You know another thing we can’t see: the name of the idiot who handed diown the eight-year sentence. The name is conspicuously absent from every story I could find. Eventually, I find a story that mentioned the name of the appellate judge, but the trial judge’s anonymity is preserved.

JR
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/

“You seem to have a utilitarian view of criminal law, i.e., it’s OK to break the law if there is a possible benefit to people.”

If I have to trespass and steal your crowbar to get a child out of a burning car, I’m going to do it. And if the law charges me with trespass, the law is an ass.

1) Breaking the law is, generally, a bad idea; however, the law is an IMPERFECT mechanism with a specific aim, and in this case, the mechanism misses the point. Also, just for the record, the odds of any poster on this forum not having personally broken a law in th last week is incredibly small (that’s how many ridiculous laws we have).

2) Even ignoring #1, taking action against the parent in this case, while NOT taking significant action against “unsupervised” parties is quite ridiculous.

3) Even ignoring 1 & 2, increasing the sentence for an activity that was spcifically designed to PREVENT drunk driving bcause the sentencer wants to prevent drunk driving (or prosecuting the case because one wants to be seen as being against drunk driving for political advantage) is, to put it as mildly and politely as possible, missing the entire point.

One can say that the actions of the court and prosecution in this case are ridiculous without necessarily endorsing what is being prosecuted.

Minors drink. 50+ years of trying to get thm to quit has failed spectacularly. If stopping drunk DRIVING is more important than stopping drinking (and I would hope that’s universally acknowledged), action against this particular couple is counterproductive (again, trying to be polite in word choice).

(disclosure: I’m an abstainer who doesn’t categorically oppose drinking, teenaged or otherwise)

Isn’t our criminal justice system insane? You get less penalty for killing your husband than you do for serving booze to minors.

The Tennessee example is not an isolated incident. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study of large urban counties, wives who kill their husbands without provocation get an average of only 7 years in prison.

By contrast, husbands who kill their wives get a more reasonable 17 years on average. The grossly indulgent treatment of husband-killers seems to reflect deeply ingrained gender-bias.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has noted that gender-bias in favor of female defendants is commonplace in the federal courts as well.

Thanks for clarifying that Ted. I guess I have a different perspective because the neighborhood where I grew up had one of these “fun” families.

They let all the kids drink, because “kids will drink so we might as well keep them safe.” But the parents also let them smoke pot, do coke, have sex, etc. All under the guise of protecting kids.

I give kids and parents a little more credit. If you know your child is going to break the law, don’t help him. Ground him, take away his car keys, but don’t simply give up and participate.

And one last thing, I think any utilitarian aspects could be brought up at sentencing to get a lower sentence.

You seem to have a utilitarian view of criminal law, i.e., it’s OK to break the law if there is a possible benefit to people. So if I rob a bank to feed the poor, it’s OK? I’m just trying to figure out where you draw the line.

The other part of your argument is that if people are going to commit a crime, it’s OK to help them do it safely. So if your kids are out committing armed home invasions, it’s OK if you help them commit unarmed B & Es instead.

The last part of your argument is most disturbing. Your entire argument is based on the premise the kids never follow the law so you might as well give up and join in. There’s no reason for me to respond to that.