You be the judge: supplying alcohol to underaged party goers

Read through the whole news link for more details.

Before getting too hasty in deciding things and assuming that the prosecutor was an S.O.B., you need to be aware that the prosecutor asked for a sentence of 90 days.  It was the Judge that decided that the penalty needed to be much more harsh.  The Judge went with an 8 year sentence that was later reduced by a higher court.

Still, does the new punishment fit the crime?  Should there be any punishment at all or was this a no harm, no foul crime?

Again, please read the entire article for the details as there is more to the story than simply meets the eye here.

"Not only were they serving alcohol to 15- and 16-year-olds, they misled parents who called to ask about alcohol"

Unacceptable. Would've been fine with 8 year sentence. Lying to other parents about their kids is wrong, especially when you're letting them do something illegal. Probably better just to not let kids drink in your house - less jail time that way.

This is a great example of an offense for which I think the punishment should be putting them in the stocks for a few hours every day for awhile.

Prison is waste of time and taxpayer money for these "parents". They aren't violent offenders, so why seperate them from society? They are working and contributing to society, so why house, feed, educate and entertain them at taxpayer expense.

What they did was stupid and irresponsible, but they also didn't attack anyone in anyway.

The thing is though, they did it in the wrong state. If they had of done that here in Wisconsin, for their own 16 year old... it would have been legal. Buying for the 20 year old, and their friends would have gotten them in trouble though. ;~D

I'm not reading your response first, terp.

There WAS a crime committed, and one that needs to be recognized. Did they commit a crime by serving their OWN children alcohol? Not in my book (although the law might say otherwise). But the irony here is that they served alcohol because they believed they had the right to raise their children as they saw fit (and, again, in my opinion, they do), while denying other parents that same right. You can bet had my children been one of the other kids, I'd be rather pissed at the deception.

Stocks would work. I would accept stocks!

I still cannot believe that parents are that stupid. Buying for your own kid(s) is one irresponsible thing but buying for the whole neighborhood full of kids is a new level of retardation. They think they can justify their actions and own up to their responsibilities as parents by rationalizing it all away -- they took the kids' keys away beforehand. That does not make it okay. This is a "duh" moment, one that I pile onto the mountain of "people are stupid" evidence which I keep.

Now to your actual question: did the punishment fit the crime? 27 months in jail is lenient. They should feel lucky that a more irate judge wasn't throwing the book at them.

A more irate judge did, and it got overturned. Bah.

I still cannot believe that parents are that stupid.

Believe it.  This is a big issue in this state because a 17 year old girl went to a party like that, and decided to drive home.  A man is dead.

Instead of regreting the whole sordid affair, the neighborhood is up in arms that the girl is being tried as an adult.  In addition, in the same area, several more kids have been busted for having alcohol at parties where they were underage (as were the guests).  The parents were supposedly unaware of it (they were at the Rivah), but instead of being mad at their child, they are mad at the police!

But I do also agree with Parated.  Jail is not really going to do them any good.  Stocks would be a fitting punishment.

Yes you are just a mom, but an irresponsible one. You should not have mislead other parents, you should have been open about it and given the parents the opportunity to decide for themselves, you took away their rights to decide, besides "just" breaking the law.

That said:

The punishment does not fit the crime. A more suitable crime in my opinion would have been:

27 months of community service working with alcoholics both young and old. Locking her up does not serve anything or anyone.

Until Jessica's law happened violent child predators got less time than these parents, {still do in Vermont} these parents are very stupid, I think they should have to wear sandwich board signs every time they leave the house telling the would how stupid they are and be forced to answer questions asked of them about booze and drug use.

I'd a put 'em on deferred adjudication for about ten years. Save the jail space for the real criminals.

Jennifer1 said:

The punishment does not fit the crime. A more suitable {crime corrected to read: punishment} in my opinion would have been: 27 months of community service working with alcoholics both young and old. Locking her up does not serve anything or anyone.

My opinion is more along these lines.

Deceiving other parents was stupid, ignorant, and so on.  But is that an offense that is punishable as a crime?  More to the point, is it an offense that would be punished by tossing someone in jail and turning them from a productive member of society into a drain on society?

Instructing the party goers to lie to the police, is conspiracy, plain and simple.  But again, does it rise to the point of tossing someone in jail for this sort of time?  When the underlying crime was providing alcohol to a minor?

ShovelHeat says here:

I'd a put 'em on deferred adjudication for about ten years. Save the jail space for the real criminals.

Actually I'm not sure that some sort of real jail time might not have been warranted, but perhaps that time should be done as a work release type format, or one that would lock the parents up on weekends for the original 8 year term.

I can see that sending the message that underaged drinking isn't tolerated at all is a good thing.  I can see that sending the message that providing alcohol to minors was a bad thing.  I can see giving the parents a harsh penalty, but I don't think jail is the answer, or at least not the best answer and certainly not the only answer.

Some harsh financial penalty with the money going to M.A.D.D. or other alcohol education programs would have helped.  Having the guilty parents be required to work with M.A.D.D. or someone similar would have helped.

Throwing the proverbial book at the parents by sending them to jail just seems to be ignoring the opportunity to have turned the whole experience around.  I'm actually a bit surprised that the appeals process seems to have been concluded without the penalty being much more severely reduced.

A common practice here is the use of something called "shock probation." It's where the offender has to serve a short stint, like usually 90 to 180 days straight with zero goodtime, and then be released on probation for the remainder of the term.