• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Honor student placed in jail for tardiness and truancy at school

Yeah ... What ever!



How many hours? She alleges a full time and a part time.
But we don't know that to be true, you know why?
Because the story is pretty much absent specifics.




No... That is what this is all about.
She should have been going full time but she wasn't. :mrgreen:


Just more hyperbole.


Wrong.

If I had been the Judge, I would also have given her a chance the first time.

And that is what you seem to want to ignore. She had her chance and wasted it.

And then you want to make a big deal that she got a very lenient 24 hours, to think about her actions in not obeying the courts order.
And unlike Lohan, Miss Tran most likely will be better for it.

This crybaby attitude that many people have now-a-days is ridiculous.

She had her chance, and screwed the pooch. Now it is time for the consequences.
She is lucky to get off so lightly, and that is most likey because of her astounding record.


LMFAO
I care not if you believe me.

You say you don't know whether she is holding a full time job and a part time job, and yet you are ready to say that she is wrong. Interesting.

It could be that she has two married parents at home, is working a single, ten hour a week job, isn't an honor student, and just decided to be truant. Could be, ya know!! But in that case, I would disagree with giving even one chance. We can come to all kinds of conclusions if we just make up facts.

But, with the purported facts as they have been presented, and reported by a second person, she was in a terrible situation.
 
She wasn't behind in her work. She simply wasn't making it to school, actually attending classes. If she is learning the stuff, and from what is given about her grades, she is, then she is doing her job as far as school is concerned.

That's what I say. High school was cake. I never took a study hall, had 6 years of science when I graduated, made it through calculus, etc, 4.0 and all that jazz. And I skipped a lot my senior year. There was no point to go to class. If she was not a problem kid, doing well, not committing crimes (like actual crimes, not skipping class....everyone does that) then I say no harm no foul.
 
You are assuming facts that have not been presented. The judge, the school system and her parents failed Ms. Tran. Ms. Tran has overcome a great deal and I have no doubt she will this time as well. She should have been referred for assistance the first time, but, was not.
You are.


I addressed this previously in post 14.
Actually you did not address that specifically.


Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever. The issue is whether Ms. Tran's absences could have been excused by the judge using his discretion and the answer is yes.
The answer is no.
Part of it was emboldened by you.
I will highlight the applicable portion, because apparently you are reading the statute incorrectly.

Texas Family Code - Section 51.03. Delinquent Conduct; Conduct Indicating A Need For Supervision
(d) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of conduct
under Subsection (b)(2) that one or more of the absences required to
be proven under that subsection have been excused by a school
official or by the court or that one or more of the absences were
involuntary, but only if there is an insufficient number of
unexcused or voluntary absences remaining to constitute conduct
under Subsection (b)(2). [highlight]The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary.
[/highlight] A decision by the
court to excuse an absence
for purposes of this subsection does not
affect the ability of the school district to determine whether to
excuse the absence for another purpose.


For your convenience I will repost the relevant part of the statute. Also note that the above authority you rely upon has no idea what the hell he is talking about and is a legal malpractice case waiting to happen.
Obviously on this particular, that would be you.

The judge just doesn't have discretion as you say. She (Miss Tran), has the burden to make a showing by preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should be excused or that the absence was involuntary.

And based on the information we have, there is no way she has met that burden.


The judge only gets to exercise that directed "discretion" (cough), after Miss Tran makes a showing by preponderance of the evidence.
So saying the Judge has discretion is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You are.



Actually you did not address that specifically.


The answer is no.
Part of it was emboldened by you.
I will highlight the applicable portion, because apparently you are reading the statute incorrectly.

Texas Family Code - Section 51.03. Delinquent Conduct; Conduct Indicating A Need For Supervision
(d) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of conduct
under Subsection (b)(2) that one or more of the absences required to
be proven under that subsection have been excused by a school
official or by the court or that one or more of the absences were
involuntary, but only if there is an insufficient number of
unexcused or voluntary absences remaining to constitute conduct
under Subsection (b)(2). [highlight]The burden is on the respondent to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary.
[/highlight] A decision by the
court to excuse an absence
for purposes of this subsection does not
affect the ability of the school district to determine whether to
excuse the absence for another purpose.


Obviously on this particular, that would be you.

The judge just doesn't have discretion as you say. She (Miss Tran), has the burden to make a showing by preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or should be excused or that the absence was involuntary.

