Kids Given More Rights Than Adults

Washington Supreme Court Sucks!

Published on December 13, 2004 By JillUser In Current Events

You may have heard about the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling on banning parental telephone eavesdropping. If not, you should look into it and be afraid. What the hell are they thinking?!

A 17yr old kid assaults an old woman and steals her purse. Some parents have an idea of who did it so they are on the look out. A mom listens in on a conversation between this kid and her 14yr old daughter on her phone in her house which she pays for. The kid tells the daughter what he did and where he discarded the purse. The mom tells the authorities and they apprehend the kid. The kid gets a lawyer to convince the court to discard the case because the information was obtained through the mom listening to a private conversation. What the hell?!!

If the girl were in her own home talking on her own phone that she pays for, fine. Even then, she's a minor! It is her mother's responsibility to look out for her well being in any way she can. If this woman overheard the kid in question saying that he was going to suicide bomb the Washington Supreme Court, do you really think they would care that the information was gathered by a parent eavesdropping? I highly doubt it!!

We have seen the horrible things that can happen when teens aren't being watched closely enough (Columbine for instance). Why the hell would any court tie parents hands tighter? I just don't get it! I don't give a flying flop what courts say, my kids don't have the same rights as I do if they are living in my house without all of the responsibilities that warrant the rights. If they are going to use the phone lines I pay for, I have the right to listen in. If they use the computer, I have the right to monitor what they are doing. What is the difference? I am sure courts wouldn't want to discourage parents from monitoring what their teens are doing in chat rooms. How many sickos have tried to hook up with minors via the internet?

I am just totally outraged!

Comments (Page 2)

ParaTed2k

on Dec 14, 2004

What the judge seemed to be ignoring was it wasn't the daughter's phone to begin with. Apparently now, if I pay for the line, it belongs to anyone who happens to be using it.

On the one side, parents are told that we should be held responsible for our kids' actions, we should know where they are and what they are doing 100% of the time. At the same time, we have no right to pry into their lives.

How about a little logic here.

KarmaGirl

on Dec 14, 2004

Actually, according the courts finding the mother was in violation of the state's "Privacy Act." Washington is one of 11 states that require "all party" consent when "listening" to a conversation.

The law is that consent must be given from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded. It was intended to prevent people from recording phone conversations (especially business transactions). Saying that monitoring what minors say can still be considered an interpretation. I remember a day when minors were just that. It was the "legal" age when you started to have rights of a citizen. Now the kids and criminals have more rights than the adults and victims. When did that happen? And people wonder why the world is so very messed up.

I like these two bits of the article put together:
"My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time." ...... "I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. He noted that parents can find other ways to control their teenagers: "They can restrict the use of the telephone, for example."

Yeah, because restricting their telephone use is going to set them straight! Where do these people come from?

Solitair

on Dec 14, 2004

If the original law had been written clearer then this issue would not have arisen. It is not a judges job to re-write the law and if the defense lawyer found loopholes in the law which allowed the minor to be released then it's not the judges fault.

Theis case is the exact opposite of an activist judge. The judge clearly allowed the law the letter of the law to be applied. Sadly that letter of the law does not seem to be what the writers had in mind. I suggest the authorities redraft that law fairly quickly and people stop harping on about judges doing their job.

What I don't understand is why the case should be dropped because of that single issue. I accept taht the testiomony of the money about what was said on the phone could be ruled inadmissable, but what about any other information the police collected. Surely this should have been used to make the case itself? This is what I see as a problem with US justice. One problem anywhere in the case and the whole thing gets thrown out.

Paul.

Winterblade

on Dec 14, 2004

IANAL. Wire tapping laws. You have the right to record your side of the conversation on your phone, but not the other side without their permission. Sounds to me like the judge did the right thing for the greater good. If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

I knew someone that was going through a divorce and her husband tapped their phone lines to find out what his wife was saying. Her husband must have known something, as he only tapped the outgoing. Had he tapped/recorded both outgoing and incoming he'd be in serious trouble.

Dr Guy

on Dec 14, 2004

If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

Minors dont have rights per se. SO they cannot have less rights. The get their rights when they become of legal age.

JillUser

on Dec 14, 2004

Yeah, because restricting their telephone use is going to set them straight! Where do these people come from?

Yeah, we could keep our teens from using the phone then they will just run away from home and we will have a much easier time keeping them in check. That will work out well. I can't imagine these judges have dealt with kids of their own.

JillUser

on Dec 14, 2004

Sounds to me like the judge did the right thing for the greater good. If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

A) Noone tapped anything, the mom merely listened in

Minors do have less rights. They can't sign a legal contract of any kind without parental consult. Minors are not the same as adults...period.

shadesofgrey

on Dec 14, 2004

We know the judges aren't conservative because of their ruling. It's as clear as that.

Really? So because they followed the law as it was written in the State of Washington, they are liberals? That's a bit rich, don't you think?

Sounds like there is a whole lot of interpretation going on here. I can't fathom any law intending to keep parents from listening to what their children say in their own home. If minors require parental consent for any legal action, how could they give "consent" for listening to their conversation? I think the court had their heads way up their asses on this one.

No, there's no interpretration. The law has been revised twice, and neither time did the legislature decide to include a provision excluding minors from the guarantees of the law (and it was considered). Legislative intent was pretty clear. Like I said before, it's not the courts you should be annoyed with, it's the legislature.

Dr Guy

on Dec 14, 2004

I have to agree with you in this case. I have friends and relatives in that state, and they are so sick of their clowns representing them, they are ready to toss them all out and start over, maybe even with worse clowns.

JillUser

on Dec 14, 2004

Like I said before, it's not the courts you should be annoyed with, it's the legislature.

How about this, I think their whole legal system has their heads up their asses in this case and I find it very alarming.

shadesofgrey

on Dec 14, 2004

How about this, I think their whole legal system has their heads up their asses in this case and I find it very alarming.

that sounds perfect, Jill

Rightwinger

on Dec 14, 2004

A mom listens in on a conversation between this kid and her 14yr old daughter on her phone in her house which she pays for.

I said the exact same thing to my wife when we heard about it.

Minors do have less rights. They can't sign a legal contract of any kind without parental consult. Minors are not the same as adults...period.

This may turn some heads, but I've often thought that kids shouldn't even have a legal right to complete privacy until they're old enough to work and pay taxes (15 or 16), or even until they reach the age of 18, when they can vote (though that wouldn't include the right to bathe and dress in private, of course they would have the right to that).

Of course, when I was a kid, I would have disagreed with that statement.

messybuu

on Dec 14, 2004

Are there laws that say that you can't force a person to stay in a single room or a single place, even if only for ten minutes? Or a law that says you can't spank a person without their consent, or take their belongings away without their consent? I hope they start applying that to parents and lock them up.

Dr Guy

on Dec 14, 2004

Has some one been punished lately?

foreverserenity

on Dec 14, 2004

It's definately a catch 22 because if a parent can't be a parent, then what's the point of bieng a parent? What's the point of children being children who learn from and look up to their parents for guidance and as examples of how they should live their lives? What's the point of the law telling you as a parent you are responsible for what your child does and holds you responsible, when the child breaks the law, then turns around and "bites you in the ass" when you do your job and parent. Telling parents that the judges only interprets the law is not the answer here, every parents know that, it's what rights do parents have when the law can't even back them up when they do the right thing. Every parent have a right to be angry at this outcome.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!