[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.

[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.