• 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

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.

If this were the case then vigilantism would be an AOK thing in peoples minds.
 
And how do you know she wasn't?

The judge spoke completely about the case, his thoughts, his actions and possible future dealings. As follows: "Judge Moriarty told KHOU 11 News that he intended to make an example of Tran by placing her in jail. "If you let one run loose, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Let them go, too?" Moriarty told the station. He also said , regarding the record that Ms. Tran will have, "I hadn’t thought on that issue because it turns me, ‘Well, he’s soft. He’s not gonna do nothing.’ I’m taking off at 11:30 today," said the judge. He also stated he may reconsider the sentence.

The had an affirmative duty to act and did not state he did. What the judge was concerned with was how he would be perceived by the public which runs contrary to the Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, specifically:

"Code of Judicial Conduct
CANON 3
Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(2) A judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism."
Texas Courts Online | Code of Judicial Conduct

She appeared pro se, the judge has ethical duties in this instance as well: "Judges also have ethical duties they must comply with when presiding over cases involving pro se litigants. Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct requires judges to perform the duties of their office impartially. Judges, however, must balance considerations of fairness to represented parties with due process requirements mandating that pro se litigants receive meaningful hearings. This balancing act requires judges to make difficult decisions, such as determining how much guidance to give a pro se litigant on substantive law or how to treat a meritorious case when the pro se litigant has failed to comply with court procedures, while remaining impartial to both the represented and pro se parties."
Pro Se Litigation: Best Practices from a Judge’s Perspective – University of Richmond Law Review

This judge is simply not a good jurist.




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
I never said it did. I was speaking more of food stamps and other types of assistance.
 
The judge was an asshole. If he'd done his job properly, quizzing her about why it was so difficult for her to actually be in school since her grades put her on the honor roll, he would have learned that this minor child had been abandoned by her parents, was trying to support two siblings and herself, and needed State Assistance, not punishment.

Anyone on this thread who actually read the linked story and still says this kid deserves jail is doing so for the lulz.
 
This judge is simply not a good jurist.
Sorry I didn't know you were the judge of all judges. lol

His decision was fine.



Anyone on this thread who actually read the linked story and still says this kid deserves jail is doing so for the lulz.
Anybody who is complaining about her paltry 24 hours is crying over spilted milk.

She was given a chance but didn't follow the Court's orders. She received far less than she should have been given for her contempt.
 
The judge was an asshole. If he'd done his job properly, quizzing her about why it was so difficult for her to actually be in school since her grades put her on the honor roll, he would have learned that this minor child had been abandoned by her parents, was trying to support two siblings and herself, and needed State Assistance, not punishment.

Anyone on this thread who actually read the linked story and still says this kid deserves jail is doing so for the lulz.

Are YOU saying that the judge is wrong, or that the law that the judge applied is wrong? There is a BIG difference. Does the LAW allow the judge to consider WHY the non-attendance should be "allowed" in this case? We can't have judges simply say they THINK that cretain illegal behavior is excused for "personal" reasons. The law is probably too narrow, yet that is not the fault of the judge - direct your anger at the root cause of the problem. We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, the speeding of those on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of those bad folks that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
 
Last edited:
She was given a chance but didn't follow the Court's orders. She received far less than she should have been given for her contempt.

Excluding the fat that the judge has leeway, and the idea is totally absurd to begin with.

How can anyone say it is fine for somebody to be put in jail for something like this? Yes, the law exists, but there is a difference between having to / should enforce the law, and whether or not it is a good idea, right?
 
Excluding the fat that the judge has leeway, and the idea is totally absurd to begin with.

How can anyone say it is fine for somebody to be put in jail for something like this? Yes, the law exists, but there is a difference between having to / should enforce the law, and whether or not it is a good idea, right?
"She was given a chance but didn't follow the Court's orders. She received far less than she should have been given for her contempt."
 
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.

Some consider rules and laws as mere suggestions, until they are the victim, then the law is not nearly harsh enough. ;-)
 
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.

We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, speeding on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of "bad folks" that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
 
If this were the case then vigilantism would be an AOK thing in peoples minds.
As it should be! You see where I'm going with this. ;)

The law is a means to the end that is justice. If the law fails in that task, then it is without purpose.

Or do you believe in obeying "the law" for its own sake?
 
Are YOU saying that the judge is wrong, or that the law that the judge applied is wrong? There is a BIG difference. Does the LAW allow the judge to consider WHY the non-attendance should be "allowed" in this case? We can't have judges simply say they THINK that cretain illegal behavior is excused for "personal" reasons. The law is probably too narrow, yet that is not the fault of the judge - direct your anger at the root cause of the problem. We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, the speeding of those on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of those bad folks that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.

You apparently have not read the OP's link or the subsequent posts in this thread. There was no law that forced this judge to give her a permanent arrest record; by the judge's own words, he chose to do so (without considering her personal circumstances) as a deterrent to others. He did not find out why she was having such difficulty, he did not discover that she was working two jobs because her parents had abandoned her to care for her siblings, he did not take into consideration that her grades were high enough that she was on the honor roll, he did not inquire of this MINOR child to obtain the information necessary to realize that this MINOR child required State CPS Assistance.

That IS the fault of the judge.
 
We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, speeding on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of "bad folks" that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.
Laws against the acts you speak of are not unjust, because the acts they criminalize ARE unjust themselves. The law's the only purpose is the pursuit of justice; if in a given situation it does not serve that object, then in that case it ought to be ignored.
 
Last edited:
As it should be! You see where I'm going with this. ;)

The law is a means to the end that is justice. If the law fails in that task, then it is without purpose.

