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.