Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1242)
Trouble the Pirate (601)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (532)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187) Bellatmot the Addict (179)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)Posted on October 2nd, 2005 by Christine.
Categories: Current Events & Politics.
That story made the papers because some people thought it was “cruel and unusual.”
Whether you agree or not, I find it disturbing that lone judges have the ability to exact whatever punishment their imaginations can come up with. Today, CNN has a story about a 17-year-old girl in Texas whose sentence, imposed by district judge Lauri Blake, included a clause that she was not allowed to have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school. The girl was convicted on a drug charge and the “no sex” clause is a condition of her probation. Apparently, it is only one of several “unorthodox” rulings by this judge since she was elected 10 months ago.
I guess I fail to see how sex is related to staying off drugs… since sex isn’t illegal, I’m not sure the judge has a right to include it in a sentencing.
The CNN article explained that the judge has also included things like: no body piercings, or acquiring tattoos, or wearing clothes that the judge feels is “associated with the drug culture.” She’s also told female attorneys not to wear sleeveless dresses or shirts that are too low cut in her court room.
I understand upholding a measure of professionalism in a court room, and technically, a judge does have supreme power over what happens in his/her court, but telling someone they can’t get a tattoo is crossing a line in my opinion, and allowing a judge to make rulings based on her own personal biases.
Opponents are going so far as saying that the no sex, no tattoos, no baggy clothes conditions are actually violations of a person’s civil rights and personal freedoms. Those are things that could certainly be enforced if a person does something worthy of incarceration, but if they are on probation because their crime doesn’t warrant incarceration, and they are keeping their grades up, holding a job, etc., why shouldn’t they be allowed to have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend, or get a tattoo if they want one?
While judges like Lauri Blake think they know what’s best for everyone, their job is hand down sentences based on what’s been deemed appropriate by the law, not based on their own opinions. And if they can’t perform their job, I don’t think they have any business being judges. Period.
26 comments.
Think Your Job Sucks??? Try this one… »« What do the SAT and the KKK Have in Common?
Trouble the Pirate quibbed this
“No sex” is cruel and unusual punishment… That judge should be disrobed… And spanked…
October 3rd, 2005
Christopher the Pyro thought this
I don’t know, we really don’t know the facts of this case. Now this girl might very well be a complete and utter fuckup, I can see where drugs, sex, tatoo’s and piecerings could all be grouped together. Besides, if you arn’t willing to live with the punishment maybe she should have done the drugs. Also, is sex before 18 legal, it’s could be illigal if she was having sex with someone over 18 right?
October 3rd, 2005
Christine the Lioness mentioned
Sex under 18 is only illegal if yes, you are having sex with someone over 18. It’s considered statutory rape, but the burden for breaking that law is on the person who is over 18 even if the sex is consentual. Regardless… civil liberties do come into play. In every state, it is clearly defined what the penalty is for breaking a law. No one should have to guess that maybe if they break a law, the judge might, on a creative day, come up with some penalty on their own that’s not dictated by law. The penalties are very clearly defined, and most times, there is a range so that the judge may choose. For example, 25 to life in some states for 2nd degree murder. The judge’s own personal experience and judgment and reasoning comes into play by being the one to choose whether the guilty person receives 25 years, life, or something in between. If we give judges the right to just make up whatever they want, our check and balance system goeos out the window. And quite frankly, judges hurt the value of the system by imposing penalties that can’t be enforced. I mean honestly, if you were busted on shoplifting, or downloading music illegally, and the judge said that while you were on probation you couldn’t have sex, would you obey that? Or would you do it anyway? I understand wanting to keep this girl away from a druggie crowd or druggie boyfriend and to create ways to break her association with him/them, but there is a reason the system is set up the way it is… and we don’t allow judges to just run amok and make up punishments on their own.
October 3rd, 2005
Christopher the Pyro spake, and sayeth
Well obviously judges do have the “right” to hand down pushiments like this, and that is part of the law otherwise the judge would not have been able to do it in the first place.
October 3rd, 2005
David the Groupie chimed in with
The issues raised by Judge Blake’s conduct are real simple and straight forward: Is the rule of law more important than the “made up” rules this crazy judge follows in imposing her own sense of political and moral “correctness”. The age of consent for sexual relations in Texas is 17 years old. Should a single person of that age be engaged in sexual relations? Probably not a good idea, and her parents, pastor, and friends would probably counsel against such choice. But, no governmental official, including a judge, should order her not to engage in legal conduct under compulsion of prison. What’s next? Will Blake order probationers to go to church in order to stay out of prison? And, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she would exercise her omnipotence to instruct and direct to “the right church”.
This is not an issue of politics. The newly confirmed Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts , stated that judges should be “modest” and should not make law. Judges should follow the law. Judge Blake is not only trying to “make law” but she is breaking the law. Where does she get off on controlling citizen’s lawful sexual activities, right to body art, choice of clothing, and jewelry? The system has regulated the conduct of those under probation, now called community supervision, for decades. The conditions of staying out of jail such as don’t commit anymore criminal acts, avoid folks with criminal records, get a job or stay in school, just for example, work well and are time tested. But, a judge’s order that you have a choice - no sex, no tattoos, no piercings, etc., or you go to jail is something that we think might be the norm in Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany. Not in America. Not in Texas. Not in Fannin and Grayson Counties. Not now. Not ever!
