Parents, alcohol and kids...

[vraiblonde]

My biggest problem with these idiots, isn't that they gave teens alcohol, but that they were someone else's kids.

I completely agree with this. Letting your own kids drink in your home is one thing - giving booze to someone else's kid is a totally different story.

And 12!!! I can never figure out what's going on with these parents who let their 12 year old run the streets and have no idea where they are.

 

[MMDad]

I like the community service idea, but working with alcoholic/drug addict kids, specifically, might be a better idea.

If these people appeared to be sorry for what they did, and knew it was wrong, then I would agree. These people still do not see what they did as wrong and are whining about the penalty being too harsh. We don't need alcohol and drug addicted kids to learn more irresponsibility from these idiots.

 

[Sweet 16]

Had a kegger at my folks house ONCE when they were out of town. While I was getting busy with my GF, my "buddies" re-arranged all the knick-knacks on the shelves/tables, slightly tilted all the pictures and loosened all the light bulbs so they'd flicker when you walked through the room.

I used to have weekend sleepovers. I left to go pick up a friend and my friends rearranged my parents' furniture. When my parents came home, the house was spotless, but the furniture was in different rooms. I wonder if they ever suspected anything.........

 

[Chain729]

If these people appeared to be sorry for what they did, and knew it was wrong, then I would agree. These people still do not see what they did as wrong and are whining about the penalty being too harsh. We don't need alcohol and drug addicted kids to learn more irresponsibility from these idiots.

You put them under supervision of someone that isn't going to allow them to do that. Then again, most addicts, once they've reached that point, don't recover anyway- at least as far as I've seen.

It wouldn't do any good if they were sorry, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to show these idiots what they were contributing to, why it's important not to and to open their eyes.

 

[MMDad]

It wouldn't do any good if they were sorry, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to show these idiots what they were contributing to, why it's important not to and to open their eyes.

I see "community service" as the criminal repaying society by contributing something to the community. It should have no benefit to the offender.

I do agree that these people need to be educated while they are incarcerated, but not instead of their prison time.

 

[itsbob]

I'm conflicted..

The judge says he sentenced them to 8 years becouse one of his classmates just recently died in an alcohol related accident.. ok, got that.

The parents say they did what they did because the kids would be drinkning anyways, and they wanted to keep them safe.

I take the judges reason for the sentence to be more inline with the argument of why they did what they did. A 17 year old dead in an alcohol related accident gives credence to "They are going to drink anyways." and to the "I can make sure they are safe.".. Do I agree with what they did, having a party for 12 - 18 year olds with alcohol present? No.. Do I believe they deserve to have their lives ruined over it? No.. 27 months seems a little harsh, an 8 year sentence is totally unbelievable.

I think 24 months suspended with 5 years probation would have sufficed, and a LOT of community service. Now they both lose their jobs, and in the end probably their homes, cars and everything else they own. I saw where they are now divorced, and she had a rental.. smart on her part.

now lastly.. a view nobody else has mentioned. Why is HE going to jail? If the shoe was on the other foot would SHE be going to jail??

She admits to planning the party, she admits to buying the alcohol, she admits to taking the keys etc.. etc.. If he admitted all of that, I firmly believe he would be going to jail and she'd still be at home.. but why is HE going if she is the one that admitted to all of it? Just because he was present, or because he is a he?

 

[Ponytail]

It seems like a harsh sentance, but then, how many of the other kids parents knew ahead of time about the alcohol being served?

The ages of the kids concern me. The lack of alcohol present in the blood of some of them indicate that not all at the party were drinkers (not yet anyway) and these parents wanted the responsibility of that introduction?? The possibilities are endless as to the affects that this type of introduction to alcohol can have on young minds. (Yes, I'm being serious).

I hope she gets out to see her daughter graduate from high school, but I think she should feel very lucky to be on a reduced sentance at all. I'd be out for blood if I found out my kid was at that party. Who the hell does she think she is? If I remember right, when these two were busted, the parents were completely wasted...not very able to keep a watchful eye on the young drinkers.

 

[MMDad]

but why is HE going if she is the one that admitted to all of it? Just because he was present, or because he is a he?

Interesting point. He was present and drinking with the kids, so he does deserve what he got, but what if the genders were reversed?

Upon entering the driveway, the officer spotted two teens holding clear glass bottles, who dropped them and ran for the woods when they saw the cop. He walked around to the back yard where he found more teens and the Robinsons, visible through a glass back door, sitting at the kitchen table.

According to Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney James L. Camblos, III, the facts of the case were “outrageous.” Elisa Robinson lied to other parents who called to check if there would be alcohol at the party, and told several teens to rinse their mouths with vinegar to disguise their beer breath.

The fact that she lied to other parents when they asked about alcohol makes me think she deserved the 8 yers.

 

[Ponytail]

...now lastly.. a view nobody else has mentioned. Why is HE going to jail? If the shoe was on the other foot would SHE be going to jail??

She admits to planning the party, she admits to buying the alcohol, she admits to taking the keys etc.. etc.. If he admitted all of that, I firmly believe he would be going to jail and she'd still be at home.. but why is HE going if she is the one that admitted to all of it? Just because he was present, or because he is a he?

