<p>OK thanks -I see you edited. If that’s the case, I agree they got really bad legal advice or none at all. Can you point me to the article where that is quoted?</p>
<h2>I think mini is right…it seems there’s a little gap in the facts presented. It appears as though the prosecutor offered them a deal (16 counts/90 days) and they turned it down ‘throwing themselves on the mercy of the court’…and got the wrong judge.</h2>
<p>"Going into court February 10, defense attorneys for Lisa and George Robinson threw themselves on the mercy of the court. They knew the prosecution was going to recommend 90-day jail sentences. So both Lawrence and Jonathan Wren, George Robinson’s attorney, believed that something less than 90 days would be appropriate. “In that court, a 30-day jail sentence would be harsh,” says Lawrence. </p>
<p>The Code of Virginia allows a judge to penalize contributing to the delinquency of a minor with up to 12 months in jail and/or a $2500 fine. </p>
<p>“Historically, it didn’t matter whether one was charged with 16 warrants or one,” says Lawrence. That’s because no one had ever been sentenced to 12 months in jail on one count. “It was unimaginable that the punishment for an adult giving alcohol to a minor, whether one count or 10, could put someone in jail for 12 months.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2003/02/20/coverStoryEightYearsForAmi.html[/url]”>http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2003/02/20/coverStoryEightYearsForAmi.html</a></p>
<p>"No, they got the sentence because they refused to work with prosecutor on a pre-trial release agreement under which they likely would never have spent even an hour in jail, and instead, deciding they were above the law, hired a good lawyer, figuring he’d get them off totally.</p>
<p>They guessed wrong. Now they pay. Happens to drugpushers all the time."</p>
<p>Ah lets just throw another amendment in the immigration bill you love so much mini. What is one more amnesty. Surely Ted Kennedy can find a little room in his heart for a sot and W is not exactly in a positio to toss the first stone either.</p>
<p>The 21st century roundheads want to take away our cigarettes, beer, and junk food. You will have to pry the pork rinds and Rolling Rock from my cold dead hands :-)</p>
<p>“instead, deciding they were above the law, hired a good lawyer”</p>
<p>I have a real problem with your suggestion that the decision to exercise your Constitutional right to hire legal counsel and challenge a prosecution means that you think you’re “above the law.”</p>
<p>Their choice to hire counsel and fight the charges was an expression of the most important law we have. When they made that decision, they were innocent, because they had not been proven guilty. It’s the state’s job to prove its case, not the defendant’s job to fess up. It is outrageous to claim that these defendants thought they were “above the law” because they (horrors!) actually demanded that the state prove its case against them.</p>
<p>Do you view the Guantanamo prisoners’ demands for lawyers in the same light?</p>
<p>“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments that the sentence was unreasonable, cruel or unusual, and it was clearly within the sentencing guidelines.”</p>
<p>So what? If anyone on the thread has argued that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment, then I missed it. The government has the right to implement a wide variety of stupid and wasteful policies. That doesn’t mean it should. We’re arguing that this is (1) a huge waste of resources better spent elsewhere and (2) an unfair abuse of discretion in light of the usual sentences handed down for this crime and the deference usually shown to prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations. Those are issues of state policy, not federal law.</p>
<p>
I’ll second that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, just because a prosecutor deems a punishment “appropriate” doesn’t mean that it IS. You never know when you’ll run across a Nifong. And in this particular case, there seems to have been “baggage” on the part of the judge that may have affected his objectivity.
</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>What is the drinking age in Europe? I’ve heard it is very young or non-existent in Germany. Of course I have also heard that some of the EU countries have draconian druk driving laws.</p>
<p>Reminding everyone that the original story about this said the following:</p>
<p>"The town buzzed about the August 16 birthday party they threw for Lisa’s 16-year-old son and the details reported in the Daily Progress: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>the $360 worth of booze Lisa Robinson purchased for the party; </p></li>
<li><p>the prosecution’s portrayal of Lisa Robinson as a woman who lied to other parents about alcohol being served; </p></li>
<li><p>and the saucy tidbit that once police showed up, Lisa allegedly advised the teens to gargle with vinegar to cover the smell of alcohol. …</p></li>
</ul>
<p>One of those arrested that night is a 17-year-old Albemarle High student. She says there weren’t that many people there when she arrived at 9:45pm, but by the time the police came, she estimates the count had risen to between 60 and 80. This partier says the Robinsons were indeed taking away everyone’s car keys. </p>
<p>She describes ice-filled trashcans full of “designer drinks” like Bacardi Silver and Mike’s Hard Lemonade. “I didn’t know I had anything to drink,” she says, because she didn’t realize the Bacardi Silver malt beverage contained alcohol. </p>
<p>When the police arrived, she recounts, “Everyone was pushing me to run, so I did.” The girl eventually walked out of the woods— and was given a Breathalyzer that registered just .016. “Most of the people who were drinking heavily ran and got away,” she notes. '</p>
<p>Here are some excerpts from a recent (June 9) washingtonpost.com article:
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802795.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802795.html</a></p>
<p>
Why sixteen counts when 7 of the kids had no alcohol in their systems?</p>
<p>
This woman has been repeatedly portrayed as an “unrepentant drug pusher.” Wonder who decided on what basis that she was “unrepentant”?</p>
