• 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

What!? But it's reported after 10 absences, that's 5 grand! I think perhaps that's a bit on the excessive side.

Texas seems to take its schooling responsibilites seriously. I have no problem with that.
 
Then why was she sent to jail in the first place? FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL carries a fine only punishment

"TEX ED. CODE ANN. § 25.094 : Texas Statutes - Section 25.094: FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL
(a) An individual commits an offense if the individual:
(2) fails to attend school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.

(e) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor."
TEX ED. CODE ANN. § 25.094 : Texas Statutes - Section 25.094: FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL

"Texas Penal Code - Section 12.23. Class C Misdemeanor § 12.23.
CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500."
Texas Penal Code - Section 12.23. Class C Misdemeanor - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws
I realize that you think you know what you are talking about and all that sort of stuff.
And most likely wouldn't admit to being wrong and all.

But you might want to try the following out for size.

§ 21.002

Code:
[FONT=Times New Roman][B]Texas Statutes - Section 21.002
CONTEMPT OF COURT[/B]

[COLOR="#000000"](a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.

(b) The punishment for contempt of a court other than a justice court or municipal court is a fine of not more than
$500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both such a fine and confinement in jail.

(c) The punishment for contempt of a justice court or municipal court is a fine of not more than $100
or confinement in the county or city jail for not more than three days, or both such a fine and confinement in jail.[/COLOR]

[SIZE=1](d) An officer of a court who is held in contempt by a trial court shall, on proper motion filed in the
offended court, be released on his own personal recognizance pending a determination of his guilt or innocence.
The presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the alleged contempt occurred shall assign
a judge who is subject to assignment by the presiding judge other than the judge of the offended court to determine
the guilt or innocence of the officer of the court.

(e) Except as provided by Subsection (h), this section does not affect a court's power to confine a contemner to compel
the contemner to obey a court order.

(f) Article 42.033, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Chapter 157, Family Code, apply when a person is punished
by confinement for contempt of court for disobedience of a court order to make periodic payments for the
support of a child. Subsection (h) does not apply to that person.

(g) A court may not punish by contempt an employee or an agency or institution of this state for failure to initiate
any program or to perform a statutory duty related to that program:[INDENT](1) if the legislature has not specifically
and adequately funded the program; or

(2) until a reasonable time has passed to allow implementation of a program specifically and adequately funded by
the legislature.
[/INDENT]


(h) Notwithstanding any other law, a person may not be confined for contempt of court longer than:[INDENT](1) 18 months, including three or more periods of confinement for contempt arising out of the same matter that equal
a cumulative total of 18 months, if the confinement is for criminal contempt; or

(2) the lesser of 18 months or the period from the date of confinement to the date the person complies with
the court order that was the basis of the finding of contempt, if the confinement is for civil contempt.[/INDENT]


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 2, Sec. 8.44(1), eff. Aug. 28, 1989;
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 560, Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 646, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989;
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 25, Sec. 34, eff. Nov. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, Sec. 87, eff. Jan. 1, 1996;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 7.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, Sec. 71(4), eff. Sept. 1, 2001;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 425 Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003.[/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT]


[SIZE=1][url=http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/2/A/21/21.002]TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 21.002 : Texas Statutes - Section 21.002: CONTEMPT OF COURT[/url][/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
So what????? If the judge did execute his duties pursuant to law, then the Judge's order would have survived scrutiny. A magistrate is commanded to inform Ms. Tran of her rights pursuant to Texas law as well as other applicable law .

TEX CR. CODE ANN. § 15.17 : Texas Statutes - Article 15.17: DUTIES OF ARRESTING OFFICER AND MAGISTRATE
http://tcweb.tarrantcounty.com/ejusticepeace/lib/ejusticepeace/jplocalrules_jan2012_comb.pdf

Again, you have no idea if he didn't or not. You do know that the summons didn't. Beyond that you have no idea. You are just assuming that he didn't.

Then why was she sent to jail in the first place? FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL carries a fine only punishment


"TEX ED. CODE ANN. § 25.094 : Texas Statutes - Section 25.094: FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL
(a) An individual commits an offense if the individual:
(2) fails to attend school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.

