13yo girl strip searched for apsirin by school- case to be heard by Surpeme Court

[Jetsetlemming]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain reliever will have her case heard at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether school officials were right to strip-search a student over ibuprofen.

The justices accepted the case Friday for review. They will decide whether a campus setting gives school administrators greater discretion to control students suspected of illegal activity than police are allowed in cases involving adults in public spaces.

Arguments are expected to be heard in April.

At issue is whether school administrators are constitutionally barred from conducting searches of students investigated for possessing or dealing drugs that are banned on campus.

A federal appeals court found the search "traumatizing" and illegal.

Some parents say older children deserve the same constitutional rights as adults, but educators counter that a school setting always has been treated differently by the courts. They say a ruling against them could jeopardize campus safety.

The case involves Savana Redding, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honor student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Earlier that day the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills in the possession of one of Redding's classmates. That student, facing punishment, accused Redding of providing her with the 400-milligram pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. She denied the accusations.

A search of Redding's backpack found nothing. Then, although she had never had prior disciplinary problems, a strip-search was conducted with the help of a school nurse and Wilson's assistant, both females. According to court records, she was ordered to strip to her underwear and her bra was pulled out. Again, no drugs were found.

In an affidavit, Redding said, "The strip-search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Redding and her family sued, and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, ruled against the school.

The court wrote: "Common sense informs us that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen ... was excessively intrusive."

The court said the school went too far in its effort to create a drug- and crime-free classroom. "The overzealousness of school administrators in efforts to protect students has the tragic impact of traumatizing those they claim to serve. And all this to find prescription-strength ibuprofen."

In its appeal to the high court, the school district said requiring a legal standard of "probable cause" to conduct student searches would cast a "roadblock to the kind of swift and effective response that is too often needed to protect the very safety of students, particularly from the threats posed by drugs and weapons."

The high court has had a mixed record over the years on students' rights. The court could now be asked to clarify the extent of student rights involving searches, and the discretion of officials over those for whom they have responsibility.
1. These school admins strip searched a little girl.
2. They did it over FUCKING ADVIL.
3. The school board did not find any problem with this at all and the case has now escalated to the Supreme Court.


Just... jesus christ. Zero tolerance, folks. Protecting our children from aspirin, dignity, and freedom.

edit: whoops mispelled the thread title :(

[Mastiker]

In its appeal to the high court, the school district said requiring a legal standard of "probable cause" to conduct student searches would cast a "roadblock to the kind of swift and effective response that is too often needed to protect the very safety of students, particularly from the threats posed by drugs and weapons."

This right here fucking gets me. Ignoring the fact that it was a little girl and it was over ibuprofen, my anger is directed towards this shit. They're saying that we can't bother looking for a reason why this student would do it, we just have to assume it's true and remove her rights to secure others - even if that means being wrong.

so some little punk says "it was her!" That apparently means they get to pull her aside and remove her rights?

I mean, come on! Has their been previous altercations with this girl suggesting that she might be hiding the drugs? Has she given the school authorities any reason to suspect that she might be "dealing" ibuprofen to other students (or any other drug for that matter)? Is she a disciplinary problem? [probably not considering she was an honor student at the time]

If the answers to all of those are "no" then one must assume that maybe she's telling the truth and you should look further into the matter instead of jumping to conclusions and removing a little girls freedoms.

[darighaz]

I dunno i think the school was well within....


Ok yea i cant even fake that one.

what the FUCK

[riona]

Don't they think as they're doing this - hey, this may be a tad bit inappropriate, making a 13-year-old take off her clothes?

I love this country. I love the freedoms we used to have.

[qwert]

In other news, applications for adminstratative positions in schools has sky rocketed to nearly 800% of that of the average of the past 5 years. Officials are unsure why so many older adult men are interested in such positions, although many site past experience as Catholic priests and a new awakening to teach the younger generation at the source in such instutuions rampant with young, pre-pubscent, cute, and naive little girls. Many want to rid the nation of "the underground drug culutre in our schools." We can only hope our children will be safer which such men patrolling the halls and inviting children into their office for "questioning."

