Son's prom night DUI

Parents Forum
381

<p>

</p>

<p>If this was the first time you spoke with your son about your feelings regarding drinking and driving, I fear it might be too little too late. Chances are he’s been either drinking and driving, or been transported by someone who has. Chances are that tonight he will not think twice about your discussion last night. I hope I’m wrong.</p>

<p>I started having this talk with my sons when they were in middle school, and I had it often. I had it again a few nights ago with my son who is home from college for the summer, and he’s well over 21. He’s still my kid, and I still worry about him. This thread opened up a nice conversation for us, and it was eye-opening to me that he and his friends did/do take DUI very seriously.</p>

<p>Part of “the talk” in my house was: “If you or anyone with you is drunk, call me. I will drive you and everyone else home. Yes there will be plenty of questions, but no, you won’t be “in trouble” with me. If I’m not home, there’s cash for a cab in the house. Make sure you and your friends are safe and look out for each other. On the other hand, if you get arrested, don’t bother calling me and you can sit in jail.”</p>

<p>Now, of course, I would have done anything in my power to keep my kids from having their lives ruined (as the OP is doing). BUT, I needed my sons to believe deep down that if they drank and drove, I would not bail them out. (Same if they were caught drinking while under age, etc.) I have high expectations when it comes to my sons’ behavior, and I expect them to live up to my expectations because they are capable of doing so. Now that they are both young adults, I believe they took me seriously. </p>

<p>We also had plenty of talks over the years about what the laws are, and what we think they should be. But they were aware that even though I thought some of the laws were wrong, I still expected them to obey the law or suffer the consequences.</p>

382

<p>I think I suggested to the OP that sometimes a judge/court/law will accept diversion programs in lieu of jail time, and that might be something he can pursue. Sometimes such programs are only acceptable if they are residential, though that can vary to not being acceptable at all.</p>

<p>Yes, such programs are preferable to hard time. There is an implication that goes with serving hard time, that makes it a real taboo in our culture, and so having that on one’s record can be a real problem. It’s just the way things are. Two identical charges, two exact same sentences, but one gets off with it suspended, and the other does the time, and it’s a world of difference as to how this is is viewed. Going to a diversion program, to rehab, all of those things don’t have the negative impact as it crosses over to being a medical issue. You see a lot of celebrities immediately pack up and check them selves into an impatient venue when they get into trouble. So, yes, there is a huge line that is crossed when you have to actually do jail time, and so it is viewed on your record.</p>

<p>The other issue is the psychological impact of all of this for someone who has never been in much trouble being sent to jail. And the jails vary. You get into trouble i some parts of NY, and any hard time you do in the local pens could be treacherous indeed. In some areas, not so much. But it hit the kid, the family very hard, and do a lot of damages emotionally, mentally for a family member to actually get sentenced. It’s very hard to wrap one’s mind around that. There is a reason why suicide watches have to be made when this happens. </p>

<p>A friend of mine married a man whose only son killed himself after he was sentenced to jail on some drug charge. The kid could not get over it, and, yeah, one can say he was unbalanced anyways, and that no one who isn’t already suicidal would do this, but I don’t agree with that. There are those who try to kill themselves in extreme situations that don’t often come about. And going to jail can do it. It also devastates the family. My DH’s cousin was sentenced to jail, and I’ve watched the aunt and uncle age 10 years in this one A situation where he would have likely not gone to jail with the right lawyer and if had not cooperated with the authorities, but with a court appointed lawyer and pleading guilty with no deal since he gave them everything he got time, the only one in the case, by the way as the rest of them refused to give an inch. </p>

<p>It is not a fair thing at all that these centers are available to those who can afford it as well as the better attorneys, but that is the way it goes. </p>

<p>But yes, a diversion program, in house treatment, any of those things simply do not have the negative impact of jail.</p>

<p>I know a young woman who was sentenced and did time. Though competent, well educated, and motivated, she could not find a job anywhere. Her record precluded it. My son tried to get her something, and yes, the jail time was the problem. Employers just could not get past it. She got a job as a mechanic through a training program for ex cons, and that’s what she did, until someone did finally hire her, and she is a great employee. But, yes, it will be an issue for the rest of her life that she did time, and yes, what she did and was sentenced for was something that is often plead down and often not given real time jail. Her parents refused to help her out as they felt she had made her own bed and had to take the consequences but they were aghast that she got the max sentence, and it’s hit them hard too. They’ve separated since. These things can tear up a family. </p>

