Subj : Re: Yay Texas
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Steve Brooks
Date : Tue Oct 04 2005 19:03:43

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Trouble wrote:
> Steve Brooks wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1584270,00.html
>
>> Justice in aciton.
>
> She's only 17, if its that, or 10 years in jail which'll ruin her
> life, she can abstain for a little while. There is a chain of adult
> novelty stores not an hour's drive from Sherman if she has trouble
> complying with the terms of her probation...

Don't get me wrong. I think the sentence passed was far preferable to any 
prison sentence or even a large fine. I expect the mere fact of conviction 
will blight this unfortunate girl's life to some extent. Which is a shame.

But to an English person this sentence (along with a number of others I've 
read about) does look a bit bizarre. Our judges simply don't place specific 
restrictions on details of the defendant's private life in criminal 
cases.[1]  I don't know whether that's because they don't have the power or 
simply tradition. To us this type of thing can't help but look 'a bit 
whacky'. Even when the actual restriction is probably quite sensible. In 
this case I do wonder how it's going to be policed. AFAICS if she does break 
the conditions of her release the only way she's going to get caught, in 
most cases, is if her partner then turns her in. OTOH it seems like an open 
invitation for any of her contemporaries who don't like her to accuse her 
anonymously and stand back to enjoy the fun.

[1] We do however have ASBOs {anti social behaviour orders). These are not 
part of criminal law since generally the people they are imposed on cannot 
be proved to have broken any law. When they were brought in they were 
presented as being a way to deal with teenage gangs. "Gangs" as in the sense 
of groups of young people who hang around on street corners looking untidy. 
But they have been used in all sorts of imaginative ways. I have read of one 
Tourette's sufferer who has been given an order not to swear in public. If 
he breaks this order - which seems likely - he may be sent to prison. Even 
though he hasn't actually broken any law and couldn't help doing what he 
did. New Labour, new stupidity.


> As for the lawyer who says 90% of the Barr is up in arms over the
> judges behavior...
>
> and 75% of all statistics are just made up
>
> I'd like to read the transcripts leading up to him being hauled out of
> the courtroom
>
> The only thing I see that raised an eyebrow was no short sleeved
> shirts in a state where the temps regularly hit 100 F in the summer.

I would assume the courts are air conditioned. Personally I think all 
lawyers should have to present their cases wearing nothing but their 
underwear. It would put the witnesses at their ease and help the jury stay 
awake. Especially if the lawyers looked like Reese Witherspoon.

-- 

SB

.