[MNJetter]

Take the bad jokes to RWPW, Orange.

[RoxFontaine]

Blah, blah, blah.

Translation: I didn't bother to read the article.

I don't why I come back to this damn forum. I don't have a damn thing in common with any of you except that some of you have also been to Japan.

Anyway....

On topic: This is AWFUL! I can't even imagine what I'd do if that were my daughter. This country is seriously turning into a police state. Reading stuff like this is infuriating.

[japanat]

They strip-searched a minor without her parent or guardian present. They did so "without probable cause". Two factors which in the criminal courts would automatically result in the dismissal of charges against even the worst of juvenile offenders.

This ZT bullshit has got me actually saying something I never thought to hear: Thank God my kids go to Japanese schools!

I'm so fucking tired of these people throwing all common sense (I know; common sense is neither sensical nor common) out with the dishwater in favor of 'the rules'. I remember my ass't principal taking us to the office when we fucked up in junior high, and treating us like adults. "You guys screwed up. Now, you can take a paddling and we won't notify your parents, or take a 3-day suspension and we do - your choice." And my parents likely would repeat the paddling if they found out.

Now they can't even tell the difference between someone using a prescription med, someone giving/selling their friends drugs or their parents' prescription meds, and someone doing neither. And actually think they are justified to strip a girl to her undies to do a search - for ibuprofen (because those headache medicines are so-o-o-o dangerous).

The school has the right to search lockers at any time, since they are school property and provided to students as a service. The young girls' bodies are a different story.

[h2orowe]

It kind of sucks for both parties in a way. The school had no right to strip search her at all, especially over ibuprofen. What the hell is she going to do with ibuprofen anyway? "HEY GUYS, I'M TOTALLY COCKED OFF MY BALLS ON A NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY! DO I HAVE A HEADACHE? NOOOO WAY, MAN." In this case, they should have given the girl the benefit of the doubt, or at the most, searched her backpack.

The reason it sucks for both parties is because what if schools DO lose the right to search through backpacks and do a mild pat down and later on down the road, it ends up costing a human life through another school shooting? Hopefully if the court rules in favor of student privacy, they leave a little room open for guns. It's pretty hard to hide a pistol between breasts anyway, so at most they'd have to have them remove a sweatshirt or empty pockets.

This kind of reminds me of this time that my brother was cleaning out all this trash from the back of his old pick up truck he used to have. We had moved a month or two prior and he had just gotten around to getting some of the stuff we didn't need thrown away (I think it was this, might have been something else.) In the truck, there was a plumbing thing that looked like a bullet, and I was 13 at the time so I was like "lool, that's pretty neat." I was thinking of making a necklace or something out of it. I knew it wasn't a bullet because no one in our family owns guns, save for distant relatives.

I go to school the next day and I had completely forgot to take out the bullet. I knew that if I flaunted the bullet thing or pulled it out, I would have gotten in trouble. So, I waited until no one was around and I showed my few friends I had made at the time (Since I was new to the school) the thing. I was like "It's weird, doesn't it look kind of like a bullet?" Next thing I know, I'm being asked (albeit politely) to come to the principal's office.

They go through my backpack and I think they patted me down. I don't blame them at all because prior to me joining the school, about a week before, a student brought a very realistic looking air soft gun to the school and the police had to come deal with him (we had a bunch of AZN PRYDE gangsters at my school that would bring shit like that to school everyday.) Anyway, when they were done, they found out the thing I had had something to do with plumbing and they just asked me nicely to never bring it to school again since it resembled a bullet.

I, later on, had another bit of trouble with them. They thought one of my friends was in possession of marijuana and they searched through my backpack and that was it. I hung out with punker kids, but I'm pretty sure the majority of them were clean, considering we were in 7th and 8th grade. They didn't find anything on any of us and none of us got in trouble.

So, if the school has an actual reason to believe you have a weapon, I think they do have the right to search you but they should probably detain you and call an officer to the school. I don't know if this is common at other schools, but the schools in my area usually have one or two officers patrolling the campus during breaks and lunch and they act as campus security. Then again, I think we might have just had this because there's a cop station like 1/8 of a mile from my old high school.