And based on the information we have, there is no way she has met that burden.


The judge only gets to exercise that directed "discretion" (cough), after Miss Tran makes a showing by preponderance of the evidence.
So saying the Judge has discretion is ridiculous.

Once again you have chosen to introduce a canard to in a failed attempt to prove your point there was no way to address a fallacy(Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever) in any post, but, to point out the judge has discretion. . Obviously she met her burden had as the judge stated he was open to reconsidering his decision.
 
Once again you have chosen to introduce a canard to in a failed attempt to prove your point there was no way to address a fallacy(Your "authority" cites that the law does not excuse "honors students" and he is correct, but, that is not the issue whatsoever) in any post, but, to point out the judge has discretion. . Obviously she met her burden had as the judge stated he was open to reconsidering his decision.
No. Sorry. That is not what is happening, and that isn't how law is applied.

You said he had the discretion to excuse her activity, when he doesn't.

She has to make a showing by the preponderance of the evidence and he can rule on it.
That is the latitude the judge has.

This reconsidering is nothing to even speak of.
At most, on the punitive end, he will likely suspend the rest of the sentence (the $100 fine is all that is left), with dismissal as long as she meets attendance requirements. Technically leaving her with no record.


Would you like to bet?
 
The judge was lazy in the execution of his duties, the school administration was negligent. Ms. Tran stood before the judge who was apprised of the facts and therefore he was a mandated reporter. The school was aware of the family situation and did not report this.

So what are you saying? That Ms. Tran should have been taken away and put in foster care or some such? Thats even more harsh than what this judge sentenced Ms. Tran for.

Also as far as I know it is legal for 17 year olds to work in any state. Now if you can prove that Ms. Tran was forced by either of her parents to work and have the extensive curriculum that she had then you might have a case. But if she willingly chose to work and willingly wanted that curriculum then you have no basis to apply Abuse or Neglect to this situation.
 
No. Sorry. That is not what is happening, and that isn't how law is applied.

Can you tell me how law is applied.

You said he had the discretion to excuse her activity, when he doesn't.

I have no idea what you are referring to, kindly provide a quote.

She has to make a showing by the preponderance of the evidence and he can rule on it.
That is the latitude the judge has.
However, he is not compelled to exercise that discretion.

This reconsidering is nothing to even speak of.
At most, on the punitive end, he will likely suspend the rest of the sentence (the $100 fine is all that is left), with dismissal as long as she meets attendance requirements. Technically leaving her with no record.


Would you like to bet?
I have no idea what he will do.
 
I have no idea what you are referring to, kindly provide a quote.
Considering your following question, I'd say you know exactly what I am talking about.

However, he is not compelled to exercise that discretion.
That is not a discretion.
If the court is moved, the judge has to make a ruling one way or the other. Which is compulsion.
 
Answer me this question. Would ANY employer keep her on with such an attendence and tardiness record?

And we have no idea what her grades were like. It doesn't mention them. But regardless of what her grades were/are that doesn't excuse anything. She had been previously warned about missing school, she ignored that warning. She had the chance to reduce her workload. She did not do so. She's the one that chose to take on as much as she did.

She was choosing what was most important to her. If she had three jobs, and she wasn't making it to one of them because of that then she likely would have been fired, not put in jail. But, that would have been her choice. She wouldn't have been forced to be at any job just due to her age like she is school. If she was and she was still keeping up with the work at the job even if she wasn't there, then they would be stupid to fire her.
 
Considering your following question, I'd say you know exactly what I am talking about.

No I do not. Again making assumptions...:roll:

That is not a discretion.
If the court is moved, the judge has to make a ruling one way or the other. Which is compulsion.


Nope, Judicial discretion: "Discretion is the power or right to make official decisions using reason and judgment to choose from among acceptable alternatives." For example, "the absence has been or should
be excused or that the absence was involuntary."
Legal definition of Judicial Discretion.


The judge is under a duty to decide the matter before him, that is what he agreed to do when he accepted his role of Justice of the Peace.
 
She was choosing what was most important to her. If she had three jobs, and she wasn't making it to one of them because of that then she likely would have been fired, not put in jail. But, that would have been her choice. She wouldn't have been forced to be at any job just due to her age like she is school. If she was and she was still keeping up with the work at the job even if she wasn't there, then they would be stupid to fire her.

