When you read the actual article in the Times, it seems far worse - the mother and step-father allow their 16 year old son a party where some alcohol is served but all the car keys must be relinquished on entry so no-one can drink drive. An anonymous tip-off means at 11pm police arrive at the house, at which point the partygoers run away. The police catch 16 of them, of which nine had no trace of alcohol in their system at all and the other seven did not have enough in their system to be deemed "intoxicated".
Okay, yes she has broken the law and the prosecutor argues she should be sent to prison for the 40 days. However, the judge in his infinite wisdom decides to set an example because there had recently been a death from drink driving when a minor had crashed when under the influence, so he sentenced her to 8 years (which on appeal has been dropped to 2 years). It just seems moronic to set an example when the crime is simply not equivalent and in no way did her actions present the level of risk of helping minors get intoxicated then stick them behind the wheel of a car.