[Jetsetlemming]

You have a greater likelihood of being struck by lightning than shot in a school shooting, zero tolerance or no. It's an almost non-existent occurrence, it's so rare.

[Roxie]

2. They did it over FUCKING ADVIL.
Not advil, ibuprofen. I think this is important, b/c it is an anti-inflammatory and considering the girls age, IF she had had any (which she didn't) it would've most likely would've been for cramps.

[Jetsetlemming]

Advil is over the counter ibuprofen. The only difference between prescription ibuprofen and Advil is the size of the individual pill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advil
Motrin is also ibuprofen.

[blank slate]

Wow, I hope the supreme court lays the smack down on these people. Simply unacceptable.

[Roxie]

Advil is over the counter ibuprofen. The only difference between prescription ibuprofen and Advil is the size of the individual pill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advil
Motrin is also ibuprofen.
Ah! I so thought that Motrin was the only "name brand" OTC ibuprofen.
Good to know.

[MNJetter]

You can get ibuprofin over the counter too, just in smaller doses than prescription. At least in Minnesota, ibuprofin is the poor man's advil, since it's cheaper, despite being the exact same thing.

[qwert]

Take the bad jokes to RWPW, Orange.

I know it was a lame post. I just like typing on my awesome new keyboard. =)

RTFA is something I usually don't do as I only have 30 minutes a day to spend online at places like here, slashdot, news sites, facebook, and so on.

[nanashi]

A big problem in schools is this ‘no tolerance policy’ thing they have going on now. There have been many cases of kids even suspended or expelled for doing things like bringing a butter knife to school. It’s basically saying that if someone either might have done something wrong, or slightly done something wrong, they get the same punishment as an offender that has done the worst part of the rule. It’s not about ‘maybe’ or ‘possibly’ but, punishment/suspend/expel without asking questions. Guilty until possibly, but likely not, proven not guilty. Schools should not have the authority to do strip searches. If they suspect a child of carrying drugs, they should search their backpack and locker, then call their parents if or if they haven't found anything.

[riona]

They did so "without probable cause".

Actually, we learned this in law class senior year in high school: School officials don't need probable cause. They simply need "reasonable suspicion." And the accusation from the other student was exactly that. While strip-searching was unreasonably intrusive and shouldn't have been done at all, actually searching her bags, person, locker, etc. was far within their rights.

Sadly, even innocent school students have less rights than actual criminals. This has always upset me and should definitely be fixed.

[MNJetter]

"Probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" sound like synonyms. What's the difference?

[Jetsetlemming]

"Probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" sound like synonyms. What's the difference?
One's based on physical evidence, the other on "reasonable" lines of thought.
If it's understandable why someone would think something, that's reasonable suspicion. If there's evidence pointing towards something, that's probable cause.
A student accusing the girl in the suit is reasonable suspicion.
Having found pills in the girl's locker and expecting more to be on her would be probable cause.

[Kannon]

Hmm, that's interesting. From a military standpoint, "reasonable suspicion" would be say, seeing a group of individuals walking toward the same dorm room, and assuming they are going there to smoke weed. "Probable cause" would be observing smoke coming from that room that smells like marijuana smoke.

EDIT: And in all actuality, we don't have something called "reasonable suspicion". If something is reasonably suspicious, we check it out, regardless.

[h2orowe]

Actually, we learned this in law class senior year in high school: School officials don't need probable cause. They simply need "reasonable suspicion." And the accusation from the other student was exactly that. While strip-searching was unreasonably intrusive and shouldn't have been done at all, actually searching her bags, person, locker, etc. was far within their rights.

Sadly, even innocent school students have less rights than actual criminals. This has always upset me and should definitely be fixed.
In my civics class we learned that as students we give up certain rights in exchange for free education. If we didn't like it, we could go to private school or get home schooled and avoid any problems. I honestly don't mind it as long as they're not pushing their right to take our rights too far. It's obvious they have to take some of our privacy away in order to maintain a school-like environment. If everyone could just say whatever they want without repercussion, students would finally be able to tell off teachers and then there'd be no one left to teach because they'd all be at home crying. Crying their little eyes out. IS THIS THE WORLD WE WANT TO LIVE IN?

