Lawyer Sentences 17 Year Old Female To "No Sex"

[GotZoom]

I like this judge. Don't see anything wrong with any of this.

-------

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-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.

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

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

Blake agreed to an interview but later declined through her court coordinator.

Some wonder how she can enforce some of her conditions, such as the sex ban.

Former federal prosecutor Fred Moss said some conditions could be viewed as violating someone's personal dignity.

And Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said conditions that violate someone's constitutional rights are best avoided.

http://www.wftv.com/news/5040625/detail.html

 

[dmp]

17 year olds have no 'right' to dignity, privacy, etc. Good Job, Judge.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

17 is the legal age of consent in Texas. So, under the law, any 17-year-old is completely within their rights to have sex with anyone who is 17 or older and visa versa.

17 year olds have no 'right' to dignity, privacy, etc. Good Job, Judge.

Unfortunately, you're right, you don't gain these rights until you are 18 years old. So why is it legal for you to do something as personal as having sex when you have no right under the law to keep it a personal matter? And why does this activist judge's ruling even matter if the girl will be 18 in a year anyway? What does it have to do with the girl's crime? Has the girl had multiple abortions already? And what drugs were the girl accused of using? Was it heroine or just a little weed? There's not enough information here to know for sure, but this seems like it would fall under the "cruel and unusual" punishment category.

This judge seems like a real prude. "No cleavage in the courtroom?" "No tattoos or piercings for parolees?" Give me a break, what is this, 1801? Why doesn't she just order everyone to wear burkhas? This is like that case (also from Texas) where the guy tried to get highschool cheerleaders to wear longer skirts.

 

[GotZoom]

17 is the legal age of consent in Texas. So, under the law, any 17-year-old is completely within their rights to have sex with anyone who is 17 or older and visa versa.



Unfortunately, you're right, you don't gain these rights until you are 18 years old. So why is it legal for you to do something as personal as having sex when you have no right under the law to keep it a personal matter? And why does this activist judge's ruling even matter if the girl will be 18 in a year anyway? What does it have to do with the girl's crime? Has the girl had multiple abortions already? And what drugs were the girl accused of using? Was it heroine or just a little weed? There's not enough information here to know for sure, but this seems like it would fall under the "cruel and unusual" punishment category.

This judge seems like a real prude. "No cleavage in the courtroom?" "No tattoos or piercings for parolees?" Give me a break, what is this, 1801? Why doesn't she just order everyone to wear burkhas? This is like that case (also from Texas) where the guy tried to get highschool cheerleaders to wear longer skirts.

You would approve of heroin (correct spelling) or a little weed? If your child was doing heroin or "a little weed", what would your punishment be..if any?

 

[dmp]

17 is the legal age of consent in Texas. So, under the law, any 17-year-old is completely within their rights to have sex with anyone who is 17 or older and visa versa.



Unfortunately, you're right, you don't gain these rights until you are 18 years old. So why is it legal for you to do something as personal as having sex when you have no right under the law to keep it a personal matter? And why does this activist judge's ruling even matter if the girl will be 18 in a year anyway? What does it have to do with the girl's crime? Has the girl had multiple abortions already? And what drugs were the girl accused of using? Was it heroine or just a little weed? There's not enough information here to know for sure, but this seems like it would fall under the "cruel and unusual" punishment category.

This judge seems like a real prude. "No cleavage in the courtroom?" "No tattoos or piercings for parolees?" Give me a break, what is this, 1801? Why doesn't she just order everyone to wear burkhas? This is like that case (also from Texas) where the guy tried to get highschool cheerleaders to wear longer skirts.

You're an extremist. The girl lives at home. As long as she lives at home, she's a child.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You're an extremist. The girl lives at home. As long as she lives at home, she's a child.

Until she turns 18... 30 year olds living with their parents aren't children..

(man that is wide open for a joke... any takers?)

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You're an extremist. The girl lives at home. As long as she lives at home, she's a child.

