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

WNBC.COM ^

[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.

[InsureAmerica]

"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""

Doing or possessing cocaine is illegal. Who is going to check to see if I am doing it? Who is going to prove it?
Taxpayers pay for law enforcement.

Idealistic.

[Argh]

Good one!!!

[mysterio]

So is it ok if the judge orders her to have a lot of sex or go to jail? Would you support that? I mean, she doesn't have to do it. She could just pick jail.

[The_Media_never_lie]

She's ordered the young drug offender not have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school

I wonder what the meaning of is is here? Maybe the the 17 year old should check with Bill Clinton to find out what she can/can't do and not defy the judge's order.

[thoughtomator]

They can't even stop people in jail from having sex - they're going to stop an amoral 17-year-old? It's not realistic.

Moreover, I don't think there is any statute authorizing a judge to impose "no sex" conditions. Furthermore, the courts themselves have clearly stated that legislatures cannot legislate in that manner (Lawrence v. Texas). So if Congress is not authorized to pass such a law, then a judge is not authorized to impose that condition.

[Romish_Papist]

I dunno, it seems as silly to me as a judge saying you are prohibited from eating junk food.

[wildbill]

with the usual reaction to authority from teenagers in rebellion, I'd expect the male teenagers in the city need to stock up on condoms.

[TKDietz]

"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."

I don't believe that. Judges can include conditions aimed at preventing any further criminal conduct regardless of whether it is the same type of conduct that got the person in trouble in the first place or not. For instance, standard conditions where I live include things like prohibitions on consuming or possessing intoxicating beverages. Going to bars is prohibited. Associating with felons or anyone who participates in illegal use, sale, or distribution of controlled substances is prohibited, as is associating with anyone your probation officer tells you to stay away from. Possessing firearms or any deadly weapons is prohibited. Probationers are required to be employed or enrolled as students, and are required to pay their bills, child support, and so on. They can't leave the state without permission. They may be required to submit to random drug testing and enroll in and complete drug treatment as recommended by the probation officer, and so on. These are just the standard provisions. Other conditions are often added in. I'm taking these directly from the form the court requires us to have our clients sign when they plead to probation. I have one right in front of me and it's used by all of the judges in my judicial district. The ones used in juvenile court contain more conditions and are far more restrictive.

As for the issue of prohibiting procreation, I don't doubt that appellate court decisions have thrown such conditions out. We have a constitutionally protected right to bear and raise children. But the issue becomes cloudy when we start talking about juveniles. I don't know whether this was a case from a juvenile court or not. I don't have time to do any research, but I believe that a juvenile could be found delinquent or at a minimum be declared a member of a "family in need of services" (or your state's equivalent) just for running around and having sex with people. They bring up sexual contact all the time in juvenile cases although I will say it's always been ancillary to other conduct they are complaining about at least in the juvenile cases I have handled. Generally it's part of a case of a juvenile who is habitually disobedient to his or her parents, skips school, uses drugs, engaging in other criminal conduct, etc. Judges do want to stop these kids from fooling around because they don't want these immature juveniles who can't even take care of their own problems getting knocked up. And if the judge were aware of a situation where a little juvenile "crank ho" was trading drugs fro sex, you can bet the judge would want to stop that too.

You are right in saying that judges don't have a blank check to put just any old conditions on probation. But, the reality is that even if the judge maybe crosses the line a little and throws in a condition that a higher court wouldn't hold up, the probationer better darned well abide by that condition anyway because unless and until a higher court says otherwise that condition stands and that probationer is likely to go to jail if he violates that condition, and appeals take a long time.

I have to admit that I have agreed to conditions I thought were unconstitutional before, and have agreed to sentences I believe were illegal sentences. In each case I advised my clients as to my opinion of the conditions or sentences, and they have opted to take the deals anyway because they believed that was in their best interests. I've also had cases where after a trial judges imposed illegal sentences or ordered conditions I think would not have stood up on appeal. In most of those cases though after discussing it with my client we've opted not to do anything about it because it was something that just wasn't worth fighting over. I don't know enough about the case mentioned in this article to determine whether the judge committed reversible error or whether it would be worth it to fight about it even if the judge did commit reversible error.