I say fight the students before they strike first. Mandatory uniforms. Rabbit eared, feety pajamas. Without pockets to hold anything in. No pockets = no weapons.

[MNJetter]

One's based on physical evidence, the other on "reasonable" lines of thought.
If it's understandable why someone would think something, that's reasonable suspicion. If there's evidence pointing towards something, that's probable cause.
A student accusing the girl in the suit is reasonable suspicion.
Having found pills in the girl's locker and expecting more to be on her would be probable cause.
Thank you. That was very succinct -- something I've learned to appreciate in the rare instances that it actually appears on the internet.

If they made footie pajamas a mandatory uniform for school, I would go back to school. That's awesome.

[PopCulturePooka]

Hmmm, students have less rights than criminals true.

But what frustrates me, at least in the schools I've worked in in Australia, is that students get away so easily with criminal acts.

Last year at my school we had at least 5 students amongst two different incidents who were involved in filming, keeping and distributing child porn on campus (in one case 2 girls fucked in a toilet and a third filmed, the other one was two kids in the bushlands around the school).

Numerous cases of fights and assaults.

Sexual harrasment cases, serious vandalism and criminal destruction of property.

Theft etc.

And all of these cases were dealt with internally. Kids were suspended, excluded or given detentions depending on the circumstance. However ALL of them should have had police involved and possibly charges. Yet none did. When I wanted to get police involved in one of the incidents that involved intentional damage to my car I was told not to.

When did schools become laws unto themselves?

[Citizen]

I remember my ass't principal taking us to the office when we fucked up in junior high, and treating us like adults. "You guys screwed up. Now, you can take a paddling and we won't notify your parents, or take a 3-day suspension and we do - your choice." And my parents likely would repeat the paddling if they found out.

Being offered a paddling is being treated like an adult? Also, who in the fuck paddles teenagers? Your junior high sounds really creepy.

[ruaidhri]

Back on August 11, 2005, I created a thread called "Zero Tolerance" http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39. The comments I, and others, made in that thread certainly apply to the current circumstances surrounding the official assault of a young girl. Personally, I blame laziness and fear of lawsuits as the culprits behind zero-tolerance. It's easier to come down hard on everyone than to temper reaction with reason. It's also safer to treat everyone the same because a judge or jury might disagree with your decision to punish one infraction while forgiving or tempering the other.

I believe it would be interesting to quote my first post to the old zero tolerance thread:

Well, I am going to start a thread on this topic again. I believe it's important we stop this stupid and unfair way of dealing with problems. What do you think?

Quote:
Criminalizing Kids II
Misdemeanor Mistakes and Felony Forgetfulness

It was a cool, clear October day in Washington, D.C., when the closing bell rang and twelve-year-old Ansche Hedgepeth ran out the door of Alice Deal Junior High School. She stopped at a fast-food restaurant for an order of hot French fries and then headed for home. Ansche took the escalator down into the Tenleytown/American University Metrorail station to catch her train. In the station, she ate a single French fry. Moments later, the junior high student was in handcuffs and headed for jail.

Ansche had no idea that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) had picked that Monday to kick-off a week of “zero tolerance” enforcement of “quality of life offenses.” They had ordered undercover officers to automatically punish even minor infractions.

D.C. Code § 35-251(b) makes it a violation to “consume food or drink” in a Metrorail facility. For a first offense, adults could be fined from $10 to $50. Only for a second offense can an adult be arrested. Minors, however, cannot be fined. Officers can either warn them, or arrest them, but the zero tolerance policy made arrest the only option.

An undercover officer saw Ansche eat the one fry and quickly placed her under arrest. The twelve-year-old girl was searched and her jacket, backpack, and shoelaces were confiscated. Her hands were cuffed behind her back and she was put into a paddy wagon and driven to the Juvenile Processing Center. Three hours after the arrest, Ansche was finally released into the custody of her mother.

