• 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

Kal'Stang said:
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?
Click to expand...
Who says he shouldn't "get away with it"? I oppose all truancy laws.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
The judge did have a choice in this. It has been shown on this thread several times that he did have a choice.
Click to expand...

I just looked through this whole thread and didn't see anything that said that he had a choice.

Also a top lawyer in Texas said that the Judge more than likely didn't have a choice. As shown in my link in post #96.
 
roguenuke said:
I definitely oppose truancy laws that put kids in jail. That is definitely counterproductive.
Click to expand...

First, according to Texas law Ms. Tran is not considered a kid. She is considered an adult. Even 18 year olds are subject to this truancy law.

I seriously think that we need to get rid of this arbritary line of 18 is an adult, anything younger is a kid. A kid can be emancipated at 16 years old. Which gives them all the responsibilities and status of adulthood. What is the difference between an emancipated kid adult that is 16 years old vs a 17 year old that is not emancipated? And no, I am not putting this forward as a law question but a moral question.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just looked through this whole thread and didn't see anything that said that he had a choice.

Also a top lawyer in Texas said that the Judge more than likely didn't have a choice. As shown in my link in post #96.
Click to expand...

And I believe it was Connor in several other posts that showed you the law said that her absences could be deemed excused by the judge. It was within his discretion to do so.
 
roguenuke said:
And I believe it was Connor in several other posts that showed you the law said that her absences could be deemed excused by the judge. It was within his discretion to do so.
Click to expand...

Are you refering to this...?

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). 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. 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
Click to expand...

If so then you are incorrect. It is the respondents (ie the students) burden to prove to the judge that the absences should be excused. Or they can prove that the absences were involuntary. Something which is obviously not the case here. If they do not do either of these then there is no reason for the judge to excuse those absences. It is not his responsibility according to this to assess why the student missed those days.

Now despite this the judge obviously did give her a chance by giving her a warning the first time around. Why should he give her a another chance if she ignored that warning? Yes, yes I know....he "shouldn't have given her a warning in the first place". Why? The onus was upon her to prove why her absenses should be excused. If she did not prove that then why shouldn't he?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Are you refering to this...?

If so then you are incorrect. It is the respondents (ie the students) burden to prove to the judge that the absences should be excused. Or they can prove that the absences were involuntary. Something which is obviously not the case here. If they do not do either of these then there is no reason for the judge to excuse those absences. It is not his responsibility according to this to assess why the student missed those days.

Now despite this the judge obviously did give her a chance by giving her a warning the first time around. Why should he give her a another chance if she ignored that warning? Yes, yes I know....he "shouldn't have given her a warning in the first place". Why? The onus was upon her to prove why her absenses should be excused. If she did not prove that then why shouldn't he?
Click to expand...

Because it is his job to find out the facts of the case. Did he bother to ask her why she was missing school? It certainly doesn't sound like it since he said himself he didn't know about her circumstances.

I'm willing to bet he even refused to allow her to explain herself too. It wasn't until he realized the media taking on her case was going to make him look like a douche did he bother to take any interest in why she was missing school. He was more concerned about being a "letter of the law" judge.
 
roguenuke said:
Because it is his job to find out the facts of the case. Did he bother to ask her why she was missing school? It certainly doesn't sound like it since he said himself he didn't know about her circumstances.

I'm willing to bet he even refused to allow her to explain herself too. It wasn't until he realized the media taking on her case was going to make him look like a douche did he bother to take any interest in why she was missing school. He was more concerned about being a "letter of the law" judge.
Click to expand...

So many assumptions here. How do you know he didn't ask? How do you know she answered with anything other than "I don't know" or some other answer that didn't explain anything? You and others keep saying that she was doing all this in order to take care of her siblings. How do you know she didn't answer honestly because she was afraid that CPS might step in? God knows there's enough stories out there of CPS taking kids away from parents and kids being split up because the parents weren't around. You know only her side of the story (tears and all) and the little bit that the reporter got out of him. You don't know any of the context. Yet you are quite willing to condemn the guy just because he followed the law.

If you don't like the law then change it. Condemning someone for following that law as it is written is hardly the right thing to do in itself.
 
