Friday, June 15, 2007

Equal time for equal crimes?

When we first heard of it, we found this story from Charlottesville, VA impossible to believe. Two parents hosted a birthday party for their 16th year-old son, who claimed he would obtain alcohol and get drunk somewhere else with his friends. So with good intentions, but ultimately bad judgment, Elisa Kelly and her then-husband George Robinson purchased alcohol for the teens at the party. Long story short, the police were called, found that 16 of the party-goers had measurable BACs (though none even approached .08--generally defined as the point of intoxication), and the Robinsons were charged with 16 counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They were convicted in 2003 and sentenced to eight years each in prison. Eight years far exceeds the sentence for many heinous crimes in the US--notably, writer Lisa Provence points to the case of a UVA student who fatally stabbed a police officer 18 times. His sentence for killing another man? 31 months. In a related article, Provence brings up a case that had taken place in the Charlottesville area a few months before the Robinson's party. A 16 year-old girl was killed when a car she was riding crashed. Both she and the driver were intoxicated. The sentences for the two teens charged with providing the alcohol that led to Brittany Bishop's death? 10 days for the minor and 30 for the boy who was over 18.

On June 11, Elisa Kelly and George Robinson went to jail to serve 27 months each (their sentences were reduced upon appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court). In the intervening years between the 2002 party and this week, they divorced. Their son dropped out of high school, their house burned down, and Elisa Kelly faced bankruptcy.

In the face of a monstrous legal ordeal that destroyed the fabric of a family and has stunned many American parents, some of the most acute failings of Legal Age 21 emerge. John McCardell comments, "This very sad episode reminds us that current law disenfranchises parents from any role in attempting to create a safe environment...In this particular case, the parental impulse may have been misguided, but the more general question posed by this incident is whether the law ought properly to displace parental judgment entirely, because any parental role is effectively eliminated by the law until a child turns 21." This case is extreme, but points to a policy that actively discourages parental responsibility while fostering a climate of illegality, recklessness, and excess amongst their children.

For more about this case:

The Times (London)

The Washington Post

12 comments:

Dale Goorskey said...

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

The Maryland Underage Drinking Prevention Coalition (MUDPC) summarizes the provisions of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 as follows:

“The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following:

* An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older
* Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution
* In private clubs or establishments
* In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer.” 1 (Emphasis in original. Conspicuously not emphasized is the significant fact that “the law does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking.”)

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) subsequently identified 19 states which did not specifically prohibit the consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 21. However, those states are in compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. It would appear that such states could legally only charge underage persons with public possession of alcohol, not underage drinking.

The title of the legislation itself is clearly misleading in that the National Minimum Age Drinking Act doesn’t prohibit drinking by persons under the age of 21 (so-called “underage” persons) nor does it require the states to prohibit such drinking. In addition, descriptions of the law contribute to the false belief that it does. For example, the assertion that “the legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old” clearly leaves the false impression that the minimum legal drinking age for alcohol is 21.

Dale Goorskey said...

From the Mayo Clinic.
Risk factors

Steady drinking over time can produce a physical dependence on alcohol. Drinking more than 15 drinks a week for men or 12 drinks a week for women increases the risk of developing dependence on alcohol. However, drinking by itself is just one of the risk factors that contribute to alcoholism. Other risk factors include:

* Age. People who begin drinking at an early age — by age 16 or earlier — are at a higher risk of alcohol dependence or abuse.
* Genetics. Your genetic makeup may increase your risk of alcohol dependency.
* Sex. Men are more likely to become dependent on or abuse alcohol than are women.
* Family history. The risk of alcoholism is higher for people who had a parent or parents who abused alcohol.
* Emotional disorders. Being severely depressed or having anxiety places you at a greater risk of abusing alcohol. Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder also may be more likely to become dependent on alcohol.

Prof said...