If she is not going to work then she is not "keeping up with her work". As going to work is a part of her work. So yes, she still would have been fired. Unless the job in question allows her to not have to be at work in order to get the work done. There are quite a few jobs that do not allow that.

Also there is no law that requires that one has to be at work. So of course she wouldn't have been put in jail for not going to work. However there is a law in Texas which requires her to go to school. A law which says that she can go to jail for not attending school.

You are right that she chose what was important to her and did those things. But she also chose to not heed the warning the first time she was in front of the judge. Again, her choice. If a person decided that it was important to them to kill another person would you apply the same reasoning as you did here? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't. What is or isn't important to her is immaterial. What is material is that she chose to skip school. She chose to ignore the warning that the judge gave her the first time around.
 
If she is not going to work then she is not "keeping up with her work". As going to work is a part of her work. So yes, she still would have been fired. Unless the job in question allows her to not have to be at work in order to get the work done. There are quite a few jobs that do not allow that.

Which is why I said if she was keeping up with her work, as she is doing in school, with a job, they would be stupid for firing her. She would have the choice as to what the job was, not the state. She would not be forced to work at that job just due to her age.

Also there is no law that requires that one has to be at work. So of course she wouldn't have been put in jail for not going to work. However there is a law in Texas which requires her to go to school. A law which says that she can go to jail for not attending school.

The law is wrong. She was doing the work required for her to meet the reason for her being in school, to learn. That is what should matter.

You are right that she chose what was important to her and did those things. But she also chose to not heed the warning the first time she was in front of the judge. Again, her choice. If a person decided that it was important to them to kill another person would you apply the same reasoning as you did here? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't. What is or isn't important to her is immaterial. What is material is that she chose to skip school. She chose to ignore the warning that the judge gave her the first time around.

A warning that she should not have received in the first place because the judge should have made the consideration that she was working to support herself and her siblings in the absence of adults, likely so they wouldn't be separated and she was keeping up with her grades. The judge is the one who is wrong here, not the girl.
 
Here we go again, wanting the judiciary to alter the laws for what they SHOULD have said, rather than for what they actually say. If the law is wrong, then change the law, or request a jury trial and perhaps get the jury to 'nullify' the law in that case. To blame the judge for following the law, as written by the legislature and signed by the governor, is insane. Do we really want ALL judges to do that, on a case by case basis? That gets us very, very far from equal protection under the law, as some will get 'nice' judges (that bend the law) and some get 'mean' judges (that enforce the law as written).
 
Here we go again, wanting the judiciary to alter the laws for what they SHOULD have said, rather than for what they actually say. If the law is wrong, then change the law, or request a jury trial and perhaps get the jury to 'nullify' the law in that case. To blame the judge for following the law, as written by the legislature and signed by the governor, is insane. Do we really want ALL judges to do that, on a case by case basis? That gets us very, very far from equal protection under the law, as some will get 'nice' judges (that bend the law) and some get 'mean' judges (that enforce the law as written).

There job is to judge on a case by case basis. To determine the facts of the case and make rational judgments based on those facts. Otherwise we might as well have a society similar to Judge Dredd in which LE sentences a person based solely on a violation of a specific law with no regard to the circumstances at hand.

Justice should be blind to arbitrary characteristics of the accused, but it should not be black and white. The circumstances of the situation should come into play for any justice to really be served.
 
My God, this girl is a textbook Randian hero in the flesh. :lol:

If this is the whole truth, then I weep for the supposed "land of the free".
 
Last edited:
My God, this girl is a textbook Randian hero in the flesh. :lol:

If this is the whole truth, then I weep for the supposed "land of the free".

I agree,its a seventeen year old girl supporting her lil sis.Let's cut the girl a little slack people.Some of the posters are treating her like sheis some career criminal.
 
So what are you saying? That Ms. Tran should have been taken away and put in foster care or some such? Thats even more harsh than what this judge sentenced Ms. Tran for.

Also as far as I know it is legal for 17 year olds to work in any state. Now if you can prove that Ms. Tran was forced by either of her parents to work and have the extensive curriculum that she had then you might have a case. But if she willingly chose to work and willingly wanted that curriculum then you have no basis to apply Abuse or Neglect to this situation.

No she should have been referred for services as I previously stated, then those who are charged with assessing her could have made a decision regarding what to do with this minor. There are several options and she may be eligible for various programs to assist her.
 
