Subj : Re: Yay Texas
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Steve Brooks
Date : Tue Oct 04 2005 19:37:14

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Trouble wrote:
> 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.

Even if she went to prison for 10 years for exactly the same offence? And 
that was AIUI the maximum sentence. If that works anything like the way it 
does over here I'd expect that to be a 1 in a 1000 case where there were 
exceptional agravating circumstances. Unless there are facts not mentioned 
in the article I posted a link to I'd have thought a fine of say $200 to be 
paid by the girl herself would have been quite sufficient. Or maybe a couple 
of hundred hours community service - assuming that's available as a 
punishment in Texas.

And do you have to tell an employer in all circumstances? Over here we have 
the 'care and rehabilitation of offenders act'. This says that convictions 
for most crimes become 'spent' at some time later. (Really serious crimes 
like murder are not included). For a minor thing like possession of a small 
quantity of drugs IIRC after 7 years you don't have to tell a prospective 
employer. Though some sensitive jobs - in particular anything which involves 
working with children - are exempt. There are more lenient rules for most 
offences committed before the age of IIRC 14.

>> 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

It's completely hat-stand.  This country has gone at least as mad as yours 
has; though in somewhat different ways.


>>> 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.

I bow to your superior knowledge. My "knowledge" of the US legal system 
undoubtedly owes more to "Twelve Angry Men" and "Night Court" than to 
reality.

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

I can't remember ever being captivated by an elbow. But that doesn't mean 
it'll never happen.

-- 

SB

.