The judge, in commenting on denying bail, said that the girl's home situation was unacceptable. It's unclear how a judge can legally take a child out of their home simply because the child shows up in the courtroom for an obnoxious high school prank. We have the Department of Children and Family Services for that. In fact, the judge likely only spent a few moments looking at court documents (that had no home investigation) in making his sweeping judgment about the fitness of the parents. At least DCFS would conduct an investigation before taking custody of kids.
The situation of the other girl, getting house arrest, is also problematic because no adult criminal would be placed under house arrest simply by the virtue of being arrested… even in cases where such a sanction would be warranted. This is made laughable absurd by the fact that the maximum sentence the girls could get is 30 days in juvenile detention. The girl sitting in detention without bail will spend likely an order of magnitude more than that waiting for trial.
What these girls did was obnoxious, but it is certainly no catastrophic threat to society to have them out of jail. It is unclear whether the judge is using the hate crimes law or something else to enforce these ridiculous bail decisions. It is obvious to every child who is watching that society will treat them like thugs to be looked up than actual human beings. They are guilty until proven innocent. And we wonder why society is raising such dysfunctional adults.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ogre
Excellent points about being denied bail. Once again we see the horrible government system at work. We see the double standard. Can you imagine if this were black students arrested for, well, I'm not sure we're allowed to arrest people with dark skin any more. But certainly, the ACLU's position is clear: it IS a felony to utter the words, "God hates fags." A FELONY.
2 - Big Dog
If this girl was an ILLEGAL immigrant she would have been released and the court would have given her cab fare to get home.
Congress would give her amnesty and she would only have to pay a fine...
Petition to stop amnesty
3 - Nancy
When kids act out like these two did, there are usually reasons behind it. For reasons we at BC are not privy to, the judge decided one girl's home situation was untenable, & even JV hall was preferential. SOME kind of fairly hefty info must have been available to him; I doubt he did it just because he is a left-wing loonie. Very few judges are that poor. As for house arrest for the other, consider that what's being said by the Court is simply, 'keep a closer eye on who your kid hangs out with'. She's not wearing an ankle bracelet as far as I can tell from the article. She's just being confined to the proximity of parents & home - where she belongs at that age, BTW - not at the mall or getting in trouble elsewhere.
There isn't enough information in this article or the original reports to indicate why these girls were treated this way. I suggest we not second-guess a judge who has far more accesss to pertinent (& undisclosed due to their ages) information than reporters or blogcritics.
4 - John Bambenek
The other girl is wearing an ankle bracelet, a media report does confirm that.
I will second guess a judge because these girls were arrested Thursday and his ruling was handed down yesterday. I guarantee you that no home visit was performed, DCFS was not involved, and no social service agency was doing interviews. This judge looked at a few documents and made a decision in 5 minutes, that's how arraignment hearings work for anyone who's ever seen one.
If here home environment is dangerous, that's what we have DCFS for and those courts for. They'll take an at-risk child and put them in a foster home not in prison. The bail system is not designed so that a judge can invade a home and start making custody decisions in a case so minor that there is only a maximum of 30 days in juvie at stake here.
I don't know what his politics are or his motivations, he could be a law & order right wing nut for all I know. What I do know is that this kid is going to spend the better part of a year in juvie waiting for trial where she faces a maximum sentence of maybe 10% of the time she's ALREADY spent in jail. And I do know that murders right now are making bail and we're locking away 16 year olds for using Photoshop.
There is no defense for this.
5 - Dr Dreadful
"The ACLU, predictably, said it indicates the struggle between protecting targeted groups and free speech, which apparently means hate speech directed at whites, Christians, or men is a-ok in the ACLU's book."
Misrepresenting the ACLU as usual, John. The statement you indirectly quote is from the Illinois branch of the ACLU, whose spokesman, Ed Yohnka, was at pains to point out that their position differs from the national organization's unequivocal support of hate speech laws. Mr Yohnka made it very clear that the Illinois ACLU has serious misgivings about these charges.