Which is why I said if she was keeping up with her work, as she is doing in school, with a job, they would be stupid for firing her. She would have the choice as to what the job was, not the state. She would not be forced to work at that job just due to her age.

Whether she was keeping up with her work in school or not is irrelevent. As has already been stated, that is not a requirement for this law to apply.

The law is wrong. She was doing the work required for her to meet the reason for her being in school, to learn. That is what should matter.

If you believe the law to be wrong then change it.

A warning that she should not have received in the first place because the judge should have made the consideration that she was working to support herself and her siblings in the absence of adults, likely so they wouldn't be separated and she was keeping up with her grades. The judge is the one who is wrong here, not the girl.

There was no absense of adults. Where did you get that? She's been living with relatives along with her siblings according to that video in the OP.
 
I agree,its a seventeen year old girl supporting her lil sis.Let's cut the girl a little slack people.Some of the posters are treating her like sheis some career criminal.

No, we're treating her like she should be treated. I see no one here treating her as if she deserved life in prison. 1 day in jail is hardly a death sentence. :roll:
 
No she should have been referred for services as I previously stated, then those who are charged with assessing her could have made a decision regarding what to do with this minor. There are several options and she may be eligible for various programs to assist her.

And how do you know she wasn't? Being refered to someone to assess her does not give them the ability to tell her what to do, they can only suggest or make a plea to the courts...which can take months at the least. Until such time they are not in charge of her decisions or her guardians decisions.
 
No, we're treating her like she should be treated. I see no one here treating her as if she deserved life in prison. 1 day in jail is hardly a death sentence. :roll:

Actually,you are treating her the way YOU would treat her.Some of us have a little more compassion.
 
I agree,its a seventeen year old girl supporting her lil sis.Let's cut the girl a little slack people.Some of the posters are treating her like sheis some career criminal.
She was cut slack the first time.
She didn't follow the Court's order and should be held accountable for doing so.
24 hours is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Some of us have a little more compassion.
Yes - bleeding hearts and all.
Where are you going to draw the line?
She had her chance and screwed the pooch. That is where I draw it.
 
Actually,you are treating her the way YOU would treat her.Some of us have a little more compassion.

So? You say you have more compassion. But is it really compassion if she doesn't learn that there are consequences to ones actions? No matter how noble those actions?

I once tried to keep a couple from taking their 16 year old daughter home because they were drunk and known (but not proven) to be abusive. (the 16 year old had asked for my help in this) When the cops arrived they told me that I was not allowed to do that by law and that if the couple wanted they could press charges. (thankfully they didn't) No matter if I thought that there was just cause to do so or not. The cops even agreed that I was morally in the right. Even if not legally right. Of course I knew that I could get in trouble legally for doing this. But I still did it. I was willing to accept the consequences of my actions. How is this 17 year old any different in her choices?

And yes, if either of my kids did something wrong, I gave them a warning and then they did the same thing wrong again, I would punish them. That is a part of parenting. That is a part of a parents job. My job is not to be their friend. But to be their parent. A judge is the same way. They are not there to be friends. They are there to enforce the law. Just like a parent enforces the laws when their child screws up.
 
So? You say you have more compassion. But is it really compassion if she doesn't learn that there are consequences to ones actions? No matter how noble those actions?

I once tried to keep a couple from taking their 16 year old daughter home because they were drunk and known (but not proven) to be abusive. (the 16 year old had asked for my help in this) When the cops arrived they told me that I was not allowed to do that by law and that if the couple wanted they could press charges. (thankfully they didn't) No matter if I thought that there was just cause to do so or not. The cops even agreed that I was morally in the right. Even if not legally right. Of course I knew that I could get in trouble legally for doing this. But I still did it. I was willing to accept the consequences of my actions. How is this 17 year old any different in her choices?

And yes, if either of my kids did something wrong, I gave them a warning and then they did the same thing wrong again, I would punish them. That is a part of parenting. That is a part of a parents job. My job is not to be their friend. But to be their parent. A judge is the same way. They are not there to be friends. They are there to enforce the law. Just like a parent enforces the laws when their child screws up.
If the law and justice were perfect synonyms, you would be absolutely right. But all too frequently we forget they aren't - never have been, never will

If the law produces negative consequences for noble actions, then the law is unjust and should be ignored. This is one of those cases.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom