Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by fluffybear, May 29, 2012.
From Fox News:
Personally, I could care less if the kid came in once a month provided they complete all the school work, take all the tests, and maintain a respectable grade point average which appears to be the case.
Priorities do seem to be a bit out of whack.
I don't remember how good my attendance was in school, but I always got good grades so it never came up as a problem. Even if the judge thought there was a problem it sure seems like it would be a parent he would want to set an example of and not a student. That just makes no sense.
I doubt the story is true. Seventeen-year-olds are minors. Minors are not sent to jail. Jail is for adults only. Something may have happened, but whatever happened isn't exactly as described in the article. A more likely outcome is she was ordered to serve 24 hours in juvenile hall, then the time was suspended until she has any more unexcused absences. I don't know exactly what happened, but I highly doubt the version described in the article.
In my high school year book I'm refered to as the "the school drop-in" because of my absent record. Because I was able to maintain above average grades and high test scores they didn't make much of a issue out of it.
If these Judges are elected, hopefully the voters will make an example of this one.
Sounds like this Judge would rather the family live off the state instead of working to make something of themselves.
Putting this kid in jail sure seems silly. Plenty of families are hurting these days but the conflict between universal education and child labor has long been around. This is often evident in some immigrant communities. There are plenty of values for a young person to learn by having a job but what would be the possibilities for this talented young lady if she where to apply herself to advanced studies?
It would be most informative if the TV station that is reporting the matter would actually publish a copy of the transcript of the court proceedings or at least the minute order, so we could know what really happened. But then that wouldn't make for good ratings or sensationalism.
A Jail (place of confinement of those awaiting or convicted of a crime) has no age restriction. It makes no difference if it is a Juvenile Hall or Sybil Brand (L.A. County Jail for Women) or the holding cell at the Lakewood Sheriff's office, They are all JAILS!
Minors can be housed in the same facility as adults (just as women can be housed in the same facility with men). Given, they can not be housed together but many states do allow them to be housed in the same facility.
Since the article seems to jive with the dozens of other ones out there as well KHOU who is trying to get the judge to reconsider, I think it's probably quite true.
As nearly as I can tell from looking at the report on KHOU, the girl has not been taken into custody. I think that we really need to see the transcript of the hearing to find out what the judge really ordered. He did not remand her into custody at that time. Most likely he wants the threat of custody time over her head so she will start going to school. It sounds like a pretty sound decision. If the judge wanted her in custody, she would have been taken into custody immediately.
This story has a thread of truth to it, but I think that KHOU is sensationalizing it and is not giving us the whole story.
If the school was on the ball, the y would put her on a work study program. They could count her works hours as school hours.
The school would get the financial credit with the state and she could still take care of her family.
The judge needs to be ousted!
Lawmakers, idiots that they are, make laws. Usually, the laws are made with the most egregious offenders in mind. Little thought is given to the exceptions, just the rule.
Police and prosecutors enforce them.
Judges assess and apply penalties as defined by the parameters set forth by the laws.
Could be that the judge had little wiggle room.
Could be that the judge thinks the law in its entirety is ridiculous, and he's using this case to prove his point. Hard to tell.
The ball is in the lawmakers' court.
Yes, it would be nice to know the whole story. Good luck getting that from a TV news outlet.
Again, we are talking about a honor roll student while she may be missing class for what could be considered as a very valid reason is still managing to complete the required work and pass the required tests.
The judge gets this person in his court and thinks if I make an example of this straight A honor roll student that others will suddenly fall in line and that's great and all but what he does not consider is the harm his sentence may do. His sentence very well will disqualify her from a number of scholarships & even entry into some universities.
Runner, this is also could be the reason behind the judge not having her taken into custody. He needs a little time to think and review things before destroying a promising future.
Could also be that he was thinking that she needed some rest, and 24 hours in jail, with no bosses, phones, or homework might be good for her.
Update from Fox News:
Seems like the wrong example to make.
The example kids are most likely to learn is that even if you are an honor's student the law will screw you over for missing one too many days... so why bother studying and trying if you know you are going to have to miss some school.
It will likely backfire and actually encourage more dropouts.
I'd be curious about Texas law anyway... In some states you can drop out at 16... so I don't see how they could enforce truancy on a 17 year old without the repercussions of just having more kids dropout.
I agree. It will just convince more kids to drop out. As for the law, dont most states require a parents permission for a child under 18 to drop out? Since both this childs parents are in other states, and I doubt the boss she is living with has legal custody, it might be difficult for her to drop out.
Texas takes truancy very seriously. Rules are rules and she is in violation of the law. She knew what the situation was and repeatedly violated it. Her academics should play no factor in it.
My buddy had to attend truancy court because his step daughter was continuously tardy...a certain number of tardies equal absent marks. She received 75 hours community service and forced to attend time management courses plus pay court fees (around $150). She is 15 and if she fails to do so, her mother can be held in contempt.
Judge did her a favor.
Imagine the possibilities regarding her college admissions essays. She'll be packing her bags for Palo Alto in one year.
Not only Stanford, and book rights, but she may get a TV deal as well.
Interesting that Honors students in Texas don't seem to have attendance requirements to be in Honors Classes!