A victory for decorum.

[vitanola]

See this page....

Well am I ever behind the times!

I really thought that 15 Mars was extreme. Yikes!

Thanks for linking to that article. I suppose that I should spend more time reading the news and less reading World's Work and McClures

 

[sheeplady]

How can they determine if someone is wearing something for a religious reason or a practical reason?

Given the history of the law, I would assume they make certain assumptions based upon "how you look." Therefore, you might get away with it, but other ladies who look differently might not.

While I've known a lot of women who wear an hijab, most I personally know didn't start wearing it until college age or sometimes even later- sometimes even marriage was what sparked their decision. Yes, some started at puberty, but not everyone. That's not even considering that women have many different ways they wear the hijab- some are pretty conservative and some you can see half her head, and it's technically the same head covering.

I can't imagine that they are a huge distraction in schools or whatever lame excuse they're using. And if by the time you're of college age, if you're that distracted by a veil, you probably don't belong in college. Or driving. Or walking the street. You're a general danger for society if a veil makes you that distracted.


ETA: I just read that article, and the people who violate it face a fine and/or citizenship education classes. Because wearing a religious object obviously indicates you fail at being a citizen and need to be "re-educated."

 

[Chas]

What slippery slope? I don't see one.

 

[Atticus Finch]

The OP applauded the conduct of an Illinois (I think) judge who insisted that males coming before the court wear their pants at waist level. Truthfully, I am surprised that any judge would do otherwise. All of our judges in both of our court divisions require proper dress in court. Males must wear their pants up and their shirt tails tucked in…and they can’t wear “wife beater” shirts unless they are worn as undershirts. Females must come to court decently dressed without excessive display of flesh. This part of the courtroom dress code has proved difficult for some; many of our perennial female defendants seem to have a large amount of flesh.

Bailiffs screen people for proper dress at the courtroom doors. They have the authority to deny entrance to those who are not dressed for court. At calendar call, these bailiffs answer for any defendant that they’ve sent away to re-dress. After the lunch break, those defendants are recalled. If they haven’t returned to court properly dressed, an order for their arrest is issued.

Heck, I’ve even had judges (who are actually my friends, outside of court) grump at me because I briefly walked behind the Bar while not wearing my suit jacket.

AF

 

[Undertow]

The OP applauded the conduct of an Illinois (I think) judge who insisted that males coming before the court wear their pants at waist level. Truthfully, I am surprised that any judge would do otherwise. All of our judges in both of our court divisions require proper dress in court. Males must wear their pants up and their shirt tails tucked in…and they can’t wear “wife beater” shirts unless they are worn as undershirts. Females must come to court decently dressed without excessive display of flesh. This part of the courtroom dress code has proved difficult for some; many of our perennial female defendants seem to have a large amount of flesh.

Bailiffs screen people for proper dress at the courtroom doors. They have the authority to deny entrance to those who are not dressed for court. At calendar call, these bailiffs answer for any defendant that they’ve sent away to re-dress. After the lunch break, those defendants are recalled. If they haven’t returned to court properly dressed, an order for their arrest is issued.

Heck, I’ve even had judges (who are actually my friends, outside of court) grump at me because I briefly walked behind the Bar while not wearing my suit jacket.

AF

This sounds pretty reasonable. If clothing is distracting, or otherwise missing, it's inappropriate. In a world made of humans, certain subjective decisions will land on a human's shoulders, and I think it's safe to say a bailiff and judge can be trusted with said decisions.

Besides, as long as one spends as little time possible in a courtroom (save for those employed thusly, of course) then it shouldn't be any real inconvenience. [huh]

 

[ButteMT61]

Well, this should prove entertaining...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=158743323

 

[sheeplady]

Well, this should prove entertaining...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=158743323

That's quite a bit different- he's a member of an all voluntary military. If he disagreed with being forced to shave, he shouldn't have joined. There are plenty of reglions that ban women from having short hair- some don't even allow hair to be cut. These women don't join the military and whine about their hair being cut. They cut their hair or don't join.

And as far as his excuse of not wanting to die without a beard, it's not like they are going to execute him the minute the trial is over and hair grows fast. He's making excuses.

 

[ButteMT61]

That's quite a bit different- he's a member of an all voluntary military. If he disagreed with being forced to shave, he shouldn't have joined. There are plenty of reglions that ban women from having short hair- some don't even allow hair to be cut. These women don't join the military and whine about their hair being cut. They cut their hair or don't join.And as far as his excuse of not wanting to die without a beard, it's not like they are going to execute him the minute the trial is over and hair grows fast. He's making excuses.

I'm aware, just waiting to see how long it takes to be classified as "racist" and "Xenophobic", etc. This sort of thing has already been upheld previously, but we live in PC times. And, FWIW, I could care less what he wants or how he wants to die. Just be done with it...

 

[MikeBravo]

It's different here, and in UK and New Zealand as well presumably.

