From the Washington Post comes an article about a mom and her ex-husband who are going to jail. Here are the basic facts (I'll discuss her reasoning in a moment). Elisa Kelly and George Robinson decided to host a party for their son Ryan's 16th birthday. Ryan asked his mother to supply alcohol. Elisa and George supplied wine and beer upon the condition that none of them could leave the party. The police were called and found that nine of the sixteen party attendees had alcohol in their system, though none met the legal limit for intoxication.
There are assertions that she lied to the parents of the attending teenagers in saying that there would be no alcohol and also that she told the kids that gargling with vinegar would cover up the alcohol, though she denies both in this article. And if the history they give in that article is correct (substitute teacher, baseball coach, never had a parking or speeding ticket), I am inclined to believe her. After all, she has never denied what she did and has only contested the sentence (more on that to come).
Her reasoning is what really makes me think. She indicated that she believed that they were going to go get drunk whether she provided the alcohol or not. In fact, she notes in the second article that she would pick up these kids from other parties and they would be drunk. By her providing it, she was able to keep tabs on how much of what was consumed and, perhaps more importantly, she could control driving. In fact, according to her interview on this website, she went around collecting car keys and had other plans
I remember a friend of mine, Jerry (not his real name), losing his father while we were in high school. His dad suffered a heart attack while out horseback riding. The family was one of those families that welcomed anyone into it who needed some support. Consequently, there were about half a dozen other teenagers who felt as though they had lost their father figure. I remember stopping by that night and his mom walking up to me with a bucket full of keys, asking for my keys. She explained that her son and his friends were going to go out and get drunk to deal with this death whether she liked it or not and that there was nothing she could do to stop him. So instead she bought the beer and had them come to the house. That way, she could keep an eye on them and make sure no tried to drive home. I explained that I wouldn't be drinking and she told me that as long as I didn't even touch a bottle or can of anything, I could hang onto my keys. I conveyed my condolences to Jerry and talked with him and the other people there for about 20 minutes before I left.
It took me a while to process her reasoning, but in the end, I really agreed with what she did. Yes, she was breaking the law, but given her choices, she chose what I believe to be the lesser of the two evils. I don't know if any of those teenagers would have gotten killed driving home drunk had she not done what she did, but I do know that every one of them was at her house and not driving because of what she did.
Back to the 16th birthday party, I am left wondering the same thing about this woman and her son's party. The first article indicates that the judge was angry about the death of a teen the year before who was driving drunk. So, despite the prosecuting attorney's recommended 90 day sentence, the judge sent them each to jail for 8 years. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court, it was dropped to 27 months, the suggested 90 days plus 2 years.
So, to sum up, we have judge who wrongly lets a previous, completely unrelated incident of a teen killed while driving drunk sway his opinion in sentencing a man and woman who broke the law by throwing a party designed to keep teens from driving drunk. Anyone see anything wrong there?
I talked with a friend from Germany the other day who told met hat the legal age to drink in Germany is 16. The legal age to drive is 18. She told me that she went drinking at a club before she was 16 and there was a police sting. They simply made the under 16 leave the club but didn't do a thing about the fact that alcohol had been served to those under age. It simply isn't a big deal over there. You really don't even get carded. And drinking at home with your parents is the norm.
She went on to say that binge drinking isn't a problem over there. Drunk driving isn't either (although I am sure a better public transit system plays into this as well). Because it is open and accepted, teens don't have to find ways to sneak out to drink and then they don't feel the pressure to drink as much as they can because they may not be able to drink again anytime soon. They can learn to drink openly and (speaking generally) responsibly.
I wonder if that would work here in the United States. Would allowing teenagers to learn about and how to drink before they learn to drive and in a controlled and open manner reduce drunk driving and drunk driving deaths? I bet that more teens would be calling home asking for a ride instead of desperately attempting to make it home with their car and sleep off the buzz before their parents realize what they were out doing.
I realize that this is a rather controversial topic and there are probably a few of you out there with some differing opinions on the matter. I'd love to hear from as many of you as possible regarding whether you agree or disagree with me on any of my points above. Just be sure to include in your comment why you believe what you do. Purely visceral responses don't lend themselves towards productive discussion very well.
***Disclaimers***
Let me state explicitly for those who do not know or may be wondering at this point, I do not drink and have never tasted alcohol. I hope and plan to raise my children to do the same.
