Posted on 09/30/2005 7:42:20 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex
POSTED: 10:16 am EDT September 30, 2005
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnbc.com ...
Maybe she has to wear an ankle "bracelet" that signals when her feet are up in the air.
Maybe she wears a surveylance chastity belt.
Lol. Maybe they know by the rise in the birth rate.
No sex? Why didn't the judge just order her to get married - that effectively stops sex.....;^)
But this offender is not in a detention facility. And we have no clue if the terms of her probation are at all related to the underlying crime(s).
Go to a juvenile detention facility and inform the CO's the child has a right to have sex and let me know how that works out for ya'
I think the CO's would agree with me. However, I think we would all agree she can't -- while, of course, in an actual detention facility.
'fess up. you didn't read the article.
Well once your daughters are convicted of a crime, it really isn't up to you what sentence the Judge hands down.
Actually, I think the father has been the harder hit so far, unfortunately. Son doesn't seem too appreciative.
Shouldn't her parents be doing this?
I think it's pretty silly to order a 17 year old girl not to have sex, but this sort of thing happens all the time. I've represented hundreds of juveniles in these types of proceedings and this type of ruling doesn't surprise me a bit. The girl is a minor and she is under the jurisdiction of the court. She's probably gotten in a lot of trouble and the judge is trying to put her on the right path. Her parents may be worthless, or they may have actually asked for such a ruling. This is not "legislating" from the bench or making up laws. The judge has discretion to make such orders as necessary when he or she believes they are in the best interest of the child. Whether ordering a kid not to have sex would be found unconstitutional, I don't know. I doubt it, not under these circumstances.
I'm with you on that. An unenforceable, unauthorized judicial decision is still an abomination regardless of whether the intent is good or not.
"Again who is gonna check and see if she is? "
I think this is put on the parents. The idea being that to inconvience the parents enough will force them to be better parents. They can't keep her from having sex unless they watch her and keep her home after school, which means they have to be there as well. I am a believer in punishing parents for raising lousy disrespectful kids. I also approve of the judgement against piercings and tatoos. Might even make the boys cut their hair and pull their pants up. Whatever keeps them from identifying with the drug culture. We used to call it 'letting your freak flag fly'. Long hair on guys meant you were 'cool' about that kind of thing.
No one would watch her twenty-four-seven to see that she is not having sex. The way she would get caught most likely is if her parents tell on her. It could also be one of her friends or she could admit to it. Typically the way that would come about is that she would sneak out and get caught at some boy's house late at night or something like that. She'll have a hearing on a petition to revoke probation or just a review hearing on her juvenile case and any of her violations will be brought to light. If this is a juvenile case like I suspect it is, there are probably several pages worth of conditions of probation and violating any of the long list of conditions could get her probation revoked. Even if it's not a case in juvenile court no doubt there are several other conditions besides those mentioned in this article.
When it comes to restrictions placed on an offender via probation, the restrictions must be related to the underlying offense and the desire of the court to prevent further offenses of the same type. Judge/courts simply do not have a blank check to place any/all kinds of conditions of probation on offenders simply because they are the judge & they say they can do it.
There's loads of case law stretching back several decades on this point, including on the specific issue of when judges can issue sentences that affect the ability of one to procreate.
Whether ordering a kid not to have sex would be found unconstitutional, I don't know. I doubt it, not under these circumstances.
Under what circumstances? Offender commits a drug crime so no sex? Does that sound like a rational nexus?
I don't think it is always unenforceable. Difficult to enforce, of course.
I can't assume the minor wants to disobey the condition. If the minor wants to obey the condition it is enforceable. If the minor is honest with the court, it is enforceable. If the parents use the condition to enforce rules upon the minor, it is enforceable. (eg..you can't see that boy any more).
Just because things are hard to do, doesn't mean we must shy away from doing them.
Prude ping!
But that will invade her privacy rights. It's an outrageous assault on her constitutional right to be a slut.
Will the judge or the state be providing a chastity belt?
Because a 17 year old druggie isn't going to listen
Does self abuse count?
"An unenforceable, unauthorized judicial decision is still an abomination regardless of whether the intent is good or not."
First, the decision is not unauthorized, it was authorized by the presiding judge. Second, are you saying that, having been told, no sex, if the girl is found to have had sex that action against her is unenforceable? Appears to me she would be charged..probation revoked, etc., thereby making it 'enforceable'
A lot of judges do impose dress codes in their court rooms, especially for officers of the court. It's harder to impose them on laypersons appearing in court though because a lot of them don't have anything else to wear, or they're having to come into court from their dirty jobs and it's impractical for them to get cleaned up and change clothes. I'm a lawyer in court all the time and I do see judges sometimes jumping on lawyers who are improperly dressed and sometimes on those coming before them. Usually it's because someone is wearing clothes that are far too revealing or wearing some T-shirt with a disrespectful slogan on it or something like that. Most judges don't usually go too nuts with dress codes though or they'd never dispose of their cases because they'd be kicking out most of the people who appear in court only to try to get them return another day (and getting people to show up for court is not as easy as you might think) . Sometimes I'll see a judge get mad and start an overly restrictive dress code but it's never very long before he backs down because it just causes too many problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.