The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Fishfinger Sandwich
Its not a little harsh, that scentence is disgusting.
They should have got a $100 fine or something. This is such a minor crime (I for one believe that it shouldn't be a crime at all).
I could proably go out now and beat someone up and I'd get less time than that. Infact, I could go out and burn a building down and I might get away with less (some peple burnt down a chunk ouf our school and someone that I know got like 1 year for his part in it and he was amongst the most severely punished).


You could become a violent, thieving, drug-using general nutcase and danger to society and still never face sentences like that. Of course it's disgusting.

Reue
You dont think its a crime to openly lie to a minor's parents about providing them with an illegal substance? Because thats exactly what they did.


It's not illegal, it's prohibited to certain persons.

And although the question was not directed at me, I shall answer: in this case, no.

My parents bought loads of alcohol for my 16th birthday - as did the parents of most people I know for similar other functions at that time.
Reply 41
Reue
A) Drug The term "drug" means a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).

(B) Illegal use of drugs The term "illegal use of drugs" means the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act.

For section A) Ethanol deffinatly fits under the schedules, probabley around S.4 or so.

For section B) The posession and distribution of Ethanol is unlawful by a minor under the Controlled Substance Act. Therefore a minor drinking alcohol is making "Illegal use of drugs" and this it is an "illegal substance" for them.

Thank you for calling my statements 'moronic' though, I shall return the favour and call yours the same. You clearly havnt looked into the background of this case, had you done so you would see that in the circumstance, a very harsh sentance was foreseeable and i'd expect many judges would have done the same in the same circumstances.


Groan....

21 USC Sec. 802(6)
The term ''controlled substance'' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Reply 42
Reue
My point was that it is to someone under 21 in america.


There is a difference between a legal substance with exemptions and an illegal substance (equally with exemptions). To ignore this distinction would render any act illegal because it would be to some sections of society (eg, to walk down a public street unmolested is illegal to a prisoner detained at HM's pleasure)
Reply 43
quadruple_twist
I knew as soon as I read the title that it would have happened in America. Their alcohol laws are so old-fashioned and draconian - there are still many counties in the US where it's illegal to sell alcohol!


Until Parish Councils became meaningless, there were plenty of 'dry' areas in the UK too where alcohol licences were not granted. I imagine the same is still true in some remote parts of the Highlands and Islands etc.
Reply 44

No one is denying that; it doesn't change the fact that a custodial sentence is clearly ridiculous.


It will hopefully thoroughly remind them that what they did was illegal and wrong.
Sambo1989
It will hopefully thoroughly remind them that what they did was illegal and wrong.

But did they do so wrong to get such a long sentence (remmebr it was originally 8 years :eek: ) - did they do so wrong as to need to be forced to leave one of their sons who is still in school without parents? Did they do so wrong as to be put in to a situation which lead their eldest son to drop out of school and not be able to follow his wish to go to college?
Reply 46
They should have more sense really, and thought about the possible consequences first, but 8 years i agree was very harsh
Sambo1989
They should have more sense really, and thought about the possible consequences first, but 8 years i agree was very harsh

Is 2 years also not very harsh when you think there were no serious consequences and it actually appears the judge only gave a 2 year sentence as he was reacting to the fact a child in the same area had recently been killed in drink driving incident which had nothing to do with anyone invovled here with this story and after it had been advised that 90 days was a suitable recommended amount for their sentence?
Reply 48
But it's what COULD'VE happened that they need tobe punished about, and to think about. Personally, i think it was a stupid thignt o do, with so many people around, although in all honesty i would've found it hard to find a suitable sentence
Sambo1989
But it's what COULD'VE happened that they need tobe punished about, and to think about. Personally, i think it was a stupid thignt o do, with so many people around, although in all honesty i would've found it hard to find a suitable sentence

And what could've happened needs to be compared against what the affects such a harsh sentence is and will have on the family - not just the parents but the kids.

It is having too serious an affect on them for the setnence to be justified - especially since it is not a sentence which wa srecommended and only seems to have been as harsh as it is due to events outside the control of everyone invovled with this particular 'crime'.
Lib North
Until Parish Councils became meaningless, there were plenty of 'dry' areas in the UK too where alcohol licences were not granted. I imagine the same is still true in some remote parts of the Highlands and Islands etc.

Yeah, but the majority of dry counties in the US do actually enforce the law. There are other counties that are partially dry, where people can drink in bars but not at home, or something like that.
Reply 51
lol my dad gave me wine when I was a 7 month old baby getting christened in church, he got told off by my relatives though when I started crying. He got away with it lol
Reply 52
Sambo1989
It will hopefully thoroughly remind them that what they did was illegal and wrong.


What was wrong about it? They were sixteen, it's not going to do anybody any harm.

As for illegal, I don't really think that matters.
Lib North
What was wrong about it? They were sixteen, it's not going to do anybody any harm.

As for illegal, I don't really think that matters.


I was going to post, but now I don't need to.

EDIT: Just realised that actually was a post...oh well...
Reply 54
What was wrong about it? They were sixteen, it's not going to do anybody any harm.

As for illegal, I don't really think that matters.


So it's okay to break the law? Then what's the point having it? If it doesn't matter that something is illegal, then surely in your mind it's okay for me to kill you. The law is there for a reason, and needs to be upheld, they broke it, and that's that.
Reply 56
Sambo1989
So it's okay to break the law?


There's nothing morally wrong with breaking the law just because it's the law. So yes, it's ok. Do you tend to just do everything someone tells you because they happen to be stronger than you?

Then what's the point having it?


More a question for government of the American state in question than for me. I think, like many laws, this one is entirely pointless.

If it doesn't matter that something is illegal, then surely in your mind it's okay for me to kill you.


Um, no. That's immoral.

The law is there for a reason, and needs to be upheld, they broke it, and that's that.


I think in this case it's more detrimental to the wider rule of law and to social harmony for the State legislature to have made this law than it is for someone to break it. I think civil disobedience is vital to a functioning liberal society.
Reply 57
I think the parents did exactly the right thing. They know full well that if they had prohibited alcohol, the teenagers would simply have gone somewhere else, where they could drive afterwards, and which could therefore be very dangerous. The fact is, the teenagers were probably going to drink alcohol in any case: better to be under supervision.
What would you feel more secure about: that your child was drinking alcohol at a friend's house, under supervision, and that he would definitely not be driving afterwards, or hitch a lift with another drunk friend, or that he was out drinking in a seedy nightclub, with every possiblity of drink-driving himself or being in the car with someone else drink-driving - he could be killed.
The authorities need to understand: teenagers drink alcohol. Fact.
Any amount of laws is not going to stop that. However, what you can do is allow parents to try and make drinking safer for their children.

Latest