<p>I do not believe in free passes, I am clearly on record against underage drinking, take giving out driving privileges very seriously, and have weathered some storms because of my stance on the last two things here. But I do not think jail time, due the how it is perceived for the rest of ones life is appropriate in this particular case, even with the aggravating circumstances.; at very least I don’t think it should be MANDATORY, which it is, the way this new law has been set up. I think that hamstringing the judge so he has NO discretion about sentencing was a bad move on part of those who drew up the law. Why do we have judges anyways? That’s so a person experienced in these things make make a decision as to whether the situation is one that warrants a certain punishment or not instead of having a one size fits all solution.</p>

<p>On a broader issue, I think that we, as a country jail too many people. The stats in this area are appalling. We are very quick to jail. And a major problem with this, is that we then run out of space and money, and what can happen is those who should most stay jailed get released at times. Yeah, I saw that too. There are people who should be jailed because they are truly a danger to others. And I will put a mulitple DUI scofflaw in that category. The same with any number of those who have shown that they will repeatedly do the same thing that puts others at risk. I truly do not believe the OP’s son will be likely to be drinking and driving, or even driving for a long time, whether he is jailed or not. And from what I have seen around this area, each year starts anew with these kids and their drinking and other risk taking, and whether a kid the prior year got time, doesn’t seem to do a thing. When the young woman I mentioned went through this, her peers from her school did not cut back on the same activities, nope, not at all, and kids were caught doing similar things, the very ones who knew she was jailed. So what is the purpose of the jail sentence in this case? Jail that son of a gun who has done this 6 times before , and danged if you can’t. Most jail time that occurs in these cases, by the way, do not have much in rehab/education programs, by the way. You sit, and literally do time.</p>

383

<p>Thinking of the OP this morning and hoping he and his family are coping as well as they can. My heart goes out to the family as they get through this awful mess. I am praying for the best possible outcome.</p>

384

<p>Cpt, I agree, our drinking laws have failed us. I would propose that for people between 18 and 21, they have a choice. They can get an drivers license that allows them to drive, or a non-drivers license that allows them on-premises only alcohol consumption (no buying for take out).</p>

385

<p>“On the other hand, if you get arrested, don’t bother calling me and you can sit in jail.” </p>

<p>This can have very far reaching consequences. Better you say, “sit tight, and say nothing, admit nothing until you call me.” That can put a lot of control and options in your hands. Made a huge difference in my sons’ and because the parents of the young woman I know who did hard time, let the system take its course, she got the max sentence. The problem is that each transgression has a sliding scale of outcomes, many times, along with what the charges are going to be. The police usually try to get as many charges in there to give them maximum flexibility. The DA is going to go after them with vengeance with the probability of winning the case a main concern. The adversary system which we have, and which many posters here feel is the way to go, assumes that each side will do all that can be done to fight the case. You put that on the head of a kid or young adult who has no idea the ramifications of the trouble he is in, and you are setting him up for getting slammed. As I said before, the danged career criminal knows the ropes, and catching that son of a gun can be very difficult, but as far as a DA is concerned, a win is a win, and he might have to let the slippery repeat eel who has beaten him time and again go while goes to shoot the fish in the barrel for his head count, and your kid could be one of those fish. </p>

<p>I won’t let my kids drive to much at all, and I drive them or have another parent doing the driving. I can do this now with ease, since the NYC driving rules make it age 18 and driving to school for my younger kids was not something often done among the kids because there are very limited car parking options. Easy to do when the system is set up so it’s not so easy to just let the kids drive. I think the Europeans are smarter than we are with their age 18 driving rules.</p>