In a decision reluctantly upholding Ansche’s arrest, the judge noted that she was totally compliant, never resisting, only crying throughout the process. She had never eaten in a Metrorail station before, nor had she ever been warned not to eat there. The judge mocked the harsh, zero tolerance enforcement of the “serious offense of eating a French fry on a subway platform.”

The district judge lamented the “humiliating and demeaning impact of the arrest” and suggested that the WMATA “re-think any other ‘foolish’ operating procedures before subjecting – or continuing to subject – unwary users of mass transportation to the indignity and horror suffered by [Ansche].” The Supreme Court, in a decision finding no constitutional problem with a similar incident, cited news reports of Ansche’s treatment as an example of a “comparably foolish, warrantless misdemeanor arrest” (Atwater v. City of Lago Vista).

In the face of public criticism, the WMATA rescinded their “zero tolerance” policy that required arresting minor children for minor infractions. Many overzealous zero tolerance policies remain, however, and most continue to target children. An American Bar Association (ABA) report cited some horrific examples:

A 12-year-old with hyperactivity disorder told students ahead of him in the lunch line to leave some potatoes, or “I’m going to get you.” The principal called the police and the Louisiana boy was arrested for making a terrorist threat. He spent two weeks in jail awaiting a hearing.
In Arlington, Virginia, two 10-year-old boys put soapy water in their teacher’s drink. The teacher insisted that the young boys be charged with felonies, although their case was later dismissed.
An 11-year-old girl was arrested after asking her teacher for permission to use a smooth-edged steak knife that she had brought from home to cut a piece of chicken that she was eating for lunch.
A disabled 14-year-old was charged as an adult with strong-armed robbery and jailed for six weeks. The boy, who had no criminal record, was accused of taking $2 from a classmate. After 60 Minutes II showed an interest in the case, all charges were dropped.
Where did this rush to lock up kids come from? The ABA traced the origin of the modern “zero tolerance” for children movement to the fear of school shootings that developed during the 1990s. The Clinton Administration trumpeted legislation that required “‘zero tolerance’ for guns in schools,” but even this well-intentioned move has become a symbol of overcriminalizing kids.

Eight-year-old Hamadi Alston found an L-shaped piece of paper in a school book. While playing “cops and robbers” with his friends during recess, Hamadi used the paper as a pretend gun, exclaiming “Pow, pow!” At the conclusion of recess, Hamadi was taken to the school office and interrogated to tears. Hamadi was arrested by the Irvington, New Jersey, Police Department for “threatening to kill other students” with his paper pistol. He spent almost five hours in police custody and was required to make two court appearances before charges were finally dropped.

Numerous students have been punished, some suspended or even expelled, for bringing toy guns (plastic, rather than paper) to school. Nine-year-old Austin Crittenden was suspended for “possession of a weapon – firearm replica,” when he brought a tiny plastic G.I. Joe handgun to his elementary school. The third grader’s principal “had to tape the gun to a piece of paper to keep from losing it,” Austin’s grandmother reported.

In Georgia, a five-year-old kindergarten student was suspended on the second day of school for violating White Bluff Elementary’s zero tolerance policy on “violent toys.” Principal Jane Ford-Brocato claimed that the kindergartener’s quarter-sized plastic gun would have “a negative impact” that justified zero tolerance. Defending the suspension, she said “we need to apply consequences as appropriate, with the understanding we want to guide the children into making good choices.” After a local television station called the school, however, the youngster’s suspension was immediately lifted.

Similar cases have sparked debate over zero tolerance policies across the country. In Spokane, Washington, an eight-year-old was suspended for having two tiny plastic G.I. Joe guns at school. At Oak Mountain Middle School in Alabama, two boys were suspended for playing with toy guns that one had brought in for a school-sanctioned project.

Much worse than suspensions or expulsions, some students have faced criminal charges for toy guns. One nine-year-old student was arrested for aggravated assault and disrupting a school function for playing with his toy gun as he left school at the end of the day. A ten-year-old student in Alabaster, Alabama, was likewise arrested for supposedly threatening behavior with a toy gun. Reasonable people might disagree about whether a student should be suspended for possessing a squirt gun on school property. But when students are arrested for such alleged crimes, the expansion of the boundaries of criminal law undermines the very concept of justice.

In January, Adam Liston made a mistake. The 18-year-old Davis High School senior dropped off a few friends at school on his way to the gun range with a new shotgun in his gun rack. Apparently someone reported seeing the gun, and the next day at school the vice principal asked to search Adam’s Ford F-250 truck. Adam readily agreed.

Six police cars arrived and officers swarmed Adam’s truck. As they searched, he realized he had made a major error. He forgot to take the shotgun, unloaded and still in its original box, out of his truck after target shooting the day before. Adam broke down in tears as officers pulled the gun from his truck and placed him under arrest. He was handcuffed and taken to the Yolo County Jail.

Adam was charged with two felony violations of California Penal Code § 626.9, possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. He was released on $25,000 bail, and on February 19, the school board voted 3-1 to expel Adam from Davis High.

The Sacramento Bee pointed out that Adam “had been a model citizen since the first grade.” He “had never been a discipline problem in school and … never had a run-in with the law.” Adam maintained good grades and already had college plans. His mother was president of the PTA.

One of Adam’s former teachers called him a “very thoughtful, very respectful, very charming and fine young man.” When his mother resigned her PTA position in response to her son’s “banishment,” several other parents resigned with her to protest Adam’s treatment. The Davis High School Student Council delivered a letter from Davis students to the Davis superintendent, stating the obvious: “Adam Liston is not a threat to this school district.”

A collection of letters to the editor of the Sacramento newspaper expressed the community’s outrage. The authorities acted without “common sense,” several writers opined. Adam’s act was “unintentional” and “an honest mistake.” This kind of zero tolerance enforcement perpetuates a “paranoid atmosphere” and is “morally bankrupt” and “a real travesty of justice.”

Another letter writer rhetorically asks, “Where is the criminal intent in this case?” Apparently, most Americans inherently understand the foundational concept of criminal law: a wrongful act (actus reus) is a crime only if done with wrongful intent (mens rea). Causing a traffic accident is entirely different from intentionally ramming someone with your car. Forgetting to remove an unloaded shotgun from your truck before driving to school is not the same as carrying a concealed loaded pistol to class.

Somehow, a number of school administrators, police, prosecutors, and lawmakers have cast aside this critical distinction in favor of mechanistic “zero tolerance.” While relieving decision makers from the burden of making decisions, zero tolerance undermines the very notion of justice, particularly when aimed at youth. School kids “care most about fairness,” said one attorney quoted in the ABA report. “When they see two students whose ‘offenses’ are vastly different being treated exactly the same, that sense of fairness is obliterated and replaced with fear and alienation.”

Civil society flourishes where people can rely on law to approximate justice as best it can. Law, at its best, provides protection and predictability, essential qualities for progress and ordered liberty. When the objective of law strays from justice, both concepts are tarnished. Law, no longer the protector, becomes the oppressor. Justice is twisted into a rationalization or dismissed as a phantasm.

The recent expansion of criminal law, manifest in part by zero tolerance policies, mocks the legacy of Anglo-American jurisprudence. As Roscoe Pound, a preeminent legal scholar of the early 20th Century, explained, “criminal law is based upon a theory of punishing the vicious will. It postulates a free agent confronted with a choice between doing right and doing wrong and choosing freely to do wrong.” When we punish innocents for their mistakes, we turn lady justice into a child swinging for a piñata, blindly waiving her razor-sharp sword amongst the crowd.

[japanat]

Being offered a paddling is being treated like an adult? Also, who in the fuck paddles teenagers? Your junior high sounds really creepy.The key to this for me was that the student could, in cases which didn't break any state or federal laws, choose their method of punishment. My brother was a fighter - he didn't start any fights, mind you, but he did defend smaller kids and in some cases fight bullies to protect these kids.

