issues come up for a vote, maybe it’s all “politics as usual” anyway, which is to say, the best democracy money can buy you. 😦

  2. kitchenmudge says:

    By now, I hope my point is clear: that the attitude of “This is so bad, SOMETHING, ANYTHING must be done!” is exactly what they take advantage of. The initiative process could work better, but only if you had honest gatekeepers writing the title & summary. Voters are not lawyers, and will never look up the two or three dozen other laws referenced in the text to find out what the new law actually says.

    If anyone’s interested in a more detailed, less sarcastic analysis, it can be found here:

  3. robinhood63 says:

    I don’t live in CA and and I’ve read some about the bill earlier but didn’t delve to far into it. After reading more I can only say, “what could possibly go wrong?” I remember the Little Rascal railroading and my wife and I thought it stunk almost from the beginning. Prop 35 looks like bad legislation using base fear to try and get it passed. If it gets defeated maybe that would send a message to make it more sensible. Good Luck.

  4. kitchenmudge says:

    People might be interested in this recent article about the organizations that profit from sex-trafficking sensationalism:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s