<p>But the older ones…most of their peers drove, and a lot had cars or good access to them, and really any controls go out the window that way. One of mine was just wired to take risks, and I think by being right there, I did curtail most of them, but he still got into trouble. I don’t think driving to certain venues is a good idea, I don’t care how much you trust the kid. Grad parties, proms, other group things, I think I’d do the driving or make sure another responsible parent is doing it. And I might just stick around the premises even kids I trust. That’s what I have done. And busted up some boozing plans that kids, not mine, had at these things, and have won the witch of the year award many times for this. As crazy as it may sound to us as we are on this thread, many parents are not appreciative that you found the booze. Some even provide it, you know. I 've discussed that on any number of threads. “Everyone has a plan about these things, until they get hit”, and until hit you can’t make any points with these people. The fact of the matter is that the ODDS ARE ON THEIR SIDE ON ANY GIVEN OCCASION. It is not perceived that you stopped anything because no one believes that anything is going to happen, that the kids do this all of the time, heck those parents spiked the punch at their grad party/prom when they were that age. Rite of passage. </p>

<p>But, no , my high schooler will get driven to these things, and I will discretely but with the antennas up, be just hanging around, and I will drive him area just as I was doing before he got his license,though he might now be doing the physical driving while I drive shotgun. But I’m still aware that I am just cutting down on probabilities, not eliminating them.</p>

<p>The headmaster of a school has just been a changed man, just broken, since his son got caught and expelled and yes, the judicial system was involved too. The parents were vigilant, he knew the ropes, but the kid still slipped through the safeguards. Nice kid too, and I would not have picked him as one to do what he did, and I do have my eyes open.</p>

386

<p>We don’t allow our kids to have drivers’ licences. We don’t allow them to be passengers in cars driven by anyone under 21 (without prior permission). We drive them to parties and interview the hosting parents. They take a mandatory bus to and from prom (school policy). We poke and pry and are hugely unpopular. I feel until their brains mature enough to permit them to make good decisions, it’s my job to protect them from themselves (and others) as much as possible. Even so, I do not for a moment kid myself into believing we won’t one day be walking in the OPs shoes.</p>

387

<p>Teens are not adults no matter what privileges they are given. In our society, we have a juvenile justice system because we instinctively knew teens were not as culpable for their actions as adults were. Now we have more than instinct, we have science to explain the difference. We know that using good judgment, controlling impulses, contemplating the consequences of an action are dependent on an area of the brain that is not fully developed in 17 year olds. Teens are naturally risk takers and parents and adults are frequently looking at a teen saying aloud or to themselves, “What were you thinking?” for a good reason – they weren’t thinking.</p>

<p>Teens still should be accountable for their crimes. The difference doesn’t have to be a slap on the wrist in a juvenile system versus a hammer in the adult system, so all DUIs are transferred to the adult system. In a juvenile system, with a judge who is allowed to be judicious rather than following a legislative cookbook of mandatory sentencing laws, the judge can look at all the evidence. He can determine if the offender needs alcohol rehabilitation or alcohol education. He can determine if the parents will support a one-year suspension of driving privileges, because as we all know a teen without his license is miserable, but it’s not fun for the parents either when they have to drive them to school and activities again. A sentence of 40-200 hours of volunteer work in rehab hospital feeding accident victims, in my opinion, will do more good for the teen offender as well as his community than 7-30 days in jail. The juvenile system also allows for records be sealed or expunged so that a price can be paid and a lesson learned without lifelong consequence.</p>

388

<p>Cpt, I agree, our drinking laws have failed us. I would propose that for people between 18 and 21, they have a choice. They can get an drivers license that allows them to drive, or a non-drivers license that allows them on-premises only alcohol consumption (no buying for take out). </p>

<p>I don;t agree. i think raising the driving age would make a big difference. Why it’s suddenly so urgent for kids to be driving at age 16, 17 to track practice, meets,etc when you are car pooling and driving them at ages 14, 15, I don’t get. Because of NYC rules, I’ll be driving my kid to track all the way through senior year as he doesn’t turn 18 until right to the end. But in the county, parents let their kids drive to schools, friends houses, back from games, and EC practices, social events, and it’s a disaster waiting to happen. When you have them loose like that, you have no idea where they are and what they are doing with wider possibilities when a motor vehicle is in the picture. My kid was not where he was supposed to be when he got into trouble. He left and went elsewhere with someone who had a car, and let me tell you, that other kid was one than most anyone would have trusted, the shy nerdy kid who never got into trouble at school, young looking and sweet, top of the class, etc, etc. Sure his parents trusted him with the car. Probably worried he didn’t socialize enough, have enough friends, to to enough things. So he hangs with my son that evening who had friends everywhere and there were hotter venues than the one they had parental permission to attend.</p>

<p>It’s not the drinking rules. None of those high school kids are legal to drink. I’m saying they should not be legal to drive either without a parent or other adult over age 21 sitting shotgun,like a learner’s permit. Only isolated exceptions like those who do get restricted driving privileges due to priors, for those kids who work jobs, and that’s from work to back or with other reason, and the privileges revoked if caught driving elsewhere and at other times. No reason those kids should be driving to friends’ houses, events, to school just because they turned 16. That would take care of a lot of the problems. We parents are nuts to give the car keys to these kids and let them loose. We are playing a lottery doing this, I don’t care how good the kid is and what he tells you even if he tells you the bad parts, you are not necessarily getting it all and may not get it all in the future. Don’t fool yourself one minute. The song of the siren is very, very strong, most always stronger than parental admonitions.</p>

389

<p>Csfmap, the OP’s son and most kids who get caught this way will lose their licenses for a while. Not just a year. and when they do get it, will likely not be able to afford insurance for a car, and parents unless truly well heeled will balk to pay those amounts. The loss of driving privileges, going to some alcohol counseling are foregone conclusions. The school has also thrown in their penalties. The kid’s mug shots are on the internet and the news has been reported in community papers. There will also be a hefty fine, and required community service. And he will have something on his record in terms of a conviction of a DUI. He’ll have to likely report this on a lot of things, job apps, certainly college apps that ask and I think the common app will ask. So, there are consequences. I just think that a month in jail is too much. I support every bit of the rest, though maybe some quibbles with details, but where I plunk down my money and become Mama Bear and fight is with that jail time. </p>

<p>And as for parents driving the kids to activities and “play dates”, sadly, I think it’s important in high school. When the cat’s away, the mice will play. When you send them off to college, you just pray.</p>

<p>Just as an observation, those kids who did get into problems in college due to alcohol drugs, discipline, they were not, and I can say this unequivocally about kids I’ve known at a number of schools for the past 20 years and am supported by those at the schools who also hear about these things, are not the ones that the parents kept sheltered. Yeah, maybe a few of them finally break free of the restrictive rules of home and get into trouble because they could not handle the booze, sex, drugs, freedom, but those kids are not the train wrecks, in fact I can’t think of any. The ones that ran into trouble already had that running start at high school. It doesn’t work that way that if they have had “practice” drinking, exposure to drugs and a lot of freedom and socializing in high school that it prepares them for that college scene. Nope. It’s the regular crowd that gets into trouble then too. The only hard stat in all of this, and it is a hard statistic, is that the longer you can keep them from the booze and drugs, the better your chances are that they won’t get into as serious trouble and that if they do, the chances are better they can kick it. Rock solid stat, that one is.</p>

390

<p>Thank you for that thoughtful response, cptnofthehouse.</p>

<p>On a related note, I just had an interesting discussion with my other, underage college student. While he and his friends always have a designated driver, last night’s driver let one of them carry an opened partly full bottle of liquor, in a pool bag, in the passenger compartment of the car, home from a party. </p>

<p>Open container in the passenger compartmet in car of all underaged kids.</p>

<p>Yes, the driver was stone cold sober, but accidents happen, tires blow out, engines fail, the driver might slide through a right turn on red without coming to a complete stop…all kinds of things could happen on the way home in which a police officer might take a look in the car, and there, he/she would have found a sober driver, with at least one drunk friend, and an open container in the passenger compartment. Not out in open sight, but there none the less. Never occured to them to leave the bottle at the party they left, or to at least put the bottle in the bag into the trunk of the car. (Nothing bad happened last night, but sheesh!)</p>

<p>Kids involved included some with ROTC and other scholarships to lose.</p>

<p>They are ALL victims of their undeveloped brains! Stupid decisions abound.</p>

391

<p>Aaakkk! That last post was #666! Need to add another post just to avoid that number. ;)</p>

392

<p>I grew up in NYc, and lived (when in the US) in Chicago and Philadelphia. I basically didn’t drive (or hold a license) until I was 37. But where I live, the public transportation system won’t for the most part get you where you need to go. That’s true in most of the country. So there are an awful lot of old cars on the road! So there is the relatively poor working family, with parents working two jobs, and now teens wouldn’t be able to get to the few ECs they can afford or, more commonly, can’t get to their own jobs.</p>