6 - handyguy
As usual, John distorts and exaggerates for gratuitous effect, because us PC-lovin' ACLU-ers have it out for pitifully beleagured and victimized straight white Christian men [and teenage girls?].
According to both the Fox News report John cites and the AP story about this case, the girl in custody will be tried "next week," with a potential sentence of "up to" 30 days. It's the home-detention girl whose trial may be further off.
A brief quote from the AP:
"The victim of the alleged hate crime is a neighbor of one girl, according to court testimony.
One girl has been ordered to remain in juvenile custody until her trial later this month. Judge Michael Chmiel noted that the girl has had about 12 other brushes with police in recent years.
'I'm very nervous about your daughter being home without supervision,' Chmiel told the girl's mother in court Tuesday.
The mother responded, 'We've had rough spots - lots of them.'"
7 - Lee Richards
The juvenile justice system and the system for adults have two different goals:protecting the juvenile and changing behavior for the first vs. punishment for the latter. Most juvenile cases are not even adjudicated as being "guilty" or "not guilty" of anything.
This article is a rant of bias, prejudging, and unwarranted conclusions. The girl is only a poor persecuted "mischievious teenager"--with about 12 other problems with the police!
Did the author try to control his righteous indignation long enough to think that maybe, because of her homelife and personality problems, the judge is trying to protect her within a more stable and structured environment until she can get the help she needs? Couldn't that be as likely as the writer's over-emotive concoctions?
I think yelling "hate crime" here, is largely irrelevant to the main issue--helping this kid.
Juvenile cases are closed to the public, so you can't just sit in. I have attended cases there and seen teenagers in deperate need of someone to protect them and straighten them out. I have seen judges trying anything that might work to do that for them.
8 - John Bambenek
Again, murders get bail except in the most extreme circumstance. I know of cases where people get in dozens of fistfights, get arrested, and they still get bail.
The "12 brushes with the law" were things like curfew violations and having cigarrettes, that's not exactly a threat to the very fabric of the Republic.
And this judge has no business standing in judgment of this girl's homelife. We have DCFS and the family courts that deal with those situations only after actually having an investigation. And even then, a child is put in *foster care* not jail if their home environment is of concern.
9 - Acton Gorton
Johns right on this, the judge seems to be over reacting quite a bit. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime right? Putting a kid on house arrest and one in juvenile detention is a punishment -- it sure isn't a trip to Holiday World. There appears to be no standard set for these types of "offenses" -- which I don't believe should even be a legal offense. John points out the arbitrary decision making by a judge; you have to ask yourself why the judge is throwing the books at these girls? The bad things these girls have done in the past will probably be something they grow out of -- I've done plenty of stupid things growing up, now I barely speed. It's just called maturing.
Is this a scared straight situation? For posting fliers? What behavior are we trying to fix? Activism? Or much more likely: this judge has a problem with the content of the speech.
Any time speech is regulating by the courts, there is risk of an even narrower interpretation of what "Free Speech" means. How is putting up a flier a "hate crime?" I suppose we should put the entire state of Mississippi under house arrest for their state flag.
10 - Baronius
Huh. There are a lot of ifs and probablys in the article and the comments. John, I'm normally a fan, but this one doesn't seem well-researched.
11 - The Junky's Wife
It's hard to know what's true here...it would also be helpful (in some ways) to know if the kids being made fun of in the flier are actually homosexual...kind of changes the scope of the situation, doesn't it?
It seems like a situation that the school should hav disciplined the kids for, but a felony is a pretty heavy weight for being obnoxious. I also don't think that if these girls harbor any genuine feelings of violence or ill-will towards homosexuals that imprisoning them is going to make them stop...sounds like they need some therapy...
12 - J.J. Hunsecker
I can't wait for your next article, "Apples and Oranges".
