Vikings Message Board.Com

On the general theme of Outrageous Injustice look at Elisa Kelly.
Link to Wash Post article

Crime: Adult providing alcohol to minors (misdemeanor).
Sentence: Originally 8 years, reduced on appeal to 27 months

The couple pleaded guilty in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and Camblos recommended a 90-day sentence at the time. But the judge, angry about the recent death of one of Ryan's classmates at Albemarle High School in an alcohol-related crash, sentenced them to eight years.

The couple appealed to Circuit Court, which reduced the sentence to 27 months. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld that decision in January, rejecting defense claims of an illegal search of the couple's property. The defense tried to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of the couple's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"All their appeals are done now, and it's time they start serving their sentences," Camblos said.

PS ... no one was hurt or injured at the party where the underage minors were drinking.

I assume you are criticizing the sentence rather than condoning the crime here. My reason for assuming is because even though no one was physically hurt, supplying alcohol to minors is easily one of the most irresponsible and ignorant things a person can do to endanger the lives of teens.

I have heard the argument "Oh, but I never let anyone leave and drive home." But a couple years ago, locally, a kid walked away from a party
unnoticed and was killed by a train because he passed out on the tracks near the house party. It's just stupid. Parents have the responsibility to make good decisions for their children.

While I believe the judge was trying to "send a message", and a worthy message at that considering the recent death of a classmate from the very same HS (how stupid does a parent have to be to disregard that!), I don't think a jail sentence would do any good. A HUGE fine and community service would be more appropriate and really affect these folks in a more constructive way than jail time.

BGM

vikingman wrote:This isn't over with just yet. The Attorney General for the state of Georgia is going to appeal which will keep the kid in jail until a ruling is made on that appeal.

My question is why appeal if the loopholes have been closed by the state legislature? Seems punitive to me.

BGM

That's just part of the game in the justice system. Happens all the time.

BGM wrote:I assume you are criticizing the sentence rather than condoning the crime here.

Yes.

My reason for assuming is because even though no one was physically hurt, supplying alcohol to minors is easily one of the most irresponsible and ignorant things a person can do to endanger the lives of teens.I have heard the argument "Oh, but I never let anyone leave and drive home." But a couple years ago, locally, a kid walked away from a party unnoticed and was killed by a train because he passed out on the tracks near the house party. It's just stupid. Parents have the responsibility to make good decisions for their children.

The counter argument: kids graduating from HS are probably going to drink anyway so why not let them do it in a controlled and supervised environment? In this instance the parents collected everyone's car keys, etc. If they are out doing it on their own they are almost certainly going to be at much higher risk than if it's done at someone's house where no one is allowed to drive under the influence.

As for your example of a minor walking away from a party and passing out on railroad tracks and getting run over ... that sucks. Statistically that has to be one very odd occurrence. Sounds more like a suicide to me. Statistically minors are much more at risk from just driving a vehicle (sober or otherwise) than almost anything else they do but does that mean we should prohibit them from driving altogether just to protect them? At some level there's always going to be some risk in life.

While I believe the judge was trying to "send a message", and a worthy message at that considering the recent death of a classmate from the very same HS

This is where we REALLY disagree. The judge who originally gave them an 8 year sentence should be sentenced himself by being taken off the bench for judicial activism that is beyond the pale. Furthermore the judicial system should not be used to "send messages." Justice should be applied evenly. 8 years for a misdemeanor ... sounds like something that might happen in Afghanistan rather than the US.

Mr. X wrote: Yes.
The counter argument: kids graduating from HS are probably going to drink anyway so why not let them do it in a controlled and supervised environment? In this instance the parents collected everyone's car keys, etc. If they are out doing it on their own they are almost certainly going to be at much higher risk than if it's done at someone's house where no one is allowed to drive under the influence.

As for your example of a minor walking away from a party and passing out on railroad tracks and getting run over ... that sucks. Statistically that has to be one very odd occurrence. Sounds more like a suicide to me. Statistically minors are much more at risk from just driving a vehicle (sober or otherwise) than almost anything else they do but does that mean we should prohibit them from driving altogether just to protect them? At some level there's always going to be some risk in life.
This is where we REALLY disagree. The judge who originally gave them an 8 year sentence should be sentenced himself by being taken off the bench for judicial activism that is beyond the pale. Furthermore the judicial system should not be used to "send messages." Justice should be applied evenly. 8 years for a misdemeanor ... sounds like something that might happen in Afghanistan rather than the US.

I have to agree with Mr. X on this one.

Kids in high school are going to drink. In my opinion, as a parent, it's a better idea to drop the PC "You shouldn't drink at all!" attitude and try to encourage them to drink responsibly if they're going to do it. They'll probably do it behind your back regardless.

Punishing someone for that is incredibly stupid.

Kids in high school are going to drink. In my opinion, as a parent, it's a better idea to drop the PC "You shouldn't drink at all!" attitude and try to encourage them to drink responsibly if they're going to do it. They'll probably do it behind your back regardless.

Punishing someone for that is incredibly stupid.

Too me the more they make this a big deal the more kids
are going to want to do it. I am not saying open the liquor
store and give them the cars keys. I offer my kids a beer
or a drink sometimes and they don't like it or want it.
I don't get drunk if front of my kids either. I also tell
them how stupid it is to drink and drive.

Mr. X wrote:

I did not make my self clear with this... I think the sentence was ridiculously out of line. I just believe in "the message" not "the means of delivery".