<p>And so, with very good sense, the law extends adult privileges to teens, with some restrictions. Learners permits, graduated licenses, restrictions on those under 18 in cars, in some places time restrictions and curfews, laws that treat those with adult privileges as adults for auto-related crimes. It’s not perfect, but it reflects the community’s values pretty well, and we change them when the community’s values change.</p>

<p>If the kid is assessed as not having an underlying alcohol-related problem, it makes an absolute mockery of treatment to send him there. Do you send a patient to cancer treatment who doesn’t have cancer? Do you think he didn’t have alcohol awareness classes in his school?</p>

<p>He committed a criminal offense which would, in the adult system, get his sentence suspended, or probation and community service. This is LESS than he would have gotten in the juvenile system, at least in my state. But he did more than DUI. He planned a DUI to have aggravating circumstances. And the community’s values speak to that.</p>

<p>I am absolutely no fan of jails, as I’ve already written. Relative to other crimes, however, I think this would be a pretty good use of jail space. (And all the business about pleadings, attorney, argumentation, etc., leaves me absolutely cold.)</p>

<p>As for undeveloped brains, that’s the argument for the drinking age being age 25 (we know that drinking peaks at 24), and for military participation beginning at age 40 - life experience, and having children changes the brain.</p>

<p>I still want to know about the track coach. Has he been told about his charges’ drinking (and, I assume, driving?) What is he planning to do about it? Or did he know already, and put his head in the sand?</p>

393

<p>nYou are wise, Je ne, and you are cutting down the odds. To be frank, I knew that my one son was high risk for issues. It was very clear from his personality, his social manners, his popularity, his risk taking, his penchant for making trouble in what seemed to be controlled doses even when watched, and wanting a bit of a “bad boy” rep, which endeared him, by the way, to many, including parents and teachers. He always pushed the limits, so I had my eye out on him anyways. But he still slipped out. Now ten years later, it turns out he did slip out other times, but not that much because we were watching carefully. No where near what he would have, had we not been, and to this day, he blames us for putting a quash on a lot of things for him socially, Maybe in 20 years he’ll see it differently. But no thanks from him for watchdogging him as we did, Zero. </p>

<p>The other one, was not any trouble until much older, and just decided he liked the drinking and drug scene. Lots of fun, and felt good. So he started late and drifted into the scene and made a conscious decision to do these things as an adult when he also had to learn that there are consequences to living and acting that way. And he was a slow learner. I would have told folks that at that age, the "kid’ is not a kid, but an adult, and to let him suffer, but due to what I learned, well learned, how things work in our courts, yes, I was involved, but not in the same Mama Bear way I was with the other one who was in high school when he got into trouble. </p>

<p>The good news is that it did pass. So far, it seems to have. I still knock on wood. but there doesn’t seem to be the problems. That we fought the charges for them, has their records relatively clean, and, yes, it does make a difference in many good job opportunities. They do check you out and yes, DUIs and any police record can be a deal breaker. So, the money was well spent in getting them through those years, though at the time, it was a gut wretching decision, as I really did not support their activities. </p>

<p>S, Je ne, you are doing what you can to bring down those odds. Bear in mind that they are not that high anyways which is what makes it so dang hard to bring them down further. You are talking maybe one incident every other year at most high schools, so the lottery odds are such that most parents (and the kids) just don’t take it seriously. A track team or whatever could have a drinking tradition for years with no one the wiser, and then a kid finally gets into trouble and the word gets out. Though the OP was classic in trusting his kid with the car around other kids without bottlestopping (literally) opportunities by treating the kid just like a middle schooler in terms of transportation and “playdates” which is what you have to do to have a good chance of keeping your kid out of the drinking games. No way the kid should have been allowed to drive to the prom and have free access to a vehicle. Yes, it’s hind sight in this case, and I am not slamming the OP, but no, no, no, I absolutely did not permit that for ANY of the many proms my kids attended, and it was hell for me to be shadowing them for parts of it as NYC clubs were involved and all night activities. And I was just about the only parent skulking in the shadows watching. And got a kick in the teeth for curtailing other kids’ activities But that’s what it takes. And as old and tired as I am, I’m dong it again.</p>

