Kindergarten teacher jailed for wearing pants to court in 1938


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Things aren’t too terribly much different today.

Wearing a suit and tie gets you much better treatment and potentially better sentencing than wearing even simple, nice casual clothes, because judges tend to be egotistical and want to “be treated with respect”. The bias, of course, is toward the illusory American monoculture of “well” dressed, “well” spoken, “well” bred, and “well” behaved people - meaning if you’re a poor, foreign, uneducated, or generally not “white” enough, you’re out of luck.


#3

Where is Judge Arthur S. Guerin buried? I need to pee.


#4

Justice is served.


#5

1938…things were a bit different than today.


#6

Sorry dollface, appeal denied – covering up gams like those is a crime.


#7

Imagine their punishment for not wearing pants!
/rimshot


#8

I wonder what the judge was wearing under his robe?


#9

regarding the heavily tattooed and pierced contemporary story:

The member of staff suggested she might be able to use plasters and bandages to cover up her tattoos.

“But I’d look ridiculous,” Tumilty countered.

Given that it is subjective what looks sensible or ridiculous, Tumilty seems to have little sense of irony for a brit.


#10

Bah to clothes! Just go naked! :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.