Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prostitution Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves tougher penalties in solicitation bill after debate on grooming language
Summary
Lawmakers approved a Johnson amendment to SB 235, increasing penalties for solicitation offenses and adopting updated language to address technology-era trafficking; several members urged separating grooming offenses or adding exceptions to avoid unintended criminalization.
A legislative committee voted to report favorably on SB 235 after adopting an amendment that increases penalties for solicitation offenses and updates statute language to reflect concerns raised by stakeholders over technology-facilitated exploitation.
Sponsor Mr. Johnson described the amendment as addressing stakeholders' core concerns and aligning penalties: for certain procurement or management-related offenses the amendment raises fines and terms (examples in the amendment included ranges up to $3,000 and three years for some offenses and higher for repeat offenses). The amendment was moved, the subcommittee report tabled in favor of the amendment, and the committee approved it.
Representative Bamberg raised a sustained objection to combining grooming provisions with prostitution offenses in a single bill, saying the drafting's broad phrase "any other thing of value" could criminalize private, noncommercial conduct. He urged separating grooming into its own bill or adding clarifying exceptions so ordinary private interactions (his illustrative example of a failed romantic advance) would not become indictable offenses.
Miss Landing and others recounted local task-force and school reports about social media and apps being used to recruit minors, arguing the statute needs modernization to address online exploitation.
By roll call the committee reported SB 235 favorably as amended. Supporters said they would continue to refine language as the bill moves to the floor.
Next steps: The bill advances to floor consideration; sponsors signaled willingness to work with colleagues on narrower drafting for grooming-related provisions.
