Pair get 8 years for serving beer at party

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

[ambrose]

CHARLOTTESVILLE (AP)

[Wolfie]

Just looking for a little intellectual consistency from the "controller" types. I should have known better, bud.

[RGSpincich]

Provide alcohol to my underage kid and this sentence is a walk in the park. An adult offering booze (beer and wine is booze) is a free pass for most kids. They have been taught to resist peer pressure but an adult? It's a blindside for most kids.
Article says teenagers were served at a birthday party. Not a graduation party with 17 and 18 yr olds. An open party with 13,14,15 yr olds being served alcohol. People want to screw up thieir own kids, have at it. The parents in a community trust other parents to "keep an eye out" for their kids when under their control, these parents violated that trust.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The sentence SEEMS out of proportion. Any picture of te judge? The perps?

[ofMagog]

Well said.

[SauronOfMordor]

Odds are that the sentence will be reduced to the 90 days the PA wanted on appeal, as the appeal courts tend to take a dim view of sentences way greater than even the PA wanted.

Even if overturned, the legal costs of the appeal will probably bankrupt the couple. This whole thing is stupid. A few weekends in jail would have sent the message.

[SamAdams76]

Eight years in jail for serving beer in your own home is utterly unspeakable. And anybody who supports this kind of sentencing is acting like a knee-jerk anti-American fascist.

Sorry if this offends some on this thread who have come out in support of this insane sentence. But I find it absolutely incredible that so-called conservatives, who generally want to keep government out of our lives and who generally believe in taking responsibility for one's own actions, would come out in support of the police-state that our country is rapidly becoming. This is what the liberal/Marxists want. Soon they will be putting people in jail for exposing teenagers to second-hand smoke. Just wait and see. Will the same folks cheering this sentence be cheering then as well?

Were the parents foolish in supplying liquor to underage teenagers? Absolutely. Should they be held accountable? Absolutely. Do they deserve eight years in jail? Absolutely not. This is totally crazy. Especially when wife-beaters and armed robbers and even some rapists are treated more leniently by our court system. And especially when the president of the United States is allowed to have his underling perform oral sex upon him in the workplace and get away scot-free. We really need to get our priorities straight in this country. When even the conservatives are getting on the nanny government bandwagon, I begin to get concerned.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Judges should never be elected.

I used to think that too, now I'm not sure. Appointments give us Maria Lopez.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Sheesh. The pair are guilty of their crimes, O fool. Only liberals and anarchists try to whine and moan over the consequences to actions. File this one under: "Actions Have Consequences."

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[FreeTally]

Those are exactly my feelings, Sam.

[thepitts]

If you think that an 8 year sentence, based in part on the death of a girl that these people had nothing to do with, is "justice" you are a bigger idiot than everyone suspected.

[CharacterCounts]

The sentence SEEMS out of proportion.

This sentence will undoubtedly be set aside on appeal.

First, it is improper for a Judge to consider acts not caused by the defendants when sentencing. (The judge did just that when bringing the death of the teenage girl up).

Second, It is not proper for a judge to apply consecutive sentencing for crimes which all occurred at the same time (i.e. serving beer to 16 minors at the same party.)

It appears that this judge had the maximum of 6 months available for sentencing and is applying consecutive sentencing to get around the statute.

Even more disturbing is the $80,000.00 bail. Anyone who thinks a bail requirement in that amount for a misdemeanor charge is appropriate, should get a copy of the Constitution out and read it. What is to stop a judge from setting a bail bond so high that a defendant remains incarcerated through a lengthy appeal process even though the original sentence may be overturned. In other words a judge may know that his sentence is illegal, yet set a bond so high that the defendant will serve most of the sentence before it is reversed on appeal.

[biblewonk]

What did the "minors" get charged with for actually doing the illegal drinking?

[RabidBartender]

Apparently, the couple's son dated the girl who was killed. But haven't you heard? We don't have to obey the laws if we don't 'feel' they are just. We'll just throw the f-word (fascist) around and whine about how this great country is a police state on par with Orwell's wildest dreams and hope that someone will pay attention to us.

BTW, here's the story from their local paper. 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. Let's all wish ill will on him and hope he dies!!!!!! (sarcasm)

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031768723661&path=!frontpage

[kjam22]

Even if overturned, the legal costs of the appeal will probably bankrupt the couple. This whole thing is stupid. A few weekends in jail would have sent the message.

I don't think the judge felt that a few weekends in jail would send the message. I think the judge felt that the community just experienced the death of a teenage girl from the exact same kind of party... and these stupid parents didn't learn not one single thing from that event. A couple of weekends of free food and cable aren't going to teach them anything either.

[PLMerite]

I wonder what kind of sentences the judge hands down for more serious crimes - robbery, rape and murder.

As far as the "first time drug dealers" go, you mean "first time caught" or "first time prosecuted."

I'll trade you a long sentence for a teenager selling pot (the image you want to conjur up), for executing third-time-loser coke/crack/heroin dealers. Fair enough?

[kjam22]

If you think that an 8 year sentence, based in part on the death of a girl that these people had nothing to do with, is "justice" you are a bigger idiot than everyone suspected.

I disagree with that. I think the court's position was "if you can't learn from experiences of others. From what goes on around you... then the court system will teach you."

This is an incredible place at FR. We have posters in this same thread ranting about Bill and Monica (as imoral as it was) .... a legal act between consenting adults. And in his same post slaming the court for enforcing the law. How many here were screaming about the rule of law while Clinton was lying to the grand jury? I was.

We want the rule of law when we agree with the law. The rest of the time we want to kick out the judges and lawyers.

[kjam22]

I wonder what kind of sentences the judge hands down for more serious crimes - robbery, rape and murder

That's a good question. If I were inclined to commit one of those crimes..... I dont' think I'd want to do it in this judge's jurisdiction.

[TLBSHOW]

This Judge is a joke and he should be removed!

[KansasConservative1]

They could have killed someone and gotten less. I guess one has to pick the best return on an investment. ???