394

<p>cpt - re-read my post. I agree with your position regarding jail time. Many posts on this thread have defended harsh DUI laws. My point is that a DUI offender doesn’t have to be assigned to the adult system to receive harsh penalties. Harsh also doesn’t have to equate to jail time. Society can be equally served and protected from offenders that are assigned to the juvenile system. </p>

<p>This doesn’t help the OP, but my concern reading this thread is that the state of NC passed laws to treat minors as adults, and they’re not.</p>

395

<p>No, they passed laws to treat specifically adult behavior based on privileges that the state gives to adults in adult courts. Big difference.</p>

<p>I oppose harsh penalties. I don’t see anything here that is particularly harsh. Jailing kids for having their pants too low, or speaking too loud, now that’s harsh.</p>

396

<p>“This highlights the whole problem. The “child in the car” is the same age as the driver who is being considered an adult. So if you’re in the driver’s seat, you’re an adult and if you’re in the passenger seat, you’re a child even when you’re the same age, did the same thing, and made the same decisions (to be in a car with a drunk driver). That seems very contradictory to me.”</p>

<p>The passenger isn’t doing the same thing. The passenger isn’t exercising the adult privilege of driving and thereby endangering innocent people. It’s the innocent victims that the law is trying to protect. As far as the law of drunk driving is concerned, passengers are innocent victims.</p>

<p>From the point of view of the parent worried about the teenager’s safety and decision-making, yes, being in the car is the problem, and whether you’re a driver or passenger doesn’t matter that much. But that’s a matter of parental teaching and discipline. From the point of view of public safety, who’s driving is extremely important. Only one of those kids put OTHER people’s lives at risk.</p>

<p>As it happens, I don’t agree with trying minors as adults in pretty much any context. But I don’t see a contradiction in treating a 17-year-old as an adult when they are endangering others and as a minor when they are only endangering themselves.</p>

397

<p>Plea bargains are pretty much a mockery of the laws and penalties, mini,which what mandatory sentencing tries to eliminate. Whether you think it is a mockery or not, if the option is available to send someone to a center vs jail, that is their option. As you said to me about some things, “don’t like, it change the rules”. If it’s an open option, then it is as open to the OP just as it is for some celeb. I don’t know if it is or not, but yeah, I’d take it over jail for my kid. If your kid is in a similar situation and you think jail is the better way to go, that is up to you. It’s not up to YOU or any of us to make the options. They are already there. We just bring them up.</p>

<p>Parental reaction to these things range from let him sit in jail since he did what he was accused and get what’s coming, to an all out fight to get as much of this dropped and diverted as possible. The problem is once you decide to fight and choose what you feel is too much of a punishment, you realize that you gotta pretty much go all out to have any choices anyways since it’s not like you can choose how much choice you are going to have.</p>

<p>Yeah, my kid spent a lot of time in those centers with no dxed problem. Hated every second of it there, but I think the time was better spent there than at jail, though, no it was not what I would have chosen with some better choices. It’s not like I had a whole array of them. It was that or jail, that or nothing. Frankly, I needed a baby sitter for him and that’s what the place did. And Mama was right there as I volunteered and participated for just as many if not more things than I did for his nursery school while he was there. Yup, I was the class mom there, the only one, and it was not one bit appreciated. </p>

<p>A little late that those parents suddenly can’t drive their kids at age 16, mini, for the ECs. This is a project the school needs to put together where those moms driving help out. A car, even a clunker is not cheap, and I just don’t see it. Too bad about the ECs is what I say, if something like that can’t be worked out.The risks with the kids with the cars are too high, IMO. But that is just my opinion, and that isn’t happening. And, hey, I understand, My kid had 4:45 AM on deck swim practice three times a week. I was very grateful that the laws were such that he could drive there, after I’d done it for two danged years. But if he could not drive, I would have done it for another 2. </p>

