I have no words ... 8O : Othor Games

» Wed May 30, 2012 11:26 pm

Am I the only one wondering why there has been no attempt to provide benefits or assistance to the family? If she needs to work full time at 17 to support her family, surely they'd qualify for some sort of financial aid?

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:46 pm

Am I the only one wondering why there has been no attempt to provide benefits or assistance to the family? If she needs to work full time at 17 to support her family, surely they'd qualify for some sort of financial aid?

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, her dad uses up all his money on drugs or alcohol, so she's basically the one providing for the family. If they got financial assistance, that assistance would probably just go to her father's habit. But because the money she earns through her job is hers, not her guardian's (dad's), she can use it to support her family.

» Thu May 31, 2012 7:50 am

JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE!!!

» Wed May 30, 2012 7:34 pm

I wonder if it actually deters truancy. And what is the point of deterring truancy? To get children to go to school so that they can get an education. She's clearly learning, and she's clearly going to school when she can. So it seems to me that the law with regard to truancy hasn't been finessed enough to allow for special circumstances.

I think the issue is that the judge seems to just see her as just another hooligan And must be treated as such

» Thu May 31, 2012 4:24 am

I wonder if it actually deters truancy. And what is the point of deterring truancy? To get children to go to school so that they can get an education. She's clearly learning, and she's clearly going to school when she can. So it seems to me that the law with regard to truancy hasn't been finessed enough to allow for special circumstances.

I'm not saying she's a bad apple, quite the contrary, she's working hard to keep on top. She COULD cut herself some slack by doing homeschooling, but she chooses not to. As much of a good student as she may be, she's still provided 10 unexcused absences within a six month period. While I'd be willing to cut her some slack, an example does need to be set that no one is excusable from the law. Though why she was picked when there is likely a better candidate to pick on than an honour student is beyond me.

» Wed May 30, 2012 7:56 pm

A day in jail isn't so bad, she won't lose her job over it and it'll give her some time to think about how she can improve her time management.

» Thu May 31, 2012 7:15 am

While this particular situation is unfortunate, it is her responsibility to know the law and stay within the boundary of it. She had already been warned that missing more days would lead to punishment, and it seems she had other options avaliable that could prevent this situation (homeschooling) that she chose not to pursue.

» Wed May 30, 2012 10:24 pm

Pfft, the law.
Back in my day, we got into trouble with the guards weekly!

» Thu May 31, 2012 4:25 am

Well, I find it difficult to come up with creative replies to these threads since we have about a hundred of them each week. Also, why you felt like this piece of news was worthy of being posted here instead of something like... I don't know, that earthquake in Italy which killed 15 people? Or that new malware Kaspersky discovered and are calling "one of the most complex threats ever discovered". Or maybe even http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18248841 - is beyond me.

Well said. I don't see an issue with someone who broke the law going to jail. Maybe I'm inhumane though.

» Thu May 31, 2012 5:13 am

I've always said if I ever get sent to jail for a petty crime I would come out and actually commit a crime worth being in jail like off the telly! (Henry's Crime)

Pretty black and white to me, you can give your 'Stop right there, Criminal scum' but I know right and I know wrong. Maybe those who just casually accept blatant sillyness in the laws of their country's are the kind who turn a blind eye to people like Mr.Assad... but... lets not go there xD

» Thu May 31, 2012 6:19 am

What we need are judges would know how to interpret the law instead of reading blindly from a book. :grad:

What we need is a global sense of justice that brings forth a new generation of judges with wisdom, honor, and healthy dose of common sense. :goodjob:

-otherwise known as the pazazz factor. :intergalactic:

Spoiler

We need Judge Andy :cool:

» Thu May 31, 2012 4:11 am

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-honor-student-jobs-jailed-missing-school/story?id=16437893#.T8O_QMWwUo4

That's Texas for ya, trust me my father can concur this statement he's from Texas. Anyway schools shouldn't have THAT kind of power. Truency in my opionion is out dated and should be removed, going to school should be a choice and not forced on people, if I (anyone) don't want to go to school and grow up dumber then a stick in the mud then that's my own buisness.

