I can't believe that this judge did this: [video=youtube;0eJrKi0jKao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eJrKi0jKao[/video] ...and some web rebuttals (the second one is priceless, LOL...): [video=youtube;MwL1aLOeXso]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwL1aLOeXso&feature=related[/video] [video=youtube;0YOPs6U6IyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOPs6U6IyE&feature=related[/video] Seriously now, I think the judge really missed out on what the overall purpose of truancy laws are about; that is, to ensure that children in the state of Texas (where nearly everyone is a fucking dummy) are getting a good education so they can eventually lead constructive and productive lives, just like... well, how about just like Diane Tran? Honestly, if this judge was voted in, they need to do a recall and vote his ass off the bench.
I went to jail cause I work hard and pay taxes for your salary......the judge thought he was cool, until the media goes against him, he can't stand up to his own mess.....
Playing the Devil's advocate here, but I do see why the judge put her in jail. It's to serve as a deterrent for future kids who want to skip. Though I need to say, holding a record for skipping and even going to jail is retarded. It's quite a shame that this girl was picked by chance to make an example out of. Though IMO holding a record and going to jail is slightly excessive, especially for a girl who doesn't deserve it, the judge decided on the belief that this would deter future kids from skipping, which itself is a good cause. So this argument of "I went to jail cause I work hard and pay taxes for your salary" is an irrelevance fallacy in the debate lol. Anyway, we're all going to be biased towards Diane (myself included). So none of us would actually understand the reasoning behind the judge's decision unless we've studied law, so we're burning him at the stakes without understanding his position.
I beg to differ. In blindly following the letter of the law and totally disregarding its spirit, this judge is emblematic of exactly the type of short sighted, compassionless jurisprudence that would see a young boy who, having stolen a loaf of bread to feed his starving younger siblings, hanged by the neck until dead. You would think that American justice is better than that. In essence, what this judge has rendered with his judicial opinion is that regardless of mitigating circumstance and intent of a statute, it is more important to follow the most draconian interpretation of the law. The only thing that he has done is to show society that the ones who work the hardest, not only will they won't be rewarded, but that you can expect to be kicked in the teeth. There is a lot that judges can do from the bench in terms of using their discretion in the name of justice. This judge doesn't seem to know how to do anything but quote a statute. I sincerely hope that netizens rise in anger and work towards having this obtuse jurist censured, impeached, or recalled; whatever it takes to get rid of him.
Its stupid how she is the one that has to support her family. Her brother is studying in Texas A&M which means he's older and should be the one providing for the family as the Man of the house. Where are the social workers to help her? I think she it taking up too much responsibility for a young girl who's not even an adult yet. She shouldn't have to be working 2 part-time jobs and focusing on academics while getting a few hours of sleep every night if lucky. I know some people who skipped a lot but jail was not even an option. The worst a school would do would suspend them or expel them. These American Judges think they can do whatever they want and have no heart at all.
"I see" doesn't imply that "I agree" in regards to the decision. But anyway, suppose a contrasting example: A murderer is being tried for the killing of, I don't know, say, his kids. He happens to be a philanthropist who did good things to aid people better their lives. By your argument, a fair judge should reward him for his good deeds by reducing his sentence, which shows compassionate jurisprudence. I realize that argument is far-fetched, but I guess my argument is the following: By the opinion of the people, following the interpretation of the law to the letter is considered to be "short sighted", "compassionless jurisprudence" and "draconian". A "fair" judge is defined as a judge who treats each case he presides fairly, regardless of the circumstances of a case. When the case involves that of a girl who (in my opinion as well) does NOT deserve it, a fair judge should take into account her circumstance, and bend the law to accommodate her circumstance. When the case involves that of a killer, a fair judge should be strict and compassionless. But this is a contradiction, as this is contradicts the definition of "fair". So therefore, for a judge to be "fair", he needs to treat both cases with the same methodology, either being compassionate to both, or dispassionate to both. Thus, the judge really hasn't done anything wrong in his verdict. I realize my proof sounds robotic and lacks compassion towards the girl, but I'm trying to show that the idea of being compassionate to the girl is merely our own bias. We as humans are guided by emotion, which skews our understanding of fairness compared to the scientific definition of fairness. If this judge were to set a precedence of leniency to this girl, future cases will use this precedence of leniency for people who do not deserve leniency. Though I truly believe this girl doesn't deserve her punishment, for the sake of precedence of law, the judge had no choice. And I realize I will get burned for this post. For the sake of fairness, someone had to argue for the other side, regardless of their beliefs on the case. edit: Another argument is this: for a judge to be "kicked" out of his position, he needs to have done something that goes against the rules of being a judge, something that is scandalous. And by the video, he didn't seem like he did. Making a decision that is immoral in the eyes of the people, does not necessarily mean it is immoral by the definition of the law. Furthermore, the girl's parents have divorced, which cause the financial strain on her family. The financial burden is the liability of her parents, not her, and so she willingly decided to skip school to help her family's financial situation. This decision seems draconian, yes, but unfortunately, it is a moral decision according to law, despite of how immoral it seems in the eyes of the people, who are NOT experts in law.
i believe in mercy for cases like this as it has nothing to do with murder and shes not out robbing people and stealing shit.. and this is why we don't let robots be on jury.