Also, I do realize that this line of reasoning can be easily extended to drug use. I realize that and I have chosen not to write about that. It very well may be addressed in a later post, but this one is too long already.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I disagree with you on this point. My real mother has adopted this position with my youngest two brothers. She feels that, like the woman in this story, drinking at home is totally acceptable. I recently discovered that this idea not only applies to alcohol but to drug experimentation as well. I agree that on the surface, that allowing experimentation in the crucible of a supervised home is safer than experimenting elsewhere in the world. But I feel that this idea on the whole is a grand justification for indolence on the part of the parents. I feel that is reenforces the idea that "laws really don't apply to me, just everyone else" and as such promotes an irresponsible youth to become an even more responsible adult. I feel that there are some things in life that are worth fighting about. to simply put your tail between your legs and say, "there is nothing i can do about it anyway" is absolutely the wrong response to this situation. I feel that the judge was just in his decision. My two youngest brothers are total products of their environment. They both feel that in life they can make whatever decisions they want without worry or care of consequence. To them they are above reproach, and anyone that dares to enforce justice on them can go and fly a kite. They are oblivious to the responsibilities in life, and one day, they wont be able to run and hide under moms skirt. Justice will catch up with them and they will be unable to comprehend why because they have grown up above responsibility. Mercy cannot rob justice.
First off, thanks for the thoughtful comment, Rob.
The first thing I would point out is that neither article says anything about her believing that drinking at home is acceptable on an ongoing basis. She does indicated that her son and his friends would drink on this occasion anyway and that if she didn't provide the alcohol, he would find it elsewhere.
To her, what she chose to do was the lesser of two evils. I don't necessarily condone or approve of her actions, but simply express understanding and sympathy for her dilemma and reasoning.
Also, I agree with your assertion/observation of continued tolerance and encouragement of under age drinking can lead to a sense of entitlement. However, and perhaps I should have been more explicit in this, when I was questioning whether Germany's approach might be better than our current one, I was indicating a change in laws to reflect something more in line with Germany's regarding drinking, not simply continued illegal consumption by minors.
As for your assertion that this is only an excuse for indolence among parents, I think that it may be in some cases, but I certainly don't think it is in this case nor in all cases. I think this is especially so when viewed with the fact that in many of these families, alcohol is a part of daily life that there is nothing wrong with (as opposed to LDS households where it is a taboo). In fact, in her case, she seems to be far from detached and uninvolved but in fact a very active mother who is concerned about her son's welfare. Further, I would propose that lazy parents already will turn a blind eye to their children's drinking and probably wouldn't go through nearly the effort that this woman or my friend's mother went through. A change in the law that allowed drinking at a younger age certainly wouldn't change an "indolent" parent's behavior.
As for the drug aspect, I included that in my disclaimer. And while I agree that in some cases, such as indolent or permissive parents, that the implicit or explicit approval of under age drinking then extends to illicit drugs, I don't believe that extends universally. After all, alcohol consumption becomes legal and socially approved at a certain (arbitrary) point while illicit drugs remain so despite age.
I'd love to hear your responses to anything I have to say.
I guess I have to weigh in on this subject myself. Let me get one point out of the way early. Even though you addressed the issue of drugs in your disclaimer it does not address the myriad of other issues that can be similarly justified by this type of behavior. Most important is sexual activity. Certainly if the kids are going to go out and engage in pre-marital sex then why not have the bedrooms all set up with various contraceptive devices, soft music, clean sheets and low lighting; and even a doctor to check for venereal disease. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it.
Parents cannot turn their backs on parental responsibility. And, preaching that using alcohol (or drugs, or premarital sex) is wrong, and then providing for them the opportunity to engage in that behavior is at best hypocritical and at worst criminal (to wit. the subjects of your article). To carry it one step further, what right does anyone have to provide illegal substances (alcohol) to my children! How dare someone take that upon themselves (In my other life as a Neanderthal that would result in a severe asswhoopin'!).
