Posted on 02/12/2003 11:35:45 PM PST by ambrose
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:39:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
CHARLOTTESVILLE (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Agreed.
I think 90 days was too little.
90 is OK by me---but 180 would have been OK by me, too.
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.
Agreed.
But even if he gave them 90 days, there would likely be those who claimed that was too much.
I would have disagreed with them. These parents are in need of eye-opening jail time.
It isn't collective guilt that is at issue, but collective risk--risk of death and serious injury. The community should not have to tolerate that risk. The judge has a duty to push the responsibility back onto the plate of those created the risk.
Do you think 8 years was a more fitting sentence than the prosecutor's recommendation for 90 days?
Oh, it's real alright. Unfortunatly, most states in this country have a ridiculous view toward alchohol, which makes it such a forbidden fruit and a rite of passage for kids and young adults 14-20.
These parents deserve maybe a TICKET and fine.
Do I believe eight years is too long for a first-time offender? Yes. But being fully aware of how probation and parole work, I also understand that they will almost certainly be out in two years or less. The point is made, and a just sentence will be served. That sounds about right.
In my estimation it is the large number of teens involved that makes this an especially egregious offense. The prosecutor's recommendation might have made sense if the case had involved only a half dozen or so teens. But 60 teens? The parents might just as well have fired 60 rounds from a rifle randomly down the length of a busy interstate highway. To plead for leniency because no bullet found a target is foolish. Statistically, it was a miracle no one was killed.
I hope you're right.
Statistically, it was a miracle no one was killed.
Share with us the details of your statistical analysis.
None of that answers my question: "Do you think 8 years was a more fitting sentence than the prosecutor's recommendation for 90 days?"
Let me see if I understand this position. We want the State to make sure that other people treat our children a certain way, and we will enforce that desire with jail time, if need be. Oh, and we call ourselves Conservatives today, because it suits us.
What, pray tell, has happened to the concept of individual, personal responsibility? I don't want the state cracking skulls for me, thank you very much. If I have a problem with the way that some guy handled a party that my children were invited to, I would deal with the matter directly, not call the cops.
I had better go lie down now; it makes me feel queasy when I agree with Libertarians.
Interesting chosen name.
Good start, attacking something irrelevant. You must be a liberal ad hominem debater.
Just sentence? Wonder what the dead girl thinks about it from her eternal perspective.
I don't know, why don't you channel her. While you're at it, you could ask Jesus what car he drives and other ridiculous questions. I'm sure she spends her time in heaven contemplating legislation to make super-criminals out of parents who supply alcohol at parties. Maybe it's one big legislature up there where everyone contemplates how they died and follows the lives of everyone who acts in a way they disapprove, an ethereal Nanny State with power to see what everyone is doing and say "tsk, tsk" from on high. But I doubt that's what the dead girl is doing. Doesn't sound like my idea of heaven.
Wonder what her parents think about it.
I'm sure they disapprove of adults supplying alcohol to minors, as I do. Whether they approve of an 8 year sentence, I don't know, and in any event, we don't let someone biased by personal experience decide the judicial fate of criminals or other litigants.
I suspect if it keeps one of those youth at the party from becoming alcoholic and crashing into yet another youth to the youth's death--the sentence will have been more than just.
This is not knowable, but what you are positing is that sending these two to jail for 8 years will save a life, but that sending them to jail for 6 months might not. That is a speculative stretch, and I am inclined to believe that a 6 month stint would do wonders to send a message to that community without destroying irrevocably the lives of both parents of a family whose actions, while dangerous and stupid, did not result in any harm to anyone.
I would be pissed as hell at these people if they served alcohol to my kids without my permission, and I would demand that they be prosecuted. But the point of the prosecution would be to send a message to the community, to punish the wrong-doers, and to deter such conduct in the future. I think those goals could be accomplished without tearing at least 3 lives apart.
Of course, the first part of the brain to be anesthetized by alcohol is the judgement center that decides what is too much/not enough; what is too close/not close enough etc.
Here it comes, more liberal attack methods.
Did you have anything to drink before responding to this post?
Badabing. Kapow. Funny guy. Did I slur my letters?
No, I'm not a teetottler. But I've counseled enough alcohol groups and individuals--I support the judge's decision. . . . though I think he should have let the community know his attitude toward such things beforehand. Nevertheless, the couple knew the law. They said F***-it to the law and to the lives and responsibilities of the teens at the party as well as to their own responsibilities as adults and role models. It's quite fitting to me for the law to turn around and respond in kind. They have reaped merely what they've sown.
Sometimes, the law is an ass. Sometimes people are. Your post is an example of both.
So, you've counseled alcoholics and now you are an expert on sentencing? I don't think so. It sounds to me like you are someone whose experience with drunks has made you into a hardened societal nanny, unforgiving and merciless. 8 years is what people who kill, rape and stab get. Now it's for people who hold a party and "serve" alcohol to minors.
The length of the sentence, in light of the parents' reasonable expectation of the nature of the offense, in light of the principles underlying criminal punishment, and in light of the relative sentences handed out to much more dangerous criminals, is what makes this sentence unjust. You can live in your draconian world if you wish; I choose not to, and I doubt many other people would, either. This is still a nation of free and fair people, but sentences like this are examples of how we are heading toward a different existence if we are not careful.
It took 101 posts for someone to finally note this, on a Conservative website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.