13 - Concerned Citizen
I don't agree with what the girl says, in fact its pretty rediculous, but I will fight tooth and nail to defend her right to say it.
Hate crime leads to thought crime, which will in turn enslave everyone on this planet. Instead of imprisoning people for their bigotry, how about educating them and giving them the tools to feel more confident about themselves, then things like biotry and racism will disappear naturally.
14 - John Bambenek
I'm not sure what ifs and probablys we're talking about... We could debate the hate crime thing, sure, but being denied bail for a minor who's only alleged offense is putting up flyers (and I don't think the kid was gay, but that is an assumption) is excessive no matter what the circumstances are.
Take your standard murder, rapist, drug dealer, or hell, even an addict. A judge doesn't evaluate their "home environment" before sending them home.
15 - Matthew T. Sussman
Wait a second. So God doesn't hate fags?
16 - Clavos
What's a fag? I thought they were cigarettes?
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
"What's a fag?"
Not sure but in some movie I heard Alec Baldwin is the head of them.
18 - Arch Conservative
"Misrepresenting the ACLU as usual, John."
Nah he had it dead on Dreadful.
Every time there is plain evidence of the bias that exists at the ACLu that even a syphillis ridden monkey with a head injury could understand some moonbat like you has to come along and lecture the rest of us on the virtues of the ACLU.
It's kinda sad that you actually believe the bullshit you spew.
19 - Dave Nalle
Denial of bail has very little to do with the seriousness of the crime and a lot more to do with whether the accused is a flight risk. Clearly they didn't want these girls leaving the state and had some reason for that concern. That would be the primary issue.
The hate crime bill in Illinois is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Nothing you can say should ever be a felony. The girls should be expelled from school, but aside from that nothing they did should even be considered criminal.
Society should shun them as pariahs until they're forced to live on a compound of turnip-faming polygamists, of course.
Dave
20 - Marcia L. Neil
Weren't two tony guys shown mouth-to-mouth on the 'Real World' TV series--to some smooching or at least non-essential CPR? How many calls went out then to anyone with surname containing letters 'g' 'o' 'd' ? If they didn't kill anyone, then bail is not applicable anyway.
21 - Dawn
While their childish prank may seem harmless to some, let's not forget these two young "ladies" (and I am being generous with that term) harassed another kid who had the audacity to kiss another kid.
Granted, I don't want my son kissing other boys, but I sure as hell would be far more distressed that a couple of low-rent pieces of crap were harassing him for expressing himself in the manner in which he felt most inclined.
I understand the issue with the bail and that does seem to go against standard procedure, but forgive me not giving two sh*ts about someone who sees fit to assail another person in an aggressive and unacceptable manner in a school setting.
If there is one thing I hate, it's kids who bully other kids. I hope she enjoys her time in juvvy, and by enjoy, I hope she finds is unnerving -- to be polite about it.
22 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Clearly they didn't want these girls leaving the state"
And this is a bad thing, why?
23 - STM
Yeah, a kick up the bum does kids like this the world of good. Who cares? Their problem, and I hope they learn from it.
24 - John Bambenek
Dave-
I'm not sure what court systems your watching, but bail gets denied when there is a flight risk AND a serious crime involved (i.e. murder) and even then sometimes bail gets assigned. Walk into any courthouse for arraignments and see how many stoners get released on their own recognizance and never get seen again.
25 - Lee Richards
John,
Your ideology blinds you to facts, which we certainly don't have all of in this story.
It is more likely the case that the judge was acting to protect an out-of-control minor from herself and others and steer her onto a new path, than that some liberal judicial/commie/ACLU-hatched nefarious scheme to erode free speech in schools and further erase God from our heathen nation has been loosed.
Do you really feel qualified to second guess the arresting officers, judge, defense counsel, legal system in general, & school administators, and, in effect, declare your expertise in adolescent psychology and the juvenile justice system?