A responsible parent begins early in life to explain that alcohol is not the answer to mourning or any other emotional or physical problem. If that means changing their own behavior so that they raise more responsible adults then they are - well, isn't that what parents are supposed to do - raise their children to be better and more responsible and more successful then they are? What about providing counselors, in the form of clergy (oh, they probably don't have a regular church they attend) or school counselors, or heaven forbid, pay some professional counselors to be present and help these youth deal effectively with their grief. When the kids wake up tomorrow with the hangover and find that the grief is still there - do we give them another night of boozing? How many times does it need to occur before someone realizes it isn't working. And if by chance it does dull their emotions enough so that they think it did work - what is the answer to the next emotional crises in their life? More alcohol? Stronger alcohol? Who is there to take their keys every night? Where does responsibility come in? Being responsible is not taking car keys and letting kids get drunk-that is "covering your ass"! Being responsible is really helping these youth to deal honestly and effectively with their problems. And what happened to a parents right to tell their 16 year old, "You are NOT going out and getting drunk tonight!"
No son, on this one I cannot agree with you, I understand your thinking, but I believe it is flawed. Imagine your own son or daughter at 15 or 16 and someone providing alcohol for him/her to deal with her grief or some other problem that they thought could be addressed this way. Is that something that you could support?
My next question is, why didn't you partake of the alcohol in the occasion it was available to you, or any other occasion? What was it that made you different and why can't that be the same for the rest of the youth?
No, we don't need anymore excuses for parents who grew up in the 60's and think that indulgence is an "okay" way of life. It was the era of doing your own thing and ignoring the law. Yes, perhaps I do that even now with the speed limit issues; and perhaps I have taught my children improperly through this type of behavior- for that I apologize, but that does not in any way excuse me.
Well, enough of my rant. Nice that we can agree to disagree and continue to love each other.
Love,
Dad
I know I already said my 2 cents worth earlier, but I have been mulling this over for the last few hours. I do not disagree with what I said previously, I just find myself more outraged with the actions of the two parents regarding a 16th birthday party. It astounds me that they would consider such a thing. Perhaps I live in a different world, but I don't think so. The rights of children to have a "beer bash' for their 16th birthday don't exist. Period. There is just no justification that I can wrap my brain around. Eight years might have ben the better sentence. As far as the judge - no I don't see anything wrong. Judges are selected, or elected, because they are knowledgeable of the law and because they are supposed to be able to administer it properly. Punishment for crimes is supposed to serve two purposes (sometimes more) at a minimum. It should deter the perpetrator form ever committing that crime again, and it should deter others from wanting to commit that crime. Of course in capital cases it should also remove from society those people responsible for heinous crimes. Until the people of this nation face the fact that teenage deaths from alcohol are unacceptable they will continue to grow. I don't believe a day goes by that some alcohol related crime occurs. Many resulting in death, the death of the person using he alcohol, and/or the death of other innocents who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
More judges like the one you wrote about would equal less death and destruction from "parents" who just want to let their kids have a good time. Removing the keys doesn't do much - it might save them from one night. But the example set by those parents will last a lifetime - no matter how long - or how short - it might be.
I agree with your dad. He makes a compelling argument.
Ok. let me respond point by point as I think that is the only way that I may coherently cover all the issues you raise.
As a premise though, I feel the need to raise a philosophical issue that I am struggling with, one which deserves its own entry here and probably should have been addressed previous to this matter: to what extent should I advocate for the legislating of my morals? Our agency is of significant value, so much so that Lucifer's bastardization of our Heavenly Father's plan through which Lucifer sought to eliminate our ability to choose and compel us to do what we "should" was cause for him to be cast out of heaven.
It is absurd to think it is right for us to pass laws banning tea and coffee, but those of us who are Latter-day Saints believe they should not be consumed. How about a law prohibiting anyone but "emergency workers" from working on the Sabbath? How would you define working? What about when the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jewish populations start advocating for the same thing and you thus can't work on Saturdays either?
While this may be an absurd idea on those specific examples, it becomes a much more heated and difficult topic when it comes to topics that some see as morally reprehensible and others see as perfectly normal. On whose side should we err?
To follow your example regarding sex, I like you believe that premarital sex is wrong and that children should be taught its divine nature and the circumstances under which God approves of it. However, there are those who firmly disagree with this view and see sexual experimentation as a normal developmental step for adolescents. While your example may be a bit extreme, I have no doubt that there are parents out there who feel that they would be irresponsible not to provide contraceptives and education about safe sex to their children because there is nothing wrong with premarital sex (according to their beliefs) as long as it is done safely.
