<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351502864&path=[/url]”>http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351502864&path=</a></p>
<p>It’s difficult to argue that the sentence is too harsh for an apparently unrepentent drug pusher.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure for many of them it was their first taste of the forbidden fruit.</p>
<p>It is clearly too harsh as evidenced by the prosecutor offering them a deal.
</p>
<p>This is what gets me:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She gets 8 years, he gets 30 days??</p>
<p>She gets 27 months. But I agree, it’s unequal justice.</p>
<p>Ah, right - the trial judge initially gave her 8 years; it was reduced on appeal. Sorry about the confusion.</p>
<p>She certainly doesn’t seem to really think she did anything wrong. All she talks about is feeling sorry for herself rather than thinking what could have happened to these kids under her watch. It seems that after 4 1/2 years of fighting this some of it would have sunk in. I think she deserves what she got and the contributor should have received more time. I hope it ‘is’ an example to other parents.</p>
<p>Chances are they’ll serve less than half the sentence anyway.</p>
<p>Kenty got 30 days for “contributing”. But both husband and wife (whose property it was, and who were charged with more offenses) got the same sentences. </p>
<p>Prosecutors offer “deals” all the time, often unrelated to the seriousness of the crime. She got off for 4 1/2 years; now it’s time to do the time.</p>
<p>I stand staunchly against underage (and most especially high school) drinking and have no respect for the parents who enable it. That said, though, these particular parents HAVE been made an example of, and I do <em>NOT</em> think that their sentence will do one thing to ameliorate the overall problem as long as the punishments meted out are so arbitrary and inconsistent.</p>
<p>I know TONS of parents here do/have done the same thing, and none of them are serving jail time. As soon as jail time is doled out consistently to these parents, I’m not opposed to it. The arbitrary nature of this, however, renders it ineffective and “unfair.”</p>
<p>IMHO, an incredible amount of damage has been done to this family, and their kids have been grossly affected. I personally would like to see a punishment that would have better fit the crime–for example, that 27 months spent volunteering regularly with with a group that helps promote alcohol awareness and prevention in teens–or a group composed of people whose lives have been forever altered by the irresponsible use of alcohol. </p>
<p>I, too, was bothered by the woman’s rather unrepentent attitude, but I certainly wouldn’t go so far to (mis)label her a “drug pusher.” </p>
<p>It is going to take the collective work of MANY to put an end to the enormous problem of underage drinking, and having two people serve jail time for it just isn’t going to cut it. (Btw, IF someone HAD been injured or killed as result of having been served that alcohol, then I’d feel entirely differently about their sentence.)</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>I think that’s absurd and ridiculous. Maybe it’s because I’m from Canada, where underage drinking is significantly less ptaboo, but if that standard for alcohol offenses were applied, every parent I know is guilty of at least an applicable offense, and my school - which served alcohol at our graduation, to parents and (underage) students alike - would have administrators in jail left and right.</p>
<p>Plus, I think serving the alcohol is not a bad thing to do. I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with drinking underage; the only conceivably wrong thing with it is that a) it violates the law, which could be considered immoral in a deontological sense, or b) that underage students are more likely to drink in a problematic way. If the drinking is supervised by responsible adults, the latter isn’t happening. As for the first issue, the drinking age in America is ridiculous anyways, so I personally see no problem with what the woman did.</p>
<p>Too bad her life has been effectively ruined by this.</p>
<p>“It is going to take the collective work of MANY to put an end to the enormous problem of underage drinking, and having two people serve jail time for it just isn’t going to cut it. (Btw, IF someone HAD been injured or killed as result of having been served that alcohol, then I’d feel entirely differently about their sentence.)”</p>
<p>Even though whether or not someone was injured or killed would not have changed what she had in fact done one iota.</p>
<p>I think it is a GREAT start. Changing community norms is extraordinarily difficult, and I think it is terrific when unrepentent drug pushers who also provide the premises for use get what’s coming to them. The law is there, the sentence was well within the sentencing guidelines, and a couple of more like that and I’m sure other members of the community will think twice before engaging in similar criminal behaviors.</p>
<p>"“Politics had nothing to do with it,” he said. “The Robinsons were serving alcohol to 30-some teenagers, some of whom were 15 and 16 years old. The facts were outrageous. Prosecution was absolutely appropriate. I suggested an appropriate punishment but they chose to take the matter to the court instead of working with us. The court is the one that imposed the penalty, not this office.”</p>
<p>Teens/children should also be aware of the danger they put parents in when they sneak alcohol into parties, basements,rec rooms, etc. These people were idiots, obviously, but other times I think even careful parents can get duped. I’ve heard that in some cases parents can be liable even if they’re not home (?)</p>
<p>Using Mini’s “logic” we should start arresting and jailing all the poor parents who are bad role models for their children. Changing these community norms will do more than locking up some misguided parents who had a party because they thought it would be safer than having kids drinking in some field.</p>
<p>barrons: Agreed. I really hate to see it when parents who are more likely to be doing something for their kids’ safety are treated like pernicious criminals.</p>
<p>As far as I’m concerned, the sentence is fine. I’m sick of parents who think it’s fine to be buddies with their kids by providing alcohol to underaged kids, particularly to high school studens.</p>
<p>"The trouble for the Robinsons started in August 2002 when they hosted a party at their Earlysville home for one of Elisa Robinson’s sons, who was turning 16 years old.</p>
<p>The parents were charged with 44 counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Common-wealth’s Attorney Jim Camblos offered the Robinsons a deal.</p>
<p>The prosecutor agreed to charge the couple with 16 counts of contributing, and recommended a 90-day sentence.</p>
<p>But when the Robinsons pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, the judge, angry that the party occurred a month after their son’s classmate died in an alcohol-related accident, sentenced them to eight years behind bars.</p>
<p>Both parents were escorted out of the courthouse in handcuffs.</p>
<p>On appeal to circuit court, the Robinsons argued that that evidence used against them was seized improperly, but Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. convicted the couple, sentencing them to 27 months behind bars.</p>
<p>The Virginia Supreme Court upheld that decision in January, ruling that Albemarle County police had probable cause to venture onto the Robinsons’ property.</p>
<p>Elisa Robinson found out late last month that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their final appeal.</p>
<p>“I’m not feeling too good about it, of course. It’s political. … We were just made an example of,” Robinson said, adding that her conviction has not had the deterrent effect that it was meant to have. “It hasn’t stopped underage drinking,” she said. “Nothing is being done.”</p>
<p>Northstarmom: Why? What’s so bad about that?</p>
<p>I think the 90 days was just. A long sentence where nobody was actually harmed is just excessive. The punishment should be for what happened–not what might have happened. If you fire a gun at someone and miss you don’t get charged with murder.</p>
<p>
No but hopefully they’d be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder and get some reasonable jail time.</p>
<p>In this case the parents weren’t charged with murder either although if some of the kids had died in an accident or due to intoxication they might have been charged with more than they recieved (I hope so anyway).</p>
<p>Obviously. The point is not what might have happened but what actually happened which was nothing other than the drinking. As I recall the parents held the carkeys so kids could not leave until judged sober. I think the sentence was excessive and related to some hysteria over the other death.</p>