Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex [also prohibited tattoos, body piercings...
WNBC.COM ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: courtruling; itsjustsex; juveniledelinquency; libertinarians; minor; probation; sex; teensex; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
tough love....
1 posted on 09/30/2005 7:42:22 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The nerve of this judge.... (sarcasm)
2 posted on 09/30/2005 7:44:01 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

That will hold up on appeal...


3 posted on 09/30/2005 7:44:05 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Who is going to check to see if she is having sex? and who is going to pay to find out if she is having sex?


Looks like to me that this self-righteous judge is pandering for votes.


4 posted on 09/30/2005 7:44:41 AM PDT by Rightly Biased (<>< Like $3 a gallon gas? Thank an enviromentalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

By the time an appeal goes through, it won't matter.


5 posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:31 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

Maybe the judge is doing his job. I doubt he needs to "pander" for votes. Judges often attach special conditions to probation. If she doesn't like it, she can always go to jail. If it was my daughter, I would be very happy with the judge.


6 posted on 09/30/2005 7:46:34 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Seems to be in direct conflict with the recent ruling by the Oregon Sup Ct that public sex is a protected form of expression and therefore not to be prohibited in any way. I can hear the TX ACLU chomping at the bit on this one.


7 posted on 09/30/2005 7:47:23 AM PDT by drt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
This is government doing the mommy-daddy thing....that wasn't done.
It won't work. It's too late; the cake is baked.

Also, it's not always the parents' fault. Some people are always going to do what they want to do and no one is going to stop them.
If she is one of those, she WILL land in hot water.

8 posted on 09/30/2005 7:47:35 AM PDT by starfish923 (It's never right to do wrong. Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
While I applaud the spirit, this ruling strikes me as really, really stupid.

Judges should tell people when (or when not) to have sex? Judges are in charge of who can have a tattoo?

Do we love judicial activism so much that we want it down to such low level personal decisions? Be aware: I hope the girl follows the judge's advice -- it's good advice. But not something I think should be handed down by a court of law.

9 posted on 09/30/2005 7:49:18 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Again who is gonna check and see if she is?

Who is gonna prove is she is or not?

Who is gonna pay for the checkups you and me?

Pandering


10 posted on 09/30/2005 7:49:40 AM PDT by Rightly Biased (<>< Like $3 a gallon gas? Thank an enviromentalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How can that possibly be Constitutional? I mean, I know it's feel-good and moral and all. But what about when judges on the other side come up with moonbat rulings like the defendent is required to read Karl Marx or something? Judges don't have the power to stop people from having sex. And if they do, they shouldn't.


11 posted on 09/30/2005 7:49:41 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Oh well. I'm sure she'll be fine now.


12 posted on 09/30/2005 7:50:12 AM PDT by Huck (Are there any fiscal conservatives left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How can she ever get an abortion if she doesn't have sex? Silly judge.


13 posted on 09/30/2005 7:50:28 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starfish923

How do they actually know if she's having sex?


14 posted on 09/30/2005 7:50:43 AM PDT by RockinRight (What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Solitary confiement would satisfy all these requirements.


15 posted on 09/30/2005 7:51:04 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Now that taglines are cool, I refuse to have one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

You obviously don't know much about probation, which is probably a good thing.


16 posted on 09/30/2005 7:51:10 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Under probation a judge can attach special conditions. If she wasn't on probation he couldn't. Simple really.


17 posted on 09/30/2005 7:51:52 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

""How can that possibly be Constitutional? I mean, I know it's feel-good and moral and all. But what about when judges on the other side come up with moonbat rulings like the defendent is required to read Karl Marx or something? Judges don't have the power to stop people from having sex. And if they do, they shouldn't.""

I believe you are missing the issue - the defendent has 2 options, to go to jail (juvenule detention?) or to remain free under conditions set by the judge. There are conditions to either option. It is up to the girl.


18 posted on 09/30/2005 7:52:54 AM PDT by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

Looks like to me that this self-righteous judge is pandering for votes


I tell my 16 year old daughter not to have sex and I'm not a judge pandering for votes. In fact I think this judge has great courage giving this ruling knowing that that some anti-family lawyer will try to overturn it on appeal.


19 posted on 09/30/2005 7:53:27 AM PDT by LoudRepublicangirl (loudrepublicangirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: drt1

who cares what an oregon socialist MASTER says - this is TEXAS!


20 posted on 09/30/2005 7:54:10 AM PDT by hombre_sincero (www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson