Drinking and Driving case - schools have too much power?

[Phi for All]

As a parent, I want my kids to make little mistakes when they're little, to see the consequences of their actions as early as possible. Good parenting is all about letting your kids suffer for their actions and not trying to ameliorate the damage, in hopes that they'll learn and not be faced with big mistakes when they're big. As they get older their actions carry more weight and hopefully by then they have learned that some actions just aren't worth the potential damage.

 

That said, while driving drunk is extremely serious, not involving the police could be beneficial in this instance. If even one of those girls gets the message without having to be dragged into the legal system and start a police record, it's worth it. Something tells me that if those girls don't get the message now then they will be destined to kill some people while driving intoxicated. Arresting them for this infraction may not make any difference, and it could actually limit their capacity to improve in the future.

 

If it were my daughter and this was a first infraction for drunk driving, I would be grateful the police weren't involved. If it was the second or third infraction, I would probably be calling the police myself.

[Dak]

i get what your saying, and agree to an extent; but, at the same time, childhood is about learning, and one of the things that you have to learn, in preperation of becoming an adult, is that if you do something majourly wrong, then you will get in majour trouble; it's not enough to learn that you might get in trouble with your techers (which i suppose would be the equivelent of getting in trouble, as an adult, with your boss), you have, imo, to learn that the more serious things -- such as potentially endangering life -- result in a trip to the courts and the possibility of prison, harsh fines, withdraw of licence etc.

 

i think i'm a little unforgiving in this respect, because in britain, afaict, most of the random thuggary is the result of the fact that schoolkids can bully and fight without having anything more serious than a holiday suspension.

 

these schoolkids got pissed, got in a car, and haven't had to deal with any serious repercussions. not really helping them to learn the lesson that if they screw up this bad as adults they'll be in a whole load of trouble.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I'm inclinded to agree with Dak. I don't see how you can possibly view drinking and driving as a mild offense in the least. I would expect them to be punished severly.

[gcol]

Have I missed a post where the danger to other pupils has been mentioned? In this case, no harm was done. But if they had injured someone, staff or pupil, the law would have been involved, the school sued, etc. etc.

 

A strong example should have been set as to the reckless disregard for others. This is where the school, in my opinion, erred by being so lenient.

 

And as for whether they obtained and consumed the alcohol on school premises.........

[john5746]

How about, rather than saying we should mistreat everyone equally, we work at treating the gangbangers more FAIRLY... then again, rather than make them simply innocently black, you suggested they are gang-members, which suddenly changes the idea of fairness a little, doesn't it? Almost seems a little funny to me you felt you had to throw in that bit...

 

Just trying to present the more extreme example. Not sure they would handle clean cut, professor looking black people any differently. I guess I should say 4 students that look like they are in a gang. What difference if they happen to belong to a gang? You should punish based on the infraction, not on looks or grades, etc.

 

lastly... in light of the recent events across the us, you'd have to be an idiot to just nod away at a kid who brings a projectile weapon, even a minor one, as for the girl, sexual abuse is a far cry above generic adolescent wrecklessness, and does have a direct victim, rather than just in theory.

 

In light of recent events - do you know how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Also, you assume alot in the second situation. A guy grabbing a girl's breast doesn't automatically make him a sex offender.

 

If it were my daughter and this was a first infraction for drunk driving, I would be grateful the police weren't involved. If it was the second or third infraction, I would probably be calling the police myself.

 

I feel the same way, but we are biased when it involves our children. The best situation would be to have the police come and take the kids to the jail and make them think they are going to stay in there, then let them off. But, I know what I would do with my kids, not sure about others. So, in general I say it is better to error on being too tough.

[Phi for All]

i think i'm a little unforgiving in this respect, because in britain, afaict, most of the random thuggary is the result of the fact that schoolkids can bully and fight without having anything more serious than a holiday suspension.

 

these schoolkids got pissed, got in a car, and haven't had to deal with any serious repercussions. not really helping them to learn the lesson that if they screw up this bad as adults they'll be in a whole load of trouble.

Serious repercussions are not the sole jurisdiction of the police. While I would be grateful not to have my daughter's records on file with the National Crime Information Center, I would not be the parent who gets a head start on vacation and takes the teen with me. In fact, no family vacation would be the tip of the iceberg for serious repercussions.

 

As I said before, while my job as a parent is not to lessen the severity of any consequences, if the school had chosen not to involve the police in my daughter's case, I would be grateful to them. I am fully capable of making sure my child understands the severity of drinking and driving. And if she had gone out anyway and took the risk, I've got to make sure she understands what would have happened if the police had been involved.

 

It is a shame in the OP's instance that the parents didn't take the time to work up any concern.

[AzurePhoenix]

What difference if they happen to belong to a gang? You should punish based on the infraction, not on looks or grades, etc.

If they're in an actual, criminal gang, then I say yes, it does matter. As I've mentioned, once I heard that these girls had prior delinquent behaviors unde rtheir belts, I thought that they should automatically have been given to the cops. I think there's a big difference between a one-time offender who does something that might be out of character, and someone who might regularly get into trouble (and it doesn't matter what they wear or what they look like in that regard)

 

In light of recent events - do you know how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Also, you assume alot in the second situation. A guy grabbing a girl's breast doesn't automatically make him a sex offender.

Indeed, drunk driving is a serious thing that needs to be regarded, (i believe I did say I would have said to flog them, in all seriousness) but also, it's a crime of stupidity and foolish wrecklessness rather than a malicious or at least unstable and outright attempt to scare, harm, or kill others, a far different degree on the scale of possible intent. Perhaps the beebee gun kid is just incredibly stupid, but maybe not, and a closer, more responsible look into them needs to be taken.

 

Now, under these particular circumstances with the car(as I have stated based on new information) the girls should have been handed over to the cops, having committed their crime in daylight and not being first-time offenders. However, had they been first-timers, and the incident had happened at night, i would say that it is perfectly acceptable for the parents to be allowed to drive in the point (however sadly, it seems that at least one set of them didn't do that in this particular case.)

 

As for the breast thing, if she wasn't okay with it then yes, it is sexual harrassment (probably not molestation depending on the circumstances), and is a matter that needs to be addressed by the victim's desires, not something to be determined solely by the school.

[susu]

I think the hazards of drunk driving are too easily forgotten. Perhaps if u knew some1 who was killed by a reckless drunk driver, then one wouldnt hesitate to get the police involved. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, no matter how old he/she is, which means he/she carries the risk of seriously harming him/herself and others.

 

Suspending the girls may, or may not have lead them to think twice about such an act, but if the authorities were called, then i am almost sure that they would have thought more than twice about doin anything like this again.

 

If the girls believed they were "mature" enough, or "old enough" to be drinking and driving, then they should be old enough to deal with the consequences of getting caught.

 

Im assuming that no caring parent wants to see their child go to jail, but then again, i dont think any parent wants to see their child murdered by a drunk driver, no matter how "cute" they may have been.

 

I am in total support that the police shouldve gotten involved. My only hope is that these girls dont repeat drunk-driving, and end up hurting anyone; including themselves.

[AzurePhoenix]

I think the hazards of drunk driving are too easily forgotten. Perhaps if u knew some1 who was killed by a reckless drunk driver, then one wouldnt hesitate to get the police involved. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, no matter how old he/she is, which means he/she carries the risk of seriously harming him/herself and others.

I think that, understandably, you seem to incorrectly associate my support for "handling it themselves" (at least former support for when I thought they were "first timers") for letting them off more leniantly. I fully understand the harsh and unforgivable nature of the crime. I simply feel that more often than people realize, especially regarding kids, that good parenting can be FAR more effective than legal action. Especially for crimes of this nature (based on how it works where I live of course), legal prosecution does little more than humiliate them in the strict sense of lasting beurocratic paper-tags following them around, which themselves can be a superfluous hassle for everyone involved. I can garuntee you that if I ever had a kid who pulled a stunt like that, they would suffer for it in ways far more potent than what a court could dish out. So my stance is not based on the sake of the girls at all, but on the overall effectiveness of handling the situation as a whole. But, as I also mentioned, that effectiveness is directly dependent on how good the parents are at parenting. Some will be better than the legal system, most will be just about as effective, but very few will be less so, just because the legal way to do it really doesn't accomplish crap.

 

Suspending the girls may, or may not have lead them to think twice about such an act, but if the authorities were called, then i am almost sure that they would have thought more than twice about doin anything like this again.

I'd have to disagree on that count. Kids these days are tough, and are particularly disdainful of the law. They bitch about the cops that caught them the first time around, but nothin ever came of it, so they go out and do it again the very next night. Most of the kinda kids who are likely to be scared outa the habit are often only kids who would be too scared to risk it in the first place. On the otherhand, parents, if they're doing their job, at least hav ethe potential to make life hell for their unruly spawn, and actually hold at least some bit of power. In theory at least.

 

If the girls believed they were "mature" enough, or "old enough" to be drinking and driving, then they should be old enough to deal with the consequences of getting caught.

and the legal consequences aren't neccesarily the most effective ones. I don't understand why people always seem to associate the legal avenues with being the best ones, or having anything to do with justice.

 

Im assuming that no caring parent wants to see their child go to jail, but then again, i dont think any parent wants to see their child murdered by a drunk driver, no matter how "cute" they may have been.

Jail? Hah, unless you actually kill someone, prison for drunk-driving is a myth, and even if you do smear someone you might not get any jail-time. I'm only against getting the cops involved because that would only cause trouble for the school and parents without necessarily punsihing the girls any worse than a good parent would be able to manage.

 

My only hope is that these girls dont repeat drunk-driving, and end up hurting anyone; including themselves.

well... crippling injury is the best teacher, especially if they can't use pedals anymore besides, you do something that dangerous, you deserve to suffer the consequences for it. No pity for the self-harmed. It's jsut too bad that for a drunk-driver to actually get punished legally (in the more effective than usual ways), they HAVE to hurt someone first or at least put them in serious near danger (and usually then only if it's a kid in harm's path).

[Sisyphus]

In New York (that's where this was, right ecoli?), a first time DWI offense can have up to a year in prison, depending on mitigating circumstances. However, the bare minimum penalty is just a $500 fine and a 6 month license suspension.

 

http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/ny.asp

[AzurePhoenix]

In New York (that's where this was, right ecoli?), a first time DWI offense can have up to a year in prison, depending on mitigating circumstances. However, the bare minimum penalty is just a $500 fine and a 6 month license suspension.

 

http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/ny.asp

And if New York actually follows through with those threats, that's great, honestly, but are those things actually usually carried out?

 

Because here, no matter what the lawfully outlined penalty might be, they're almost certain to get off with a smile, a handshake, and the simple several hundred dollar fine, which I don't really consider proper "punishment" at all, it certainly doesn't make them suffer to the core (and younger kids often get brought home and dropped off and that's that). But the actual law states they should be getting the fine, a three month license suspension, and a week or so in jail. Hence my disdain.

 

The only time that's not the usual case around here is when the counties stage "binges" where they set up snag-points to reel in and catch as many drunk-drivers as they can in a night or two, who then get... special treatment from the courts. All to show the media they're doing their job. They make a big party out of it