No I'm not, I posed a valid point. Under the law she's old enough to have sex. But she's not old enough to have rights protecting her dignity or privacy? Why is that? Plus, you have to admit that this is a pretty unusual punishment.

Heroin is a hard, addictive drug that can be overdosed. That's a lot more serious than a little weed. I'd like to know what kind of drugs this girl was taking or what she did to warrant the judge to make such a wierd ruling. If it were my kid, heroin would send them straight to rehab. Weed would equal confiscation , a talk and groundation for a week or two.

 

[dmp]

No I'm not, I posed a valid point.

Here is why you are an extremist:

Why doesn't she just order everyone to wear burkhas?

You try to knock down ONE idea by presenting and idea SO OFF THE WALL that it's a ridiculous comparison. It's extreme.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Well tell me what's the point of ordering professional attorneys to not show cleavage unless you're on some moral crusade?

 

[Mr. P]

Well tell me what's the point of ordering professional attorneys to not show cleavage unless you're on some moral crusade?

It doesn't matter..It's their court and they're GAWD in that room..
Oh, setting conditions on probation is very common, like it or not.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I know conditions on probation are fairly normal, this is just a little strange. Why would "no sex, no tattoos, no piercings" be part of any probation? It's usually stuff like "get a job" or "get a GED" or, as in the case of my cousin, "join the airforce or go to jail."

 

[Mr. P]

I know conditions on probation are fairly normal, this is just a little strange. Why would "no sex, no tattoos, no piercings" be part of any probation? It's usually stuff like "get a job" or "get a GED" or, as in the case of my cousin, "join the airforce or go to jail."

How about leave the State for life or go to jail?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Hahaha, "Bust a deal, face the wheel!" Go to jail or face exile. Hmmm. It would be a little harsh for a minor. I'll say that much.

 

[Mr. P]

Hahaha, "Bust a deal, face the wheel!" Go to jail or face exile. Hmmm. It would be a little harsh for a minor. I'll say that much.

Not offered to minors..and it's not a deal, it's offered as a choice..
Jail or never come back..It works too... :bat:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

How exactly would they enforce that? Would they make the offender check-in with an out-of-state parole officer for life? How could they do that?

 

[Zhukov]

Well tell me what's the point of ordering professional attorneys to not show cleavage unless you're on some moral crusade?

I'd be willing to bet there are statutes on the books, as old as the state of Texas itself, that dictate modest dress in a court of law standing before a Judge.

 

[Mr. P]

How exactly would they enforce that? Would they make the offender check-in with an out-of-state parole officer for life? How could they do that?

They enforce it the same as any probation violation..If you are found in the state, traffic violation,ticket or maybe someone turns you in, whatever...yer toast..jail for ya.

 

[theHawk]

And why does this activist judge's ruling even matter if the girl will be 18 in a year anyway?

What makes this an 'activist' judge? She is handing out an unorthodox sentence, not redefining a law on the books.

 

[Nuc]

I'd be willing to bet there are statutes on the books, as old as the state of Texas itself, that dictate modest dress in a court of law standing before a Judge.

I wonder if they can show some titty when they go to watch an execution down there?

 

[speederdoc]

Yes, Texas courtrooms require proper dress. No shorts, no hats. The judge is in charge.

Our most innovative judge was Ted Poe, renowned for his creative sentences. He is now a member of the US Congress.

"Judge Ted Poe is well known for his innovative approach to punishing criminals," Petro said. "I am excited to hear him discuss some of the unique sentences he imposed during his long career on the bench."

As a felony court judge in Houston for more than 20 years, Poe gained national attention for many of the non-traditional punishments he imposed. Among them, he ordered thieves to carry signs exclaiming their guilt in front of stores they victimized, sentenced a spousal abuser to apologize to his wife on the steps of Houston City Hall and required a drunk driver to hang a picture of the family he killed in his prison cell.

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/2004/press_release_20041013_1.htm