The video says she works fulltime at X place, and part time at y place. I know that's a lie so I don't trust the rest. I was in a similar situation at her age, and know full well that she wouldn't have been allowed to do that. You are only allowed something like 32-34 hours, and need permision of the state for even that much and no more if still in high school.
 
The rules are rules. When there is a need to reevaluate a certain case because of extraordinary circumstances, the student can appeal. After all, this is an actual court, not a school discipline board.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just looked through this whole thread and didn't see anything that said that he had a choice.

Also a top lawyer in Texas said that the Judge more than likely didn't have a choice. As shown in my link in post #96.
Click to expand...

Your "top lawyer" did not know what he was talking about. This issue was raised in post 46 and rebutted in post 47.(below)
Excon said:
E. Tay Bond, a well-known Houston defense attorney, said the judge likely had no discretion to avert a jail sentence.

"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. ​
Click to expand...

Connery said:
I addressed this previously in post 14. 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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Connery said:
This issue was raised in post 46 and rebutted in post 47.(below)
Click to expand...
And your rebuttal was shown to be wrong.
Because the Judge just can't use his discretion that he doesn't have.
He just can't say - I excuse your absences.
She has to move the court, and make a showing by a preponderance of the evidence, before the Judge can rule in her favor.
She didn't do that, and based on the information we have, she wouldn't have been able to do that.

So he doesn't have that discretion, that you say he has.

But since you do not understand that, you came back in and used the same failed argument you used before.
 
Excon said:
Sorry I didn't know you were the judge of all judges. lol
Click to expand...

I am on this one. He has been previously cited for ethics violations and paid a civil penalty, he violated Ms. Trans civil rights and committed another ethics violation...:prof

His decision was fine.
Click to expand...
No he vacated his judgment as requested by the District Attorney.



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.
Click to expand...
Wrong




Excon said:
And your rebuttal was shown to be wrong.
Because the Judge just can't use his discretion that he doesn't have.
He just can't say - I excuse your absences.
She has to move the court, and make a showing by a preponderance of the evidence, before the Judge can rule in her favor.
She didn't do that, and based on the information we have, she wouldn't have been able to do that.

So he doesn't have that discretion, that you say he has.

But since you do not understand that, you came back in and used the same failed argument you used before.
Click to expand...

Throughout this thread you have relied on faulty reasoning, ignored both facts and the law and have injected phantom facts into this issue.

The judge saw the "light",

"Moriarty, at the Montgomery County District Attorney's request, signed an order that vacates the contempt of court conviction that sent Diane Tran to jail last week. The decision clears the way for the issue to be expunged from her record.

The action was taken, in part, after Moriarty looked at the extenuating circumstances that had resulted in Tran missing school(discretion) and because her court summons had failed to notify her of her right to an attorney or to have one appointed for her" The judge violated her right to an attorney, he did not conduct a fair and meaningful hearing. "Judges, however, must balance considerations of fairness to represented parties with due process requirements mandating that pro se litigants receive meaningful hearings." He is commanded to do so as a matter law and the "Code of Judicial Conduct CANON 3"*

Charges dropped against honor student jailed for truancy - Houston Chronicle

* http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ness-and-truancy-school-8.html#post1060547062
 
Veritas said:
The rules are rules. When there is a need to reevaluate a certain case because of extraordinary circumstances, the student can appeal. After all, this is an actual court, not a school discipline board.
Click to expand...

On some level, however, throwing someone into jail for this seems like not the best use of jail. We already jail the largest percentages of our adult population than any other industrialized nation, we need to be looking at ways to stop that; not increase it.
 
Lokiate said:
Not me. **** that judge. On top of the fact that Tran is in advanced placement courses, she's also working two jobs. This judge needs to be unseated, because this has got to be the biggest bull**** ruling I've heard in a long time.
Click to expand...

Um, what does the law say? If school attendence is mandatory, what choice does the judge have? All truants have 'reasons' but the point of the law is not to have judges waste taxpayer money evaluating them, but to force school attendance. If you don't like the law then get it changed, don't blame the police or the judge for enforcing it. Is it OK for the hungry to steal food, the homeless to sleep on your porch, drivers speeding down the roadway in 'emergencies' or for the execution of 'dirtbags' that just plain needed killing?
 
