Judge throws 17-year-old honors student in jail for missing classes

[Spoa]

Honors Student put in prison for missing school.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/houston...tardiness-and-truancy-at-school-29458964.html

She is still an honors student, works hard on her school work, works two jobs to help her younger siblings get through, and yet, she gets put in jail. I don't think she should have a criminal record. She isn't a criminal!

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

As far as I'm concerned, this judge shouldn't be holding office. Voting him out in his next election (2014) isn't good enough. My opinion is that he should be impeached and removed from office immediately, so he can't abuse his ill-deserved power any longer.

Oh, and the kicker??

According another local news source (KHOU - Houston) the judge couldn't be interviewed about the controversy on Friday. He - get this - wasn't available, because he took Friday off.

Guess he was too tired to work.

Anyone with experience in even the civil judicial system (not saying you don't) knows that judges pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want, and they never face any repercussions. Maybe one high profile asshat move like this will get one unelected, but I don't think it would change the culture of unaccountable judge behavior for anyone else.

 

[AGRP]

"If you let one of them run loose, then what are you going to do with the rest of them?" Did he really say that? Stay in line slave. Let this be a lesson to other slaves who think it's ok to walk off the plantation. We can't have others believing they can succeed without attending our state brainwashing centers.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's not confuse the Constitution with silly Statutes. I'd prefer going the Common Law route where there needs to be an injured party, not just a remedy for a broken statute, etc.

The injured party is the government. The schools get money based on attendance. She stole from the government school. This will no longer be tolerated.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Follow the money...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/03/3592093/kc-passes-anti-truancy-measure.html

Rather than have Kansas City police pick up kids they think might be skipping school, city prosecutors will issue tickets to parents of chronic truants based on attendance records provided by the schools.

...

The ordinance will not take effect until next school year. Parents could face fines of up to $500, but they would initially get warnings to get their children in school. To avoid fines and court costs, parents also could attend parenting classes and receive counseling, Councilman John Sharp said.

 

[mad cow]

Is the law that if she is enrolled in a public school she must attend?Surely they have high school drop outs in Texas that aren't being arrested,or at least they did.I know a bunch of them.

 

[KCIndy]

Is the law that if she is enrolled in a public school she must attend?Surely they have high school drop outs in Texas that aren't being arrested,or at least they did.I know a bunch of them.

The law in Texas requires mandatory attendance until age 18. (I had been under the impression it was 16, but I was wrong). Here's the link: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8327 (click on "compulsory attendance" about halfway down the page)

I'm sure there are plenty of other kids in Texas who have dropped out early and aren't facing any repercussions. The judge in this case admitted he simply wanted to "make an example" of Diane. He had the abusive power and figured he would face no repercussions. She was innocent, alone, and helpless.

The judge's action is the textbook example of a bully. He abused someone who was completely powerless to resist him, and who was completely at his mercy.

How much do you want to bet he would NOT have tried such a stunt with the child of an important politician, or some wealthy business executive who had the resources to hire a good attorney and follow up with a powerful complaint to the state bar association?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Go to school, or make up the lost revenue...

Next up, call the Police at least once a week, or pay a non-use fee.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...l_district_over_exorbitant_truancy_fines.html

The lawsuit claims that the school district demanded excessive and illegal fines for truants that exploited the truancy policy into what the Pennsylvania NAACP called an “outrageously, discriminatory truancy punishment machine.” The Public Interest Law Center claims that one student accrued $27,000 of debt and another student’s family had been fined more than $12,000.

The Lebanon Daily News profiled the Hummels, who were slammed with exorbitant fines. Lenora Hummel said her kids Justin and Shannon faced bullying and harassment that made them terrified of going to school. For that they were fined more than $8,000. Hummel said that when she contacted the school to ask them to address her kids’ concerns, the school said they had no control over the situation. The fines kept coming. Shannon is going to school online and Justin, now 20, is trying to get his GED elsewhere.

According to the lawsuit, Pennsylvania sets a maximum penalty at $300 per violation, but state law also allows judges to decide fines for families. Fines can be levied against parents as well as any student who’s at least 13 years old. Judges also have the right to order parents to enroll in parenting education programs, but parents of repeat offenders face jail time as well or in the most extreme cases, loss of their parental rights. The Public Interest Law Center claimed in a press release that the Lebanon school district charged nearly $500,000 in fines in one school year, from 2008-2009, and that it had taken families to court over 8,000 times in just six years. The controversy began in 2009 when parents approached the school board to complain about the fines.

 

[KCIndy]

Anyone with experience in even the civil judicial system (not saying you don't) knows that judges pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want, and they never face any repercussions. Maybe one high profile asshat move like this will get one unelected, but I don't think it would change the culture of unaccountable judge behavior for anyone else.

I'll admit you're right, there's probably nothing we can do about the entire corrupt system. But since this judicial "asshat" (great description!) is in the public eye right now, at least there's a chance we can cauterize this one particular oozing sore in the civil judiciary.

Who knows? If enough people howl about this, maybe we can "make an example" of him, just as he was trying to do to this poor kid. With any luck, some other judge will think twice before trying such a stunt in the future.

 

[Kluge]

How does this work? Was it just the kid in front of a judge? No jury/representation, etc?

