Subj : Re: Yay Texas
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Trouble
Date : Tue Oct 04 2005 14:14:07

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Steve Brooks wrote:

> 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. 

Telling potential employers she smoked pot when she was 17 or something 
like it, is not as bad as telling them she went to jail for 10 years.

> 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. 

Or say she was wearing a drug t-shirt, stayed out past 10PM which is 
their word against hers, vs getting somone to testify she had sex them...

> [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. 

That's screwed up, and over here, he'd get a lawyer and have it appealed

>> 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.

Small town courtroom, filled with people, 100+ degrees outside, AC can't 
compete and the courtroom would be 80 degrees if its similar to any of 
the public buildings I've ever been to outside of the city. There might 
be some noisy fans blowing around though.

Turns out its sleeveless shirts, some of those are pretty distracting in 
the same line as cleavage is distracting.

-- 
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise.
Seek what they sought."
--Basho

.