Student Suspended for Touching Pill

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The parents of a Kentuckiana seventh grade student say their young daughter was suspended from school for doing exactly what she's been taught to do for years - to just say no to drugs.

The girl did not bring the prescription drug to her Jeffersonville, IN school, nor did she take it, but she admits that she touched it and in Greater Clark County Schools that is drug possession.

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=12047295

So in a nutshell... another student offers the girl a prescription drug. She holds a pill in her hand, then gives it back and says no. That equals "drug possession."

 

[Whiplash]

Zero Tolerance mentality strong at work again.

rules is rules!!1

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess that means that if a teacher took the drugs away from a kid, the teacher would be fired for possession of drugs?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I guess that means that if a teacher took the drugs away from a kid, the teacher would be fired for possession of drugs?

Rather a good point!



Hans

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That'll teach children not to go all the way when they come near something bad.

If you're gonna do the time, you may as well do the crime.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

she admits that she touched it and in Greater Clark County Schools that is drug possession.

There's a serious deficiency in legal theory evident here...

How can you be charged with the criminal possession of a prohibited article if, when you assumed physical control over it, you could not reasonably know that it was a prohibited article? How could you possess the animus necessary for criminal liability?

Surely this result was not the intention of the legislature when they prohibited posession of the article in question? Or is the intention of the legislature of no relevance in America?

 

[Alt+F4]

There's a serious deficiency in legal theory evident here...

How can you be charged with the criminal possession of a prohibited article if, when you assumed physical control over it, you could not reasonably know that it was a prohibited article? How could you possess the animus necessary for criminal liability?

Surely this result was not the intention of the legislature when they prohibited posession of the article in question? Or is the intention of the legislature of no relevance in America?

She wasn't charged with a crime, she broke a school rule. She did know it was a prohibited article, that's why she put it back.

So kids in middle school now just give away drugs for free, how times have changed. I wonder if her parents will file a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the school district.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

She wasn't charged with a crime, she broke a school rule. She did know it was a prohibited article, that's why she put it back.

Yeah, after inspecting the ubiquitous pill (which could have been anything from Vitamin C to MDMA), it occurred to her that it was probably a prohibited article (perhaps by the conduct of the person who gave it to her), so she returned it. Hence indicating that she had no intention to possess the article. Bare in mind that this person is 14, and so any apparent naivety is perfectly reasonable in light of her diminished criminal capacity.

In South Africa, public school administration is subject to review... Both departmental and judicial. I don't know how it works over there.

So kids in middle school now just give away drugs for free, how times have changed. I wonder if her parents will file a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the school district.

I hope they do.

 

[Brian-M]

"She was talking to another girl and me about them and she put one in my hand and I was like, ‘I don't want this,' so I put it back in the bag and I went to gym class," said Rachael.

We wanted to know what would have happened if Rachael had told a teacher right away. Bell said the punishment would not have been any different.

Clearly the only way to avoid punishment would have been to destroy the evidence by swallowing all the pills. I think there's a lesson in this for everyone.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Or is the intention of the legislature of no relevance in America?

In my experience, I've not seen it of relevance anywhere except coffee house chitter chatter (and then the internet). Law is a free market, if you want to buy your way up the consultation ladder you can...as your resources permit. But at every stage you're subject to the desires of the interpreter of the intention of the legislature.

 

[sadhatter]

Zero Tolerance mentality strong at work again.

rules is rules!!1

I was in high school when this zero tolerance crap started. And as an adult, i can state it is nothing more than a way for the teachers and other school workers not to have to make tough decisions.

My best example would be in the later part of my grade 10 year. A group of people that i did not particularly get along with decided to surround me and attempt physical violence. I , knowing i would not be able to get away, or fight off the group of about 8 people decided to pick the closest guy to me and start doing as much damage as i could. Long story short, he had a messed up nose and eye and i was found barely able to move , bleeding from my mouth and nose, and several other places, to be precise, i was a wreck. Who wouldn't be after an 8 person beating.

Now the kicker of this is that i was suspended as well as the group of people, and due to the nature of the beating we were all made to do 2 hours of cleaning things ( paint cans, stuff like that) after school for about a month.

So in short i take an 8 person beating, and get to get the same punishment as the people who did the beating. I am going to be honest, 8 years later i am still kinda pissed.

 

[Alt+F4]

So in short i take an 8 person beating, and get to get the same punishment as the people who did the beating. I am going to be honest, 8 years later i am still kinda pissed.

Sorry to hear that happened to you, but at least your mother didn't parade you in front of the local television station so they could do a piece on how wonderful you are.

