Messages By: northwestgal

In today's segment (about students who posted a fake MySpace.com listing with lewd material of their vice principal, in revenge for a disciplinary action sought against those students) Dr. Phil stated that if the students are found guilty, it will be a felony conviction, and the criminal record will follow the students to adulthood even when they're 30, 40 or even 50.  Well, maybe the students should have thought about that consequence before committing the act.  Because like Dr. Phil pointed out himself, the students posted facts not opinions--which, by the way, makes it libel as well as.  But also, I wonder if Dr. Phil was correct about his statement that these students' felony convictions will follow them into adulthood.  Somone who deals with California state juvenile crimes will have to confirm or refute that statement.  Because, although I don't deal with California's laws regarding criminal records, I do however deal with juvenile offenders in the state of Washington.  And Dr. Phil's statement about juvenile records remaining intact throughout adulthood does not necessarily hold true in Washington state.  In Washington state, a juvenile criminal record (whether it contains misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, or felonies) can easily be sealed and/or destroyed once three criteria are met --  1) the juvenile is at least 18 years of age, 2) two years has passed since completing whatever disposition is decided for the crime he or she committed,  and 3) the juvenile has no further criminal convictions.  Even if the juvenile does re-offend, he/she has a second opportunity to petition the courts to exponge the juvenile record, but it cannot be done until the juvenile turns 23 years of age.  But if there is a third conviction, the juvenile record does then remain intact and follows that person into and throughout adulthood.  So, as long as these students do not currently have a juvenile record, they stand a good chance of having their juvenile conviction record exponged from their criminal records (or at least sealed) if they are found guilty of the pending felony charge, as long as they do not re-offend.  This is, of course, assuming that California juvenile justice is handled similarly to Washington state's juvenile justice practices.

I think those things matter immensely. shoplifting is punishable under law too, and shoplifting hurts store owners. that doesn't mean you arrest 6-year-olds for taking candy. all the factors have to be considered, not just 'was it an illegal action?

You're comparing a toddler action with a teen-age prank gone awry.  But the law already covers such points with the simple fact of age of reasoning codes.  Such issues vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but 7 years of age is standard in most jurisdictions for age of reasoning which the law defines as being capable of understanding the consequences of one's own actions.  A 6 year old is far less capable of understanding the concept of rehabilitation for petty larceny than a high school student can understand the concept of a libelous action.  Most schools have technology courses (some even require it) that allow students regular access to computers in order to complete school assignments with word processing and database programs, even conducting research on the internet for essays and reports.  Before students can access the school-issued computers, they are required to understand the district's policies that forbid access to porn sites from school-issued computers. The students involved in this prank were completely aware that their actions were unlawful!  They aren't 6 year-olds, after all.

Dr. Phil hit the nail on the head when he made the wife admit that she had sent the anullment papers to her first husband not as a real desire to end that marriage but rather to communicate to him that she was dissatisfied with the way he was treating her and how that was impacting their marriage.  That's rather immature and blatanly contrary to her statement that he's her true love.  One does not treat a "true love" so callously, just to communicate displeasure.  It just goes to show what a game player she is, but she forgot one thing--MARRIAGE IS NOT A GAME. So, she played her game, it backfired on her, and that marriage is now anulled.  She asked for it, she got it, now she should accept the consequences of her decisions.  But to make matters worse, she jumped into a second marriage before she was ready.  So, again she got what she wanted and it's still not good enough to make her happy.  Will anything please her?  I doubt it!  And for her to suggest that she should now be free to pursue a relationship with her first husband is ludicrous.  She's a married woman, and that means she vows to foresake all others, including her first husband (and yes, even if he has finally seen the light of reality and he's real sorry for the way he behaved but he he's all better now and wants to have her back again in his life).  It doesn't exactly work that way, kids!  She and her first husband need to do a LOT of growing up.  Their wishy-washy attitude is pretty ridiculous.  It's like a man going to the physician for a circumcision, and then after the procedure is over he says "hey, wait a minute, I changed my mind and I want it all back again!"  Frankly, I think the second husband is a real cutie, and I hope he walks out on her and finds a more mature woman who takes marriage seriously and is going to treat him decently and not play games with him.  He deserves it! 

Whether Chad made a mistake or not is the only issue here.  She (not Chad) made a decision to have that marriage anulled. She (not Chad) chose to get married to someone else.  She keeps making important decisions in her life, then she does not stand behind them.  She's immature and should not be making such important decisions if she's not mature enough to stand behind them and continue forward without jumping back and forth between the shoulda coulda wouldas of life. And your statement that she's married now and should work things out with her husband in the end...I don't know if I agree with that 100%  I mean, I'm definitely in favor of marriage and don't believe a divorce should be pursued unless all other avenues have been pursued to no avail.  But just think if this were YOUR marriage.  How fulfilled could you possibly be in your marriage if your partner made it crystal clear that they were still in love with their first spouse and they wanted to continue pursuing a relationship with that ex-spouse, and the ex-spouse was calling you and hanging around and taking you out for drinks and trying to ruin your marriage just so the two of you could take another crack at the game of marriage--which you both failed the first time around.  It wouldn't be a very fulfilling marraige.  But I don't think her husband deserves to be punished with an unfulfilling marriage just because she cannot make up HER mind.  She's playing games with both her first and second husband.  And her second husband is the innocent one here, and he definitely should not be the one who's made to suffer through a long, loveless marriage, knowing his wife is secretly (or with her, apparently opening) longing for her first husband.  She needs to do a lot of growing up before deciding what she wants to do.  To make a decision now would only be disastrous because as things stand, she lacks the maturity to make a wise decision about marriage.  Should she make a decision now, it will only backfire on her sometime down the road.  And your statement that this is about doing the right thing...is it necessarily the right thing to stay in a marriage when you're in love with someone else, and you've made that clear to your spouse?

I agree that Orlena is in a situation that she doesn't need to be in.  But it started waaaay before Orlena showed that she lacked the maturity to ask Chad to go away now that she is married to someone else.  Rather, it started years before that, when Orlena first chose to send Chad anullment papers not in sincere desire to end their marriage but as a wake-up call about how badly their marriage was turning since his emotional shut-down after his return from Iraq.  Hello!  Anullment proceedings are very serious and final steps--annulment is not to be callously regarded as a marital communication device! And the fact that Orlena viewed anullment as an adquate way to communicate to her first husband Chad that their marriage was falling apart is further evidence of her complete lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage, not to mention a complete lack of respect for Chad's feelings.   And the fact that she just cannot see that she is breaking her current husband's (Brett) heart is all a part of her immaturity.  And that all begins way before the decision that she doesn't have the maturity to tell Chad to back off now that she is married to another man.  I began when she so attempted to end her first marriage in such a callous way.  She needs to do some deep soul searching and growing up before she makes any more serious decisions.  As it stands, she lacks the mature to be making important, serious decisions.

Well, I'll probably get slammed to other end of the world, but if I had friends who were in a similar situation, this is what I'd say to them.....

Chad -- She's married, dude.  That means she isn't yours to do as you please. If you love your ex-wife as much as you claim, then respect her enough to quit pounding that wedge deeper into her current marriage.  Whether their marriage endures or fails, it ought to be on THEIR terms--not YOURS.

Brett -- I feel for ya, guy.  But remember, just because you didn't necessarily create the chaos that exists in your marriage doesn't mean you have to sit back and let her make all the decisions about the fate of your marriage. You, too, have the right to make decisions about your life and your marriage.  It's OK to stand up for yourself and start making your own decisions about what you want, even if she seems to be unable to make up her mind about what she wants.

Orlena -- Girl, you have serious problems!  Until you are mature enough to handle the sanctity of marriage and to respect others over yourself, then please do all the men in your life a huge favor and don't drag anyone else into your silly games.  Get some help before inviting so much chaos into other people's lives.  It's just not cool!

Hmmmm.  I had to think about this one for a while.  And I'm not all that sure I completely understand what you're suggesting.

So, what exac tly are your suggesting that these these psychic vibrations could be used for---Predictions?  If yes, then predicutions of what exactly--predictions of those who are likelty to resort to violent behavior, or more like predictions of clinical depression or anxiety?  Don't we already have resources available to use to diagnose depression and anxiety.  So what would be the reason for consulting with psychics then?  Because like Dr. Phil pointed out on his show, LOTS of people, even high school students, get dumped every day of the year and they don't go around lashing out at society and killing others simply because they were depressed or anxious about being dumped.  So how is it that you envision psychics would contribute?

I think it would be a waste to invest a good portion of law enforcement resources and depleting hard-to-get funding on machines that measure cerebral vibrations if those vibrations can't accurately and validly predict something valuable such as who is most likely to lash out and use violence to hurt of kill others.

I am all for using whatever resources we have at our disposal to try to predict who is most likely to violently lash out at society.  But I don't know if I would support the use of psychic abilities to measure brain vibrations if it can't accurately tell us anything valuable about those vibrations.  We (society as a whole) already have current resources available to us to pinpoint those who are depressed, anxious, sick, mentally unbalanced, etc.  But it doesn't exactly mean anyone pinpointed is necessarily going to kill others simply because they're depressed or anxious.  So what could psychics possibly add that current resources don't already do (albeit not perfectly).