Now, I do not subscribe to moral relativity, in that I do not believe that morals are only correct for the person who believes them. I believe in universal morals that God has decreed and that all mankind should be obedient to them. Sincere (not self-imposed) ignorance may allow one to escape consequences but the morals have still been broken. All I am trying to convey is that for those who are ignorant of the morals that we understand to be universally correct, we appear to be the irresponsible ones in that we fail to educate our children about safe sex before marriage. I believe theirs is a faulty, erroneous view, but I believe it is a common and pervasive view in society.
So when laws are proposed that would enforce one view or the other, which one wins? The abstinence only view or the safe sex view? Well, it is still an ongoing battle, as any examination of school sex-ed curriculum matters will tell you.
I think what it comes down to is that parents want the right to teach their children about sex as they see fit. Agree? Those who see it as appropriate if done safely don't want you or I legislating that they have to teach "no sex until marriage" and you and I don't want to be arrested for teaching abstinence only. We want to parent our kids according to our beliefs. And if that involves providing them with or at least supplying the means for them to get contraceptives or a doctors appointment to make sure that they aren't carrying an STD, then those parents should have that right. Whether we approve of their behavior or not (and vice versa), each parent wants to raise their children according to their own morals.
When you boil down the issue to parent rights and the law, it isn't quite as ridiculous as you made it out to sound.
Dad Bratt: "Parents cannot turn their backs on parental responsibility. And, preaching that using alcohol (or drugs, or premarital sex) is wrong, and then providing for them the opportunity to engage in that behavior is at best hypocritical and at worst criminal (to wit. the subjects of your article)."
The problem with this point is that you are viewing the world through and LDS lens. While that is fine and good for idealistic discussion and religious conversation, but when deciding on how to legislate, it becomes problematic. While you, I and the rest of Mormondom agree that alcohol and premarital sex are to be sworn off, there are many that disagree.
Regarding the providing of alcohol to the other minors, I agree that she wasn't in the right to do that. However, you were an active and involved parent when I was a teenager which is more than what it sounds like the parents of these other teens were. This isn't to justify her actions so much as to point out that they were drinking heavily at multiple parties already. If their parents didn't care about the other instances of unsupervised drinking, why would they care about this one instance of supervised consumption? Again, I don't believe she was in the right to provide it to other kids.
I agree with your remarks about alcohol not being a good form of grieving. Not everyone realizes that. For those that don't like my friend Jerry, he was going to drink either way. I am glad he was safe when he did. Not saying I think his or his mother's decisions were the best, but they were better than his mother using her rights to tell Jerry, "You are NOT going out and getting drunk tonight," then getting into an angry fight, him storming out of the house off to somewhere else to get drunk, and then dying in an accident while trying to get home. The vast majority of teenagers would respond just like I believe Jerry would have, by leaving the house. She has the right to tell him that as does any other parent to their child, but that doesn't mean the kid is going to listen. All it means is that they'll be on the moral high ground if they have to stand next to the kid's casket.
As for how I would react to my son or daughter being offered alcohol, I would hope that they would turn it down, just like your son did when someone offered it to him. Prohibiting something or making it hard to get to has never worked for keeping people from it. That is why the war on drugs is a never-ending battle, that is why gun control doesn't work, and that is why the prohibition enacted in our 18th amendment didn't work. People have to choose not to want something and until they choose it, restricting access is only a slight hindrance...a delay at most. If my son or daughter at the age of 15-16 stumbles home drunk, I'll need to have a long talk with them. I can't rely on other people who have other morals to be responsible for my teenager. By that age, they should have a good enough head on their shoulder to know whether they should consume alcohol. Getting angry at someone else is just an excuse for not looking at the real problem: the kid and their parents. Whether it is someone else's parent, some other adult, another teenager, or whatever, alcohol and other substances will be come in contact with. Morality is up to the individual. No outside component can control it.
What made me different and why didn't I drink? Well, I had "goodly parents" who helped me to learn about the spiritual consequences of consuming alcohol. I don't drink because God prohibits it. That is why. Unless another kid is LDS or converts to the church, they aren't going to know that and consequently, it doesn't matter to them. Eternal salvation and some arbitrarily set age are two entirely different set of rules.
