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 ...
Probation is not a right, and, if a judge sees fit to impose it, he/she may impose any condition she wants if it arguably is aimed at preventing illicit behavior. Only if the perp is violated because of this no sex provision and subsequently imprisoned would habeas corpus apply, ergo no immediate appeal. Sorry, libs.
I don't need a judge telling me that my daughters can or cannot have sex.
Just to fit some activist judges adgenda
I'm not the one supporting judicial activism and being a hypocrite. If not wanting judges to impose their own definition of sexual morality as a condition of probation is wacko, then I guess I'm a wacko.
You know me? you know what I do for a living? What my political leanings are? where I live, my address, my health, my financial position, my position on the issues of the day, the ages of my children, how many cars I have?
My religion?
The answer to all of the above is NO, you don't. So, we conclude you know nothing at all about me, yet for some amazing reason you know I "support judicial activism when the judge mimics my idealogy" You are amazing. Ever think about having your own talk show??
Not only in her court, but a convicted, minor in her court.
I get tired of hearing about convicts rights. Convicts give up rights. They do not have the right to freedom, to carry weapons, association, to vote, etc.
A minor can certainly lose the "right" to have intercourse.
What powers does the Oregon State Constitution have over the people of Texas?
Absolutely. Too bad some here can't seem to get it.
Like the joke-- 2 liberals find a man horribly beaten and mugged, lying in a ditch. One looks to the other and says, "we have to find the person who did this, he needs our help"
I am sure we define judicial activism differently. I am positive about it, but to answer your question - I support neither.
Could the judge make her have intercourse?
If not, how can a judge have the authority to make her not engage in an activity yet not have the power to make her engage in that same activity?
They are unable to distinguish between Freedom and License and therefore nothing can be prohibited and chaos will emerge - Which IMO is exactly what they want.
Please see my post # 52
why such a ridiculous post. this would be criminal, so no, a judge couldn't.
Probation is purely a privilege. If she doesn't want to fulfil the conditions of probation, she can serve her sentence in confinement. If her parents don't "need a judge telling me that my daughters can or cannot have sex," they can come visit her in the lockup. Better yet, she could consider not committing the crime in the first place, and her parents could consider finding her a new school/new set of friends.
Trial courts are given a great deal of latitude in imposing conditions of probation. If any logical connection can be shown between the condition and preventing a re-offense, then it is permitted.
This is really along the lines of your standard probation condition requiring the criminal to avoid bad company, especially other criminals. Since she was sentenced for a drug offense, it can be argued that this is logically related to discourage trading sex for drugs and reduce the incentive for her to hang with her druggy friends.
Judges stop minors from having intercourse everyday. It's called a Juvenile Detention Facility. It is not unrealistic to impose as a condition of probation something that is imposed at incarceration.
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'.
Yep, the minor son of a friend of mine got in personal possession trouble - it's now $12000 and it's not over yet ...
Unfortunately, Blue State jailers might very well buy it. The ACLU has set up copulation as the second most sacred of human rights (the first being abortion). I expect that it will not be long before judges begin ruling that denying inmates of any age that right is cruel and unusual punishment.
Guess he learned the hard, very hard, way.
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.