Or do you believe in obeying "the law" for its own sake?

So what justice would there be if this girl got away with truancy just because she is an honor student and works two jobs? Why shouldn't that other guy that isn't an honor student and doesn't work two jobs get away with truancy?
 
You apparently have not read the OP's link or the subsequent posts in this thread. There was no law that forced this judge to give her a permanent arrest record; by the judge's own words, he chose to do so (without considering her personal circumstances) as a deterrent to others. He did not find out why she was having such difficulty, he did not discover that she was working two jobs because her parents had abandoned her to care for her siblings, he did not take into consideration that her grades were high enough that she was on the honor roll, he did not inquire of this MINOR child to obtain the information necessary to realize that this MINOR child required State CPS Assistance.

That IS the fault of the judge.

You act as if she is doing this all by herself. As if she is fully taking care of her siblings and everything else. She is not. She is living with relatives. The video in the OP does say that.
 
So what justice would there be if this girl got away with truancy just because she is an honor student and works two jobs? Why shouldn't that other guy that isn't an honor student and doesn't work two jobs get away with truancy?

Because school is for learning, not for having a butt in a certain place. For many, it is necessary that they be in class because otherwise they wouldn't even try to learn. This girl can learn without being in the class most of the time. She has proven to be quite capable of proving she can handle the learning part of school without actually being there. And she works very hard to do it.

That other guy is obviously not willing to work hard to fulfill the purpose of school, learning the stuff. That's why the other person should not get away with it. If they are willing to work hard to get those grades and actually show they can learn the stuff, they should also be allowed some leeway based on their circumstances.
 
You act as if she is doing this all by herself. As if she is fully taking care of her siblings and everything else. She is not. She is living with relatives. The video in the OP does say that.

She is working hard to help herself and her siblings, even if there is other help available now. Some families require more help. She is providing it and still successfully meeting the purpose of school, from what we know of her grades, learning the material.
 
She is working hard to help herself and her siblings, even if there is other help available now. Some families require more help. She is providing it and still successfully meeting the purpose of school, from what we know of her grades, learning the material.

But we don't know if the family she is living with requires extra help or not. She may very well be doing all this to try and be more independent.

But ultimately that is irrelavent. And so is her grades and that she works 2 jobs. She broke Texas's truancy laws. More than once. She also went against a warning that the judge had given previously. If the judge had let her go then he would have had to do the same with other truancy cases. The law is about more than just justice. It is also about equality.
 
Because school is for learning, not for having a butt in a certain place. For many, it is necessary that they be in class because otherwise they wouldn't even try to learn. This girl can learn without being in the class most of the time. She has proven to be quite capable of proving she can handle the learning part of school without actually being there. And she works very hard to do it.

That other guy is obviously not willing to work hard to fulfill the purpose of school, learning the stuff. That's why the other person should not get away with it. If they are willing to work hard to get those grades and actually show they can learn the stuff, they should also be allowed some leeway based on their circumstances.

What you are advocating for here is that those that succeed better than others should get more privledges than those that don't succeed as much. Such privledges would obviously include the ability to ignore laws.

Sorry but I'm going to have to decline. I wouldn't want to live in a society that treats people as second or third class citizens just because they may not be as smart as someone else.
 
What you are advocating for here is that those that succeed better than others should get more privledges than those that don't succeed as much. Such privledges would obviously include the ability to ignore laws.

Sorry but I'm going to have to decline. I wouldn't want to live in a society that treats people as second or third class citizens just because they may not be as smart as someone else.

All laws are about people's actions and reasons for doing what they do, including truancy laws. She had good reasons to not attend school, including obviously not actually needing to from what we have seen of her grades. The purpose of school is learning, not just being there. It is stupid to put someone in jail for not attending school when they are fulfilling the purpose of school. The judge absolutely had the ability to allow her to be excused from school for the reasons she was missing school. He was wrong to not accept those reasons.
 
But we don't know if the family she is living with requires extra help or not. She may very well be doing all this to try and be more independent.

But ultimately that is irrelavent. And so is her grades and that she works 2 jobs. She broke Texas's truancy laws. More than once. She also went against a warning that the judge had given previously. If the judge had let her go then he would have had to do the same with other truancy cases. The law is about more than just justice. It is also about equality.

He should have taken her reasons for missing school in to consideration before warning her the first time.

And no, making judgments based on circumstances of each person's case does not require that everyone be treated the same or allowed to skirt a law just because one person's circumstances show that the law in question should not apply to them because their situation does not meet the intent of the law.
 
He should have taken her reasons for missing school in to consideration before warning her the first time.

Why?

And no, making judgments based on circumstances of each person's case does not require that everyone be treated the same or allowed to skirt a law just because one person's circumstances show that the law in question should not apply to them because their situation does not meet the intent of the law.

Taking ones circumstances into account does not mean that the judge can abridge the law. As shown in the following link there is no known ways that the judge can do so.

Texas honor student jailed for truancy likely spent night with 'hard-core' criminals

There's no legal exception that I’m aware of that if you're an honors student, you’re allowed to exceed a maximum number of unexcused days under the Texas Compulsory Education Laws," Bond told FoxNews.com. "Twenty-four hours would be about the minimum period of confinement to make a point.
 
We can not allow judges to excuse the theft of food by the hungry, speeding on the highway due to an 'emergency' or the execution of "bad folks" that just plain needed killing. The law is the law and only a jury may 'nullify' it.

Judges need to use discernment and apply justice with mercy.
This girl shouldn't have been in jail at all. At least the contempt charge was set aside.
 
Back
Top Bottom