<p>As for THIS being good use for jail space??? I absolutely disagree. I saw what generally gets jail space, and who usually walks away in these cases. Up until 6 months ago, this would have been a case that could be reduced in charges, and for the judge to have had some discretion, and I don’t think in the vast, vast majority of jurisdictions, he’d be facing 30 days as a mandatory, unless some loophole isn’t found. So it puts it in the upper nth in terms of punishment for this crime, premeditated or not, and the premeditation isn’t even an element that goes into it for anyone in terms of judging the severity of this. Not one bit a mitigating or aggravating factor. Doesn’t matter if he just happened to come upon the drinks and had no idea they were there and drank just because every one else was. Not one bitty bit. That he drank at all, drank that much, drove, had a minor in the car, sped those are the issues. Premed has NOTHING to do with this case and would not help him either. Didn’t in any of the cases I’ve seen either. Those with deliberate alcohols smelling breath and air freshners in the car, those who read up and study how to best beat a DUI rap when the cops catch you, carrying some other meds, refusing ot cooperate, now that’s premeditated, and they tend to beat the rap, so your are REWARDED for that. So forget the premeditated. Of course, it was premeditated, about half the time it’s known that there would be booze, part of the fun, you know. At least he didn’t supply it like my kid did.</p>

<p>As for the track team and coach, if the other kids all deny it, which they likely will, not much to be done other than careful watching, warning the kids, and letting the parents know. By the way, mini, those alerts happen a lot at high schools. Hard to nail the kids with no evidence. </p>

<p>A few years ago, the word got out that a bash with contraband was in the planning for an athletic event when some kid was caught and told all that was going on in hopes that his “sentence” at the school would be lessened (it was not, he was thrown out). But the school went wild about searching every single kid going on the bus and making this trip (it was to states) and interrogated the kid and the parents, and considered cancelling it. Parents objected so vociferously, not at all supported by even a minority, so the trip went on. The hotel was out a ways with NOTHING nearby. The booze showed up anyways. How? Parents dropped it off. Some kids had extra bags that were not searched because they did not go on the bus, that they asked parents to drop off later at the motels. Also stuff was mailed to the hotel for pick up. Yeah, found out all about it later. </p>

<p>So the drinking will continue because most parents honestly are not that hepped up about it. You want to do some bear hunting, try to go after that cross country team that the OP’s kid has said has drinking after practice. You better come fully armed, cuz you don’t have the proof and the Mama and Papa bears are going to show their teeth at you if you come asking too many questions. That poor track coach doesn’t have a chance. Just a sour grapes kid trying to get more kids implicated after being stupid and unlucky enough to get caught and now trying to curry favor. Yeah, I know how this usually works. You gotta have some ammo, like some real proof when you go bear hunting. Even then the bears will get their licks in.</p>

398

<p>mini, I respectfully disagree. The state gave the privilege to drive to a minor. The minor broke the law by drinking underage and by driving drunk. He’s still a minor. He’s not a legal adult. He hasn’t reached the age of majority. And in our society, he hasn’t reached the status of adult in law, physiology, psychological development, social status or self-sufficiency. He’s a kid who did something really stupid, irresponsible and illegal and the juvenile court system should deal with him.</p>

399

<p>“As it happens, I don’t agree with trying minors as adults in pretty much any context. But I don’t see a contradiction in treating a 17-year-old as an adult when they are endangering others and as a minor when they are only endangering themselves.” </p>

<p>Your second sentence directly contradicts your first. I guess the “pretty much”" covers a lot because most crimes involve endangering others. So if you rob someone or physically harm him, you are still a minor but if that person , who provided the booze, by the way, willingly got into the car, you are the adult. I don’t see the sense. </p>

<p>I think the penalty is to harsh, the OP does as well, and I’ll bet most parents in the situation will agree and they will put big money down to back it up , as OP will be doing. Heck, he can just not get an attorney and go to court and let the kid get the mandatory 30 days, The way that law is wriiten, there really isn’t much leeway as to how this goes. The lawyer is there because of the 30 days. Everyone would be on the same page and the money could go to the victims of drunk driving fund if it weren’t for this. </p>

<p>But each person is entitled to his opinion on this. This is a new law, and it’ll take some time before it is decided if it was good use of NC jail space or more trouble and cost than it is worth.</p>

<p>I also agree with, Csf.</p>

400

<p>“Whether you think it is a mockery or not, if the option is available to send someone to a center vs jail, that is their option. As you said to me about some things, “don’t like, it change the rules”.”</p>

<p>Obviously, you don’t think alcoholism and severe alcohol problems is a medical problem. We’ve been fighting that attitude for 50 years, but it seems we have a way to go. Next time you have a bellyache, we’ll send you to chemo.</p>