(e) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor."
TEX ED. CODE ANN. § 25.094 : Texas Statutes - Section 25.094: FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL

"Texas Penal Code - Section 12.23. Class C Misdemeanor § 12.23.
CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500."
Texas Penal Code - Section 12.23. Class C Misdemeanor - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

She wasn't sent to jail for the failure to attend school. She was sent to jail for ....(from the link that you provided in post #115)

Precinct 1 Justice of the Peace Lanny 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

Contempt of court.
 
Texas Statutes - Section 21.002
CONTEMPT OF COURT




Code:
[FONT=Times New Roman][B]Texas Statutes - Section 21.002
CONTEMPT OF COURT[/B]

[COLOR="#000000"](a) Except as provided by Subsection (g), a court may punish for contempt.

(b) The punishment for contempt of a court other than a justice court or municipal court is a fine of not more than
$500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both such a fine and confinement in jail.

(c) The punishment for contempt of a justice court or municipal court is a fine of not more than $100
or confinement in the county or city jail for not more than three days, or both such a fine and confinement in jail.[/COLOR]

[SIZE=1](d) An officer of a court who is held in contempt by a trial court shall, on proper motion filed in the
offended court, be released on his own personal recognizance pending a determination of his guilt or innocence.
The presiding judge of the administrative judicial region in which the alleged contempt occurred shall assign
a judge who is subject to assignment by the presiding judge other than the judge of the offended court to determine
the guilt or innocence of the officer of the court.

(e) Except as provided by Subsection (h), this section does not affect a court's power to confine a contemner to compel
the contemner to obey a court order.

(f) Article 42.033, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Chapter 157, Family Code, apply when a person is punished
by confinement for contempt of court for disobedience of a court order to make periodic payments for the
support of a child. Subsection (h) does not apply to that person.

(g) A court may not punish by contempt an employee or an agency or institution of this state for failure to initiate
any program or to perform a statutory duty related to that program:[INDENT](1) if the legislature has not specifically
and adequately funded the program; or

(2) until a reasonable time has passed to allow implementation of a program specifically and adequately funded by
the legislature.
[/INDENT]


(h) Notwithstanding any other law, a person may not be confined for contempt of court longer than:[INDENT](1) 18 months, including three or more periods of confinement for contempt arising out of the same matter that equal
a cumulative total of 18 months, if the confinement is for criminal contempt; or

(2) the lesser of 18 months or the period from the date of confinement to the date the person complies with
the court order that was the basis of the finding of contempt, if the confinement is for civil contempt.[/INDENT]


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 480, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 2, Sec. 8.44(1), eff. Aug. 28, 1989;
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 560, Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 646, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989;
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 25, Sec. 34, eff. Nov. 1, 1989; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, Sec. 87, eff. Jan. 1, 1996;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 7.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, Sec. 71(4), eff. Sept. 1, 2001;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 425 Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003.[/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT]


[SIZE=1][url=http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/GV/2/A/21/21.002]TEX GV. CODE ANN. § 21.002 : Texas Statutes - Section 21.002: CONTEMPT OF COURT[/url][/SIZE]
 
Texas seems to take its schooling responsibilites seriously. I have no problem with that.

I take it you never went to school in Texas, then. Our schools are lousy, the policies are ridiculous, and all curriculum is based around standardized tests, which provide little to no educational value whatsoever.
 
Again, you have no idea if he didn't or not. You do know that the summons didn't. Beyond that you have no idea. You are just assuming that he didn't.



She wasn't sent to jail for the failure to attend school. She was sent to jail for ....(from the link that you provided in post #115)

Kindly reread my post. Should he have informed her of the rights, as he is commanded to so, then there would have been no issue regarding Ms. tram not being informed of her rights.


Contempt of court.

Yep...how does that jibe with your statement as follows: "She was not arrested until after the judge sentenced her to a night in jail."
 
Texas seems to take its schooling responsibilites seriously. I have no problem with that.

I have a problem with excessive punishment. I don't know, I missed a lot of time in high school, still graduated with a 4.0. Didn't matter, High School is cake, it requires almost no intelligence to pass.
 
