It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Judicial Thought Control Directed at a Minor

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:44 PM
This is really awful. Judges do all kinds of ridiculous things, but this has got to be one of the most invasive, innapropriate situations yet.

No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

She's ordered the young drug offender not have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school, as a condition of her probation.

It is one of several unorthodox rulings Judge Lauri Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the district court that covers Fannin and Grayson counties.

This woman is wielding WAY more power than she is authorized for, and obviously she has no idea where her 'Justice' begins and ends. I imagine the people who elected her will need to learn their lesson sooner or later...

This is what happens when public officials act like tyrants instead of servants.

A judge has to be more than the sum of their views, otherwise impartiality is a complete illusion.

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:33 AM
This is very weird. It almost sounds that the judge got together with the parents first, and gave the sentence trying to help the parents control the teen. What this judge is trying to do is legislate morality. I'm sorry, you can't legislate morality.

Morality has to be learned and inbread in a person over time. Then the morality will be deep within a person and automatically come to the surface like a habit when the time is right. You can't tell someone not to do something for a short time, and expect that to change their habbits. If that worked, then all the people coming out of prison would be changed.

What is interesting to me is that the reporters felt a need to include:

Lawyers are also subject to her rulings. Blake has the told female attorneys not wear sleeveless shirts or show cleavage in her courtroom.

This has nothing to do with the judge's rulings. This is just a dress code that any employer can enforce. The reporters made it to look like this dress code was draconian also.

It brings up the interesting question of why they are slamming this judge in every way possible, and what they left out of their news article. Is she just trying to legislate morality, or is there a plausable reason the judge gave these types of rulings? Did this young woman already have children which put a strain on her, her parents, the school, and welfare systems she may be getting aid from? Is she pregnant currently, and continued sex would put her and her child in danger somehow? Is the partners she is choosing threatening her parents, or other kids in the school she is friends with? Was this young girl a part of a gang who is also into drugs? If she was, continued relations with gang members and/or anyone in a drug culture would only ensure her return to that culture.

What type of people is this judge dealing with? What is this town actually like?

She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.

It almost sounds like this judge is not so much trying to legislate morality, but trying to attack a culture that the people on probation may see as impossible to get out of whether they want to or not. Could it be possible that this might be the only way for those on probation to see that they can escape from this culture if they want to?

Is this "drug cluture" the media is calling actually gangs of teens and young adults that cause havoc where every they go? If this is so, it is practically impossible to leave a gang. A person could get seriously hurt or killed trying to leave one once they joined. Could it be possible for the people on probatiion and who want to, to be able to escape their old lives if they don't associate with it while on probation? Could the unorthodox rulings be called for in certain situations? There have been many positive changes in history because people did something unorthodox.

Or is this judge just legislating morality, and treading on individual rights that the constitution and the bill or Rights afford us.

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Mystery_Lady]

new topics

log in