Ikari said:
On some level, however, throwing someone into jail for this seems like not the best use of jail. We already jail the largest percentages of our adult population than any other industrialized nation, we need to be looking at ways to stop that; not increase it.
Click to expand...

You would prefer a $100 fine?
 
Connery said:
Throughout this thread you have relied on faulty reasoning, ignored both facts and the law and have injected phantom facts into this issue.

The judge saw the "light",

"Moriarty, at the Montgomery County District Attorney's request, signed an order that vacates the contempt of court conviction that sent Diane Tran to jail last week. The decision clears the way for the issue to be expunged from her record.

The action was taken, in part, after Moriarty looked at the extenuating circumstances that had resulted in Tran missing school(discretion) and because her court summons had failed to notify her of her right to an attorney or to have one appointed for her" The judge violated her right to an attorney, he did not conduct a fair and meaningful hearing. "Judges, however, must balance considerations of fairness to represented parties with due process requirements mandating that pro se litigants receive meaningful hearings." He is commanded to do so as a matter law and the "Code of Judicial Conduct CANON 3"*

Charges dropped against honor student jailed for truancy - Houston Chronicle

* http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ness-and-truancy-school-8.html#post1060547062
Click to expand...

Note the bold part there. It was not the judge that failed to provide for the attourney. The summons failed to mention that she had a right to an attourney. So she probably never asked for one. As such that is not the judges fault.

Also the article also does say that...

"During her court appearance, however, Tran never revealed any personal struggles to the court."

Remember, the law says that she is the one that has to show reason as to why those absenses should be excused.

In anycase I think that someone should be looking into this families life. It sounds like the dad never actually left...he just works far away and as such is rarely home. That doesn't seem right to me for him to be leaving his kids like this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Um, what does the law say? If school attendence is mandatory, what choice does the judge have? All truants have 'reasons' but the point of the law is not to have judges waste taxpayer money evaluating them, but to force school attendance. If you don't like the law then get it changed, don't blame the police or the judge for enforcing it. Is it OK for the hungry to steal food, the homeless to sleep on your porch, drivers speeding down the roadway in 'emergencies' or for the execution of 'dirtbags' that just plain needed killing?
Click to expand...

Actually it may have been the police's fault this time. The article did say that the summons failed to tell her of her right to an attourney. Which is usually handled by either the police or some court clerk. If it was the police that served the summons then they would be the ones at fault here if anyone is. Though honestly a policeman is usually quite consistant about informing of rights...its one of the constant things that they do so I would bet that it was a court clerk that served the summons.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Note the bold part there. It was not the judge that failed to provide for the attourney. The summons failed to mention that she had a right to an attourney. So she probably never asked for one. As such that is not the judges fault.
Click to expand...

This was a pro se proceeding the judge had a duty to inform the defendant of her right to an attorney, in addition to other responsibilities as a judge.


Also the article also does say that...

"During her court appearance, however, Tran never revealed any personal struggles to the court."

Remember, the law says that she is the one that has to show reason as to why those absenses should be excused.
Click to expand...
Had Ms. Tran been represented this would have come to light, that is exaclty what occurred.

In anycase I think that someone should be looking into this families life. It sounds like the dad never actually left...he just works far away and as such is rarely home. That doesn't seem right to me for him to be leaving his kids like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, that has been said many times throughout this thread.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually the truancy law there in Texas requires a $500 dollar fine per absense.
Click to expand...

WOW. That is way more than my allowance and I am 58 years old. No wonder she must work two jobs. How often has this fine acually been paid?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Um, what does the law say? If school attendence is mandatory, what choice does the judge have? All truants have 'reasons' but the point of the law is not to have judges waste taxpayer money evaluating them, but to force school attendance. If you don't like the law then get it changed, don't blame the police or the judge for enforcing it. Is it OK for the hungry to steal food, the homeless to sleep on your porch, drivers speeding down the roadway in 'emergencies' or for the execution of 'dirtbags' that just plain needed killing?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't give a **** what the law says, this is clearly wrong on every level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom