Drexel lawprof Dan Filler at Concurring Opinions reports (Jul. 6) that Mountain Brook, Ala., a well-off suburb of Birmingham,
is considering adopting a new “open house party” ordinance. It would fine homeowners when two or more underage people drink alcohol in the house. On the third offense, the law provides that the homeowners would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Homeowners, by which we really mean parents, would be criminally liable even if they were unaware that kids were drinking in their homes. They are strictly liable – guilty even if they had no intent to break the law, had no knowledge it was being broken, and were not even negligent in allowing the infraction to occur.
Prof. Filler isn’t enthusiastic about the idea:
If a parent is not negligent – she does every single thing a reasonable person would do to keep her child in check – I think it’s hard to justify punishing her. What more can we ask of a parent?
9 Comments
So parents would have to stripsearch their kids every time they enter the house (or the garden, which is part of the property) as well as any other kids they bring with them, in order to ensure they bring no alcohol onto the property.
They’d of course also have to ensure that no alcohol is brought onto the property by any adults and either left behind when leaving or otherwise be available at any time to any kids (so either drink it all immediately or flush it before leaving the room it’s in).
How quickly would that lead to a lot of lawsuits for child molestation and sexual assault on children?
How can you oppose a simple suggestion that is intended to safeguard our precious children? đŸ˜‰
Sounds like welcome to police state Alabama. Isn’t this the same state that a simple pot possesion charge can get you 5 years? Sound like a lovely place to live.
So what happens if you’re out for the evening and a bunch of kids break in to use your house a party? If they get trashed are you liable for that as well?
Laws like this are designed to be a substitute for Prohibition. The objective is to outlaw alcohol and the consumption of alcohol.
JT,
“Darneed if you don’t, dangd if you do” is fairly common in American law, unfortunately. Your argument works wonderfully for people with anything resembling mental faculties… unfortunately, our lawmakers routinely prove themselves not to be included in that group.
So, if you’re a parent, the safest thing to do is keep absolutely no alcohol in your home, ever. If your real goal is to to achieve quasi-prohibition, this makes perfect sense.
Parents have the greatest influence on their children so holding them responsible is reasonable. This law has a three strikes component so after the second strike criminality can still be avoided. The escalating aspect of law seems fair as opposed to the laws regarding crack.
Would this also apply in Italian or French households where parents often serve small amounts of wine with meals?
What more can we ask of a parent?
They used to ask a lot more:
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you;”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Seriously, though, the three strikes component gives the parent more than adequate opportunity to do something about it. I’m sure Alabama has a provision for parents sending their own kids to juvenile detention – even some blue states have it.