<p>Remember the Steubenvlle rape case, which was discussed in this forum? A drunked teenage girl was carried from place to place and then sexually assaulted by 2 teenage boys. </p>
<p>10 days in jail and fine. wow. (note the little “wow”)
We just had a case where a liquor store employee sold to an underage boy and he got 6 months. </p>
<p>If you know anyone who has served 10 days in jail, I don’t think you would be saying little wow. I would bet that if most of the posters on this board had to serve 10 days in jail, they would view it as one of the most significant and traumatic events in their lives. </p>
<p>The volunteer coach may be a worm and an enabler, but he is not a rapist. The liquor store employee did deserve more time because he deliberately commited a crime: ** selling** alcohol to a minor. To an employee of a liquor store, the law regarding minors is spelled out clearly.</p>
<p>From what was reported in the article, the volunteer coach was living with his parents. He did not host the party. He did not provide the alcohol. He is not the homeowner. The rape did not take place at that home. He got 10 days in jail for lying about when he broke up the party. As a parent, I would demand on moral grounds that this guy be ejected as a volunteer, but I wouldn’t go as far as equating him w a rapist. </p>
<p>I agree w @razorsharp, for most people, 10 days in jail is not an insignificant event in one’s life. </p>
<p>I agree with GMT and Razorsharp. Yes, he should have broken it up right away, but depending on his age and other situation, he could have not known quite what to do under the circumstances. But he lied to the authorities and that was an issue.</p>
<p>My former neighbor came to my house distraught a few years ago. Her DD had her girlfriends in the basement rec room, and the “party” was crashed by a bunch of young men (no doubt “invited” by one or some of the girls) and they were clearly drunk. The neighbor had NOT provided any alcohol, so either the girls snuck it in there, the guys brought it with them, or they’d had it elsewhere or any combo of those scenarios. She did not know how to corral them in there and was afraid they’d flee in their cars in their condition which would be dangerous. I had no compunction, calling the police immediately, but she was paralysed as to what to do, and we are talking about a 50 year old parent here. It’s not as though a lot of these asst coaches are necessarily given any training or even talks about these scenarios and responsibilities</p>
<p>No, 10 days is still lenient, in my opinion. This guy was 10 years older than the partygoers and he probably knew the football players and their ages, as he had coached them. My son played football throughout junior high and high school and he respected all of his coaches. A football coach could have easily ended the party immediately. I would also think they’d be thankful that he didn’t turn them in to the school, as at our school, it would mean missing several games as a punishment. </p>
<p>I happen to believe it was a harsh punishment. He was 24 years old, and as a volunteer coach likely had no real instructions on anything having been in the sports arena for many years now. Yes, he made a mistake, but this is one many might make–not his house, he may have pondered what to do for a while Had he abetted the party and not at all shut it down, it would be one thing. But he really should have called the police immediately as kids left the party with alcohol in their systems But I know too many adults that would have done the same. If he had shut down the party immediately, there still would have likely been some kids with too much drink and other substances in their systems, and that is the issue here–he let loose into cars, out in the streets, kids under age, minors that clearly were drunk and not fully in their right minds out of the house which is contributing to an accidents, disasters that might happen. He should have made sure that those kids were not going anywhere, but to parents/authorities. That he lied about it compounded the issue and that seems to be where he was nailed. I’ve known many who simply kick out kids they find drinking or that they suspect are taking something–it is a problem when you let out anyone under the influence from your home where they may have gotten the stuff. But, yes, done a lot. </p>
<p>IMO, he did deserve a sanction, but 10 days in jail? No I don’t agree with that. Did the homeowners get sued for providing alcohol to minors on their premises? My understanding is that if someone gets drunk at your place and, say smashes up a car and causes all kinds of damages, you can be on the hook for it.</p>
<p>My guess is that there wasn’t really enough evidence to convict this guy of any crime other than lying to the authorities, and that’s why the judge only gave him 10 days in jail. That is, he came home, found a party going on with underage drinking, and broke it up an hour later. Unless he actually supplied the alcohol, that behavior is probably not a crime–especially since he didn’t own the house. Please note, I am not talking about what he should have done morally or ethically, but rather what the law required him to do.</p>
<p>It’s not unusual for punishment to be harsher if there are bad consequences from a crime, and that’s probably why this guy had to serve time. Probably similar punishment would have been imposed if somebody had died from driving drunk after the party was broken up. But if he had done nothing at all and just gone to bed, and the police showed up and arrested minors for underage drinking, I don’t think he’d be criminally liable for anything.</p>