Kindly reread my post. Should he have informed her of the rights, as he is commanded to so, then there would have been no issue regarding Ms. tram not being informed of her rights.
Issue?
What issue?
Where do find that she wasn't informed of her rights?
Or is that just an assumption on your part?
 
I take it you never went to school in Texas, then. Our schools are lousy, the policies are ridiculous, and all curriculum is based around standardized tests, which provide little to no educational value whatsoever.

Nope I haven't. Texas is actually one of the very few states that I haven't been to.
 
Kindly reread my post. Should he have informed her of the rights, as he is commanded to so, then there would have been no issue regarding Ms. tram not being informed of her rights.

Again, as I have stated before, there are states which require both the summons AND the judge to inform the person of their rights. If one or the other does not then the person can get off scott free. Technicalities are a pain. If the judge had not informed her of her rights then I'm quite sure that the article would have stated such instead of just saying that the summons didn't. For the simple fact that a judge not informing someone of their rights is far more juicier a story than a summons not doing it.

Yep...how does that jibe with your statement as follows: "She was not arrested until after the judge sentenced her to a night in jail."

Just fine. What's your point? Judge sentenced her to 1 night of jail for contempt of court then the bailiff arrested her. I see no conflict.
 
Last edited:
Nope I haven't. Texas is actually one of the very few states that I haven't been to.

Well, our education system is terrible. The only thing they take seriously is making the numbers look good. The whole thing is basically a huge scam, and complete waste of taxpayer money that's gone so far down the ****ter, the only way to improve it is to burn it all down and start from scratch.
 
I have a problem with excessive punishment. I don't know, I missed a lot of time in high school, still graduated with a 4.0. Didn't matter, High School is cake, it requires almost no intelligence to pass.

Well, again that part of the law is directed at parents. If the parents had been doing thier job as parents then it would never get to the point of a fine. So is it really excessive? I would agree that if it was applied to someone like Ms. Tran it would be excessive. But for parents is it?
 
Texas seems to take its schooling responsibilites seriously. I have no problem with that.

No they really aren't. Simply trying to ensure students attend school or they face punishment no matter what is not taking schooling seriously. Texas schools are some of the worst in the nation.

Texas Where We Stand: Education

This is just one of several things that Texas schools do not do right, including a law that requires half of school spending to be on administrative overhead and allowing creationism/ID to be taught in school. Texas has the only truancy law like this and it is ridiculous how it is being enforced. If it was actually working, I might say you have a point, but it isn't working. Forcing students to attend school is not the answer because you cannot force them to learn.
 
Well, again that part of the law is directed at parents. If the parents had been doing thier job as parents then it would never get to the point of a fine. So is it really excessive? I would agree that if it was applied to someone like Ms. Tran it would be excessive. But for parents is it?

Or if the school and state would apply some common sense, it wouldn't need to get there.
 
Well, again that part of the law is directed at parents. If the parents had been doing thier job as parents then it would never get to the point of a fine. So is it really excessive? I would agree that if it was applied to someone like Ms. Tran it would be excessive. But for parents is it?

Yes it is. Just because someone may have more money or supposedly should have a stable job or whatever doesn't mean you can increase the fines. 5 grand for skipping school is excessive.
 
Again, as I have stated before, there are states which require both the summons AND the judge to inform the person of their rights. If one or the other does not then the person can get off scott free. Technicalities are a pain. If the judge had not informed her of her rights then I'm quite sure that the article would have stated such instead of just saying that the summons didn't. For the simple fact that a judge not informing someone of their rights is far more juicier a story than a summons not doing it.

I have provided the necessary element according to statute. The judge did not satisfy his requirement pursuant to statute.



Just fine. What's your point? Judge sentenced her to 1 night of jail for contempt of court then the bailiff arrested her. I see no conflict.


There could have been no contempt without the predicate act of the contempt itself. That could not have occurred without the judge conducting a hearing on the issue whether Ms. Tran did miss school and where Ms. Tran could rebut the presumption that she did not go to school. It was at that hearing that he should have informed Ms. Tran of her rights.
 
The judge did not satisfy his requirement pursuant to statute.
You do not know that.






