Wait. You can get jail time for not attending school. Whatttt? Before we even get to her getting wrongly sentenced. How is there even a law that makes a minor go to jail for not attending ten days of school?

I think there is some sort of law in parts of Oregon where the Parents can go to jail if their students are chronicly absent from school.... might be more effective.

I hate this kind of attitude. So tell me, if you lived in Maryland, and had Oral six, and they decided to actually uphold that ancient law that we have that says it's illegal to do that, would you be perfectly ok with it? Assuming of course that it all happened in the privacy of your home and you off-handedly mentioned it to a co-worker or something(putting aside all moral values and what not that you may have that would cause you to NOT talk about said thing). Cuz the law that has this girl in jail, even if only for 24 hours, is just as silly as the one I just mentioned. The girl is maintaining a freaking A grade average, and working two jobs. Why in the hell would she EVER call CPS and possibly lose her siblings? Or did you not think about the simple fact that she and her siblings would almost assuredly be stuck in the relatively abysmal foster care system, where they would 90% likely be split up, and probably not see each other again until they were all 18 or older? Or the fact that there is also a decent chance that one or more of them would be put in an abusive foster care home where they were hurt physically, or even molested? Why would she ever do something so idiotic as to call CPS with those possible risk factors when she's doing perfectly fine in school and in maintaining care for her siblings?

Maybe in the days of tyranic overlords.

These days, laws are meant to have exceptions, and many times a law is taken back and rewritten after it is passed because it needed exceptions.

Anyway, a law is a guideline. Not a brick wall that should never be surpassed. You don't follow it blindly just because your "supreme overlord lawmakers" said so. It is to guide you along encourage you to do the "right" thing. And it's not always the right thing, since law makers are not perfect beings.

From my perspective I think both sides of this argument have merit. On one hand, going around making exceptions for people because they're "good kids" can lead to bias and favoritism in (what is supposed to be) an objective judicial system. If the law needs to be changed, then proper procedure needs to be observed for changing it. Without proper observation of rules and procedures there's no way to to maintain a judicial system with a semblance of fairness.

That said, the area in which a judge has wiggle room to adjust for varying severity would be in sentencing. This is where (IMO) this judge went careening off the deep end. This girl didn't deserve to be punished, and I can't imaging the type of person that would think that sending her to jail would help anyone in any way. What she needs is a break. A kid that age shouldn't have to work two jobs. Piling on additional punishment doesn't make any sense at all. At most I could see sentencing her guardian some community service to get their attention, but beyond that the best thing the court could have offered her is help.

Where is it written that charity work provides immunity to the law? Or good grades for that matter?

The law in this case serves no purpose and no justice. Why would you want students to go to school? To get a good education so they can become contributing members of society. Having 2 jobs she is already a contributing member of society and she's an honor roll student so she isn't sacrificing her eduction at all.

Not that this law makes much sense anyway even when you have good for nothings not going.

As usual it is the US again. These things, always happen in US.
That judge is a dumb fk because:
-The girl is trying to support the family
-She has 2 jobs!!!! THAT IS EXTREMELY BUSY for a student
-Although she missed a lot of school, she did her work and got GREAT results
-She is an honor student
-YOU THINK she wants to skip school?! No. She is forced not to go because of current circumstances(work etc)
-That judge is jealous because the girl is smarter than him and because he lost his d**k

This article was a big hit on my emotional status because i just couldnt believe anyone is dumb to jail this student. Hell if this student MUST be jailed, then 50% of the high school kids who truant school everyday and do drugs should have gone to prison for the rest of the era.

This is the way I see it too. Not that my opinion will ever change anything.

Simple: you allow the judge to use their discretion. They already do, anyway. If a child has more than 10 unexcused absences, they can be taken into court, and the judge can then decide, in the circumstances, whether a child deserves a talking to, community service, jail time, etc.


You realise that state child protection is horrible, right? The siblings would probably be separated, they'll be introduced to all sorts of problem influences, and the net result will probably be that they'll be worse off than they currently are. Frankly, there's no way you can fault the girl for wanting to keep herself and her siblings out of that system.


Except in this case the person in question happens to be a child, with basically no resources or time to try to change the law, and probably with plenty of other problems on her plate.

It seems to me that there's something wrong with a legal system that doesn't take these kinds of exceptional circumstances into account. Exceptions already exist for murder, fraud, theft, etc.

This is the problem with these kinds of under-the-radar laws -- they're not given enough thought, because the people they affect (children, or homeless people, or ...) don't matter.


Erm, let's not go that far, because the thread will get locked.

As a discussion of education, family, and the law, this is kind of interesting. Let's try to keep politics out of it, though.

I think people are confusing laws with sentences. Laws need to be consistent...it's actually pretty important. Sentencing can be adjusted to fit the situation. I know it sounds like knit-picking, but from a legal and civic standpoint it's a really important distinction.

Is the law that says kids need to stay in school until they're done or reach a certain age a good one? I don't know. If it helps kids with delinquent parents get an opportunity for an education and/or results in more graduates then it couldn't be all bad. The sentencing in this case was definitely ridiculous and unjust judging from the information given in the article.

They are? Even the ones about sixual assault, murder, trafficking and slavery? Or just the one you feel like breaking because it's convenient?

I sincerely doubt that anyone who thinks the punishment was appropiate because it's the law thinks that those people you mentioned should walk free. But I have to agree. Some laws are stupid and shouldn't be around, others modified and so on, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to nitpick and suddenly decide when your own views supersedes the law before you manage to get rid of them.

Hell my school stopped bothering to phone home or give detentions for skipping (honestly, if I skipped class you think I will show up for a detention?) I can't believe you could actually get in legal trouble for it.. I skipped a bunch of my last few years of school and paid for it by having to go back to an advlt education place to get the grades to apply to university. If she can keep her grades up I dont see how you should possibly be punished.

"but state law allows for only 10 unexcused absences in a six-month period." I'd probly go through that in a month in some of my worse ruts. Maybe it's different in Texas but here you can drop out after grade 10. So I dont see how its any of the government's business whether someone goes or not.

This. Surely the judge had a setencing option other than jail, be it anything from a fine or a simple caution or something. Personally though, I feel that part of the blame lies with the businessess that hired her in the first place. Surely they could've seen that this underage girl was working two jobs despite supposedly being at school.

Probably a pride thing... Get help from programs or do it all yourself?

What I don't understand too well is how this came before a judge in the first place?

Shouldn't the DA (or someone in the Justice dept.) have weighed in first and decided that it wasn't worth the time and effort of the prosecution?

That's what happens here.. our justice department routinely dismisses cases that they feel have no merit, or too slim a chance of success at.

I know the difference, and I'm not confusing "the law" and "sentencing".

Yes, the law needs to be consistent, but it's pretty easy to write a clause in that states something to the effect of, "The judge is allowed to use his discretion in deciding whether the child is guilty of contravening the provisions of this section, taking into considerations the child's circumstances. If the judge decides that the circumstances are such that it would be unfair/unjust to punish the child, the judge can rule that the child is 'not guilty'."


It's not that it's all bad. Rather, it's highly questionable whether it achieves its object. And is there an easier, less drastic measure that would work just as well? Probably.

This strikes me as one of those laws that is just slapped together so that legislators can say, "Look, we did something!"

I wasn't trying to say that you didn't. What I was trying to say (and apparently failed ) is that throughout most of the thread folks have been talking about the two as though they're the same thing, which is confusing the argument.

In effect that is what we have. If someone is convicted of a crime then they are guilty of that crime. Period. Sentencing is where there are allowance that are supposed to be used to adjust the severity of the action the court takes. Unless there is a mandatory minimum sentence for the crime (which is pretty uncommon), the judge can decide not to impose a punishment at all. Adding arbitrary exceptions to every law would make them prohibitively complex and expensive to enforce. The laws need to be pretty cut-and-dried for law enforcement bodies like the police. It's the judicial system's job to decide how to justly handle infractions. It's a bit of an assembly line, yes, but whatcha gonna do?

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Which state should be try it on first?

I'd have to disagree with you there. Making a law is pretty much the least the government could do toward that goal. I think you might be underestimating peoples' capacity to be irresponsible jerks.

It has just occurred to me that you live in a country that was formed by terrorists who broke the laws of the British empire .

On the other hand... if she really needs the money and all legit employers had refused to give her work, she would have been in an unpleasant position that could have lead her to resorted to less savoury sources of income. The way I see it, if she's going to insist on working her guts out, she may as well do it for an employer who will be understanding and treat her well .