Most defendants seem to wear suits and barristers** and judges wear robes and wigs

** a barrister is an attorney/lawyer who appears in court

 

[lolly_loisides]

It's different here, and in UK and New Zealand as well presumably.

Most defendants seem to wear suits and barristers** and judges wear robes and wigs

** a barrister is an attorney/lawyer who appears in court

They do tend to wear suits here, don't they? Years ago when I worked for a firm of lawyers (mostly industrial law, but they also did criminal cases) we always told clients to go to Gowings or Lowes and buy a cheap suit. I guess "the defendants" gave a lot of business to low end menswear shops over the years.

 

[kiwilrdg]

Most people wear at least a button-down shirt and tie. Of course there are always the few that Baliff/Deputies have to tell to pull their pants up, take their hats off, or not to chew gum. I have seen a time when a fellow continued putting his hat back on and the judge told him that if he put it back on that he would be held for contempt of court.

I have had a few guys that when they were bonded out were out of work so I suggested the Goodwill Service center for job leads. Goodwill loaned or gave them suits for interviews and court dates.

 

[Atticus Finch]

And then there’s the other side of the court decorum coin.

We have a Superior Court Judge who rotates here from another district who is completely over the top when it comes to courtroom decorum. He’s a great guy and a very smart judge. And he dresses well. He wears very nice Panamas in the summer and Borsalinos in the winter. And he always wears very nicely tailored suits. But to say that he is eccentric is an understatement.

People must be properly dressed when they come before him. If not, he sends them away…but only after offering the poor fashion offenders a few embarrassing minutes of advice as to how to best dress for life's various occasions.

His criminal probationary judgments prohibit defendants from cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex unless they are married or are related by blood at less than the third degree.

He requires a bailiff to meet him in the courthouse parking lot at 9:00 AM sharp…to carry his briefcase to the judge’s chambers. At 5:00, a bailiff has to carry the brief case back to the judges car.

Our courthouse was built in 1883. It has a bell tower that has not been used since, probably, 1918. When the judge first started holding court here, he wanted the head bailiff to climb into the tower and ring the courthouse bell for ten minutes each morning at 9:30…to let the town know that court was in session. Like New Bern cared. Thankfully, the bell-ringing edict was quashed when the High Sheriff firmly explained to the judge that the bell tower was structurally unsafe and that he would not send a 250 lb bailiff up there to ring a bell that hadn’t been rung since the day WWI ended.

AF

 

[MissMittens]

Oh man, that's potentially racist, depending on who the defendant was. But I have seen this before; and I applaud it 100%

I disagree......cultuarlism at best, but I don't think it could be described as racism. Why should any racial group be able to wear improper clothing to court?

 

[Undertow]

And then there’s the other side of the court decorum coin.

We have a Superior Court Judge who rotates here from another district who is completely over the top when it comes to courtroom decorum. He’s a great guy and a very smart judge. And he dresses well. He wears very nice Panamas in the summer and Borsalinos in the winter. And he always wears very nicely tailored suits. But to say that he is eccentric is an understatement.

People must be properly dressed when they come before him. If not, he sends them away…but only after offering the poor fashion offenders a few embarrassing minutes of advice as to how to best dress for life's various occasions.

His criminal probationary judgments prohibit defendants from cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex unless they are married or are related by blood at less than the third degree.

He requires a bailiff to meet him in the courthouse parking lot at 9:00 AM sharp…to carry his briefcase to the judge’s chambers. At 5:00, a bailiff has to carry the brief case back to the judges car.

Our courthouse was built in 1883. It has a bell tower that has not been used since, probably, 1918. When the judge first started holding court here, he wanted the head bailiff to climb into the tower and ring the courthouse bell for ten minutes each morning at 9:30…to let the town know that court was in session. Like New Bern cared. Thankfully, the bell-ringing edict was quashed when the High Sheriff firmly explained to the judge that the bell tower was structurally unsafe and that he would not send a 250 lb bailiff up there to ring a bell that hadn’t been rung since the day WWI ended.

AF

Wow...now that's a little much.

 

[ButteMT61]

I disagree......cultuarlism at best, but I don't think it could be described as racism. Why should any racial group be able to wear improper clothing to court?

I hope you understand that was not MY opinion on it - it's more of a prediction on my part. Just wait. It will happen. I'll bet you a cold beer of your choice!

 

[scottyrocks]

I don't care who or what you are. Pull up your pants and stand up straight!

 

[scottyrocks]

I did jury duty a year or so ago. I wore a jacket, waistcoat, and tie, slacks, and shoes. And of course, a fedora. A couple of the older male jurors wore collared shirts, but most people shuffling through the jury system looked like slobs.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

I did jury duty a year or so ago. I wore a jacket, waistcoat, and tie, slacks, and shoes. And of course, a fedora. A couple of the older male jurors wore collared shirts, but most people shuffling through the jury system looked like slobs.

One nice thing about being a LEO. I'll never have to do jury duty for the rest of my life lol. Not that I really mind doing it per se, but the second the defense knows you're in law enforcement, you're out.