It was at that hearing that he should have informed Ms. Tran of her rights.
More that you do not know.

You are trying desperately to make this conform to what you believe.
It just ain't gonna fly.
 
I have provided the necessary element according to statute. The judge did not satisfy his requirement pursuant to statute.

There could have been no contempt without the predicate act of the contempt itself. That could not have occurred without the judge conducting a hearing on the issue whether Ms. Tran did miss school and where Ms. Tran could rebut the presumption that she did not go to school. It was at that hearing that he should have informed Ms. Tran of her rights.

And once again you have no idea if he informed her or not.
 
Ok guys, let's slow down a bit.

Yes, it sucks she was put in jail and that she's having a damned difficult time in life right now, working a part-time job and a full-time job and caring for her siblings, etc. I was getting pissed and angry while I watched the video, but then the judge stated it wouldn't be fair if exceptions were made for some people, but not for others. If the law is the law, how can we as a society exempt others from it?

...

But then she'd have a criminal record and she's only 17. That's wrong in my eyes.

Ugh, I don't know how to judge this. She has a heavy workload on her plate, her parents just got divorced, she's being like a mother to her younger brother...

Maybe an exception should be made. Don't leave this on her record. Those are extraordinary circumstances, and I feel deep down she shouldn't have the burden of a criminal record weighing her down, making life even worse for her.
 
If the law is the law, how can we as a society exempt others from it?

How? You have judges whom judge the situation. That's one of the purposes of a judge. Otherwise you just use a computer.
 
How? You have judges whom judge the situation. That's one of the purposes of a judge. Otherwise you just use a computer.

Not sure how this relates to my statement that we probably shouldn't make people exempt from the law.
 
Not sure how this relates to my statement that we probably shouldn't make people exempt from the law.

Because some charges should be dismissed under extenuating circumstances and we have judges in part to take each case on an individual basis and judge the circumstances behind it.
 
And once again you have no idea if he informed her or not.

As a Magistrate, the Justice of the Peace was under a duty to inform Ms. Tran of her rights, regardless whether the summons had informed her as well. That notice to Ms. Tran would have been on the record as part of the proceeding. If that occurred the district attorney would have not recommended and the judge would not have vacated the order citing lack of notice of rights. To do so, when untrue, opens the District Attorney and the judge to charges including: selective prosecution with other like individuals, fraud etc. The fact that these authorities cited lack of notice opens the judge up to a possible liability claim as Ms. Tran spent a night in jail when she could have had an attorney request a continuance and prepared an answer.
 
As a Magistrate, the Justice of the Peace was under a duty to inform Ms. Tran of her rights, regardless whether the summons had informed her as well. That notice to Ms. Tran would have been on the record as part of the proceeding. If that occurred the district attorney would have not recommended and the judge would not have vacated the order citing lack of notice of rights. To do so, when untrue, opens the District Attorney and the judge to charges including: selective prosecution with other like individuals, fraud etc. The fact that these authorities cited lack of notice opens the judge up to a possible liability claim as Ms. Tran spent a night in jail when she could have had an attorney request a continuance and prepared an answer.
Sigh ...
Where do find that she wasn't informed of her rights?
Or is that just an assumption on your part?

Please back up your allegations.
 
As a Magistrate, the Justice of the Peace was under a duty to inform Ms. Tran of her rights, regardless whether the summons had informed her as well.

I agree. Now show where he did not inform her.

That notice to Ms. Tran would have been on the record as part of the proceeding. If that occurred the district attorney would have not recommended and the judge would not have vacated the order citing lack of notice of rights. To do so, when untrue, opens the District Attorney and the judge to charges including: selective prosecution with other like individuals, fraud etc. The fact that these authorities cited lack of notice opens the judge up to a possible liability claim as Ms. Tran spent a night in jail when she could have had an attorney request a continuance and prepared an answer.

Part of the reason that the DA recommended and the judge vacted is because the summons did not inform Ms. Tran of her rights. That is on record. The article that you linked several posts back said this same thing. Not once did it state that the judge did not inform Ms. Tran of her rights. You are the only one saying that the judge himself did not inform her of her rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom