Ohio Pair Gets Baby Pool Punishment

[titefronce]

You guys (in USA) are lucky.

Your judges seem quite creative when it comes to find an appropriate punisment to offences.

Like this one:

http://tweentribune....pool-punishment

Sounds like it would be a good start for a "if you act like a baby you'll be treated like a baby" story!

In case of second offence I'd suggest having them forced to wear Little Swimmers Diapers.

I wonder what would be the sentence for someone caught peeing in public? (If it is an offence in Ohio?

If I were the judge I would certainly consider having the offendant to be exposed wearing diapers, on full display!

PS

I apologize for the bad grammar. English is not my native language, but i am really trying to improve my skills. Any comment by PM would be very appreciated.

Grammar nazies, feel free to help me!

[Loveable_guy]

Creative ruling for a US judge. I lkike it!

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

If they had been sentence to sit in a seat with a tray and be fed like babies, would that mean that they got the chair?

[Repaid1]

From Ohio, Peeing in public is against the law... One while wearing diapers I break daily

[Guest Nero_bunny]

I'd say that judge is a bit out of his mind, but I guess they're lucky if they didn't get an outrageous fine or anything of the sort.

[Bettypooh]

The sentence could (and would) likely be overturned as it is positively an "Unusual punishment" which cannot be handed down Thing is, that to get it overturned you'd have to appeal which takes time and money Most people don't have that. I remember a case here some years back where an unusual punishment was given to three offenders, but the Judge knew that it wouldn't stand, so he offered them a choice between it and jail time- they took the unusual instead. One appealed later on, asking for a large settlement, but it came to nothing because they did have a choice Maybe this Judge did something similar- I sure hope so.

Bettypooh

[spark]

The sentence could (and would) likely be overturned as it is positively an "Unusual punishment" which cannot be handed down Thing is, that to get it overturned you'd have to appeal which takes time and money Most people don't have that. I remember a case here some years back where an unusual punishment was given to three offenders, but the Judge knew that it wouldn't stand, so he offered them a choice between it and jail time- they took the unusual instead. One appealed later on, asking for a large settlement, but it came to nothing because they did have a choice Maybe this Judge did something similar- I sure hope so.

Bettypooh

Yes, the choice was that or 60 days in jail

[Bettypooh]

Then likely the sentence will stand Perhaps we should petition the Judge to do more sentences like this?

Bettypooh

[rusty pins]

I sure don't think it's crule punnishment at all. What they did could have been very dangerous to their lives. The river was swollen, meaning very high and most likely moving very fast with the currents. You read in the paper all the time about people falling in rain swollen rivers and being swept away to their deaths! Remember, there are often logs and large rocks in the river and you hit your head on one, you can be killed or handicapt very easilly. Also think about the costs involved if they did have to be rescured by any emergency teams.

This judge used his head when offering this choice of punnishment! He saved the couple a big fine, probably knowing they just didn't realize how dangerous it could be for them tubing down a swollen river without life jackets. They will most likely remember this next time because of the punnishment as opposed to a fine, and who knows? Maybe handing out the brochures to other people may save another life! Standing in a kiddy pool handing out pamplets seems to be an appropriate punnishment for the deed.

[rusty pins]

On another similar punnishment subject. I remember reading years ago about a judge who's home was broken into by teenagers. They didn't steal anything, but they just trashed his house and broke a lot of his things including his golf clubs. Apparently he dealt with similar teens in the past in his court and the parents always were the ones to pay the restitution.

He decided that the kids should be the ones to pay in a way that hit home to them and made them realize how it feels to lose teasured personal property. What this judge would do was talk with the parents first and ask if they wanted their kids to have a juvinal record. If they said no, he would ask the parents what their teen's favorite posession was. Then he would have the parents bring it to court with their teenager on the day of the hearing (letting the parents know what he planned to do with the items). I remember one kid had a signed Cleaveland Indians baseball cap, another had an expensive raidio control car. The judge would then give the teenagers the speach about how stupid it was, wanton distruction of other people's property and how it felt to someone to come home and find their possessions ruined. At that point he would take the items brought in by the parents and smash them or in the case of the baseball cap, cut them up right in front of the teens! Sure, the teenagers would be upset and crying, but it got the message through!

Feel sorry for the kids? Remember they are teenagers who actually broke into someones house when they were gone and trashed the place just for their own jollies! Can they come back on the judge? No, as the parents who are the legal guardians made a choice to either bring in the teen's favorite item to be distroyed or pay fines and have a juvinal record for their kid. I always thought this was a good way (if the teens are old enough) to really hit it home and make them think before doing vandalisim again.