As for your speed limit example, I think it perfectly supports my point. You see non-moral laws (such as traffic laws) as being less important than moral ones (such as alcohol, at least to you and I). You really aren't any different than these other people except that controlled supervised drinking for them falls into the first category of non-moral laws. Indulgence was the battle cry of the other parents who were ignorant of what their children were doing or really didn't care. They were indulgent in letting the child do whatever the child wanted instead of them taking an active supervisory role and teaching them.
Again, I am not saying that I would do what this woman did. And perhaps I give her too much credit in saying this, but my impression was that she realized her son was going to go drinking whether she provided it or not. Short of calling the police and giving her son a criminal record, if he was going to do that, there really wasn't anything she could do to keep him home and keep him from drinking.
Dad Bratt's second comment: "Until the people of this nation face the fact that teenage deaths from alcohol are unacceptable they will continue to grow."
I heartily agree with this point. Those deaths are unacceptable. The problem is that under current law, teens can't learn how to drink responsibly. In fact, they can't learn to drink at all until they are 21, away from home, and unsupervised. Then, they can go to a bar and learn how to drink. And who teaches them when enough is enough and when they've had too much to drive? Their college buddies, most of whom have been drinking illegally since they were a teen and unsupervised, learning from their high school buddies who don't know how to drink responsibly.
Perhaps, just perhaps a revision of law is necessary, which is what this whole posting was about (not about condoning or approving of illegal drinking or of breaking the law). Maybe changing the law to allow teenagers to drink at home with a parent present would allow parents to have an active hand in helping their teens learn how to drink responsibly. At the best it might help change the same problems that have always existed, even during prohibition. What is the worst that can happen? The teens who are already drinking continue to? Possibly with their parents knowing now, since there is no reason to hide it?
You make some interesting points but I still cannot agree. What gives us the right to dictate our morality through passage of legislation that conflicts with another? The same right as others take to dictate their morality. Isn't that what is happening when laws, or executive orders are made that prohibit me from protesting that a homosexual individual is teaching my child, or if i do not want a homosexual working for me. I cannot hire who i want or fire who i want because someone else has said hat my morals are wrong and i must abide by theirs. We have every right to try and pass laws that we believe will make this country better, more moral, more righteous - and others have the right to oppose those laws-through the legal system in place. Isn't that what happened with the very first laws. Are laws against murder, sodomy, incest, rape, assault, theft and so forth an attempt by some group to impress upon society their moral beliefs?
When I believe that certain laws might better serve society it is my moral responsibility to try and get them passed into law. I think no one should get their license until they are 18. I will support those politicians who support that law. I believe abortion should be illegal - I will support a politician that supports that belief. We had it once and someone else thought it was immoral so we lost it. If someone doesn't like the law there are all sorts of opportunities to try and change it. Just randomly breaking it is not how it is changed. Ignoring the law is illegal. I explained in my earlier post that i am wrong in braking the law with regards to speeding and if I continue and am caught I will pay the consequence for it. The same as that couple you wrote about earlier. They need not feign such amazement at the sentence - it was apparently within he confines of the law.
If someone wants to teach their children, and allow their children to do things that are wrong under color of law - that is certainly their prerogative, and again the consequences are theirs to deal with. But no one, No One has the right to offer my child he opportunity to break the law. Who are they to over ride my beliefs? Who are they to override society's beliefs (since the law is still on the books) and put my child (someone who the law says is yet incapable of making all of the right and proper decisions an adult can make) in a position where they have to make a decision to go with the crowd (peer pressure is one of the hardest things to ignore) or to go with the law and their parents?
Many laws concerning the use of alcohol at a certain age, the use of tobacco at a certain age, driving a car at a certain age, are there to protect the youth because many adults/parents are incapable and or too lazy, and/or don't the the mental capacity to govern their own children properly. Society demands that certain rules exist to protect youth who are, due to immaturity and lacking in experience, simply incapable of making informed decisions. And adults are held to a level of responsibility of seeing that those laws are obeyed. Why, often times because society ends up paying the price for the incapable/uncaring/stupid parent. Let's look at the welfare rolls, costs for healthcare for teenage pregnancies and then the children that follow. Just to name a couple. How about the costs for rehab centers for alcoholics and addicts, many of which started while still a minor. I could go on, but the night is far spent and I have to get up for work in the morning. Something about being responsible and supporting my family:)
Love ya son,
Dad
I agree with you. It seems likely that more people who were going to drink would learn to do so responsibly if they were drinking with adult supervision.
Post a Comment