[joylyn]

If the defendant is 17 -- a minor -- I believe the judge does have this power.

[mysterio]

16 is the age of consent. A different judge could order the defendent to have more sex as part of a probation requirement. What if that judge believed that more sex would help the psyche of the defendent? Would you support that as well? Or do you only support this judicial activism because it agrees with your own moral code?

I'm just saying, if you support this kind of activist crap, then you run the risk of having a different judge tell a different defendent to do something you might find repugnant. Better to nip the judicial activism in the bud.

[gdani]

Thanks for the thorough & thoughtful reply.

[TKDietz]

You are welcome, gdani.

[flada]

Spot on. Just think of how well this judge could eliminate distractions if she just made all females in her court wear burhkas.

[flada]

Good thing for her male friends that oral sex isn't sex.

[cicero's_son]

Won't answer the question? I guess then I have to assume you support judicial activism when the judge mimics your ideology.

I think that's a pretty safe assumption for a lot of people on this thread.

This judge is a freaking idiot and an embarrassment to her office.

[InsureAmerica]

""They can't even stop people in jail from having sex - they're going to stop an amoral 17-year-old? It's not realistic.

Moreover, I don't think there is any statute authorizing a judge to impose "no sex" conditions. Furthermore, the courts themselves have clearly stated that legislatures cannot legislate in that manner (Lawrence v. Texas). ""


You are mixing too many things together. This has nothing to do with legislation, which is a process whereby laws are developed and put into place, and a judge does not need a statute to place restrictions on probation.

I agree you can't stop anyone from doing anything (well, locking a 17 yr old up can stop her from leaving) - does this mean we should abandon all laws, prisons, etc., and just forget about it? If the girl is so desperate she will have sex in prison (forcibly done against her, notwithstanding), then yes, what can be done. But to jump to the original issue to this proposition seems a stretch.

[TKDietz]

"I'm just saying, if you support this kind of activist crap, then you run the risk of having a different judge tell a different defendant to do something you might find repugnant. Better to nip the judicial activism in the bud."

If it is against the law for a juvenile to disobey the lawful and reasonable commands of his parents and the parents have made it clear they don't want the child to have get tattoos or piercings or hang around with certain people, do you think it would be judicial activism for a judge to make these conditions of probation for a juvenile who appears before the judge in a delinquency or criminal proceeding? There is not enough information in this article to say that this judge was engaging in judicial activism. In fact, maybe my definition is too limited but when I think of judicial activism I think of a judge who is trying to change the laws set out by a legislature or by the people. This article certainly doesn't give any indication that the judge in question tried to change any laws. At most, this judge might have included conditions on this child's probation that she did not have the authority to include. I can't tell from this article whether that was the case or not. If the defendant was an adult, I'd say the judge clearly exceeded her authority. But the defendant was a child and the judge may very well not have done anything contrary to the law.

[citizensgratitude]

I have to plug here for great parenting. I'm 43. I thank my parents whenever I can for being the sticklers they were when I was 17. I hated them back then. But they loved me so much they were on me like white on rice at that age.

I met some classmates a few years ago. I was shocked to find out that some of my peers, who I used to envy for having such easy parents, had actually died of aids. I'm not making this up !

Mom and Dad gave me the tools for successful living: faith and a strong work ethic, by their example. Ya gotta be there for your kids...no getting around it.

[Rebelbase]

clothing "associated with the drug culture"

Oh the wide interpretation there.

[InsureAmerica]

yeah, good one flada, let's just abandon all attempts at maintaining a civil society and let all 17 year olds F whomever they want and do all the drugs they want, and well, if their parents interfere, lock them up and throw away the key. Lets allow any sort of dress and attire and activity and language in a court where juveniles/minors are being tried, during a time in their lives when they need to see exactly this...great. You for chief justice