 

[sadhatter]

Sorry to hear that happened to you, but at least your mother didn't parade you in front of the local television station so they could do a piece on how wonderful you are.

..... i am assuming that is what the mother did in this case?

I mean i would call wanting her 15 minutes on that one, but maybe if my mom did, and other peoples mom's did, etc etc. This zero tolerance crap would get reviewed.

Strangely enough i do not remember a zero tolerance policy on drugs in my high school. In fact weed was kind of turned the other cheek to. ( which even as a current smoker i don't really agree with , kids shouldn't be smoking up the same way they shouldn't be drinking booze or smoking cigarettes)

 

[Alt+F4]

..... i am assuming that is what the mother did in this case?

I mean i would call wanting her 15 minutes on that one, but maybe if my mom did, and other peoples mom's did, etc etc. This zero tolerance crap would get reviewed.

Strangely enough i do not remember a zero tolerance policy on drugs in my high school. In fact weed was kind of turned the other cheek to. ( which even as a current smoker i don't really agree with , kids shouldn't be smoking up the same way they shouldn't be drinking booze or smoking cigarettes)

Yes, the mom did. I agree that if the parents get together they could demand changes to the zero tolerance policy. Getting this girl on the news isn't going to change the policy (the non-involved public's attention span is short) but it's certainly not going to make her very popular back at middle school.

 

[sadhatter]

Yes, the mom did. I agree that if the parents get together they could demand changes to the zero tolerance policy. Getting this girl on the news isn't going to change the policy (the non-involved public's attention span is short) but it's certainly not going to make her very popular back at middle school.

I would chalk that up to people's thinking 5 minutes on tv is worth any real effort to take care of a problem. It is a common trait, in my protesting days there would always be one guy who say " why don't we just call channel 6?".

Moreso on the issue at hand though, how hard is it to make an informed decision? I mean is there anyone who could honestly say " if a person touches a drug they should be punished regardless of their intent to take said drug.".

 

[TjW]

Zero Tolerance mentality strong at work again.

rules is rules!!1

I've always been a bit confused by Zero Tolerance. It seems to me to be saying: "This subject is so important, we absolutely, positively cannot afford thinking about it ."

 

[sadhatter]

I've always been a bit confused by Zero Tolerance. It seems to me to be saying: "This subject is so important, we absolutely, positively cannot afford thinking about it ."

It reminds me of a comment that someone had made about pizza on a separate thread, and i feel it applies to a lot of different situations.

The trend lately is not to try and hire the best person for the job, but make the job so black and white, that you get a consistent product ( in this case actions taken when drugs are involved) no matter who is doing it.

 

[gumboot]

How can you be charged with the criminal possession of a prohibited article if, when you assumed physical control over it, you could not reasonably know that it was a prohibited article? How could you possess the animus necessary for criminal liability?

Surely this result was not the intention of the legislature when they prohibited posession of the article in question? Or is the intention of the legislature of no relevance in America?

Although this violation wasn't a "law", in most jurisdictions ignorance of the law is not a defense. It is regarded as a legal obligation upon all citizens to know all laws, therefore knowledge of the illegality of their actions is presumed a priori.

 

[TsarBomba]

Although this violation wasn't a "law", in most jurisdictions ignorance of the law is not a defense. It is regarded as a legal obligation upon all citizens to know all laws, therefore knowledge of the illegality of their actions is presumed a priori.

Yes, and no. Both the federal controlled substances act and the Uniform Controlled Substances act (enacted by most U.S. states) require a person to know that they are in possession of contraband in order to commit the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Thus, you either have to know that you are in possession of a particular drug (i.e. "Yes officer, this is cocaine that I have in my pocket.") or that you are in possession of some kind of illegal drug (i.e. "Yeah, I bought that illegal white powder over there from that guy, but I don't know exactly what it is.") In this case, under the law, the girl would probably have been in violation of the controlled substances act for the split second that she realized what she had in her hand before she gave it back. That being said, no self-respecting police officer would cite her for a crime, and no prosecutor who knew anything about the law would take the case.

It seems like the school official here is just acting as a robot, with some kind of programmed algorithm that says "Student touches drugs means student gets suspended, no questions, no exceptions." I guess this is what happens when petty bureaucrats rule the world.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Although this violation wasn't a "law", in most jurisdictions ignorance of the law is not a defense. It is regarded as a legal obligation upon all citizens to know all laws, therefore knowledge of the illegality of their actions is presumed a priori.

What TsarBomba said.

The issue roast potatoes brought up isn't ignorance of the law itself, it's whether she reasonably could have known that what was handed to her was an illegal substance. Clearly she was aware that certain drugs and medications are banned.