Jump to content
The Talon House

California Oral Sex Law Overturned


Recommended Posts

California Oral Sex Law Overturned

by The Associated Press

March 7, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life.

The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional.

The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders.

The justices pointed out that lawmakers declined to treat both categories of offenders equally three times in the last 10 years.

The court noted that, because the law did not treat the two categories of sex offenders similarly, the law violated both state and federal equal protection rights.

"Mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the majority.

Adults who have sexual activity with children under 16 are required to register.

The state maintains a public database with personal information of registered sex offenders.

The justices, however, left intact a provision granting trial judges the discretion to demand registration for both categories of adult sex offenders - those that have oral sex or intercourse with minors ages 16 and 17.

The case was brought by Vincent Hofsheier of Santa Cruz County, who was convicted in 2003 of having oral sex with a 16-year-old girl.

He was sentenced to 120 days in jail.

Neither his attorney, Paul Couenhoven, nor the California Attorney General's office returned calls for comment.

Justice Marvin Baxter was the lone dissent.

"As any teenager or adult knows, intercourse is distinct from oral copulation, involving a wholly different sexual act that, unlike oral copulation, may result in pregnancy and the birth of a child," he wrote.

"Given this significant difference in the potential real-life consequences of the two acts, the Legislature reasonably could decide that different registration schemes for the two groups of offenders are appropriate as a matter of public policy."

©365Gay.com 2006


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...