that's messed up!

last night the school board ruled that the little boy did not have to attend reform school and that they were going to amend that rule.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. Often times it is the kid who really has honest intentions who gets shafted by these "strict liability" type of rules. But still, what he brought to school was a knife. And I fail to see how his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated. It was a school policy. He violated it. So what if he is six? They knew that 6 yr olds would be included in the group affected by the policy.

A student at the high school where I taught was suspended for 365 days. He had gone hunting over the weekend. That Sunday he was going to the school for a Relay for Life event. He forgot to take his hunting rifle out of the back of his truck. He realized it not long after he got there when one of his friends told him. Before he could get back to the truck to go home, he was in handcuffs. His family appealed but to no avail. He was an honor student and one of the nicest students in the school. Granted the situation is slightly different, but it goes to show that these schools really are drawing a hard line about this kind of thing.

That's the extent of your due process analysis? :rolleyes:

Well you didn't ask me, but as the mother of 3, here is my opinion.

I think context is everything. Do I think weapons should be allowed at school? No. However I also don't think there should be an across the board inflexible policy regarding it. A policy that states: no weapons and here are the possible punishments... yes.

I see it as a difference between a child bringing a knife and eating with it versus a child bringing a knife and holding to another child's neck. The first child should be spoken to about why we don't bring knives to school. The second should possibly be expelled/sent to reform school.

About the student that had a hunting weapon in his car? If he told someone himself and said it was an honest mistake, then he should have been sent to class to learn about gun safty/never leaving it in the car. Not expelled. Maybe even had an agreement to have his car/locker searched on a regular basis for some amount of time to show that he wasn't making the mistake again.

I know many school districts have very ridgid policies because they fear lawsuits if they have any bit of discretion. A parent might cry discrimination or its not fair. But I still think that context should matter.

And those rigid policies comes from too many kids killing other kids in school near school around the shcool and after school and it has resulted in panic button politics.

The moment we see kids with something that could be misconstrued as a weapon (per the cartoon a few poasts back) they are automatically deemed as 'troublemakers'.

let's thank the perps that has made it bad for those who are innocent.

^^ I completely agree

:rolleyes:

Let me try to make this easy for you. Whether I think it is okay for kids to bring knives to school (even if they are Cub Scout camping knives that are duller than what would be in the cafeteria) and whether I think there are due process issues involved are completely unrelated questions.

I have not offered a due process analysis, largely because one or two news stories don't provide enough information to make any reasonable analysis. But were I too undertake a due process analysis, it would not begin with whether the policy is a good or bad policy. It would probably begin with the question of whether automatic suspension, possibly without any hearing or appeal rights, implicates the due process rights of the student. A due process analysis would typicall have to do with how the consequences of violating the rule were imposed, not with whether the policy was valid or was violated to begin with.

deepimpact basically said it was school policy, intended to include students like him and he violated it. As a second- or third-year law student, she should know (1) that whether a law or policy applies to someone who violated it is usually irrelevant to a due process question, and (2) people's convictions for crimes are overturned everyday not because they didn't violate the law but because they were denied due process.

I had to memorize the Matthews v. Eldridge Balancing Test for 14th and 5th Amendment Due Process analysis. I imagine that every law student in the country has to do this at some point.

1. Private interest effected by an official action taken by a government agency, official, or non-governmental entity (company) acting as a governmental agency
2. The risk of some deprivation being erroneously inflicted on respondent, through the process used or if no process is used.
3. The government’s interest in a specific outcome.

Slighty off topic, but I hope of the GC legal minds can answer. I'm ashamed to admit I don't know the constitution as well as i should. What is the difference between the 14th and 5th amendments. I thought the 5th amendment guaranteed due process, but then the 14th does the same thing. Am I missing something?

As someone who has practiced law for several years, you should recognize that there is a difference between the majority of cases where the courts decided that due process rights had been violated and this case.

But how do the officials know that all he intended to do was eat with it? How do officials know that someone else might not have grabbed the knife and used it in a harmful way. The bottom line is that kids should not be allowed to bring weapons to school despite their actual intentions for doing so. I prefer for schools to be strict about this than to let it ride and find that chaos results. And if the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, then you run the risk of discriminatory practices settling into place.

There was nothing confusing about the policy. And no one can argue ignorance as an excuse because parents and children are expected to know these policies. If they are applying it to everyone across the board, then again, there is no problem.

Of course there are -- many, many differences. In fact, believe it or not, I agree with you that there isn't likely a due process issue here.

That doesn't change the fact that those criminal cases show why simply saying it was policy and he violated the policy isn't a due process analysis at all.

Wow. It's pretty gutsy (read: ignorant) for a law student to call out someone with professional accomplishments the likes of MysticCat's.

ETA: I had completely intended to write "read: arrogant" instead of what's above. In fact, I honestly thought that's what I actually typed until I read someone's post with my statement quoted. Part of me feels like I should apologize... most of me doesn't. I think either "arrogant" or "ignorant" is appropriate here.

Yeah isn't MC a member of the Supreme Court Bar?