<p>LOL—they could be, couldn’t they? They’re not, but she doesn’t know that!</p>
<p>This whole case/ordeal is a travesty. </p>
<p>First of all, the drinking age should be 18. That may have made a difference in this case, as the 16 year old could have received his alcohol from an 18 year old friend and kept his parents out of jail. I can’t believe that our country will trust 18 year olds with assault rifles, tanks, and apache helicopters before it will trust them with beer. I guess 18 year olds are mature enough to die for their country but not mature enough to drink? This policy makes the US the laughing stock of other, more reasonable nations. </p>
<p>These parents were doing what they thought would keep these kids safe. Face it, if the kids didn’t drink at the party they would have gone somewhere else to do it, somewhere where people wouldn’t have taken their keys. Parents shouldn’t be penalized for keeping the streets safe. </p>
<p>Of course, they broke the law, and need to be punished accordingly. But the laws need to be changed.</p>
<p>
This thinking is extremely convoluted and illogical. I have had two high school grads, NEITHER of whom drank <em>any</em> alcohol in high school. I should know…they’re friends were pretty much always over HERE. 
While I do agree with you about the drinking age (it was 18 when I grew up in Texas), the rest of your post reflects the extremely dangerous “we know you will anyway” thinking which serves as an enabling factor and a shoddy excuse for illegal conduct. In addition, alcohol’s effect on the brains of 15-16 year olds is quite different from its effect on a more fully developed brain. There is NO REASON EVER for ANY parent to serve alcohol to high school kids, particularly not in the (laughable) name of “safety.”</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
Isn’t this this same reasoning given to avoid discussions with teenagers about using condoms? If a parent provides his or her 15 year old son with a condom, is that parent wrong?</p>
<p>“These parents were doing what they thought would keep these kids safe. Face it, if the kids didn’t drink at the party they would have gone somewhere else to do it, somewhere where people wouldn’t have taken their keys. Parents shouldn’t be penalized for keeping the streets safe.”</p>
<p>The kids may simply not have had alcohol. Lots of kids test their parents by saying things like, “Unless you allow me to drink at home, I’ll go elsewhere to do it.” If the parents take a firm stand, however, including setting boundaries on where the kids can go, the kids may not drink.</p>
<p>“If a parent provides his or her 15 year old son with a condom, is that parent wrong?”</p>
<p>IMO if the parent doesn’t think that 15-year-olds should be having intercourse, the parent shouldn’t be supplying condoms. I think it’s a wise parent who informs teens about birth control and how to obtain it. I think, however, that parents who think that they can prevent pregnancies by supplying condoms are kidding themselves.</p>
<p>The parent can’t possibly know when a teen will need condoms or how many a teen would use. Also, the parent won’t be standing there to make sure that the condoms are being used or are being used correctly. To me, when a parent supplies condoms, that’s like telling a teen that the parent, not the teen, is responsible for preventing a pregnancy, so if the teen runs out of condoms, the teen then can blame Mommy or Daddy.</p>
<p>What I did with my kids was made my views clear: That high school students should not be having intercourse because they are too young to be responsible for the consequences. Any person who chooses to have sex also needs to be mature enough to take the actions necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies.</p>
<p>
No. At least not in MY home. That’s simply because I do not put premarital sex into the same category as the illegal act of drinking underage, esp. in high school. I have never preached “abstinence only,” although I HAVE editorialized MIGHTILY on why I don’t think becoming sexually active during HIGH SCHOOL is the best idea. Just as I have educated my older children on the hazards of underage drinking, I have educated them on the hazards (both physical and emotional) of conducting a sexual relationship before you are truly ready to have one. Teaching about condom use–to ME-falls under the appropriate category of that type of education.</p>
<p>I will concede that there is a fine line in some of these cases in which educating can brush up against enabling. That line is for every individual set of parents to set for themselves. For example, I remember cringing mightily at the thought of signing a “driving contract” with my children saying that they could call me with NO QUESTIONS ASKED if they were drunk as a skunk and needed a safe ride home. In the end, I simply could not give them that message and opted for the “I will NOT accept ANY drinking in high school–PERIOD” message, which has taken beautifully with my oldest two.</p>
<p>IF I believed that all premarital sex was “WRONG” -something I believe about high school drinking–perhaps I would hesitate to give the condom message (or at least it would make me squirm}. As it was, I educated my son not only about condoms but also about the age statutory rape, etc.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>CUSE, that is the attitude that allows things like this to happen. If the drinking age were lowered to 18, would you then allow 16 and 15 year olds to drink at home, because they’ll ‘do it anyway’? How about 12 and 13? Or even under 10? When do you draw the line? When is it bad parenting, and when does it become abusive and neglectful? Do you provide alcohol to your own children at home? How about condoms and a ‘safe’ place to have sex, so they don’t do it out in a car? How young a kid would that be ok for? The point here is that there have to be rules. Each parent does what he or she wants with their own kids in thier own homes to a certain extent, but to involve other kids is another matter entirely.