<p>
When you plead guilty, at least you ARE taking responsibility for your actions. And this account is identical to the one cited by some earlier posters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, it appears that two different sources support the claim that this couple was more than willing to serve the 90-day sentences. It was the the judge’s personal (subjective) feelings (anger) that caused the sentence to be changed to eight years. I don’t blame them a BIT for fighting THAT ludicrous, politically motivated sentence, one that few rapists or murderers serve.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
I hope that the example that has been made of this set of parents has the desired effect of hugely diminishing underage drinking. If not, the damage done to those two kids will have been in vain.</p>
<p>
:(</p>
<p>You know what bothers me most about this case? Not the abusive judge since he certainly acted within his rights; but the effects of his abuse. He has turned perpetrators into victims by being overzealous. What he should have done was given these parents 27 months of community service…to include ambulance ‘ride alongs’ where they could witness, first hand, the victims of drunk drivers being scraped off the road. Here in Houston, they’d get a DAILY lesson they’d never forget.</p>
<p>ldmom~</p>
<p>Well, that’s just it. I agree. <em>IF</em> the motivation behind that sentence was the protection of young people, then it seems ironic that two were sacrificed to the cause, despite the fact that no one was injured or killed as a result of the initial errant actions of the <em>very</em> misguided adults. I think a LOOONG community service sentence such as the one you described would have had been a MUCH more appropriate punishment (and in fact, I mentioned this very idea early in this thread).</p>
<p>I think so, too. 8 years is ludicrous, although some short jail time might have been warranted. I love the ambulance ride-along idea.</p>
<p>My point exactly: I nabbed this link from the thread about the mother who was declared “criminally insane” and absolved of responsibility after KILLING her 12-year-old epileptic son. So, two parents who served alcohol to minors (admittedly MOST stupidly) with NO resulting injuries or deaths should get EIGHT years (reduced to 27 months), while a mother <em>killing</em> her son should get off? 
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...NEWS/706150302[/url]”>http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...NEWS/706150302</a></p>
<p>Also, just for clarification on this thread, since the term “drug pusher” has been used repeatedly:</p>
<p>from dictionary.com
2. Slang. a peddler of illegal drugs. </p>
<p>from Answers.com
One who sells drugs illegally.</p>
<p>From thefreedictionary.com
One who sells drugs illegally. </p>
<p>from die.net
2: an unlicensed dealer in illegal drugs </p>
<p>Since the parents in this case did not <em>sell</em> to the kids, they do not qualify as “pushers” according to every definition I could find. If these parents WERE “drug pushers” and sold illegal drugs to underage kids for their own financial benefit, I think a harsher sentence would be very appropriate.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>berurah…not all consideration is monetary. One could say what was received for the alcohol was ‘goodwill’ (popularity). </p>
<p>That is, if we are arguing semantics… ;)</p>
<p>I think that if one person hands a drug to another, even without payment, it is legally considered dealing, or ‘distribution’. Wonder if that extends to alcohol, since it’s not always illegal.</p>
<p>^^ <em>ROFL</em> ldmom… But seriously, I think you get the general idea, which is that an extremely perjorative (and inaccurate) term was deliberately used by a poster in an effort to try to warp/twist the set of events, which was bad enough already…but also not worthy of an 8 year sentence (or even a 27-month one) and the destruction of an entire family.</p>
<p>This is such a sad situation! I feel for those two poor boys - the shame and guilt they must feel, not to mention the poor momma and her ex. 
The justice system needs to change its focus from PUNISHMENT to REEDUCATION AND REINTEGRATION. Community service and alcohol education would have been an appropriate handling of this case. :(</p>
<p>b - lol… I get your point…but I do equate what this parents did to the actions of a drug pusher which is… corruption of minors/contributing to the deliquency of minors. I shudder when I see sympathy expressed for them and I could smack that judge for creating ‘victims’ where none should be.</p>
<p>That being said…I wouldn’t have jailed them unless someone had been hurt. I would have given them the most unsavory and lengthy of community service sentences possible and shown the upset parents of the other children involved the way to the civil courts.</p>
<p>
There are definite and significant shades of difference to me.</p>
<p>As completely stupid and misguided as these parents were, their intent (and I do believe this) was a convoluted effort to supervise what they thought would “happen anyway,” thus “protecting” the kids.</p>
<p>A drug pusher’s motives are SOLELY selfish, and s/he has no regard for others, convoluted or otherwise. It’s a financial endeavor only.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>…having been there berurah, I can tell you I felt just as upset when my d was offered booze by an adult at private party as I would have been had some lowlife approached her and offered her ecstasy at a club. Probably more so because of the betrayal factor. I can teach my kids to see the enemy in a drug dealer, but how confusing and hard to recognize that in the familiar face of a friend’s parent.</p>
<p>I don’t think drawing the line along the ‘financial transaction’ aspect of this is appropriate either. As I mentioned, I don’t necessarily think the parents were not getting SOMEthing out the whole deal either. May not have been money in this case; but it may have been popularity for themselves or their kids or fulfulling a perverse need to have a vicarious flashback to youth. (We have way too much of the latter going on around here that’s for sure…oh could I tell you TALES…lol!)</p>