 

[oyarde]

Follow the money...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/03/3592093/kc-passes-anti-truancy-measure.html

Oh goody , goody , parenting classes and counseling , that ought to fix everything .

 

[Acala]

No

I was always under the impression that a judge and jury was supposed to do exactly that: judge.

Juries and, in the absence of a jury, judges, try THE FACTS. The law is given to them by the legislature to apply as is to the facts they find. Juries also can, as a practical matter, nullify a law in the criminal context in a given case because nobody has authority to overturn their decision or look behind their reasoning for a not-guilty verdict. If a judge fails to apply the law as written, he can and will be overturned by a higher court. It is a judge's duty to apply the law as written unless he has grounds for declaring the law a nullity if, for example, he finds it unconstitutional. A judge does NOT get to refuse to enforce a validly enacted law just because he doesn't like it. Having clerked for a Federal judge who was a pretty decent guy, I often watched him literally tortured by having to enforce a law he felt was draconian.

So, no, it is not the job of a judge to judge the LAW, unless he has grounds for finding it invalid. Thinking it is a bad law is not enough.

While it is easy to think of many laws I would prefer to have ignored (if I were not an advocate of the rule of law) I can also think of some I would NOT like to see ignored.

How do you like it when laws that should hold cops accountable are ignored? Would you like to have laws authorizing concealed carry ignored? Want to see medical mj laws ignored? How about state laws that ban speed cameras? Plenty of judges would be happy to oblige you and ignore those laws.

Change the law, don't expect or allow judges to change it on their own whim. That is no solution. That is the end of the rule of law and a full embrace of the rule of men.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I *hate* bullies, and this judge sounds like he's a natural.

This judge needs to spend a few nights in jail, in the GP.

 

[mad cow]

The law in Texas requires mandatory attendance until age 18. (I had been under the impression it was 16, but I was wrong). Here's the link: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8327 (click on "compulsory attendance" about halfway down the page)

I'm sure there are plenty of other kids in Texas who have dropped out early and aren't facing any repercussions. The judge in this case admitted he simply wanted to "make an example" of Diane. He had the abusive power and figured he would face no repercussions. She was innocent, alone, and helpless.

The judge's action is the textbook example of a bully. He abused someone who was completely powerless to resist him, and who was completely at his mercy.

How much do you want to bet he would NOT have tried such a stunt with the child of an important politician, or some wealthy business executive who had the resources to hire a good attorney and follow up with a powerful complaint to the state bar association?

Thanks for the link.It seems that this law dates back to 1997.It is a bad law for all involved(except for the State coffers)and it should be repealed.

 

[thoughtomator]

This happened in Houston... contact your Texas legislators and get this judge impeached.

 

[TheTexan]

Juries and, in the absence of a jury, judges, try THE FACTS. The law is given to them by the legislature to apply as is to the facts they find. Juries also can, as a practical matter, nullify a law in the criminal context in a given case because nobody has authority to overturn their decision or look behind their reasoning for a not-guilty verdict. If a judge fails to apply the law as written, he can and will be overturned by a higher court. It is a judge's duty to apply the law as written unless he has grounds for declaring the law a nullity if, for example, he finds it unconstitutional. A judge does NOT get to refuse to enforce a validly enacted law just because he doesn't like it. Having clerked for a Federal judge who was a pretty decent guy, I often watched him literally tortured by having to enforce a law he felt was draconian.

So, no, it is not the job of a judge to judge the LAW, unless he has grounds for finding it invalid. Thinking it is a bad law is not enough.

While it is easy to think of many laws I would prefer to have ignored (if I were not an advocate of the rule of law) I can also think of some I would NOT like to see ignored.

How do you like it when laws that should hold cops accountable are ignored? Would you like to have laws authorizing concealed carry ignored? Want to see medical mj laws ignored? How about state laws that ban speed cameras? Plenty of judges would be happy to oblige you and ignore those laws.

Change the law, don't expect or allow judges to change it on their own whim. That is no solution. That is the end of the rule of law and a full embrace of the rule of men.

I had an excellent reply in mind, along the lines of "just because you can prosecute someone doesn't mean you should"... but then I saw this:

How do you like it when laws that should hold cops accountable are ignored?

Laws that should hold cops accountable are being ignored. So what's the point of enforcing every law, if laws are already only being selectively enforced?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And so it is for the judge to determine which laws are moral and which are not?

What this judge should have done is enforce the law as written and then use that injustice as a springboard for his own public denouncement of the law.

My philosophy is that it is worse to convict one innocent person than let 100 guilty people free. That said, I would not be able to enforce this law. I would de-force the law, then denounce it.

 

[tod evans]

Laws that should hold cops accountable are being ignored. So what's the point of enforcing every law, if laws are already only being selectively enforced?

The prosecuting attorney should have huge hurdles to leap in order to obtain a conviction.

In this case the prosecutor is at least as culpable as the judge if not more so.

Who in their right mind prosecutes a kid in these circumstances?

So spread the love around...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

//

 

[Lishy]

Thing is, this ruined the girl's life with a 'crimina'l record. And for what? Because Obama passed a mandate (apparently) that no one could drop out until 18!? (Because of some unbacked statement how people do better the longer they're in school!?)

I say the girl should counter-sue.

And if the law will not help us, let's beg anonymous to do something, because this isn't right!