» Wed May 30, 2012 5:35 pm

What we need are judges would know how to interpret the law instead of reading blindly from a book. :grad:

Of course, given the quotes from Judge Moriarty, it's likely that (given the leeway to "interpret") he'd choose either months in solitary or a firing squad, since that girl's clearly a bad seed. :ermm:

» Wed May 30, 2012 5:04 pm

I am shocked and appalled. This topic makes me so angry I might actually take action to prevent this sort of thing from happening again (only if it's a facebook "like" or an online petition I can sign with a single click, let's not get unreasonable, you can't expect me to actually get up and do something).

» Thu May 31, 2012 3:57 am

So... to punish her from missing school, they put her in prison for a day, presumably missing another day of school in the process.

Right.

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:48 pm

So... to punish her from missing school, they put her in prison for a day, presumably missing another day of school in the process.

Right.

Yeah.

» Wed May 30, 2012 11:41 pm

It's 24 hours. You people are acting like he sent her to a maximum penitentary full of men only. Also, missing school longer unexcused than 10 days is criminal, ergo, by definition, she is a criminal. It's the same if a robber isn't doing it for greed, just trying to support his or her family, he or she is still a robber. Granted she may not be hurting or causing trouble for another, there's no excuse to slink around the law, you let one do it, and you find the cretins using that as an excuse to slink around the law. It's best to be firm about the law IMO.

You speak as if the law is a higher power, set up by perfect beings. It's not. If it's not fair, then it needs to be changed, not accepted.

» Wed May 30, 2012 6:27 pm

I remember back in the day I had over 30 tardy slips... Maybe it might be my fault.

» Thu May 31, 2012 1:32 am

Ya. The law is not made for the exceptional. The girl is clearly some kind of exceptional.

The law should allow no exceptions.

» Thu May 31, 2012 4:54 am

I remember back in the day I had over 30 tardy slips... Maybe it might be my fault.

Ah truancy used to be fun. But only because I overslept a lot, if your an hour late it's not much sense to go in right?

» Thu May 31, 2012 7:22 am

That's Texas for ya, trust me my father can concur this statement he's from Texas. Anyway schools shouldn't have THAT kind of power. Truency in my opionion is out dated and should be removed, going to school should be a choice and not forced on people, if I (anyone) don't want to go to school and grow up dumber then a stick in the mud then that's my own buisness.

Even when it becomes other peoples' business when they have to provide for you when you're out of a job due to a lack of education?

You speak as if the law is a higher power, set up by perfect beings. It's not. If it's not fair, then it needs to be changed, not accepted.

And whose definition of fair is that judgement going to be based on?

» Thu May 31, 2012 8:33 am

And whose definition of fair is that judgement going to be based on?

By saying it's the 'law' you can justify any action. Cause anyone who opposes it is a criminal. You can't be judge judy and executioner. (Please someone get that reference)

» Thu May 31, 2012 7:57 am

And whose definition of fair is that judgement going to be based on?

The people, as a whole, in this case.

» Thu May 31, 2012 1:51 am

By saying it's the 'law' you can justify any action. Cause anyone who opposes it is a criminal. You can't be judge judy and executioner. (Please someone get that reference)

That doesn't really answer my question.

The people, as a whole, in this case.

And has it been proved that the majority of the people considers this unfair? And if the people who agree that this is unfair are in majority counting the nation as a whole, but a minority in Texas, should their definition of fair then supersede the rights each state has?

» Wed May 30, 2012 11:26 pm

That doesn't really answer my question.

Wasn't really trying to. If anything I would say something like 'what is right and what is wrong' but those things are just opinion. One persons hero is anothers murderer. But i'm sure we can all agree the law is meant to protect the people it enforces upon. So cases like this are just plain stupid