Dan, your counter argument citing a philanthropic murderer is rather off base. In that regard, the spirit of the law (preservation of life) and the law proscribing the taking of life, were both violated. Hence, the issues involved are inherently different. Your insistence that the murderer having a noble character could thus use it to mitigate his criminal guilt cannot apply. In essence, a more accurate comparison would be if Tran didn't go to school, failed her classes, but then stated that she did so only to do some good philanthropic deed (like raise her family) then it would be an equivalent counter argument. That isn't the case here. I'm sorry , but IMHO, what you're missing here is the intent of the truancy laws in the first place. Their whole entire purpose is to support education by bringing the threat of criminal liability against those who would neglect their school work via excessive absence from class. In other words, the theory is that punishment would ensure delinquents kept up with their studies. But in this case, was educational delinquency ever a problem? No. Not only was it not a problem, but even with the skipped classes, the student here was doing above and beyond what the state required and even taking advanced placement courses. Moreover, she was doing so despite some very serious familial and financial hardships, to the point that her perseverance has drawn accolades as being an exemplar of sterling character. And onto this fine example of what all our kids should hope to be, this learned jurist throws a bucket of icy cold water. To blindly follow a law while delivering a verdict which clearly undermines that law's original intent is, IMHO not only a huge miscarriage of justice but would serve to ultimately subject the judiciary to wholesale ridicule. If there was ever a case of a court throwing the baby out with the bath, this one sure comes damned close. And this: I disagree. Unless there is a mandatory sentence clause written into that specific law, the judge ALWAYS has a choice. Furthermore, even if he did find her guilty, he can always vacate his previous order in light of new developments, or in the interest of justice and or in view of the law's intent. IMHO, no two ways about it, this judge royally blew it.
But then that goes against all definitions of a "fair trial", regardless of circumstances... We pretty much made up our minds on the verdict of the defendant, based on our own non-standard definition of what is morally wrong and morally right. edit: to ralph's post Ah, that's right, I failed to look into what the Truancy laws are in her area. But if your definition of the Truancy laws in her area is correct, and that the law itself strictly states "delinquency" as the target of the law, then the judge may have miscarried the case, as he didn't classify her actions to be delinquent or not. However if the law only states "Their whole entire purpose is to attempt to support education by bringing criminal liability to those that neglect their school work by excessive absence from class.", then she still falls under the law... In which, the law needs to be corrected to account for this type of circumstance, and the judge did nothing wrong. Could you link me to the legislation that defines the Truancy laws? I'm unfamiliar with American Law..
Texas Truancy and Attendance Laws The most important phrase in that page is : And if this case burned you up, just read about this one: LINK or this one LINK Many people who aren't from the US don't realize that Texas is still living in the middle ages when it comes to certain things. Every once in a while, shit like this crops up.
I don't doubt that this law definitely needs some major updating. But I'm not sure how the stated quote accuses the judge of miscarrying the case? If anything, the legitimacy of absences is the discretion of the principals. If she did ask her principal, and he/she refused allowing absence, then there should be a hearing in which, if the circumstances are legitimate, the judge would overrule the principal. Also, what do you mean by "burned me up"? I'm just merely trying to see whether the judge deserved to step down or not... And I guess you're right. Since I'm not from the US, I don't realize that Texas still lives in the middle ages in regards to certain things. But then again, I'm sure the same applies everywhere else as well..
LOL... Sorry, forgetting that sometimes, our obscure American euphemisms are missed internationally. 'Burned up' over something, meaning 'angry' or 'disgusted' with an issue. As for my "miscarriage of justice" statement, allow me to carry the example to another arena, that of health care. There's a running doctor's joke regarding a "Harvard Medical School" type of death, that is, having a patient's lab values all corrected back to normal, but yet the patient nonetheless dies. In other words, the wisdom of this old tickler is that one needs to always treat the person and never just by relying on numbers. The same ideas exists in law and jurisprudence. One has to look at the intent of the law and appreciate how it affects people, and not just the literal meaning of the string of words. Every lawyer is told to go out into the world and given a remarkably nebulous yet noble instruction to do good. But hiding behind simple statutes and using them to unjustly bring the weight of law onto well meaning citizens is generally never the intent of legislators; well, at least not in the US publicly. As for whether she asked her principal for an absence excuse or not, I don't know; the article didn't elaborate that point. At any rate, I'm hoping for this girl's sake that the bad publicity from this case would at least cause the judge to reverse his ruling. The girl has enough problems as it is.
^ You're right, I was arguing apples and oranges. I guess I'm just accustomed to relying solely on the numbers, due to the profession I'm in. An intent of something just isn't quantifiable, so it's difficult to standardize a procedure based on non-quantifiable measures. I'm curious as to how law incorporates the concept of non-quantifiable variables such as intent, moral, and such, as they are non-standard. The intent of law, or the interpretation of the intent, differs from individual to individual, as the same with morality. These are based on personal values that we've been taught throughout our lives, so to judge something and to account for morality and the intent of law (by amputation, one's understanding of the intent and morality), would be bias. Anyway, I'm drifting away from the main topic. This girl doesn't need this shit on her plate. I'm sure we all agree on that.
lol wow texas.. even the judges talk like a hillbilly.. damn that girl needs to let up on all those AP classes.. Parents are eff'd up leaving her like that..
Oh right, she's doing AP too lol. AP + full time + part time + taking care of siblings and family = You're going to have a bad time.
i have a friend down in TX, he said yeah its a rule. And they enforce it for the teens. And people do go to juvie for skipping class. Except in her case shes actually trying to survive....not skipping for no reason..... MAn this is like Shameless Tv Series....