Judge Blake remains unrestrained by our statutes, common law and constitution. She is a clear and present danger. She should be removed from office. What is the judicial branch doing about this rogue?
October 3rd, 2005
Christine the Lioness penned this
Why does it seem like this shit always happens in Texas?
Actually, I agree with you 100%, David. Judges are given the latitude to make decisions WITHIN the constructs of the law… not to make up their own penalties based on personal biases. There must be an element of trust that the public has for judges, and it is because of the checks and balances, that the public trust perpetuates. If judges all pulled this shit, no one would trust them or respect them at all. Like in many things, one bad apple can spoil the bunch, and it is my opinion that this judge needs to be reprimanded. If she continues to do this, then she should be removed. If she isn’t, the public will eventually lose trust in a system that allows for this kind of abuse from judges who think they are above the law.
October 3rd, 2005
Kevin the Soldier stated
I agree 100%. The flipside of this is a judge that doesn’t think a crime is worthy of the mandated punishment and just lets the convicted walk. We have laws and mandated sentencing guidelines for a reason. My personal opinion is that some of our sentencing guidelines should be modified to be a harsher. I believe that most (if not all) people would reconsider burglery if it meant that they were going to be caned on the first conviction, lose a finger on the second conviction and a hand on the third. Harsh yes, but effective.
October 5th, 2005
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
Well I think this girl got off pretty light, the judge would have been justified in handing down a punishment of 10 years and a 10,000 fine, but instead she choose punishment and a slightly unorthadox punishment. The way I see this is that I really don’t know the community or the facts to make much of a judgement.
October 5th, 2005
Christine the Lioness pontificated
You mean we shouldn’t just spout off our opinions without knowing all the facts??? Now come on… that wouldn’t be any fun… 
October 5th, 2005
I don’t think Kevin and Christopher “get it”. The issue is not getting off light or harshly. The judicial system has constrains on judges - they must follow the law. Otherwise, they are just tyrants with black robes. This case made national and international news: London: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1584270,00.html#article_continue
Even made it to Turkey: http://www.hurriyetim.com.tr/haber/0,,sid~5@nvid~638722,00.asp
I think a fair analysis can be found in a report from the Ft. Worth Star Telegram,
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/bud_kennedy/12792135.htm
A very interesting “take” entitled “no nookie” probation can be found:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0930052nosex1.html
October 5th, 2005
David the Groupie commented
Messed up the posting - I’m the foregoing “anonymous”
October 5th, 2005
Riss the Virgin mentioned
I think if the judge picks out a sentence that relates to the crime, then creativity isn’t such a bad thing. I mean some people would prefer to have a tooth pulled rather than spend time in jail for assault.
The no-sex ban may seem completely random but in the judge’s opinion, sex, tattoos, piercings what not are part of the drug culture which he wants her removed from for awhile. And whether or not I agree, an argument can be made for it. The legality issue is void I think. Liquor is legal and probation routinely prohibits paroled people from imbibing it.
For me, I would prefer a 10-month ban on sex to several years in jail, complete with being some 200 lb woman’s bitch. That’s just me though.
October 5th, 2005
Christine the Lioness uttered
The point is… once “creativity” is allowed in, where does it stop? What if a judge feels that part of the reason a person commits a crime is because he/she is fat and being made fun of precipitated the crime which the person did to feel accepted. Should the judge order the person to stop eating junk food? Maybe slimming down would help the person’s self esteem, but quite frankly, that is still the person’s choice. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the “prejudices” people have about tattood individuals is just that– a prejudice. I know lots of tatted people who aren’t criminals and don’t do drugs… so in reality, tatoos have nothing to do with committing crime. The judge is setting a penalty based on her own prejudice which is wrong. What is the judge was racist and felt that associating with black people is why the person committed the crime… can she hand down a sentence to not associate with any more black people? What if the judge had issues with interracial relationships or homosexuality? Can he/she tell the person they can’t sleep with someone of the same sex? The point is… judges don’t have free reign for a reason. And a judge who thinks he/she does, regardless of how much they feel they’re helping an individual, is abusing their power by taking on that sense of entitlement. Preserving the system is more important than creatively figuring out what sentence is best for an individual.
October 6th, 2005
David the Groupie commented
Christine, you are right on the mark. I did a little legal research and the following are some examples of conditions of probation that have been imposed:
Probationer not associating with her fianc?
Being subject to random searches of self, car and home
Banishing probationer from the US
Prohibiting the probationer from belonging to any ?Irish Catholic organizations? or visiting any ?Irish Pubs.?
Not associating with any ?known homosexuals,? ?Skinheads,? or ?neo-Nazi groups?