I draw the line wherever the law draws it. Drinking is illegal under 21, period. Keeping the parents out of jail was not the point here. Their questionable judgment not only went directly against the law, but against many other parents’ rules, too.</p>
<p>Had they worked with the prosecutor on the original agreement, instead of believing - as do many drug pushers - that they were above the law, they likely wouldn’t be spending a single day in jail.</p>
<p>There used to be drug pushers who provided premises for their clients to shoot up, on the theory that it was safer, they wouldn’t get hassled by police, and it was better than the streets.</p>
<p>
Has anyone told you that you have perserverative tendencies, mini? 'Cause you do. And the funny thing is, saying something more doesn’t make it any truer! ;)</p>
<p>cuse0507:</p>
<p>You may be interested in this - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/[/url]”>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t equate having a discussion about what responsible sex encompasses to endorsing the idea. That’s why there was such outrage in that Boulder, Colorado HS. The panel wasn’t just imparting information on birth control and STDs (which, IMO is fine and important) - one panelist actually editorialized it saying “I WANT (emphasis mine) you to go out and enjoy… drugs and sex… you’re going to do it anyway” or words like that. Many parents do draw the line there - they educate, they do not advocate, and will not feel it is in the least bit hypocritical to combine the information that is important for every teen to know (whether it is never to get in a car with someone who has been drinking - parents will come no questions asked or importance of condoms etc.) with the express wish that the teenager NOT participate in these activities at a young age.</p>
<p>“Had they worked with the prosecutor on the original agreement, instead of believing - as do many drug pushers”</p>
<p>Is a drug pusher somebody who puts their 15 year old daughter on birth control ? Or their 7 year old on Ritilin? Or is it only someone who lets their kid have a glass of Chardonnay with Sundat dinner?</p>
<p>I think what those Virgina parents did was stupid, but I also think the sentence was beyond the pale ridiculous. Heck we don’t send murderers to jail that long.</p>
<p>My sentence - </p>
<p>1 yr for being complete idiots</p>
<p>1 yr for being arrogant and showing no remorse, and </p>
<p>20 yrs to life for owning a hummer. </p>
<p>Putting them together in the same jail cell - real justice.</p>
<p>higherlead, it’s not that they “let their kid have a glass of Chardonnay with Sunday dinner”. It’s that they served that alcohol to other people’s children. It’s very different when it’s your own kid - they had no right to make that decision for other parents.</p>
<p>Chedva I perfectly realize what these Virginia parents did and disapprove because they were serving other people’s kids. I don’t have a problem with the conviction but the sentence was over the top. Maybe not as bad as giving a kid 10 years for oral sex but still bad.</p>
<p>I just find it ironic that people who put their kids on Ritilin or birth cotrol would have a cow because some other parent has a more relaxed view of a fermented grape. It is not drugs they are opposed to but rather the nagging fear that someone somewhere might actually be enjoying themselves.</p>
<p>Higherlead - it’s fear alright, but not the one you mention - at least not for any parent I know. This all comes down to the mindnumbing fear of having to bury your child. Nothing will ever trump that fear. It was that fear that probably motivated each player in what happened in Virginia from the parents who had the party to the judge who handed down the sentence.</p>
<p>^^ITA cartera.</p>
<p>This is preposterous. There are just no words for this. 27 months for what ?</p>
<p>“It was that fear that probably motivated each player in what happened in Virginia from the parents who had the party to the judge who handed down the sentence.”</p>
<p>Probably so. But that’s part of what makes the sentence so outrageous. When judges have sentencing discretion, they’re supposed to exercise it in a way that’s predictable and consistent with the standards established by precedent. Letting your fears guide you to give a criminal 8 years instead of the <90 days that your colleagues on the bench have handed down to every similar offender is unjust, unprofessional, and inexcusable.</p>
<p>I have to admit that my immediate reaction to this case was with the hardliners, but I’ve shifted from that. I agree that the conviction was deserved but that the sentence was unprecedented and unfair. The mother in the case WAS remorseful during the original trials; she only came across otherwise when the outrageously long sentences were handed down. Has anyone yet mentioned the fact that the young woman in the community who was killed just a month before the party in the same community (the same one that the judge referenced in his sentencing) was <strong><em>the GF of the boy</em></strong> whose party this was? </p>
<p>The mother and the son were still reeling from this trauma when the party occurred. Maybe the mother made a mistake in judgment (a terrible one, IMO) but … no hard liquor was served, no one blew over .03 and every car key was confiscated. NO the parents in this case didn’t deserve any medals for that, but it does speak to their state of mind in trying to keep the kids safe. No excuses for what they did, though. If I were a parent of one of the invited kids, I’d be beyond furious. </p>
<p>Even the local representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving felt the sentence was likely to be overturned.</p>