Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex

[MissCatholic]

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

She's ordered the young drug offender not have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school, as a condition of her probation.

It is one of several unorthodox rulings Judge Lauri Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the district court that covers Fannin and Grayson counties.

She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.

Lawyers are also subject to her rulings. Blake has the told female attorneys not wear sleeveless shirts or show cleavage in her courtroom.

Blake agreed to an interview but later declined through her court coordinator.

Some wonder how she can enforce some of her conditions, such as the sex ban.

Former federal prosecutor Fred Moss said some conditions could be viewed as violating someone's personal dignity.

And Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said conditions that violate someone's constitutional rights are best avoided.

http://www.wftv.com/news/5040625/detail.html

[MODU]

Former federal prosecutor Fred Moss said some conditions could be viewed as violating someone's personal dignity.

violating someone's personal dignity?  I think making yourself out to be an underage sex kitten hurts your personal dignity more than a judge telling you to keep your legs closes.

Of course, I don't see how this could be enforced.  Is the girl going to have to go to a GYN every week to be examined?

[minionofmidas]

I certainly disapprove of this ruling.
Imagine a judge ordering a 17-year old girl to have sex (I don't mean with the judge - now that would be worse) as a condition of probation. It's effectively the same thing.

[opebo]

I repudiate the drug laws, much less this sort of cruel and unusual punishment.  Not have sex indeed - here we see what the Forces of Social Control intend for all of us.

[Angel of Death]

This violates both the fourth as well as the eighth amendment.

[Emsworth]

This violates both the fourth as well as the eighth amendment.

How does it violate the Fourth Amendment? The girl is forbidden to perform an action--she would have been equally prevented from performing it were she jailed or put to death. Nothing is being searched, and nothing is being seized.

[J. J.]

I certainly disapprove of this ruling.
Imagine a judge ordering a 17-year old girl to have sex (I don't mean with the judge - now that would be worse) as a condition of probation. It's effectively the same thing.

You're right.  She should have been tossed into jail for a few years.  [/sarcasm]

She could simply violate the judges ruling and the result would be the same.  Some people actually want to stay out of jail.

[John Dibble]

This violates both the fourth as well as the eighth amendment.

How does it violate the Fourth Amendment? The girl is forbidden to perform an action--she would have been equally prevented from performing it were she jailed or put to death. Nothing is being searched, and nothing is being seized.

It could be argued that it violates the Eigth though - it's not cruel per se, but I would think it is arguably unusual. This is the first time I've ever heard of such conditions for probation. I would say that her probation conditions should be no different from that of other people put on probation for the same offense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The judge has no authority to rule this, and would only have the authority if she was involved in a sex related crime, or if she was a ward of the state.

[J. J.]

It seems that a judge can put limits on probation.  Some have involved not eating poppy seeds.

As a practical matter, the defendent can ignore the judge and risk a greater penalty.  It seems as if she is basically consenting to the terms in order to stay out of jail.  I would assume that she could refuse to accept the conditions and be put into jail.

[KillerPollo]

This is flat-out absurd and ridiculous.

[Platypus]

It seems that a judge can put limits on probation.  Some have involved not eating poppy seeds.

ever watched Seinfeld?

[jokerman]

It seems that a judge can put limits on probation.  Some have involved not eating poppy seeds.

ever watched Seinfeld?

lol

[Max Power]

Hopefully this judge is removed from the court. It's her parents who should stop her from sleeping around.

[J. J.]

It seems that a judge can put limits on probation.  Some have involved not eating poppy seeds.

ever watched Seinfeld?

Yes, and that's the reason some probations, in the real world, create it as a violation.

As a practical matter, yes could violate it, report it, and it would be revoked. 

[Speed of Sound]

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

Un-freaking-believeable! This is truly sad and pathetic. WTF does that gu think hes doing?!?!?!

[minionofmidas]

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

Un-freaking-believeable! This is truly sad and pathetic. WTF does that gu think hes doing?!?!?!

It's a woman.

[opebo]

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

Un-freaking-believeable! This is truly sad and pathetic. WTF does that gu think hes doing?!?!?!

It's a woman.

Hahah!  Not surprising!

[Speed of Sound]

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

Un-freaking-believeable! This is truly sad and pathetic. WTF does that gu think hes doing?!?!?!

It's a woman.

whatever.

[A18]

A perfectly reasonable sentence.

[MissCatholic]

A perfectly reasonable sentence.

and the right moans about activist judges.

[A18]

Um, do you even know what that means? It certainly doesn't mean (gasp) giving someone a sentence.

[The Constitarian]

    These rulings are absolutely unconstitutional.  Taking away body piercing and tatoos takes away from our first ammendment right of expression.  The no sex ruling is also a complete violation of that girls rights.  I think the judge should be kicked from the bench and all of the unorthadox ruling should be sent back to court with the state picking up legal fees.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The exact text of the order, according to theSmokingGun.com is "Defendant shall not have sexual intercourse while enrolled in school and living with parents".


Does that mean hummers are acceptable?

[David S]

As I see it the judge can only hand out the punishment provided by law. Does Texas law provide for sexual abstinence as a punishment?