BGM

Mr. X wrote: The counter argument: kids graduating from HS are probably going to drink anyway so why not let them do it in a controlled and supervised environment? In this instance the parents collected everyone's car keys, etc. If they are out doing it on their own they are almost certainly going to be at much higher risk than if it's done at someone's house where no one is allowed to drive under the influence.

I do wish we did not have such a puritanical attitude about drink and sex here in the US. Unfortunately, that is where we are at right now. I don't know if drunk driving or alcoholism is less or more common in Western European countries where drinking ages are more lax, but I can't help but believe that being more open about it takes away the "rebellious" aspect.

If you decide to supply alcohol to YOUR kid, that's one thing. But you have no right to supply alcohol at a party to other folks' kids. If they don't want to allow their kids to imbibe, they should not be undermined by another kids' parents. I know parents can't control their kids 24/7, but there is a HUGE problem for me in parents aiding and abetting their kids in breaking the law (which is what they are technically doing).

Frankly, kids are getting alcohol when they should not be able to get it. Once again, we have laws that need to be enforced better.

I am no puritan and not averse to drinking for fun and to be social. I enjoy a beer, a glass of wine or some liquor once in a while. I drank to excess once in HS and then not again until college (when I did it several times). But then, whenever I drank I had sense enough never to drive and I never "blacked out" even though I did once lose my cookies. I hate losing control of myself, though. Some people dig that feeling.

BGM

Cliff wrote:
I have to agree with Mr. X on this one.

Kids in high school are going to drink. In my opinion, as a parent, it's a better idea to drop the PC "You shouldn't drink at all!" attitude and try to encourage them to drink responsibly if they're going to do it. They'll probably do it behind your back regardless.

I am all for instilling responsibility as well! I think encouraging responsible drinking is great. That's why I never drink and drive or drink so much that I lose control of myself. However, I still have a problem with a parent providing alcohol for someone else's kids. That's what makes this egregious, IMO

If these parents went out before the party and asked the parents of every kid that was going to be there if it was ok, then I wouldn't have as big a problem. But these two misled parents and then had the kids try and cover up for them when the police arrived. That's completely irresponsible and there is no defense for that.

The problem is that some parents try to be "friends" with their kids and their kids' friends instead of being parents.

And this was far from a "responsible" party. 16 kids and $340 of alcohol?? More than $20 of alcohol for each kid? That's enough to get them all really drunk twice over. If you want them to be responsible then limit the amount of alcohol available.

But the sentence was REALLY excessive and is obscuring the real issue.

BGM

BGM wrote: I don't know if drunk driving or alcoholism is less or more common in Western European countries where drinking ages are more lax, but I can't help but believe that being more open about it takes away the "rebellious" aspect.

Europe does have much lower drinking ages (16 in most places). However you generally cannot get a drivers license in an EU county until you are 18 and of course over there mass transit is widely available and widely used. In the US it's pretty common for 16 year olds to get provisional drivers licenses. When I see a car driven by a young teenager I become a more defensive driver. When I see a car driven by a young teenager and the car is full of other young teenagers I go out of my way to stay away.

In nearly all EU countries the drunk driving limit is at 0.05% or lower and they have much stiffer penalties and enforcement than what we have in the US. Both Sweden and Norway are at .02% and in Sweden if you get caught driving after drinking you are in for a world of hurt because they absolutely lower the hammer on you (I believe if you are at 0.10% or more you're going to do some jail time ... no exceptions ... and pay a large fine on top of that).

If you decide to supply alcohol to YOUR kid, that's one thing. But you have no right to supply alcohol at a party to other folks' kids. If they don't want to allow their kids to imbibe, they should not be undermined by another kids' parents. I know parents can't control their kids 24/7, but there is a HUGE problem for me in parents aiding and abetting their kids in breaking the law (which is what they are technically doing).

Fair point. I'm not in favor of adults giving their minor children alcohol, but in some selected situations (e.g. a HS graduation party) I think it might be the better way to go. There are good arguments on both sides of this one.

Frankly, kids are getting alcohol when they should not be able to get it. Once again, we have laws that need to be enforced better.

And once again Europe does a much better job of enforcing their drunk driving laws than we do. I don't know when Europe started to really crack down on drunk driving (quite a few years ago) but they went through a period with lots of drunk driving traffic deaths and then their respective governments essentially said enough is enough. I think most people in Europe know they going to pay a big price if they get caught driving under the influence and I do think that has had an significant deterrent effect (but I don't have any links or stats to back that up).

Something that is common in EU countries are sobriety checkpoints. Some states in the US do sobriety checkpoints but from what I know it is mostly a half-assed PR endeavor. If sobriety checkpoints are well-publicized they do have a deterrent effect. In Fargo the police have been doing sobriety checkpoints for several years now and I think they've made a difference. Some on the political fringe objected to these checkpoints as an invasion of privacy and violating the 4th Amendment but the Supreme Court knocked that down many years ago.

Pretty slippery slope, providing alcohol to minors....i wouldnt go there.

Montana didn't have an open container law until recently (if they didn't put one in place, no federal funds for highways). I'm sure you weren't allowed to drink and drive, but the passengers could take advantage of it. It was nice actually. Obviously it makes enforcement a major challenge. But when you live in a less populated state its easier to do things like that. I don't know, personally I prefer a little bit more freedom and a little bit more risk than the other way around. Of course, I fully agree that having laws against drunk driving are valid and good but in a lot of other areas it seems to me that we as a society are adopting health and safety as our highest priorities and I think there is something a little sickly about a society with these priorities.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... titialskip

He's being released today.

glg wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... titialskip

He's being released today.

Good. He was in there too long as it is, I'm glad he's finally free.