- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If the law and justice were perfect synonyms, you would be absolutely right. But all too frequently we forget they aren't - never have been, never will
If the law produces negative consequences for noble actions, then the law is unjust and should be ignored. This is one of those cases.
And how do you know she wasn't?
I never said it did. I was speaking more of food stamps and other types of assistance.Being refered to someone to assess her does not give them the ability to tell her what to do, they can only suggest or make a plea to the courts...which can take months at the least. Until such time they are not in charge of her decisions or her guardians decisions
Sorry I didn't know you were the judge of all judges. lolThis judge is simply not a good jurist.
Anybody who is complaining about her paltry 24 hours is crying over spilted milk.Anyone on this thread who actually read the linked story and still says this kid deserves jail is doing so for the lulz.
The judge was an asshole. If he'd done his job properly, quizzing her about why it was so difficult for her to actually be in school since her grades put her on the honor roll, he would have learned that this minor child had been abandoned by her parents, was trying to support two siblings and herself, and needed State Assistance, not punishment.
Anyone on this thread who actually read the linked story and still says this kid deserves jail is doing so for the lulz.
She was given a chance but didn't follow the Court's orders. She received far less than she should have been given for her contempt.
"She was given a chance but didn't follow the Court's orders. She received far less than she should have been given for her contempt."Excluding the fat that the judge has leeway, and the idea is totally absurd to begin with.
How can anyone say it is fine for somebody to be put in jail for something like this? Yes, the law exists, but there is a difference between having to / should enforce the law, and whether or not it is a good idea, right?
Yes - bleeding hearts and all.
Where are you going to draw the line?
She had her chance and screwed the pooch. That is where I draw it.
If the law and justice were perfect synonyms, you would be absolutely right. But all too frequently we forget they aren't - never have been, never will
If the law produces negative consequences for noble actions, then the law is unjust and should be ignored. This is one of those cases.
As it should be! You see where I'm going with this.If this were the case then vigilantism would be an AOK thing in peoples minds.
Are YOU saying that the judge is wrong, or that the law that the judge applied is wrong? There is a BIG difference. Does the LAW allow the judge to consider WHY the non-attendance should be "allowed" in this case? We can't have judges simply say they THINK that cretain illegal behavior is excused for "personal" reasons. The law is probably too narrow, yet that is not the fault of the judge - direct your anger at the root cause of the problem. We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, the speeding of those on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of those bad folks that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
Laws against the acts you speak of are not unjust, because the acts they criminalize ARE unjust themselves. The law's the only purpose is the pursuit of justice; if in a given situation it does not serve that object, then in that case it ought to be ignored.We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, speeding on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of "bad folks" that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
As it should be! You see where I'm going with this.
The law is a means to the end that is justice. If the law fails in that task, then it is without purpose.
Or do you believe in obeying "the law" for its own sake?
You apparently have not read the OP's link or the subsequent posts in this thread. There was no law that forced this judge to give her a permanent arrest record; by the judge's own words, he chose to do so (without considering her personal circumstances) as a deterrent to others. He did not find out why she was having such difficulty, he did not discover that she was working two jobs because her parents had abandoned her to care for her siblings, he did not take into consideration that her grades were high enough that she was on the honor roll, he did not inquire of this MINOR child to obtain the information necessary to realize that this MINOR child required State CPS Assistance.
That IS the fault of the judge.
So what justice would there be if this girl got away with truancy just because she is an honor student and works two jobs? Why shouldn't that other guy that isn't an honor student and doesn't work two jobs get away with truancy?
You act as if she is doing this all by herself. As if she is fully taking care of her siblings and everything else. She is not. She is living with relatives. The video in the OP does say that.
She is working hard to help herself and her siblings, even if there is other help available now. Some families require more help. She is providing it and still successfully meeting the purpose of school, from what we know of her grades, learning the material.
Because school is for learning, not for having a butt in a certain place. For many, it is necessary that they be in class because otherwise they wouldn't even try to learn. This girl can learn without being in the class most of the time. She has proven to be quite capable of proving she can handle the learning part of school without actually being there. And she works very hard to do it.
That other guy is obviously not willing to work hard to fulfill the purpose of school, learning the stuff. That's why the other person should not get away with it. If they are willing to work hard to get those grades and actually show they can learn the stuff, they should also be allowed some leeway based on their circumstances.
What you are advocating for here is that those that succeed better than others should get more privledges than those that don't succeed as much. Such privledges would obviously include the ability to ignore laws.
Sorry but I'm going to have to decline. I wouldn't want to live in a society that treats people as second or third class citizens just because they may not be as smart as someone else.
But we don't know if the family she is living with requires extra help or not. She may very well be doing all this to try and be more independent.
But ultimately that is irrelavent. And so is her grades and that she works 2 jobs. She broke Texas's truancy laws. More than once. She also went against a warning that the judge had given previously. If the judge had let her go then he would have had to do the same with other truancy cases. The law is about more than just justice. It is also about equality.
He should have taken her reasons for missing school in to consideration before warning her the first time.
And no, making judgments based on circumstances of each person's case does not require that everyone be treated the same or allowed to skirt a law just because one person's circumstances show that the law in question should not apply to them because their situation does not meet the intent of the law.
There's no legal exception that I’m aware of that if you're an honors student, you’re allowed to exceed a maximum number of unexcused days under the Texas Compulsory Education Laws," Bond told FoxNews.com. "Twenty-four hours would be about the minimum period of confinement to make a point.
Lanny Moriarty, the judge who ordered the 17-year-old to go to jail after more than ten unexcused school absences, has set aside the contempt of court order he entered last week, according to Tran's lawyer, Brian Wice.
We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, speeding on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of "bad folks" that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
Judges need to use discernment and apply justice with mercy.
This girl shouldn't have been in jail at all. At least the contempt charge was set aside.
The judge had no choice in the matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?