I support lowering the drinking age and applaud "Choose Responsiblity" for promoting this cause. But I urge them to limit themselves to that cause. Were I to refer a friend to the web site, the friend might come away with the impression that they want to encourage drinking parties for 15 and 16 year olds. Maybe the penalty was too harsh, but what does this have to do with lowering the drinking age? Personally, I want my kids to drink (legally) in college but not in high school -- and I'd think that "Choose Reponsibility" should not confuse its message by implying that it's not too troubled by high school drinking. Keep the message simple: Lower the drinking age.

Lidt om "Secret Prisons for Teens" said...

I do not understand such laws

In Denmark we have no lower limit for alcohol consumption and a 16 year limit for alcohol purchase. Our youth has to go to the city hall once they turn 16 in order to obtain an ID-card, which confirms the age in shops. We are talking of access to al kind of alcohol, not only beer and wine.

Why do we have such laws? Because we wanted to lower the number of DUI conviction and not least the number of people killed on our roads. Our strategy is an success if you count 73 people killed due to alcohol related accidents during the entire year of 2006 an success and we are talking of a population of 5,000,000 people.

When does the Danish teens start to drink? According to a study about 20 percent of teens under 15 have been drunk several times before sobering up when they find out what good things in life they miss because they are unable to attend the activities because they are too drunk. In the summer groups of teens aged down to 12 are seen drinking in groups at parks and beaches always with a concerned parent in somewhat distance. Please notice. They are drinking with parental approval because if the parents buy, they can adjust the amount and they can address problems more freely because the teenagers does not have to hide their intake.

That is properly why we also avoid problems like teenage pregnancies and some of the violence. Violence does exist, but the majority of the convicted are people who can not drink due to religious reasons and therefore enjoy social interaction. They become marginalized and angry. Teenage pregnancies are so rare (The average age of a mother, who is giving birth is now late in the 20's, which cause other problems.) that we even have TV-series about the few.

Our only problem is that we are aware of is the pub-crawling journeys, who are sold all over Europe to Bulgaria. In the future we will inform our youth better, so they know that it is safer to avoid drinking and social interaction, while being on Holiday in another country. Just the last 14 days one Dane aged 17 have been killed because the drug the ice-cubes in the drinks so people are fooled to drink more than there health can take and 4 Danish women had been raped.

I think that your country should see to Europe for strategies and especially give the youth access to alcohol, which is a dangerous product. So dangerous in fact that adjusting to it is something that teenagers should use years to learn about before they can buy it on their own. We have saved 200 lives per year by learning our teenagers of the dangers. Just try to calculate how many lives you could save.

val said...

Valerian Texeira.

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com

Lew Bryson said...

The strictest law often causes the most serious wrong. -- Cicero.

This couple's lives -- and their kids lives -- were crushed by this manic law, and nothing has changed in wider society. Yet the powers that be keep trying to stop what they call "underage drinking" by hitting it harder and harder with successively bigger hammers. The hammer doesn't work, and it may be doing more damage than the problem. Open debate on lowering the drinking age, without hysteria, without bogus "science," without ad hominem attacks, is desperately needed.

Anonymous said...

While I agree it seems that the total jail sentence is harsh when compared to other case, however I would point out that out sentencing guidelines should be harsher for these other cases. I have seen to many cases of people killed because they drove drunk or someone else drove drunk. In addition, the legal BAC level for someone under the age of 21 in Virginia is .02.

Anonymous said...

I am a College Professor who's major course of instruction is "Health". I have always been a proponent of lowering the drinking age to 18 (or even less). I run a forum on the issue for my class. MADD is becoming a temperance group who has lost sight of their mission and is becoming a "cottage industry" like many trying to keep itself alive and funded without seeing the trees in the forest. The legal drinking age of 18 is stupid and held hostage by highway funds.

Anonymous said...

oops! the last line should say "the legal drinking age of "21" is stupid..."

Anonymous said...

Interesting blog as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning that matter. Thnx for posting this information.
Sexy Lady
Girls for companionship in London

Anonymous said...

Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

yanmaneee said...

golden goose sale
supreme clothing
goyard bags
golden goose outlet
golden goose outlet
golden goose outlet
moncler outlet
supreme clothing
moncler jackets
goyard bags