It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge sentences teen to no "sex"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Does this Texas judge really think she has this authority? Texas judicial system is almost like their presidential governor, anything goes I guess. Is this for real? Can they do that?


abclocal.go.com...




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I just wonder if the Judge could sentence me to "mucho sex"





First I heard of this...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The website is not pulling up for me


Anyways...it's called alternative punishment or something like that.

Im all for it depending on the case (I cant see the site now)

The judge has every right to do so.....more judges should start using thier brains to actually think of ways that work. Just slamming 10 years, 2 years, 3 years etc..etc... does not really work. Don't get me wrong, Im all for jailtime...but sometimes that just doesnt cut it.

1) looks better on record than having jail time or community service
2) At least the teen is not in jail where she learns nothing.



[edit on 26/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Shouldn't the teen's parents have already done that?

A shame, when the judicial system has to figure out how to be the surrogate parents



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
This judge is infringing on her basic human rights. If you read into the story posted on the news article it goes in to say this judge has imposed similar penalties. Such as ordering other offenders not to get tattoos or body piercings.

The bottom line is that no one can tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. The only exception is if you are mentally unfit and are in danger of harming yourself or others.

If a judge told me I couldn't get a tattoo I would basically laugh at him/her. You sometimes wonder how Judges like this one got their jobs. Then again it is Texas.


And how are they going to enforce this punishment? Are they going to make her see a gynaecologist every few months?


[edit on 10-26-2005 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
CPY, they will see if her hyman breaks.


www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
EDIT...I can read it now

[edit on 26/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Sporty try this

www.weirdspot.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
That doesn't work. Sorry sporty, google the key words: texas-judge-sentences-no-sex



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
That doesn't work. Sorry sporty, google the key words: texas-judge-sentences-no-sex

Thanks anyways....I found another link


www.firstcoastnews.com... 4984



SHERMAN, Texas (AP) -- A state district judge has ordered a 17-year-old drug offender barred from sex as a condition of her probation. Judge Lauri Blake made the ruling that bars the girl from having sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school.
***********
She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.
***********
Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said defendants who don't like their probation conditions can reject them and go to jail. On the other hand, conditions that violate someone's constitutional rights are best avoided, he said.


There ya have it.....they can reject the "ban" punishments and get the no crap criminal punishment. It's their choice, jail or no whatever during probation time.

What up with the tattoos and piercings being "associated with the drug culture"


I think she has crackheads confused for bikers and teenie boppers....there is nothing wrong with having body art



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Sporty thanks for the link,

I guess if she is offering terms of probation, that is a catch 22 for criminals. Personally, I think this judge just wants her name in the limelight. Texas, can't live with them, can't live with them!



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
AnAbsoluteCreation
You have an extra http:// in your links. Just cut & paste next time.

From SportyMB's link:

Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said defendants who don't like their probation conditions can reject them and go to jail. On the other hand, conditions that violate someone's constitutional rights are best avoided, he said.

"The idea is that you can't ever ask somebody to give up certain rights," he said.

I hope this guy isn't implying that a seventeen year old has a "constitutional right" to sex...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Okay this is just plain crazy.

There is a lot of logic to alternative punishments - especially if they result in social embarassment. In history, stocks for instance - although seen as barbaric - were a fairly effective way of punishing minor offences. The modern equivalent of this is 'community service' - often involving picking litter off the street.

However, how can sex be related to drugs? The only things I can think of are a) Drug addicts (esp. heroin/crack users cannot take care of their kids effectively and may pass on their addiction to their babies during the pregancy) b) Heroin users are more likely to pass on sexually transmitted diseases through needles and vice-versa.

The article does not make it clear what drug this woman was taking - merely that it was 'drug offences'. Odds are that this girl was caught with a minor drug in a social situation and the judge thought that she should 'scare' her and bring her into line. She probably thinks that she's doing the parents job in introducing discipline into a 'tearaway' child. In effect, she is just drawing attention to herself.

It's rubbish really.

Putting abstract rules like 'no sex while living with your parents' is just garbage. She's practically an adult and if she's having sex it is much better to educate her about it rather than pretend that she's 11 years old. If she's not, then its even crazier.

Every society thinks that there is a 'youth' problem, but my gut instinct thinks that there are real issues with our society. Go out onto any British provincial town on a Friday/Saturday night and you will see early-mid teens drinking and smoking themselves silly, with all the glorious side-effects that these will eventually have. Why is this? A lack of discipline? The decline of religious values? Or perhaps it is fault of the consumerist capitalism, mixed in with the paranoid, fear-ridden society we live in?

In a very real sense, kids have nihalistically realised that there is nothing better to do than drink. Why not indulge in hedonism because lets face it, the future (if not the present) is pretty bleak. Kids today just aren't believing the lies that children have been fed throughout the 20th century. They are savvier and more cynical and have been encouraged to act and dress like mini-adults throughout their lives. Unfortunately, they are still treated as kids, because we as adults want them to stay young forever. So consequently they exist in a hinterland without the maturity, responsibility or respect that adulthood would grant them.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
kedfr very well put. I agree with you on every point you made. Thoroughly thought out and well versed opinions.
from me. Is it just me or does anyone else here agree that this judge is using her own biased views toward how a child to be raised, instead of upholding the law as it should be?

[edit on 10-26-2005 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   


I hope this guy isn't implying that a seventeen year old has a "constitutional right" to sex...


In essence, they do.

If 17 is above the legal age of consent (which it likely is in Texas), and the Constitution grants the freedom of the pursuit of happiness....then there you go.

However, the choice is an ALTERNATIVE to the other, normal sentencing, so it is the person's CHOICE, therefore neatly dodging the rights infringement issue.... Is it right? I'm still not sure. Is it legal? Sure.



Is it just me or does anyone else here agree that this judge is using her own biased views toward how a child to be raised, instead of upholding the law as it should be?


Not "instead of", but a case of upholding the law "OR" catering to his own biased view...big difference there....

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Gazrok]




top topics



 
0

log in

join