Not associating with the probationer?s wife without court consent
Banning the probationer from ?making speeches? or participating in protests or demonstrations on campus
Requiring probationer to wear a pink fluorescent bracelet identifying his crime
Requiring probationer to put an ad in the local paper with his mug shot captioned ?DUI-Convicted?
Curfews
Banning participation in ?political activity?
Courts require atheist probationers to attend AA meetings which are premised upon ?HIM? being to only way one can get and stay straight
October 6th, 2005
Art the Virgin penned this
I see no problem with creative punishments. If the judge had sentenced this girl to jail then she would not be allowed to have sex anyway. People who are convicted of a crime should be happy that they get to walk away with any part of their freedom. Besides, if the intention is to punish, then I think no sex is a pretty good one. I’d definitely see that as punishment.
October 6th, 2005
David the Groupie asserted
Art, you don’t think tht folks have sex in jail?
October 6th, 2005
Art the Virgin pontificated
David,
I’m sure that people have sex in jail, but presumanbly it’s not the kind of sex that this girl would want to have. The point was that even if it happens, technically it’s not allowed, so you can deprive people of sex, as a part of depriving them of their liberty.
October 6th, 2005
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Art, you are completely missing the point. The point is… there is a system that exists that gives a range of penalties for any given crime. Maintaining this system and not allowing any one person to creatively come up with their own punishments is why the system continues to work. Whether or not you agree that not having sex would be the same outcome as if she’d gone to jail is totally irrelevant. The judge failed in her duties because she did not do what she was trusted to do– dole out a penalty, within the range established, that seemed to her, most appropriate. If every judge just decided to make up his/her own rules, there would inevitably be some you agree with and some you don’t. And other people would have differing opinions than you do… and the slope just gets more and more slippery until there is nothing but a group of people (judges) doing whatever they want, without any guidelines or any check on their power. That would not be good. It would be bad. Art, try to open your eyes and see th bigger picture here instead of focusing on whether or not the girl could have had sex in jail.
October 6th, 2005
Crystal the Soldier stated
I’m still hung up on the telling female lawyers not to wear sleeveless shirts. Do you have any idea how freaking hot it is in TX? You’re drenched walking from the car to the building. Besides, it’s too hot to have sex or do anything else requiring movement. I love TX, but I think the heat has fried some brains.
Oh, and Art? I’m all for creative punishments as an occasional tool, but as the norm? Especially when it encroaches on the civil liberties of the defendant over a petty crime? How about some “creative” punishments for child molestors and murders, not “Bible belt” remedies for wayward teens.
October 20th, 2005
I have been in Blake’s court and it’s a joke. My ex admitted in court to abusing me and driving drunk with our children in the car and she would not sign a protective order to keep him away from us. Texas does nothing to protect women and children, at least not in Blakes court.
November 24th, 2005
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
Blake Victim… I’m sorry to hear that. It’s really shitty that we expect people in your situation who are trying to protect themselves and their kids to go through appropriate channels (like asking for a protective order or restraining order in court) and then the system completely fails them. It appears that Blake is too busy thinking up ways to violate civil rights to actually see value in preventing a man who chose to drive intoxicated with his children in his car (thus jeopardizing their safety) from doing it again.
November 25th, 2005
Christopher the Pyro added
The Judge never grants me restraining orders against Christine either.. the system is just shitty.
November 25th, 2005
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
He’s right… the last time he took me to court for a restraining order and told that ridiculous story about how I stabbed him, the judge laughed him out of the court room and then caught me in the hallway and tried to set me up with his son.
November 26th, 2005
Christine 2 the Mercenary spake, and sayeth
I’m surprised that the girl’s lawyer wasn’t able to appeal the decision. (Although her parents probably prevented that). It does seem a little over the line to me. Whether or not the punishment would have been effective is irrelevant because that sort of thing isn’t applied equally throughout the court system. Some rapists can get out of jail in seven years, but the MM sentence on marijuana felons is 3rd time…life, no parole. For a non-violent crime!! Sure, creative punishment may be effective, but we don’t live in ancient time. How bout we start ordering rapists to be raped back? Throw them to the dogs….although I guess that is what jail must be like, sans the cable tv, fitness center, fraternities, and abundant supply of peanut butter and honey sandwiches. Oh, and another note…I’m from Georgia, so did anyone here about the guy that just got out of jail after a wrongful conviction left him in jail for 26 years. Talk about being seriously pissed…
December 24th, 2005
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Yes, there are many issues with our justice system… and Christine 2’s list only begins to scratch the surface. But we have to develop some sort of system we can trust and I guess our’s is one of the best any country has come up with. However, I believe that if judges are just allowed to do whatever the hell they want… then nothing really seperates us from a Saddam Hussein-style justice system of tyranny. There has to be some sort of control over judges and checks on their power.
December 24th, 2005
Buy Acomplia the Virgin uttered
Acomplia (rimonabant) works by blocking the CB1 receptors in the brain and fat tissue. Cannabinoids, chemicals produced by the body, latch on to the CB1 receptors, sending out a signal that prompts people to eat more.
August 19th, 2006
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
