Pair get 8 years for serving beer at party

Washington Times ^ | 2-12-03 | Washington Times

[ambrose]

CHARLOTTESVILLE (AP)

[Porterville]

I honestly don't know if I can raise children here if this is how the courts behave now.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

The article says 6 months per count served consecutively. 16 counts, 8 years.

I guess they should be happy. Since they served up to 80 kids, they could've gotten 40 years.

[Porterville]

This verdict makes me sick and pissed off at the psyco legislatures who push such laws.

[WL-law]

They'll probably be out in about two and a half years.

It doesn't work that way in Virginia.

[MrLeRoy]

To me, this was the 2nd publicized underage drinking incident in as many months, and the judge came down hard on it to send a message.

Do you think 8 years was a more fitting sentence than the prosecutor's recommendation for 90 days?

[Magoo]

This thread clearly exposes the broad philisophical spectrum of thought that really exist at FR

Whether the punishment rendered is right or wrong, it certainly is a good argument for creating strict sentencing guidelines for criminal activity. Of course the lawyers lobby would never allow that to happen

I would wager if the parents knew these would be the possible consequences they never would have done what they did.

As a conservative I agree actions have consequences. As a conservative I also belief in justice. The scales are not balanced in this case.

[WL-law]

Sounds like the judge was trying to make a "tough on crime" political statement from the bench probably up for reelection soon.

No, the judge is appointed, not elected.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

United Kingdom 5-drink,16-buy

Gotta admit, 5 seems a little too early. :-)

[WL-law]

These parents apparently made one stupid mistake. They do not appear to be career criminals. Just the embarassment and the cost of dealing with the criminal conviction would be enough to deter most normal people from ever doing anything remotely like this again. They do not appear to pose any kind of continuing threat. But they get 8 years?

No way. They deserved about 30 days in jail, and maybe about 2 years worth of community service with an anti drug/alcohol component. But the lengthy consecutive sentences the judge imposed will not do either them, or society, any good.

As a member of the Virginia Bar, I wholeheartedly agree.

[TLBSHOW]

I never said they should not get a consequence for their actions, but 8 years? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[ColdSteelTalon]

"I would never let my son or daughter attend a party like this."

Well you are parsing out what I am saying. The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at parties. I personnally would never allow children to attend such parties. Period.

Only school sanctioned parties would be allowed.

Of course American culture is not like in Europe where you can walk into any bar and see teens sitting at the tables and drinking beer together.

I think I have made my point that parents today are mostly derelict in their duty.

They rely too much upon the state to raise their children.

[A2J]

"She wasn't even cold in the ground."

And she's still not as cold as the judge in this case.

A hefty fine for a first violation would have been well sufficient. But this? This is ridiculous. The judge has done more harm for separating the parents from their children than "protecting" the teenagers.

[JCEccles]

'For the children'... 'if it saves one life'... get back to the village, Hillary.

If the world were a just place only you and your children would get killed or crippled by teenage drivers who became drunk by the irresponsible actions of parents such as these scofflaws that you defend.

However, all of us are at risk--not just the defenders of such gross irresponsibility.

[TLBSHOW]

The judge has done more harm for separating the parents from their children than "protecting" the teenagers

THAT IS WHAT THE JOB OF LIBERAL JUDGES IS

[RabidBartender]

I think 8 years was too much. I think 90 days was too little. I am neither a judge nor a prosecutor, but I think the judge was doing what was legally in his purview. People may disagree with the reasoning behind it, but it was still procedurally and legally correct.

But even if he gave them 90 days, there would likely be those who claimed that was too much. Or 60. Or 30.

Anyone know what the punishment is for convienence stores selling liqour or tobacco to underage kids? Or is that a state-by-state statute?

[BigBobber]

To me, this was the 2nd publicized underage drinking incident in as many months, and the judge came down hard on it to send a message. Ooooh...that nazi.

I see. So, for example, if there is a well-publicized case about illegal firearm sales, the judge should really come down hard on all subsequent firearm sales. Sure.

This collective guilt baloney has got to go.

[JCEccles]

The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at parties

Does that include the parents that provided the alcohol to the 60 or so teenagers at this party? These kids likely didn't walk or ride horses to the party. These parents knowingly and willfully sent dozens of bombs rolling along the freeways of the community. It is small comfort that no one died.

They should serve at least two years of their sentences, IMO.

[MEGoody]

"The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at parties."

And how does one absolutely ensure this? Ask your kids? Call and ask the parents? (huh,huh,yeah, we be serving booze at duh party, why?)

I'm glad you wouldn't KNOWINGLY allow your kid to attend a party where alcohol was being served. Neither would I. But the fact remains, you just aren't always going to know.

Only school sanctioned parties should be allowed? Well, that's fine if you want to restrict your kids to that. I think it's kind of hard line, however, not to allow your kids to attend a friend's birthday party, but that's up to you.

[Frunabulax]

I guess they should be happy. Since they served up to 80 kids, they could've gotten 40 years.

It would be nice to have more information about this. Did they indiscriminately serve all of these toddlers in their cribs, or just the few quasi-adult high school graduates?

Obviously they broke the law, but eight years sounds a little over the top.

[MEGoody]

"those minors did not know what they were doing because they are under 18 years of age. See the law says so then it must be right."

Actually, for every law that states it is illegal to give alcohol to a minor, there is a law that holds that teen responsible for underage drinking. Just because these parents got jail time for serving alcohol to minors doesn't mean the kids didn't get any punishment from the law as well.