Now, the school could have called the police like most would today, treating him the same as the kids who started the fights, and had him charged with assault, etc. And if he had been starting fights, or been dangerous, they would have. Or they could have chosen to just suspend him for 3 days, which is recorded on your file, and 3 of which would result in your being expelled from the school. But they had the discretion to choose the punishment, and chose to offer such students two options. 1) Take the 3-day suspension Or 2) take 3 smacks from the paddle, have a note made in your file that doesn't add up to the '3-strikes' rule, and leave it there. Most kids who chose the paddle only did so once, and didn't care to repeat it; the majority of those kids didn't have second infractions. Kids who were suspended tended to get in trouble at least once more.

I prefer this system to the mindless following of rules which says that bringing a gun, or bringing a 2 1/2-inch pistol-shaped key fob should be treated the same, with matching punishments. To the ZT which expelled a student athlete for carrying a 10-in bat in his car, when said bat was the top part of a trophy he received from that school. http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html

[Jetsetlemming]

Hmmm, students have less rights than criminals true.

But what frustrates me, at least in the schools I've worked in in Australia, is that students get away so easily with criminal acts.

Last year at my school we had at least 5 students amongst two different incidents who were involved in filming, keeping and distributing child porn on campus (in one case 2 girls fucked in a toilet and a third filmed, the other one was two kids in the bushlands around the school).

Numerous cases of fights and assaults.

Sexual harrasment cases, serious vandalism and criminal destruction of property.

Theft etc.

And all of these cases were dealt with internally. Kids were suspended, excluded or given detentions depending on the circumstance. However ALL of them should have had police involved and possibly charges. Yet none did. When I wanted to get police involved in one of the incidents that involved intentional damage to my car I was told not to.

When did schools become laws unto themselves?
Homemade pornography is a rite of passage among digital age teenagers. Fuck you and your judgments :mad:

[MNJetter]

At least the courts are on the girl's side in this case. The school administration is trying to work it up the hierarchy in hopes of getting a sympathetic ear, but I don't think they're going to get one.

[Gorlam]

Being offered a paddling is being treated like an adult? Also, who in the fuck paddles teenagers? Your junior high sounds really creepy.

I believe paddling is still used in some Texas schools.

[stsparky]

The principal broke his paddle on me when I was in 6th grade. It was cool with me. After 8th grade - I stopped getting into fights, but there was no mention of them on my 'permanent record' ...

[Gorlam]

The principal broke his paddle on me when I was in 6th grade. It was cool with me. After 8th grade - I stopped getting into fights, but there was no mention of them on my 'permanent record' ...

yah, permanent records don't follow you between schools, fun little fact. Also your GPA doesn't transfer either.

[Micah the Great]

I do not have children, but while reading this, for a moment i started to imagine what it would be like if that was my daughter and i took a trip up to the school to have a little "talk" with the principal. I quickly stopped because i was getting so confused and pissed off i just had to stand up. What the fuck.... there is NO way that this should be acceptable. I don't care if she possibly had $5,000 of heroine on her somewhere, if you strip searched my daughter like that, with that kind of reasoning, and especially without me there/without my permission... i would not be anywhere close to happy or forgiving.

I just don't understand the ZT reasoning. It seems it's just a fear that anyone could possibly have drugs or weapons and could possibly do wrong at any second. Well no shit. People could do anything... but that's no reason to take away their rights or to give them absolutely much to extreme punishment for doing something that's only possibly related to something supposedly wrong or a crime.

I went to high school in a small town in middle Tennessee not that long ago (graduated '01) and students carried pocket knives all the time, and had hunting rifles in the back windows of their trucks. At times i had several paintball guns in my car while at school... and various other possible "weapons". No one ever got in trouble for any of this, and no one was ever anywhere close to getting hurt.

If someone intends to hurt someone else or do drugs, they will if possible... no matter what they're not allowed to have or supposed to do. Life can be scary because anyone can essential do anything they want at any time... but i'm not going to live with the idea that everyone is out to get everyone else and always have the worst intentions possible... so i bubble wrap every fucking thing. Damn it. Seems like people would learn, but apparently they just keep getting dumber.

Gah, sorry... this just bothered me so much for some reason.

[Roxie]

Gah, sorry... this just bothered me so much for some reason.
It should. Don't apologize.