It was his home, as much as it was hers. By allowing it to take place, and being a part of it by being merely present, he was contributing to the deliquency of a minor. He could have stopped it. She was his wife. It was in their home. And I'm pretty sure that he was just as hammered as she was when they got busted.

 

[itsbob]

It was his home, as much as it was hers. By allowing it to take place, and being a part of it by being merely present, he was contributing to the deliquency of a minor. He could have stopped it. She was his wife. It was in their home. And I'm pretty sure that he was just as hammered as she was when they got busted.

I agree.. but how many times do you hear about a husband doing something in the house.. growing pot, selling drugs.. etc.. and the wife or GF gets nothing but MAYBE a slap on the wrist (if she even gets charged). She had to have knowledge, I would assume had to allow it... and it's as much her house as his, yet he does jail time while she continues on doing whatever it is she does.

 

[Chain729]

I see "community service" as the criminal repaying society by contributing something to the community. It should have no benefit to the offender.

I do agree that these people need to be educated while they are incarcerated, but not instead of their prison time.

A wake up call isn't a benefit that takes away from punishment. And, I meant the community service in addition to, not instead of, jail time.

 

[vraiblonde]

The parents say they did what they did because the kids would be drinkning anyways, and they wanted to keep them safe.

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Parental disapproval and fear of punishment are natural deterrents. It won't stop them 100% but it does curtail it because there's a fear of getting caught.

 

[itsbob]

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Parental disapproval and fear of punishment are natural deterrents. It won't stop them 100% but it does curtail it because there's a fear of getting caught.

That's why the 17 year old wasn't drunk behind the wheel and didn't die??

 

[Ponytail]

I agree.. but how many times do you hear about a husband doing something in the house.. growing pot, selling drugs.. etc.. and the wife or GF gets nothing but MAYBE a slap on the wrist (if she even gets charged). She had to have knowledge, I would assume had to allow it... and it's as much her house as his, yet he does jail time while she continues on doing whatever it is she does.

It becomes a question of intent and whether or not the other half was a participant.

Here, we don't know all of the evidence. But since both parties were found to be intoxicated, in the presense of alcohol with minors, it's hard to argue how one could be more innocent than the other. Had he stayed sober, he may have had an arguement. Had he not been there, he'd be clear. In this case, he's guilty of being stupid.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is that a fact?

It becomes a question of intent and whether or not the other half was a participant.

Here, we don't know all of the evidence. But since both parties were found to be intoxicated, in the presense of alcohol with minors, it's hard to argue how one could be more innocent than the other. Had he stayed sober, he may have had an arguement. Had he not been there, he'd be clear. In this case, he's guilty of being stupid.

...then I missed that from the linked story. ???

 

[Ponytail]

...then I missed that from the linked story. ???

I'm going from memory, but I'm almost 100% positive that that point was hit pretty hard when this story first broke. I'll search now to see if I can find it.

 

[vraiblonde]

That's why the 17 year old wasn't drunk behind the wheel and didn't die??

Stuff happens. I was never drunk behind the wheel and ended up dead, and I didn't have a parent babysit me while I drank. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[itsbob]

Stuff happens. I was never drunk behind the wheel and ended up dead, and I didn't have a parent babysit me while I drank. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

In your mind it doesn't.. the classmates parents mind maybe it did.

If their 18 year old son was going to drink, than he should do it at home with his friends so he wouldn't end up dead driving home from somewhere else.

Again, i don't agree with what they did, and would be pissed if one of my kids was there.. but the 'deterrent' argument isn't working here. We drank before we were legal age, and the kids (some) today do to, what's the deterrent?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Stuff happens. I was never drunk behind the wheel and ended up dead, and I didn't have a parent babysit me while I drank. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

...but this judge said;

Camblos, who has made curbing underage drinking part of this year's reelection campaign, denied any political motivation. "Politics had nothing to do with it. I've seen too many photographs of teenagers being killed in car wrecks because of drinking and driving."

And the mom's argument was;

Kelly said she believed the kids were going to drink regardless. She reasoned that supplying the alcohol and keeping them home would be safer than having them out drinking and driving. Court records show she spent $340 on beer and wine for the party that night. She said she made a deal with her son that no one could leave.

Now, she was totally wrong doing this, getting the kids alcohol, especially without even getting the consent of the other parents, BUT part of what she did do, keeping them out of their cars, was consistent with the judges own fears, teens drinking and driving.

For damn sure there will be less parents hosting kids drinking and it stands to reason that if there is some truth to 'they're going to do it anyway' then there will be that many more kids...drinking and driving.

It doesn't stand to reason that sending this woman to jail for two years is going to reduce teen drinking and driving; the judges stated concern.

 

[vraiblonde]

We drank before we were legal age, and the kids (some) today do to, what's the deterrent?

Not all kids drink underage. And I'll bet you the ones that's parents let them drink or don't really care, do it a lot more than the kids who are scared to get caught.

Same thing with sex. If you folks let you screw your boyfriend in your own bedroom, you're going to have a lot more sex than if you have to sneak around.